HOR_triennial_review_10-17-14

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON
THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
CLASSIFICATIONS REGULATIONS
TRIENNIAL REVIEW
15A NCAC 02B .0200
Public Hearings
November 19, 2013
Archdale Bldg, Ground Floor Hearing Room,
512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC
July 15, 2014
Archdale Bldg, Ground Floor Hearing Room,
512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC
July 16, 2014
Statesville Civic Center,
300 South Center Street,
Statesville, NC
NC Register: Publication of Proposed Text
Volume 28, Issue 24, pp 3004-3032
June 16th, 2014
1 | Page
A1
Table of Contents
Page
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 3
SECTION II: BACKGROUND 3
SECTION III: SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 5
SECTION IV: FISCAL ANALYSIS PROCESS AND SUMMARY 7
SECTION V: PUBLIC HEARINGS SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 8
SECTION VI: HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS 9
SECTION VII: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS 13
SECTION VIII: ITEMS FOR STAFF REVIEW – NEXT TRIENNIAL 57
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENT A: NC REGISTER-NOTICE OF TEXT/ PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATTACHMENT B: EMC CERTIFICATION OF ADHERANCE TO NC G.S. 150B 19.1
ATTACHMENT C: HEARING OFFICER’S LETTER OF APPOINTMENT
ATTACHMENT D: HEARING OFFICER’S REMARKS
ATTACHMENT E: LIST OF INDIVIDUALS ATTENDING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATTACHMENT F: SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT G: WRITTEN COMMENTS
2 | Page
A2
I. INTRODUCTION
This report is the official record of proceedings related to the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Resources (NC DWR)
proposal to revise the water quality standards in 15A North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC) 02B .0200. This report includes written comments received during the public
comment period, relevant exhibits, and the final recommendation of the hearing officer as
to the proposed revisions to the “Procedures for the Assignment of Water Quality
Standards” for consideration by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (EMC).
II.BACKGROUND
Every three years the State is required by the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act or CWA) to review its surface water quality standards and classifications to
determine if any changes are needed and, if necessary, to enact those changes. This
review process is known as the “Triennial Review.” In addition, as part of the Triennial
Review, the CWA mandates a review of any variances to surface water quality standards
that have been issued by the state. The State of North Carolina held a scoping Public
Hearing in Raleigh NC on November 19, 2013 and written comments were accepted, in
accordance with the North Carolina Administrative Procedures Act, until the close of the
public comment period (January 10, 2014). Mr. Steve Tedder, Environmental
Management Commission member and Chairman of the Water Quality Committee of the
EMC served as the appointed Hearing Officer. Comments from all parties were
considered and reviewed for potential modifications to 15A NCAC 02B regulations.
Although submitted comments were varied, most voiced support of modifying and
updating the water quality standards to maintain, preserve and protect North Carolina’s
surface waters.
On March 13, 2014, Mr. Tedder presented recommendations to the EMC for NC Division
of Water Resources (NC DWR) staff to evaluate as they drafted proposed changes to the
surface water standards in the 15A NCAC 02B regulations. The full report of that public
3 | Page
A3
hearing and the Hearing Officer’s recommendations can be found at the following link:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/emc/march-13-2014
Using the recommendations presented by the Hearing Officer, proposed revisions to the
15A NCAC 02B regulations were drafted by NC DWR staff and presented, along with the
accompanying fiscal note required by NC General Statutes (NC G.S.) 150B, to the Water
Quality Committee and the full Environmental Management Commission on May 7th and
8th, 2014, respectively.
A record of those proceedings is located at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/emc/may-7-
2014-wqc and http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/emc/may-8-2014.
Following EMC approval on May 8th, 2014, in accordance with NC General Statutes,
Chapter 143-214.1, 143-215.3(a) and 150B, a public notice, containing the proposed
amendments and the fiscal note was published in the June 16, 2014 edition of the
North Carolina Register. (Attachment A or NC REGISTER June 16 2014 . The public
hearing announcement was also mailed electronically to all individuals on the DWR
Rulemaking Listserve. Additional notice to the public was provided through the
Department and Division’s websites and a press release was issued by NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources:
• DENR’s searchable Proposed Rules website (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/rules),
• DWR’s searchable Proposed Rules website (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/rules),
• EMC’s website under DENR’s Proposed Rules (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/emc/),
•DENR’s Public Event Calendar (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/event-calendar ).
4 | Page
A4
III.SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
The proposed rule text, as published in the NC Register, is located in Attachment A (NC
REGISTER June 16 2014). The proposed changes to the rules were formatted in
accordance with NC Office of Administrative Hearings regulations and comprise the
State’s Triennial Review of Surface Water Quality Standards. The proposals would
implement the following summarized changes to the surface water quality standards for
North Carolina:
1) Based on revised US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) research, new
health information is available for 2,4 D ( a chlorophenoxy herbicide). When
implemented, the standard will lower the applicable acceptable human health protective
concentration.
2) Updated aquatic life protective concentrations for Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium III, Chromium VI, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver and Zinc are proposed. The
revisions reflect the latest scientific knowledge regarding the effects of the pollutants on
aquatic organisms. With the exception of Mercury and Selenium, which are both
bioaccumulative metals, the state proposes changing from the historical use of Total
Recoverable Metals to Dissolved Metal water quality standards. The dissolved fraction
more closely estimates the portion of the metal that is toxic to aquatic life. The revised
criteria reflect average concentrations that can be present in a water body, but should not
result in unacceptable effects to aquatic organisms and the designated use of the water
body on both a shorter (acute) and a longer (chronic) term basis.
3)Where metals toxicity to freshwater aquatic life is hardness-dependent, equation-
based criterion are proposed. Hardness-dependent metals standards shall be derived
using the equations with actual instream hardness in the range of 25 mg/L to 400 mg/L.
For National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting purposes, the
instream applicable hardness values are defined using the median of instream hardness
data collected within the local US Geological Survey and Natural Resources
Conservation Service 8-digit Hydrologic Unit. With the exception of Mercury and
5 | Page
A5
Selenium, the proposals allow careful consideration of aquatic life biological integrity for
water quality assessment purposes.
4)Variances from applicable standards, revisions to water quality standards, or site-
specific water quality standards may be granted by the EMC on a case-by-case basis
pursuant to NC GS 143-215.3(e), 143-214.3 or 143-214.1. For metals standards, the
proposed language detailed that alternative site-specific standards can be developed
when studies are designed in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook:
Second Edition" published by the US EPA (EPA 823-B-94-005a). The mechanisms
outlined in the US EPA publication are for the “Water Effect Ratio”, the “Recalculation
Procedure”, and the “Resident Species Procedure”. The EMC specifically sought, in the
NC Register publication, comment on the application of these provisions with respect to
modifying the metals criteria.
5) The water quality standards for Iron and Manganese are proposed for removal from
the regulations. Both chemicals are federally designated “non-priority pollutants”. The
standard for Total Chromium is also proposed for removal, but is replaced by human
health and aquatic life protective standards for Chromium III and Chromium VI.
6)Codify the use of 1Q10 stream flows for implementation of proposed acute water
quality standards in NPDES permitting and allow the use of the median instream
hardness values collected within the local US Geological Survey and Natural Resources
Conservation Service 8-digit Hydrologic Unit when calculating permit limits based on
proposed hardness-dependent metals standards.
7)The public had the opportunity to comment on three variances from surface water
quality standards and federal Clean Water Act Section 316(a) thermal variances. The
three surface water standards exemptions consist of two variances from the chloride
standard for Mt. Olive Pickle Company (NC0001074) and Bay Valley Foods, LLC
(NC0001970) and a variance from the color standard for Evergreen Packaging, d.b.a.
Blue Ridge Paper Products (NC0000272).
6 | Page
A6
IV.FISCAL ANALYSIS PROCESS AND SUMMARY
DWR staff conducted outreach activities to potentially financially/environmentally affected
parties, including members of the regulated community, environmental groups and state
agencies, to determine the impact of the proposed rule changes on their operations. The
feedback received from these outreach activities was used to prepare a fiscal analysis,
as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (NC G.S. 150B 21-4). Additionally, the
EMC approved release of the Fiscal Analysis at its May 8th, 2014 meeting (Attachment
B: Certification of Agency). The Agency obtained Office of State Budget
Management (OSBM) NC G.S. 150B-19.1 certification on April 23, 2014 that the
package met the regulatory principles set in statute (OSBM certification). Link to
the agency website pursuant to NC G.S. 150B-19.1(c): http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/
guest/rules.The existing 15A NCAC .02B surface water quality regulations serve as
a baseline for the fiscal analysis. The analysis assumes the adoption of revised
standards to have an estimated cost of $182M over 30 years, Net Present Value
(NPV). Costs are likely overestimated due to the fact that the life span of a treatment
facility is ~ 20 years, and it is probable that over ~30 years, facilities would need
upgrades for replacement/improvement of the plants under normal working
circumstances. Local government NPDES dischargers bear about 85% of the cost
and the private sector close to 15%. Analysis indicates that approximately 96% of
all NC dischargers will not be negatively impacted.
Estimated benefit to the state is $110M over 30 years, NPV, and includes benefits
associated with aquatic life maintenance, protection and survival and maintenance and
improvements to recreational fishing opportunities. Additional unquantified benefits
include improved water quality for other recreational activities, human health, and non-
use benefits.
OSBM approval of the finalized Fiscal Note was received by NC DWR on October 8th,
2014. ( http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/files/pdf_files/DENR10082014.pdf )
7 | Page
A7
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
The first of two public hearings was conducted in the Ground Floor Hearing Room,
Archdale Building, Raleigh NC on July 15th, 2014 at 2:00 PM. Mr. Steve Tedder,
Environmental Management Commission member and Chairman of the Water
Quality Committee, served as the appointed Hearing Officer for both hearings
(Attachment C). Approximately 70 individuals attended the public hearing, with 23
requesting to comment. Mr. Tedder adjourned the hearing at ~4:00 PM after
hearing comments from all registered speakers. The Hearing Officer’s remarks are
contained in Attachment D. A list of registered attendees is contained in Attachment E.
The second public hearing was conducted in the Statesville Civic Center; Statesville, NC
on July 16th, 2014 at 3:00 PM. Approximately 50 individuals attended the public hearing,
with 12 requesting to make oral comments. Mr. Tedder adjourned the hearing at ~4:30
PM after hearing comments from all registered speakers. A list of registered attendees
is contained in Attachment E.
A digital audio recording of the oral comments received at the two hearings is provided
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/swtrirev
Approximately 925 written comments were received. (They included ~900 e-mails and
letters from private citizens; 13 from business and industries, local governments,
representatives of local governments and agricultural interests; 9 from non-governmental
organizations; 3 from federal government representatives and 3 letters addressing water
quality variances specifically (two supported retention of existing variances and one
requested review to be concluded as soon as possible). A brief summary of
comments received follows in Attachment F and all written comments received are
located in Attachment G.
8 | Page
A8
VI.HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS:
Following a careful and comprehensive review of all of the oral and written
comments, supporting data, and attachments to this record, the hearing officer
recommends that the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission:
•Adopt proposed modification to 2,4 D in Water Supply classified waters
•Adopt Modifications to the Metals Standards, as follows:
o Delete existing Total Recoverable Metals chronic standards for the
protection of Aquatic Life
Exceptions: Mercury and Selenium
o Maintain current:
Total recoverable Mercury standard
Total recoverable Selenium standard
o Adopt the Aquatic Life protective criteria for dissolved metals, as acute and
chronic criterion for the following:
Arsenic,
Beryllium,
Chromium III,
Chromium VI,
Copper,
•Allow Biotic Ligand Model, published by US EPA for
recalculation of Copper
Lead,
Nickel,
Silver,
Zinc,
o Adopt the Aquatic Life protective recalculated National Recommended
Water Quality Criterion (NRWQC) for the dissolved form of:
Cadmium (Acute, trout and non-trout and Chronic)
9 | Page
A9
o Where applicable, adopt equation-based water quality standards for
dissolved metals.
o Adopt the Aquatic Life criteria with provisions for the application of a Water
Effects Ratio (WER), in accordance with published US EPA guidance.
Where studies in accordance with protocol derived by the US EPA are not
available, the WER will be assumed to be one (1). {See below for further
Hearing Officer comments on the WER recommendation.}.
o For equation-based hardness dependent metals, adopt instream water
quality criteria to be calculated from no less than 25 mg/L to no greater than
400 mg/L hardness.
o With the exception of Mercury and Selenium, adopt regulations for metals
that consider the aquatic life biological integrity of a stream to more clearly
recognize the synergistic and antagonistic complexities of numerous water
quality variables on the actual toxicity of the metals. The Hearing Officer
recommends clarifying language to be added to .0211 and .0220 to
specifically address the use and implementation of this provision. {See
Section VII for the amended language}.
o Remove existing standards for:
Total Chromium
Manganese
Iron
o Adopt frequency and duration components for instream collection of acute
and chronic dissolved metals.
•NPDES Permitting Provisions
o Codify the use of 1Q10 stream flows for implementation of acute water
quality standards in NPDES permitting.
o Adopt the median instream hardness values to be applied in NPDES permit
calculations, based upon data contained in the US EPA Storet database
within the local US Geological Survey (USGS) and Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit (HU).
10 | Page
A10
o Retain the existing Action Level policy regulations for Copper, Silver, Zinc
and Chloride.
•Reorganization of regulations
o Adopt modified, reorganized regulations for greater clarity.
•Water Effects Ratio (WER):
o The EMC specifically sought comment on modifying the regulations to
include specific language for deriving site-specific metal criterion. Per
current NC regulations at 15A NCAC 02B .0226, “Exemptions from Surface
Water Quality Standards”, site-specific water quality standards may be
granted by the EMC. Pursuant to federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 (g),
site specific standards are subject to public review under the federal Clean
Water Act. Adoption of a site-specific standard, therefore, is subject to the
NC Administrative Procedures Act and review and subsequent approval by
the US EPA. The US EPA allows the state to incorporate the site-specific
adjustment known as the “Water Effect Ratio” (WER) into its water quality
standards; the addition of that language is subject to EPA review and
approval. However, once the provisions are in the states’ standards, the
results of each site-specific application of the WER procedure would be
subject to NC public participation permitting requirements, but would not be
submitted for further Section 303(c) review.
WERs are used to derive site specific “multipliers” to account for chemical
differences in laboratory dilution water and ambient site waters. Until
specific acceptable aquatic toxicity tests are submitted to the Division, the
applicable multiplier would be one (1), meaning that the proposed equations
are the water quality standard(s) until sufficient data is available to modify it.
Modifying the criterion to allow for inclusion of the WER expedites the
development of a site-specific criterion, while still providing the required
public participation and documented protection of aquatic life.
11 | Page
A11
Summary of Recommendations:
The Hearing Officer recommends that the EMC adopt the rule language
amendments to 15A NCAC 02B .0200 contained in Section VII.
12 | Page
A12
15A NCAC 02B .0206 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
2
15A NCAC 02B .0206 FLOW DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 3
(a) Water quality based effluent limitations are developed to allow appropriate frequency and duration of deviations 4
from water quality standards so that the designated uses of receiving waters are protected. There are water quality 5
standards for a number of categories of pollutants and to protect a range of water uses. For this reason, the 6
appropriate frequency and duration of deviations from water quality standards is not the same for all categories of 7
standards. A flow design criterion is used in the development of water quality based effluent limitations as a 8
simplified means of estimating the acceptable frequency and duration of deviations. More complex modeling 9
techniques can also be used to set effluent limitations directly based on frequency and duration criteria published by 10
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Federal Clean Water Act as amended. 11
Use of more complex modeling techniques to set water quality based effluent limitations will be approved by the 12
Commission or its designee on a case-by-case basis. Flow design criteria to calculate water quality based effluent 13
limitations for categories of water quality standards are listed as follows: 14
(1) All standards except toxic substances and aesthetics will be protected using the minimum average 15
flow for a period of seven consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in ten years 16
(7Q10 flow). Other governing flow strategies such as varying discharges with the receiving 17
waters ability to assimilate wastes may be designated by the Commission or its designee on a 18
case-by-case basis if the discharger or permit applicant provide evidence which establishes to the 19
satisfaction of the Director that the alternative flow strategies will give equal or better protection 20
for the water quality standards. Better protection for the standards means that deviations from the 21
standard would be expected less frequently than provided by using the 7Q10 flow. 22
(2) Toxic substance standards to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity will be protected using the 23
7Q10 flow. 24
(3) Toxic substance standards to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity will be protected using the 25
1Q10 flow. 26
(3)(4) Toxic substance standards to protect human health will be: 27
(A) The 7Q10 flow for standards to protect human health through the consumption of water, 28
fish and shellfish from noncarcinogens; 29
(B) The mean annual flow to protect human health from carcinogens through the 30
consumption of water, fish and shellfish unless site specific fish contamination concerns 31
necessitate the use of an alternative design flow; 32
(5) Aesthetic quality will be protected using the minimum average flow for a period of 30 consecutive 33
days that has an average recurrence of once in two years (30Q2 flow). 34
(b) In cases where the stream flow is regulated, a minimum daily low flow may be used as a substitute for the 7Q10 35
flow except in cases where there are acute toxicity concerns for aquatic life. In the cases where there are acute 36
1
A13
toxicity concerns, an alternative low flow such as the instantaneous minimum release may be used on a case-by-case 1
basis. 2
(c) Flow design criteria are used to develop water quality based effluent limitations and for the design of wastewater 3
treatment facilities. Deviations from a specific water quality standard resulting from discharges which are 4
affirmatively demonstrated to be in compliance with water quality based effluent limitations for that standard will 5
not be a violation pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6 when the actual flow is significantly less than the design flow. 6
(d) In cases where the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream is estimated to be zero, water quality based effluent 7
limitations will be assigned as follows: 8
(1) Where the 30Q2 flow is estimated to be greater than zero, effluent limitations for new or expanded 9
(additional) discharges of oxygen consuming waste will be set at BOD5= 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l 10
and DO = 6 mg/l, unless it is determined that these limitations will not protect water quality 11
standards. Requirements for existing discharges will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the 12
Director. More stringent limits will be applied in cases where violations of water quality 13
standards are predicted to occur for a new or expanded discharge with the limits set pursuant to 14
this Rule, or where existing limits are determined to be inadequate to protect water quality 15
standards. 16
(2) If the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows are both estimated to be zero, no new or expanded (additional) 17
discharge of oxygen consuming waste will be allowed. Requirements for existing discharges to 18
streams where the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows are both estimated to be zero will be determined on a 19
case-by-case basis. 20
(3) Other water quality standards will be protected by requiring the discharge to meet the standards 21
unless the alternative limitations are determined by the Director to protect the classified water 22
uses. 23
(e) Receiving water flow statistics will be estimated through consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey. 24
Estimates for any given location may be based on actual flow data, modeling analyses, or other methods determined 25
to be appropriate by the Commission or its designee. 26
27
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 28
2
A14

15A NCAC 02B .0211 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
Hearing Officer’s Proposed Modifications are illustrated as highlighted text: 2
3
15A NCAC 02B .0211 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS C WATERS 4
General. The water quality standards for all fresh surface waters are the basic standards applicable to Class C 5
waters. See Rule .0208 of this Section for standards for toxic substances and temperature. Water quality standards 6
for temperature and numerical water quality standards for the protection of human health applicable to all fresh 7
surface waters are in Rule .0208 of this Section. Additional and more stringent standards applicable to other specific 8
freshwater classifications are specified in Rules .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0217, .0218, .0219, .0223, .0224 and 9
.0225 of this Section. Action Levels for purposes of NPDES permitting are specified in Item (22) of this Rule. 10
(1) Best Usage of Waters: aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including 11
fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for 12
primary recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing 13
purposes; 14
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and 15
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sources of 16
water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be 17
considered to be violating a water quality standard; 18
(3) Quality standards applicable to all fresh surface waters: 19
(3) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l; 20
(4)(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject to 21
growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation not designated as trout waters, and not greater 22
than 15 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic or 23
microscopic vegetation designated as trout waters (not applicable to lakes or reservoirs less than 24
10 acres in surface area). The Commission or its designee may prohibit or limit any discharge of 25
waste into surface waters if, in the opinion of the Director, the surface waters experience or the 26
discharge would result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such that the 27
standards established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the intended best usage of the 28
waters would be impaired; 29
(5) Cyanide, total: 5.0 ug/L; 30
(6)(b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for trout waters; for non-trout waters, not less than a 31
daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l; swamp 32
waters, lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if caused by 33
natural conditions; 34
(7) Fecal coliform: shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least 35
five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 36
20 percent of the samples examined during such period. Violations of the fecal coliform standard 37
1

A15

are expected during rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation is expected to be caused by 1
uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution. All coliform concentrations are to be analyzed using the 2
membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other adverse conditions necessitate the tube 3
dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution technique shall be 4
used as the reference method; 5
(8)(c) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to sewage, 6
industrial wastes or other wastes as shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life 7
and wildlife or impair the waters for any designated uses; 8
(9) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l; 9
(10)(d) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation; 10
(e) Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of 11
200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 12
30 day period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined 13
during such period. Violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected during rainfall 14
events and, in some cases, this violation is expected to be caused by uncontrollable 15
nonpoint source pollution. All coliform concentrations are to be analyzed using the 16
membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other adverse conditions necessitate 17
the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution 18
technique shall be used as the reference method; 19
(11) Metals: 20
(a) With the exception of mercury and selenium, freshwater aquatic life standards for metals 21
shall be based upon measurement of the dissolved fraction of the metal. Mercury and 22
Selenium water quality standards must be based upon measurement of the total 23
recoverable metal. metal; Alternative site-specific metals standards can be developed 24
where studies are designed in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: 25
Second Edition" published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-26
005a) hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments; 27
(b) Freshwater metals standards that are not hardness-dependent are as follows: 28
(i) Arsenic, dissolved, acute: WER∙ 340 ug/l; 29
(ii) Arsenic, dissolved, chronic: WER∙ 150 ug/l; 30
(iii) Beryllium, dissolved, acute: WER∙ 65 ug/l; 31
(iv) Beryllium, dissolved, chronic: WER∙ 6.5 ug/l; 32
(v) Chromium VI, dissolved, acute: WER∙ 16 ug/l; 33
(vi) Chromium VI, dissolved, chronic: WER∙ 11 ug/l; 34
(vii) Mercury, total recoverable, chronic: 0.012 ug/l; 35
(viii) Selenium, total recoverable, chronic: 5 ug/l; 36
(ix) Silver, dissolved, chronic: WER∙ 0.06 ug/l; 37
2

A16

With the exception of Mercury and Selenium, acute and chronic freshwater aquatic life 1
standards for metals listed above apply to the dissolved form of the metal and apply as a 2
function of the pollutant’s water effect ratio (WER). A WER is a factor that expresses the 3
difference between the measures of the toxicity of a substance in laboratory waters and 4
the toxicity in site water. The WER is assigned a value equal to one (1) unless any person 5
demonstrates to the Department’s satisfaction in a permit proceeding that another value is 6
appropriately developed in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: 7
Second Edition" published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-823-B-12-8
002) hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. Alternative 9
site-specific standards can also be developed when any person submits values that 10
demonstrate to the Commissions’ satisfaction that they were derived in accordance with 11
the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, Recalculation Procedure or the 12
Resident Species Procedure”. 13
Hardness-dependent freshwater metals standards are located in Sub-Item (c) and (d) and 14
in Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals; 15
(c) Hardness-dependent freshwater metals standards are as follows: 16
(i) Hardness-dependent metals standards shall be derived using the equations specified in 17
Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals. If the actual 18
instream hardness (expressed as CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) is less than 25 milligrams/liter (mg/l), 19
standards shall be calculated based upon 25 mg/l hardness. If the actual instream hardness 20
is greater than 25 mg/l and less than 400 mg/l, standards will be calculated based upon 21
the actual instream hardness. If the instream hardness is greater than 400 mg/l, the 22
maximum applicable hardness shall be 400 mg/l; 23
(ii) Hardness-dependent metals standards in NPDES permitting: for NPDES permitting 24
purposes, application of the equations in Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for 25
Hardness-Dependent Metals requires hardness values (expressed as CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) 26
established using the median of instream hardness data collected within the local US 27
Geological Survey (USGS) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 8-digit 28
Hydrologic Unit (HU). The minimum applicable instream hardness shall be 25 mg/l and 29
the maximum applicable instream hardness shall be 400 mg/l, even when the actual 30
median instream hardness is less than 25 mg/l and greater than 400 mg/l; 31
(d) Alternatives: 32
Acute and chronic freshwater aquatic life standards for metals listed in Table A apply to 33
the dissolved form of the metal and apply as a function of the pollutant’s water effect 34
ratio (WER). A WER is a factor that expresses the difference between the measures of 35
the toxicity of a substance in laboratory waters and the toxicity in site water. The WER is 36
assigned a value equal to one (1) unless any person demonstrates to the Department’s 37
3

A17

satisfaction in a permit proceeding that another value is appropriately developed in 1
accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition" published by 2
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-823-B-12-002) hereby incorporated by 3
reference including any subsequent amendments. Alternative site-specific standards can 4
also be developed when any person submits values that demonstrate to the Commissions’ 5
satisfaction that they were derived in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards 6
Handbook: Second Edition, Recalculation Procedure or the Resident Species Procedure”; 7
8
Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals 9
10
Numeric standards listed below are calculated at 25 mg/l hardness for illustrative purposes. The Water 11
Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one (1) unless determined otherwise under 15A NCAC .0211 (d). 12
13 14
Metal Equations for Hardness-
Dependent Freshwater
Metals (ug/l)
Standard
a
t

2
5

m
g
/
l

hardness
(ug/l)
Cadmium, Acute {1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} · e^{0.9151
[ln hardness]-3.1485}
0.82
Cadmium, Acute Trout
waters
{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ·
e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
0.51
Cadmium, Chronic {1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ·
e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
0.15
Chromium III, Acute 0.316 · e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256} 180
Chromium III, Chronic 0.860 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848} 24
Copper, Acute 0.960 ∙ e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700} 3.6
4

A18

Or,
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality
Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)

N/A
Copper, Chronic 0.960 ∙ e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Or,
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality
Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)
2.7

N/A
Lead, Acute {1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln
hardness]-1.460}
14
Lead, Chronic {1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln
hardness]-4.705}
0.54
Nickel, Acute 0.998 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255} 140
Nickel, Chronic 0.997 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584} 16
Silver, Acute 0.85 ∙ e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59} 0.30
Zinc, Acute 0.978 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} 36
Zinc, Chronic 0.986 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} 36
1
2
Metal Equations for Hardness-Dependent Freshwater Metals (in
ug/l)

Cadmium, Acute WER∙ [{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} · e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-
3.1485}]
0.82
Cadmium, Acute,
Trout waters
WER∙ [{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} · e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}] 0.51
Cadmium, Chronic WER∙ [1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} · e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}] 0.15
Chromium III, Acute WER∙ [0.316 · e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256}] 180
Chromium III, Chronic WER∙ [0.860 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848}]

24

Copper, Acute WER∙ [0.960 ∙ e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}]
Or,
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)

3.6

NA
5

A19

Copper, Chronic WER∙ [0.960 ∙ e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}]
Or,
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)
2.7

NA
Lead,
Acute
WER∙ [{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}] 14
Lead, Chronic WER∙ [{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}] 0.54
Nickel, Acute WER∙ [0.998 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}] 140
Nickel, Chronic WER∙ [ 0.997 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584} ] 16
Silver, Acute WER∙ [ 0.85 ∙ e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}] 0.30
Zinc, Acute WER∙ [0.978 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}] 36
Zinc, Chronic WER∙ [ 0.986 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884}] 36

1 2
(d)(e) Compliance with acute instream metals standards shall only be evaluated using an 3
average of two or more samples collected within one hour. Compliance with chronic 4
instream metals standards shall only be evaluated using averages of a minimum of four 5
samples taken on consecutive days, or as a 96-hour average; 6
(e)(f) With the exception of mercury and selenium, demonstrated attainment of the applicable 7
aquatic life use in a waterbody will take precedence over the application of the aquatic 8
life criteria established for metals associated with these uses. An instream exceedence of 9
the numeric criterion for metals shall not be considered to have caused an adverse impact 10
to the instream aquatic community if biological monitoring has demonstrated attainment 11
of biological integrity. 12
(e)(f) Metals criteria will be used for proactive environmental management. An instream 13
exceedence of the numeric criterion for metals shall not be considered to have caused an 14
adverse impact to the instream aquatic community without biological confirmation and a 15
comparison of all available monitoring data and applicable water quality standards. This 16
weight of evidence evaluation will take into account data quality and the overall 17
confidence in how representative the sampling is of conditions in the waterbody segment 18
before an assessment of aquatic life use attainment, or non-attainment, is made by the 19
Division. Recognizing the synergistic and antagonistic complexities of other water 20
quality variables on the actual toxicity of metals, with the exception of Mercury and 21
Selenium, biological monitoring will be used to validate, by direct measurement, whether 22
or not the aquatic life use is supported; 23
6

A20

(f)(12) Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the 1
waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely 2
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. For 3
the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes shall 4
include but not be limited to substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the 5
surface of the water or adjoining shorelines pursuant to 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b) which are hereby 6
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments and additions. This material is 7
available for inspection at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of 8
Water Quality, Water Resources, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.Carolina; 9
Copies may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 10
Washington, D.C. 20402-9325 at a cost of forty-five dollars ($45.00);D.C.; 11
(13) Pesticides: 12
(a) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l; 13
(b) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l; 14
(c) DDT: 0.001 ug/l; 15
(d) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l; 16
(e) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l; 17
(f) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l; 18
(g) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l; 19
(h) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l; 20
(i) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l; 21
(j) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l; 22
(k) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l; 23
(l) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l; 24
(m) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l; 25
(n) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l; 26
(g)(14) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 9.0 27
except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; 28
(h)(15) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fish-flesh tainting or impairment of 29
other best usage; 30
(16) Polychlorinated biphenyls (total of all PCBs and congeners identified): 0.001 ug/l; 31
(i)(17) Radioactive substances: 32
(i)(a) Combined radium-226 and radium-228: the maximum average annual activity level 33
(based on at least four samples collected quarterly) for combined radium-226 and 34
radium-228 shall not exceed five picoCuries per liter; 35
(ii)(b) Alpha Emitters: the average annual gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226, 36
but excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries per liter; 37
7

A21

(iii)(c) Beta Emitters: the maximum average annual activity level (based on at least four 1
samples, collected quarterly) for strontium-90 shall not exceed eight picoCuries per liter; 2
nor shall the average annual gross beta particle activity (excluding potassium-40 and 3
other naturally occurring radio-nuclides) exceed 50 picoCuries per liter; nor shall the 4
maximum average annual activity level for tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per liter; 5
(j)(18) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C (5.04 degrees F) above the natural water temperature, 6
and in no case to exceed 29 degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and upper piedmont waters 7
and 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain Waters; the temperature 8
for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) due to the 9
discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20 degrees C (68 degrees F); 10
(19) Toluene: 11 ug/l or 0.36 ug/l in trout classified waters; 11
(20) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07 ug/l expressed as tributyltin; 12
(k)(21) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units 13
(NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs 14
designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity 15
shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, 16
the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. Compliance with this turbidity standard can be 17
met when land management activities employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by 18
Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as defined 19
by Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs must be in full compliance with all specifications governing 20
the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such BMPs; 21
(l) Toxic substances: numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) for 22
the protection of human health applicable to all fresh surface waters are in Rule .0208 of 23
this Section. Numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) to protect 24
aquatic life applicable to all fresh surface waters: 25
(i) Arsenic: 50 ug/l; 26
(ii) Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l; 27
(iii) Cadmium: 0.4 ug/l for trout waters and 2.0 ug/l for non-trout waters; attainment 28
of these water quality standards in surface waters shall be based on measurement 29
of total recoverable metals concentrations unless appropriate studies have been 30
conducted to translate total recoverable metals to a toxic form. Studies used to 31
determine the toxic form or translators must be designed according to the "Water 32
Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" published by the Environmental 33
Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance 34
For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" 35
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which 36
are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. 37
8

A22

The Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as well as the 1
presence of environmental conditions that limit the applicability of translators in 2
approving the use of metal translators; 3
(iv) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l; 4
(v) Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l; 5
(vi) Cyanide, 5.0 ug/l, unless site-specific criteria are developed based upon the 6
aquatic life at the site utilizing The Recalculation Procedure in Appendix B of 7
Appendix L in the Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality Standards 8
Handbook hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent 9
amendments; 10
(vii) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l; 11
(viii) Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l, collection of data on sources, transport and fate 12
of lead shall be required as part of the toxicity reduction evaluation for 13
dischargers who are out of compliance with whole effluent toxicity testing 14
requirements and the concentration of lead in the effluent is concomitantly 15
determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l from the discharge; 16
(ix) Mercury: 0.012 ug/l; 17
(x) Nickel: 88 ug/l, attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters 18
shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless 19
appropriate studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable metals to 20
a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators must be 21
designed according to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" 22
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or 23
“The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit 24
Limit From a Dissolved Criterion” published by the Environmental Protection 25
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference 26
including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider 27
conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental 28
conditions that limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal 29
translators; 30
(xi) Pesticides: 31
(A) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l; 32
(B) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l; 33
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l; 34
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l; 35
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l; 36
(F) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l; 37
9

A23

(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l; 1
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l; 2
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l; 3
(J) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l; 4
(K) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l; 5
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l; 6
(M) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l; 7
(N) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l; 8
(xii) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs and congeners identified) 0.001 9
ug/l; 10
(xiii) Selenium: 5 ug/l; 11
(xiv) Toluene: 11 ug/l or 0.36 ug/l in trout waters; 12
(xv) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07 ug/l expressed as tributyltin; 13
(4)(22) Action Levels for Toxic Substances: Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits: 14
(a) Copper: 7 ug/l;Copper, dissolved, chronic: 2.7 ug/l; 15
(b) Iron: 1.0 mg/l; 16
(c) Silver:Silver, dissolved, chronic: 0.06 ug/l; 17
(d) Zinc:Zinc, dissolved, chronic: 50 ug/l;36 ug/l; 18
(e) Chloride: 230 mg/l; 19
The hardness-dependent freshwater action levels for Copper and Zinc, provided here for 20
illustrative purposes, corresponds to a hardness of 25 mg/l. Copper and Zinc action level values 21
for other instream hardness values shall be calculated per the chronic equations specified in Item 22
(11) of this Rule and in Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals. 23
If the Action Levels for any of the substances listed in this SubparagraphItem (which are generally 24
not bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to aquatic life because of chemical form, solubility, 25
stream characteristics or associated waste characteristics) are determined by the waste load 26
allocation to be exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the specified low flow 7Q10 27
criterion for toxic substances (Rule .0206 in this Section), substances, the discharger shall monitor 28
the chemical or biological effects of the discharge; efforts shall be made by all dischargers to 29
reduce or eliminate these substances from their effluents. Those substances for which Action 30
Levels are listed in this SubparagraphItem shall be limited as appropriate in the NPDES permit 31
based on the Action Levels listed in this Subparagraph if sufficient information (to be determined 32
for metals by measurements of that portion of the dissolved instream concentration of the Action 33
Level parameter attributable to a specific NPDES permitted discharge) exists to indicate that any 34
of those substances may be a causative factor resulting in toxicity of the effluent. NPDES permit 35
limits may be based on translation of the toxic form to total recoverable metals. Studies used to 36
determine the toxic form or translators must be designed according to "Water Quality Standards 37
10

A24

Handbook Second Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-1
005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit 2
From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-3
007) which are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. The 4
Director shall consider conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental 5
conditions that limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators. 6
For purposes other than consideration of NPDES permitting of point source discharges as 7
described in this Subparagraph, the Action Levels in this Rule, as measured by an appropriate 8
analytical technique, per 15A NCAC 02B .0103(a), shall be considered as numerical instream 9
water quality standards. 10
11
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 12
13
11

A25
15A NCAC 02B .0212 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
2
15A NCAC 02B .0212 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-I 3
WATERS 4
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters within water supply watersheds that are classified 5
WS-I. Water quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to 6
Class WS-I waters. 7
(1) The best usage of WS-I waters are as follows: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or 8
food-processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection of their water supplies; 9
waters located on land in public ownership; and any best usage specified for Class C waters; 10
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected water 11
supplies within essentially natural and undeveloped watersheds in public ownership with no 12
permitted point source dischargers except those specified in Rule .0104 of this Subchapter; waters 13
within this class must be relatively unimpacted by nonpoint sources of pollution; land use 14
management programs are required to protect waters from nonpoint source pollution; the waters, 15
following treatment required by the Division of Environmental Health,Division, shall meet the 16
Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for drinking, culinary, and 17
food-processing purposes which are specified in the national drinking water regulations and in the 18
North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500. Sources of water 19
pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be 20
considered to be violating a water quality standard. The Class WS-I classification may be used to 21
protect portions of Class WS-II, WS-III and WS-IV water supplies. For reclassifications 22
occurring after the July 1, 1992 statewide reclassification, the more protective classification 23
requested by local governments shall be considered by the Commission when all local 24
governments having jurisdiction in the affected area(s) have adopted a resolution and the 25
appropriate ordinances to protect the watershed or the Commission acts to protect a watershed 26
when one or more local governments has failed to adopt necessary protection measures; 27
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-I Waters are as follows: 28
(a) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active Substances): not greater than 0.5 mg/l to protect the 29
aesthetic qualities of water supplies and to prevent foaming; 30
(b) Nonpoint Source Pollution: none shall be allowed that would adversely impact the 31
waters for use as a water supply or any other designated use; 32
(c) Organisms of coliform group: total coliforms not to exceed 50/100 ml (MF count) as a 33
monthly geometric mean value in watersheds serving as unfiltered water supplies; 34
(d) Chlorinated phenolic compounds: not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect water supplies from 35
taste and odor problems from chlorinated phenols; 36
1

A26
(e) Sewage, industrial wastes: none shall be allowed except those specified in 1
SubparagraphItem(2) of this ParagraphRule or Rule .0104 of this Subchapter; 2
(f) Solids, total dissolved: not greater than 500 mg/l; 3
(g) Total hardness: not greater than 100 mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate (CaCO3 or Ca 4
+ Mg); 5
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances: 6
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 7
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 8
non-carcinogens in Class WS-I waters: 9
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l; 10
(B) Chloride: 250 mg/l; 11
(C) Manganese: 200 ug/l; 12
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l; 13
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen: 10.0 mg/l; 14
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70 ug/l; 15
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; 16
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l; 17
(ii) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 18
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 19
carcinogens in Class WS-I waters: 20
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/1; 21
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l; 22
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/1; 23
(D) Carbon tetrachloride: 0.254 ug/l; 24
(E) Chlordane: 0.8 ng/1; 25
(F) Chlorinated benzenes: 488 ug/l; 26
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/1; 27
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/1; 28
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005 ng/l; 29
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08 ng/1; 30
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene: 0.44 ug/l; 31
(L) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (total of all PAHs): 2.8 ng/l; 32
(M) Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l; 33
(N) Tetrachloroethylene: 0.7 ug/l; 34
(O) Trichloroethylene: 2.5 ug/l; 35
(P) Vinyl Chloride: 0.025 ug/l. 36
37
2

A27
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 1
2
3

A28
15A NCAC 02B .0214 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
2
15A NCAC 02B .0214 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-II 3
WATERS 4
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters within water supply watersheds that are classified 5
WS-II. Water quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to 6
Class WS-II waters. 7
(1) The best usage of WS-II waters are as follows: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or 8
food-processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for their water supplies 9
where a WS-I classification is not feasible and any best usage specified for Class C waters; 10
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected as water 11
supplies which are in predominantly undeveloped watersheds and meet average watershed 12
development density levels as specified in Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A), (3)(b)(i)(B), (3)(b)(ii)(A) and 13
(3)(b)(ii)(B) of this Rule; discharges which qualify for a General Permit pursuant to 15A NCAC 14
2H .0127, trout farm discharges, recycle (closed loop) systems that only discharge in response to 15
10-year storm events and other stormwater discharges are allowed in the entire watershed; new 16
domestic and industrial discharges of treated wastewater are not allowed in the entire watershed; 17
the waters, following treatment required by the Division of Environmental Health,Division, shall 18
meet the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for drinking, culinary, and 19
food-processing purposes which are specified in the national drinking water regulations and in the 20
North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500. Sources of water 21
pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be 22
considered to be violating a water quality standard. The Class WS-II classification may be used to 23
protect portions of Class WS-III and WS-IV water supplies. For reclassifications of these portions 24
of Class WS-III and WS-IV water supplies occurring after the July 1, 1992 statewide 25
reclassification, the more protective classification requested by local governments shall be 26
considered by the Commission when all local governments having jurisdiction in the affected 27
area(s) have adopted a resolution and the appropriate ordinances to protect the watershed or the 28
Commission acts to protect a watershed when one or more local governments has failed to adopt 29
necessary protection measures; 30
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-II Waters are as follows: 31
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, non-process industrial wastes, or other wastes: none shall be 32
allowed except for those specified in either Item (2) of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this 33
Subchapter; none shall be allowed that have an adverse effect on human health or that are 34
not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the Commission and in accordance with the 35
requirements of the Division of Environmental Health, North Carolina Department of 36
Environment and Natural Resources.Division. Any discharger may be required upon 37
1

A29
request by the Commission to disclose all chemical constituents present or potentially 1
present in their wastes and chemicals which could be spilled or be present in runoff from 2
their facility which may have an adverse impact on downstream water quality. These 3
facilities may be required to have spill and treatment failure control plans as well as 4
perform special monitoring for toxic substances; 5
(b) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution: none that would adversely impact the waters 6
for use as a water supply or any other designated use; 7
(i) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria for Entire 8
Watershed: 9
(A) Low Density Option: development density must be limited to either no 10
more than one dwelling unit per acre of single family detached 11
residential development (or 40,000 square foot lot excluding roadway 12
right-of-way) or 12 percent built-upon area for all other residential and 13
non-residential development in the watershed outside of the critical 14
area; stormwater runoff from the development shall be transported by 15
vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable; 16
(B) High Density Option: if new development exceeds the low density 17
option requirements as stated in Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this Rule, then 18
engineered stormwater controls must be used to control runoff from the 19
first inch of rainfall; new residential and non-residential development 20
shall not exceed 30 percent built-upon area; 21
(C) Land within the watershed shall be deemed compliant with the density 22
requirements if the following condition is met: the density of all 23
existing development at the time of reclassification does not exceed the 24
density requirement when densities are averaged throughout the entire 25
watershed area at the time of classification; 26
(D) Cluster development is allowed on a project-by-project basis as 27
follows: 28
(I) overall density of the project meets associated density or 29
stormwater control requirements of this Rule; 30
(II) buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed 31
protection requirements; 32
(III) built-upon areas are designed and located to minimize 33
stormwater runoff impact to the receiving waters, minimize 34
concentrated stormwater flow, maximize the use of sheet flow 35
through vegetated areas, and maximize the flow length 36
through vegetated areas; 37
2

A30
(IV) areas of concentrated development are located in upland areas 1
and away, to the maximum extent practicable, from surface 2
waters and drainageways; 3
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state; 4
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a 5
property owners association, a local government for 6
preservation as a park or greenway, a conservation 7
organization, or placed in a permanent conservation or 8
farmland preservation easement; 9
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area 10
shall be filed with the Register of Deeds; and 11
(VIII) cluster development that meets the applicable low density 12
option requirements shall transport stormwater runoff from the 13
development by vegetated conveyances to the maximum 14
extent practicable; 15
(E) A maximum of 10 percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the 16
watershed outside of the critical area as delineated on July 1, 1993 may 17
be developed with new development projects and expansions of 18
existing development of up to 70 percent built-upon surface area in 19
addition to the new development approved in compliance with the 20
appropriate requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub-Item 21
(3)(b)(i)(B) of this Rule. For expansions to existing development, the 22
existing built-upon surface area is not counted toward the allowed 70 23
percent built-upon surface area. A local government having 24
jurisdiction within the watershed may transfer, in whole or in part, its 25
right to the 10 percent/70 percent land area to another local government 26
within the watershed upon submittal of a joint resolution and review by 27
the Commission. When the water supply watershed is composed of 28
public lands, such as National Forest land, local governments may 29
count the public land acreage within the watershed outside of the 30
critical area in calculating the acreage allowed under this provision. 31
For local governments that do not choose to use the high density option 32
in that WS-II watershed, each project must, to the maximum extent 33
practicable, minimize built-upon surface area, direct stormwater runoff 34
away from surface waters and incorporate best management practices 35
to minimize water quality impacts. If the local government selects the 36
high density development option within that WS-II watershed, then 37
3

A31
engineered stormwater controls must be employed for the new 1
development; 2
(F) If local governments choose the high density development option 3
which requires stormwater controls, then they shall assume ultimate 4
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the required controls as 5
outlined in Rule .0104 of this Subchapter; 6
(G) Minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer is required for all new 7
development activities that exceed the low density option requirements 8
as specified in Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A) and Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this 9
Rule, otherwise a minimum 30 foot vegetative buffer for development 10
activities is required along all perennial waters indicated on the most 11
recent versions of U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic 12
maps or as determined by local government studies. Nothing in this 13
Rule shall stand as a bar to artificial streambank or shoreline 14
stabilization; 15
(H) No new development is allowed in the buffer; water dependent 16
structures, or other structures such as flag poles, signs and security 17
lights, which result in only de minimus increases in impervious area 18
and public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be 19
allowed where no practicable alternative exists. These activities shall 20
minimize built-upon surface area, direct runoff away from the surface 21
waters and maximize the utilization of BMPs; 22
(I) No NPDES permits shall be issued for landfills that discharge treated 23
leachate; 24
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria: 25
(A) Low Density Option: new development is limited to either no more 26
than one dwelling unit of single family detached residential 27
development per two acres (or 80,000 square foot lot excluding 28
roadway right-of-way) or six percent built-upon area for all other 29
residential and non-residential development; stormwater runoff from 30
the development shall be transported by vegetated conveyances to the 31
maximum extent practicable; 32
(B) High Density Option: if new development density exceeds the low 33
density requirements specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, 34
then engineered stormwater controls must be used to control runoff 35
from the first inch of rainfall; new residential and non-residential 36
development density not to exceed 24 percent built-upon area; 37
4

A32
(C) No new permitted sites for land application of residuals or petroleum 1
contaminated soils are allowed; 2
(D) No new landfills are allowed; 3
(c) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active Substances): not greater than 0.5 mg/l to protect the 4
aesthetic qualities of water supplies and to prevent foaming; 5
(d) Odor producing substances contained in sewage or other wastes: only such amounts, 6
whether alone or in combination with other substances or wastes, as shall not cause taste 7
and odor difficulties in water supplies which cannot be corrected by treatment, impair the 8
palatability of fish, or have a deleterious effect upon any best usage established for waters 9
of this class; 10
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds: not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect water supplies from 11
taste and odor problems from chlorinated phenols; 12
(f) Total hardness: not greater than 100 mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate (CaCO3 or Ca 13
+ Mg); 14
(g) Total dissolved solids: not greater than 500 mg/l; 15
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances: 16
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 17
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 18
non-carcinogens in Class WS-II waters: 19
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l; 20
(B) Chloride: 250 mg/l; 21
(C) Manganese: 200 ug/l; 22
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l; 23
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen: 10 mg/l; 24
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70 ug/l; 25
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; 26
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l; 27
(ii) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 28
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 29
carcinogens in Class WS-II waters: 30
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 31
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l; 32
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l; 33
(D) Carbon tetrachloride: 0.254 ug/l; 34
(E) Chlordane: 0.8 ng/l; 35
(F) Chlorinated benzenes: 488 ug/l; 36
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l; 37
5

A33
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 1
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005 ng/l; 2
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08 ng/l; 3
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene: 0.44 ug/l; 4
(L) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (total of all PAHs): 2.8 ng/l; 5
(M) Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l; 6
(N) Tetrachloroethylene: 0.7 ug/l; 7
(O) Trichloroethylene: 2.5 ug/l; 8
(P) Vinyl Chloride: 0.025 ug/l. 9
10
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 11
6

A34
15A NCAC 02B .0215 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
2
15A NCAC 02B .0215 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-III 3
WATERS 4
The following water quality standards apply to surface water supply waters that are classified WS-III. Water quality 5
standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-III waters. 6
(1) The best usage of WS-III waters are as follows: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or 7
food-processing purposes for those users where a more protective WS-I or WS-II classification is 8
not feasible and any other best usage specified for Class C waters; 9
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected as water 10
supplies which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds and meet average 11
watershed development density levels as specified in Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A), (3)(b)(i)(B), 12
(3)(b)(ii)(A) and (3)(b)(ii)(B) of this Rule; discharges that qualify for a General Permit pursuant to 13
15A NCAC 2H .0127, trout farm discharges, recycle (closed loop) systems that only discharge in 14
response to 10-year storm events, and other stormwater discharges are allowed in the entire 15
watershed; treated domestic wastewater discharges are allowed in the entire watershed but no new 16
domestic wastewater discharges are allowed in the critical area; no new industrial wastewater 17
discharges except non-process industrial discharges are allowed in the entire watershed; the 18
waters, following treatment required by the Division of Environmental Health,Division, shall meet 19
the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for drinking, culinary, or 20
food-processing purposes which are specified in the national drinking water regulations and in the 21
North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500. Sources of water 22
pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be 23
considered to be violating a water quality standard. The Class WS-III classification may be used to 24
protect portions of Class WS-IV water supplies. For reclassifications of these portions of WS-IV 25
water supplies occurring after the July 1, 1992 statewide reclassification, the more protective 26
classification requested by local governments shall be considered by the Commission when all 27
local governments having jurisdiction in the affected area(s) have adopted a resolution and the 28
appropriate ordinances to protect the watershed or the Commission acts to protect a watershed 29
when one or more local governments has failed to adopt necessary protection measures; 30
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-III Waters are as follows: 31
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, non-process industrial wastes, or other wastes: none shall be 32
allowed except for those specified in Item (2) of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this 33
Subchapter; none shall be allowed that have an adverse effect on human health or that are 34
not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the Commission and in accordance with the 35
requirements of the Division of Environmental Health, North Carolina Department of 36
Environment and Natural Resources.Division. Any discharger may be required by the 37
1

A35
Commission to disclose all chemical constituents present or potentially present in their 1
wastes and chemicals which could be spilled or be present in runoff from their facility 2
which may have an adverse impact on downstream water quality. These facilities may be 3
required to have spill and treatment failure control plans as well as perform special 4
monitoring for toxic substances; 5
(b) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution: none that would adversely impact the waters 6
for use as water supply or any other designated use; 7
(i) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria For Entire 8
Watershed: 9
(A) Low Density Option: development density must be limited to either no 10
more than two dwelling units of single family detached residential 11
development per acre (or 20,000 square foot lot excluding roadway 12
right-of-way) or 24 percent built-upon area for all other residential and 13
non-residential development in watershed outside of the critical area; 14
stormwater runoff from the development shall be transported by 15
vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable; 16
(B) High Density Option: if new development density exceeds the low 17
density option requirements specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this 18
Rule then development must control runoff from the first inch of 19
rainfall; new residential and non-residential development shall not 20
exceed 50 percent built-upon area; 21
(C) Land within the watershed shall be deemed compliant with the density 22
requirements if the following condition is met: the density of all 23
existing development at the time of reclassification does not exceed the 24
density requirement when densities are averaged throughout the entire 25
watershed area; 26
(D) Cluster development is allowed on a project-by-project basis as 27
follows: 28
(I) overall density of the project meets associated density or 29
stormwater control requirements of this Rule; 30
(II) buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed 31
protection requirements; 32
(III) built-upon areas are designed and located to minimize 33
stormwater runoff impact to the receiving waters, minimize 34
concentrated stormwater flow, maximize the use of sheet flow 35
through vegetated areas, and maximize the flow length 36
through vegetated areas; 37
2

A36
(IV) areas of concentrated development are located in upland areas 1
and away, to the maximum extent practicable, from surface 2
waters and drainageways; 3
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state; 4
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a 5
property owners association, a local government for 6
preservation as a park or greenway, a conservation 7
organization or placed in a permanent conservation or 8
farmland preservation easement; 9
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area 10
shall be filed with the Register of Deeds; and 11
(VIII) cluster development that meets the applicable low density 12
option requirements shall transport stormwater runoff from the 13
development by vegetated conveyances to the maximum 14
extent practicable; 15
(E) A maximum of 10 percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the 16
watershed outside of the critical area as delineated on July 1, 1993 may 17
be developed with new development projects and expansions of 18
existing development of up to 70 percent built-upon surface area in 19
addition to the new development approved in compliance with the 20
appropriate requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub-Item 21
(3)(b)(i)(B) of this Rule. For expansions to existing development, the 22
existing built-upon surface area is not counted toward the allowed 70 23
percent built-upon surface area. A local government having 24
jurisdiction within the watershed may transfer, in whole or in part, its 25
right to the 10 percent/70 percent land area to another local government 26
within the watershed upon submittal of a joint resolution and review by 27
the Commission. When the water supply watershed is composed of 28
public lands, such as National Forest land, local governments may 29
count the public land acreage within the watershed outside of the 30
critical area in figuring the acreage allowed under this provision. For 31
local governments that do not choose to use the high density option in 32
that WS-III watershed, each project must, to the maximum extent 33
practicable, minimize built-upon surface area, direct stormwater runoff 34
away from surface waters, and incorporate best management practices 35
to minimize water quality impacts. If the local government selects the 36
high density development option within that WS-III watershed, then 37
3

A37
engineered stormwater controls must be employed for the new 1
development; 2
(F) If local governments choose the high density development option 3
which requires engineered stormwater controls, then they shall assume 4
ultimate responsibility for operation and maintenance of the required 5
controls as outlined in Rule .0104 of this Subchapter; 6
(G) Minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer is required for all new 7
development activities that exceed the low density requirements as 8
specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) and Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this 9
Rule, otherwise a minimum 30 foot vegetative buffer for development 10
is required along all perennial waters indicated on the most recent 11
versions of U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic maps or 12
as determined by local government studies. Nothing in this Rule shall 13
stand as a bar to artificial streambank or shoreline stabilization; 14
(H) No new development is allowed in the buffer; water dependent 15
structures, or other structures such as flag poles, signs and security 16
lights, which result in only de minimus increases in impervious area 17
and public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be 18
allowed where no practicable alternative exists. These activities shall 19
minimize built-upon surface area, direct runoff away from surface 20
waters and maximize the utilization of BMPs; 21
(I) No NPDES permits shall be issued for landfills that discharge treated 22
leachate; 23
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria: 24
(A) Low Density Option: new development limited to either no more than 25
one dwelling unit of single family detached residential development per 26
acre (or 40,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of-way) or 12 27
percent built-upon area for all other residential and non-residential 28
development; stormwater runoff from the development shall be 29
transported by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent 30
practicable; 31
(B) High Density Option: if new development exceeds the low density 32
requirements specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, then 33
engineered stormwater controls must be used to control runoff from the 34
first inch of rainfall; development shall not exceed 30 percent 35
built-upon area; 36
4

A38
(C) No new permitted sites for land application of residuals or petroleum 1
contaminated soils are allowed; 2
(D) No new landfills are allowed; 3
(c) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active Substances): not greater than 0.5 mg/l to protect the 4
aesthetic qualities of water supplies and to prevent foaming; 5
(d) Odor producing substances contained in sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: only 6
such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or wastes, as shall 7
not cause taste and odor difficulties in water supplies which cannot be corrected by 8
treatment, impair the palatability of fish, or have a deleterious effect upon any best usage 9
established for waters of this class; 10
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds: not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect water supplies from 11
taste and odor problems from chlorinated phenols; 12
(f) Total hardness: not greater than 100 mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate (CaCO3 or Ca 13
+ Mg); 14
(g) Total dissolved solids: not greater than 500 mg/l; 15
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances: 16
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 17
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 18
non-carcinogens in Class WS-III waters: 19
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l; 20
(B) Chloride: 250 mg/l; 21
(C) Manganese: 200 ug/l; 22
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l; 23
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen: 10 mg/l; 24
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70 ug/l; 25
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; 26
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l; 27
(ii) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 28
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 29
carcinogens in Class WS-III waters: 30
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 31
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l; 32
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l; 33
(D) Carbon tetrachloride: 0.254 ug/l; 34
(E) Chlordane: 0.8 ng/l; 35
(F) Chlorinated benzenes: 488 ug/l; 36
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l; 37
5

A39
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 1
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005 ng/l; 2
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08 ng/l; 3
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene: 0.44 ug/l; 4
(L) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (total of all PAHs): 2.8 ng/l; 5
(M) Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l; 6
(N) Tetrachloroethylene: 0.7 ug/l; 7
(O) Trichloroethylene: 2.5 ug/l; 8
(P) Vinyl Chloride: 0.025 ug/l. 9
10
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 11
6

A40
15A NCAC 02B .0216 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
2
15A NCAC 02B .0216 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WS-IV WATERS 3
The following water quality standards apply to surface water supply waters that are classified WS-IV. Water quality 4
standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-IV waters. 5
(1) The best usage of WS-IV waters are as follows: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or 6
food-processing purposes for those users where a more protective WS-I, WS-II or WS-III 7
classification is not feasible and any other best usage specified for Class C waters; 8
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected as water 9
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas and 10
meet average watershed development density levels as specified in Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A), 11
(3)(b)(i)(B), (3)(b)(ii)(A) and (3)(b)(ii)(B) of this Rule; discharges which qualify for a General 12
Permit pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0127, trout farm discharges, recycle (closed loop) systems 13
that only discharge in response to 10-year storm events, other stormwater discharges and domestic 14
wastewater discharges shall be allowed in the protected and critical areas; treated industrial 15
wastewater discharges are allowed in the protected and critical areas; however, new industrial 16
wastewater discharges in the critical area shall be required to meet the provisions of 15A NCAC 17
02B .0224(1)(b)(iv), (v) and (vii), and 15A NCAC 02B .0203; new industrial connections and 18
expansions to existing municipal discharges with a pretreatment program pursuant to 15A NCAC 19
02H .0904 are allowed; the waters, following treatment required by the Division of Environmental 20
Health,Division, shall meet the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for 21
drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes which are specified in the national drinking water 22
regulations and in the North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C 23
.1500. Sources of water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or 24
long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard. The Class WS-II or 25
WS-III classifications may be used to protect portions of Class WS-IV water supplies. For 26
reclassifications of these portions of WS-IV water supplies occurring after the July 1, 1992 27
statewide reclassification, the more protective classification requested by local governments shall 28
be considered by the Commission when all local governments having jurisdiction in the affected 29
area(s) have adopted a resolution and the appropriate ordinances to protect the watershed or the 30
Commission acts to protect a watershed when one or more local governments has failed to adopt 31
necessary protection measures; 32
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-IV Waters are as follows: 33
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, non-process industrial wastes, or other wastes: none shall be 34
allowed except for those specified in Item (2) of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this 35
Subchapter and none shall be allowed that shall have an adverse effect on human health 36
or that are not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the Commission and in accordance 37
1

A41
with the requirements of the Division of Environmental Health, North Carolina 1
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Division. Any discharges or 2
industrial users subject to pretreatment standards may be required by the Commission to 3
disclose all chemical constituents present or potentially present in their wastes and 4
chemicals which could be spilled or be present in runoff from their facility which may 5
have an adverse impact on downstream water supplies. These facilities may be required 6
to have spill and treatment failure control plans as well as perform special monitoring for 7
toxic substances; 8
(b) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution: none shall be allowed that would adversely 9
impact the waters for use as water supply or any other designated use. 10
(i) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria For Entire 11
Watershed or Protected Area: 12
(A) Low Density Option: development activities which require a 13
Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan in accordance with 15A NCAC 4 14
established by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission 15
or approved local government programs as delegated by the 16
Sedimentation Control Commission shall be limited to no more than 17
either: two dwelling units of single family detached development per 18
acre (or 20,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of-way) or 24 19
percent built-upon on area for all other residential and non-residential 20
development; or three dwelling units per acre or 36 percent built-upon 21
area for projects without curb and gutter street systems in the protected 22
area outside of the critical area; stormwater runoff from the 23
development shall be transported by vegetated conveyances to the 24
maximum extent practicable; 25
(B) High Density Option: if new development activities which require a 26
Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan exceed the low density 27
requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this Rule then development 28
shall control the runoff from the first inch of rainfall; new residential 29
and non-residential development shall not exceed 70 percent built-upon 30
area; 31
(C) Land within the critical and protected area shall be deemed compliant 32
with the density requirements if the following condition is met: the 33
density of all existing development at the time of reclassification does 34
not exceed the density requirement when densities are averaged 35
throughout the entire area; 36
2

A42
(D) Cluster development shall be allowed on a project-by-project basis as 1
follows: 2
(I) overall density of the project meets associated density or 3
stormwater control requirements of this Rule; 4
(II) buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed 5
protection requirements; 6
(III) built-upon areas are designed and located to minimize 7
stormwater runoff impact to the receiving waters, minimize 8
concentrated stormwater flow, maximize the use of sheet flow 9
through vegetated areas, and maximize the flow length 10
through vegetated areas; 11
(IV) areas of concentrated development are located in upland areas 12
and away, to the maximum extent practicable, from surface 13
waters and drainageways; 14
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state; 15
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a 16
property owners association, a local government for 17
preservation as a park or greenway, a conservation 18
organization, or placed in a permanent conservation or 19
farmland preservation easement; 20
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area 21
shall be filed with the Register of Deeds; and 22
(VIII) cluster development that meets the applicable low density 23
option requirements shall transport stormwater runoff from the 24
development by vegetated conveyances to the maximum 25
extent practicable; 26
(E) If local governments choose the high density development option 27
which requires engineered stormwater controls, then they shall assume 28
ultimate responsibility for operation and maintenance of the required 29
controls as outlined in Rule .0104 of this Subchapter; 30
(F) Minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer is required for all new 31
development activities that exceed the low density option requirements 32
as specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this 33
Rule, otherwise a minimum 30 foot vegetative buffer for development 34
shall be required along all perennial waters indicated on the most recent 35
versions of U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic maps or 36
as determined by local government studies; 37
3

A43
(G) No new development shall be allowed in the buffer; water dependent 1
structures, or other structures, such as flag poles, signs and security 2
lights, which result in only de minimus increases in impervious area 3
and public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be 4
allowed where no practicable alternative exists. These activities shall 5
minimize built-upon surface area, divert runoff away from surface 6
waters and maximize the utilization of BMPs; 7
(H) For local governments that do not use the high density option, a 8
maximum of 10 percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the watershed 9
outside of the critical area as delineated on July 1, 1995 may be 10
developed with new development projects and expansions to existing 11
development of up to 70 percent built-upon surface area in addition to 12
the new development approved in compliance with the appropriate 13
requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this Rule. For expansions to 14
existing development, the existing built-upon surface area shall not be 15
counted toward the allowed 70 percent built-upon surface area. A local 16
government having jurisdiction within the watershed may transfer, in 17
whole or in part, its right to the 10 percent/70 percent land area to 18
another local government within the watershed upon submittal of a 19
joint resolution for review by the Commission. When the designated 20
water supply watershed area is composed of public land, such as 21
National Forest land, local governments may count the public land 22
acreage within the designated watershed area outside of the critical area 23
in figuring the acreage allowed under this provision. Each project 24
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize built-upon surface 25
area, direct stormwater runoff away from surface waters and 26
incorporate best management practices to minimize water quality 27
impacts; 28
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria: 29
(A) Low Density Option: new development activities which require a 30
Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan in accordance with 15A NCAC 4 31
established by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission 32
or approved local government programs as delegated by the 33
Sedimentation Control Commission shall be limited to no more than 34
two dwelling units of single family detached development per acre (or 35
20,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of-way) or 24 percent 36
built-upon area for all other residential and non-residential 37
4

A44
development; stormwater runoff from the development shall be 1
transported by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent 2
practicable; 3
(B) High Density Option: if new development density exceeds the low 4
density requirements specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, 5
engineered stormwater controls shall be used to control runoff from the 6
first inch of rainfall; new residential and non-residential development 7
shall not exceed 50 percent built-upon area; 8
(C) No new permitted sites for land application of residuals or petroleum 9
contaminated soils shall be allowed; 10
(D) No new landfills shall be allowed; 11
(c) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active Substances): not greater than 0.5 mg/l to protect the 12
aesthetic qualities of water supplies and to prevent foaming; 13
(d) Odor producing substances contained in sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: only 14
such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or waste, as will 15
not cause taste and odor difficulties in water supplies which can not be corrected by 16
treatment, impair the palatability of fish, or have a deleterious effect upon any best usage 17
established for waters of this class; 18
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds: not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect water supplies 19
from taste and odor problems due to chlorinated phenols shall be allowed. Specific 20
phenolic compounds may be given a different limit if it is demonstrated not to cause taste 21
and odor problems and not to be detrimental to other best usage; 22
(f) Total hardness shall not exceed 100 mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate (CaCO3 or Ca + 23
Mg); 24
(g) Total dissolved solids shall not exceed 500 mg/l; 25
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances: 26
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 27
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 28
non-carcinogens in Class WS-IV waters: 29
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l; 30
(B) Chloride: 250 mg/l; 31
(C) Manganese: 200 ug/l; 32
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l; 33
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen: 10.0 mg/l; 34
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l; 70 ug/l; 35
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; 36
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l; 37
5

A45
(ii) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 1
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 2
carcinogens in Class WS-IV waters: 3
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 4
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l; 5
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l; 6
(D) Carbon tetrachloride: 0.254 ug/l; 7
(E) Chlordane: 0.8 ng/l; 8
(F) Chlorinated benzenes: 488 ug/l; 9
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l; 10
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 11
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005 ng/l; 12
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08 ng/l; 13
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene: 0.44 ug/l; 14
(L) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (total of all PAHs): 2.8 ng/l; 15
(M) Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l; 16
(N) Tetrachloroethylene: 0.7 ug/l; 17
(O) Trichloroethylene: 2.5 ug/l; 18
(P) Vinyl Chloride: 0.025 ug/l. 19
20
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 21
22
6

A46
15A NCAC 02B .0218 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
2
15A NCAC 02B .0218 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-V 3
WATERS 4
The following water quality standards apply to surface water supply waters that are classified WS-V. Water quality 5
standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-V waters. 6
(1) The best usage of WS-V waters are as follows: waters that are protected as water supplies which 7
are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters; or waters previously used for 8
drinking water supply purposes; or waters used by industry to supply their employees, but not 9
municipalities or counties, with a raw drinking water supply source, although this type of use is 10
not restricted to WS-V classification; and all Class C uses. The Commission may consider a more 11
protective classification for the water supply if a resolution requesting a more protective 12
classification is submitted from all local governments having land use jurisdiction within the 13
affected watershed; 14
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected water 15
supplies; the waters, following treatment required by the Division of Environmental 16
Health,Division, shall meet the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for 17
drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes which are specified in the national drinking water 18
regulations and in the North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C 19
.1500; no categorical restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges are 20
required, however, the Commission or its designee may apply management requirements for the 21
protection of waters downstream of receiving waters (15A NCAC 02B .0203). Sources of water 22
pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be 23
considered to be violating a water quality standard; 24
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-V Waters are as follows: 25
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, non-process industrial wastes, or other wastes: none shall be 26
allowed that have an adverse effect on human health or that are not effectively treated to 27
the satisfaction of the Commission and in accordance with the requirements of the 28
Division of Environmental Health, North Carolina Department of Environment and 29
Natural Resources.Division. Any discharges or industrial users subject to pretreatment 30
standards may be required by the Commission to disclose all chemical constituents 31
present or potentially present in their wastes and chemicals which could be spilled or be 32
present in runoff from their facility which may have an adverse impact on downstream 33
water supplies. These facilities may be required to have spill and treatment failure control 34
plans as well as perform special monitoring for toxic substances; 35
(b) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active Substances): not greater than 0.5 mg/l to protect the 36
aesthetic qualities of water supplies and to prevent foaming; 37
1

A47
(c) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution: none that would adversely impact the waters 1
for use as water supply or any other designated use; 2
(d) Odor producing substances contained in sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: only 3
such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or waste, as will 4
not cause taste and odor difficulties in water supplies which can not be corrected by 5
treatment, impair the palatability of fish, or have a deleterious effect upon any best usage 6
established for waters of this class; 7
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds: not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect water supplies 8
from taste and odor problems due to chlorinated phenols; specific phenolic compounds 9
may be given a different limit if it is demonstrated not to cause taste and odor problems 10
and not to be detrimental to other best usage; 11
(f) Total hardness: not greater than 100 mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate (CaCO3 or Ca 12
+ Mg); 13
(g) Total dissolved solids: not greater than 500 mg/l; 14
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances: 15
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 16
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 17
non-carcinogens in Class WS-V waters: 18
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l; 19
(B) Chloride: 250 mg/l; 20
(C) Manganese: 200 ug/l; 21
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l; 22
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen: 10.0 mg/l; 23
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70 ug/l; 24
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; 25
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l. 26
(ii) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect 27
human health through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for 28
carcinogens in Class WS-V waters: 29
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 30
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l; 31
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l; 32
(D) Carbon tetrachloride: 0.254 ug/l; 33
(E) Chlordane: 0.8 ng/l; 34
(F) Chlorinated benzenes: 488 ug/l; 35
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l; 36
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l; 37
2

A48
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005 ng/l; 1
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08 ng/l; 2
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene: 0.44 ug/l; 3
(L) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (total of all PAHs): 2.8 ng/l; 4
(M) Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l; 5
(N) Tetrachloroethylene: 0.7 ug/l; 6
(O) Trichloroethylene: 2.5 ug/l; 7
(P) Vinyl Chloride: 0.025 ug/l. 8
9
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 10
3

A49
15A NCAC 02B .0220 is proposed for amendment as follows: 1
Hearing Officer’s Proposed Modifications are illustrated as highlighted text: 2
3
15A NCAC 02B .0220 TIDAL SALT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS SC WATERS 4
General. The water quality standards for all tidal salt waters are the basic standards applicable to Class SC waters. 5
Additional and more stringent standards applicable to other specific tidal salt water classifications are specified in 6
Rules .0221 and .0222 of this Section. Action Levels, for purposes of NPDES permitting, are specified in Item (20) 7
of this Rule. 8
(1) Best Usage of Waters: any usage except primary recreation or shellfishing for market purposes; 9
usages include aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing, 10
fish and functioning PNAs), wildlife, and secondary recreation; 11
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and 12
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, and secondary recreation. Any source of water 13
pollution which precludes any of these uses, including their functioning as PNAs, on either a 14
short-term or a long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard; 15
(3) Quality standards applicable to all tidal salt waters: 16
(a)(3) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/l in sounds, estuaries, and other waters subject to 17
growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation. The Commission or its designee may prohibit 18
or limit any discharge of waste into surface waters if, in the opinion of the Director, the surface 19
waters experience or the discharge would result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic 20
vegetation such that the standards established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the 21
intended best usage of the waters would be impaired; 22
(4) Cyanide: 1 ug/l; 23
(b)(5) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters, poorly flushed tidally 24
influenced streams or embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if caused by 25
natural conditions; 26
(6) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus avium and 27
Enterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per 100 ml based 28
upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 29
1313 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) for purposes of beach monitoring and notification, 30
"Coastal Recreational Waters Monitoring, Evaluation and Notification" regulations (15A NCAC 31
18A .3400) are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments; 32
(c)(7) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to sewage, 33
industrial wastes or other wastes, as shall not make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life 34
and wildlife, or impair the waters for any designated uses; 35
(d)(8) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation; 36
1

A50
(e) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus avium and 1
Enterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per 100 ml based 2
upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 3
1313 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) for purposes of beach monitoring and notification, 4
"Coastal Recreational Waters Monitoring, Evaluation and Notification" regulations (15A NCAC 5
18A .3400) are hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments; 6
(9) Metals: 7
(a) With the exception of mercury and selenium, tidal salt water quality standards for metals 8
shall be based upon measurement of the dissolved fraction of the metals. Mercury and 9
Selenium must be based upon measurement of the total recoverable metal. metal; 10
Alternative site-specific standards can be developed where studies are designed according 11
to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition" published by the US 12
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) hereby incorporated by 13
reference, including any subsequent amendments; 14
(b) Compliance with acute instream metals standards shall only be evaluated using an 15
average of two or more samples collected within one hour. Compliance with chronic 16
instream metals standards shall only be evaluated using averages of a minimum of four 17
samples taken on consecutive days, or as a 96-hour average; 18
(c) With the exception of mercury and selenium, demonstrated attainment of the applicable 19
aquatic life use in a waterbody will take precedence over the application of the aquatic 20
life criteria established for metals associated with these uses. An instream exceedence of 21
the numeric criterion for metals shall not be considered to have caused an adverse impact 22
to the instream aquatic community if biological monitoring has demonstrated attainment 23
of biological integrity; 24
(c) Metals criteria will be used for proactive environmental management. An instream 25
exceedence of the numeric criterion for metals shall not be considered to have caused an 26
adverse impact to the aquatic community without biological confirmation and a 27
comparison of all available monitoring data and applicable water quality standards. This 28
weight of evidence evaluation will take into account data quality and the overall 29
confidence in how representative the sampling is of conditions in the waterbody segment 30
before an assessment of aquatic life use attainment, or non-attainment, is made by the 31
Division. Recognizing the synergistic and antagonistic complexities of other water 32
quality variables on the actual toxicity of metals, with the exception of Mercury and 33
Selenium, biological monitoring will be used to validate, by direct measurement, whether 34
or not the aquatic life use is supported. 35
(d) Acute and chronic tidal salt water quality metals standards are as follows: 36
(i) Arsenic, acute: WER∙ 69 ug/l; 37
2

A51
(ii) Arsenic, chronic: WER∙ 36 ug/l; 1
(iii) Cadmium, acute: WER∙ 40 ug/l; 2
(iv) Cadmium, chronic: WER∙ 8.8 ug/l; 3
(v) Chromium VI, acute: WER∙ 1100 ug/l; 4
(vi) Chromium VI, chronic: WER∙ 50 ug/l; 5
(vii) Copper, acute: WER∙ 4.8 ug/l; 6
(viii) Copper, chronic: WER∙ 3.1 ug/l; 7
(ix) Lead, acute: WER∙ 210 ug/l; 8
(x) Lead, chronic: WER∙ 8.1 ug/l; 9
(xi) Mercury, total recoverable, chronic: 0.025 ug/l; 10
(xii) Nickel, acute: WER∙ 74 ug/l; 11
(xiii) Nickel, chronic: WER∙ 8.2 ug/l; 12
(xiv) Selenium, total recoverable, chronic: 71 ug/l; 13
(xv) Silver, acute: WER∙ 1.9 ug/l; 14
(xvi) Silver, chronic: WER∙ 0.1 ug/l; 15
(xvii) Zinc, acute: WER∙ 90 ug/l; 16
(xviii) Zinc, chronic: WER∙ 81 ug/l; 17
With the exception of Mercury and Selenium, acute and chronic tidal saltwater quality 18
aquatic life standards for metals listed above apply to the dissolved form of the metal and 19
apply as a function of the pollutant’s water effect ratio (WER). A WER is a factor that 20
expresses the difference between the measures of the toxicity of a substance in laboratory 21
waters and the toxicity in site water. The WER is assigned a value equal to one (1) unless 22
any person demonstrates to the Department’s satisfaction in a permit proceeding that 23
another value is appropriately developed in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards 24
Handbook: Second Edition" published by the US Environmental Protection Agency 25
(EPA-823-B-12-002) hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent 26
amendments. Alternative site-specific standards can also be developed when any person 27
submits values that demonstrate to the Commissions’ satisfaction that they were derived 28
in accordance with the "Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, 29
Recalculation Procedure or the Resident Species Procedure”; 30
(f)(10) Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the 31
waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or aquatic life and wildlife or adversely 32
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. For 33
the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes shall 34
include but not be limited to substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the 35
surface of the water or adjoining shorelines pursuant to 40 CFR 110.3; 36
(11) Pesticides: 37
3

A52
(a) Aldrin: 0.003 ug/l; 1
(b) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l; 2
(c) DDT: 0.001 ug/l; 3
(d) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l; 4
(e) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l; 5
(f) Endosulfan: 0.009 ug/l; 6
(g) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l; 7
(h) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l; 8
(i) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l; 9
(j) Lindane: 0.004 ug/l; 10
(k) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l; 11
(l) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l; 12
(m) Parathion: 0.178 ug/l; 13
(n) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l; 14
(g)(12) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.8 and 8.5 15
except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; 16
(h)(13) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fish-flesh tainting or impairment of 17
other best usage; 18
(14) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs and congeners identified) 0.001 ug/l; 19
(i)(15) Radioactive substances: 20
(i)(a) Combined radium-226 and radium-228: The maximum average annual activity level 21
(based on at least four samples, collected quarterly) for combined radium-226, and 22
radium-228 shall not exceed five picoCuries per liter; 23
(ii)(b) Alpha Emitters. The average annual gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226, 24
but excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picoCuries per liter; 25
(iii)(c) Beta Emitters. The maximum average annual activity level (based on at least four 26
samples, collected quarterly) for strontium-90 shall not exceed eight picoCuries per liter; 27
nor shall the average annual gross beta particle activity (excluding potassium-40 and 28
other naturally occurring radio-nuclides) exceed 50 picoCuries per liter; nor shall the 29
maximum average annual activity level for tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per liter; 30
(j)(16) Salinity: changes in salinity due to hydrological modifications shall not result in removal of the 31
functions of a PNA. Projects that are determined by the Director to result in modifications of 32
salinity such that functions of a PNA are impaired will be required to employ water management 33
practices to mitigate salinity impacts; 34
(k)(17) Temperature: shall not be increased above the natural water temperature by more than 0.8 degrees 35
C (1.44 degrees F) during the months of June, July, and August nor more than 2.2 degrees C (3.96 36
4

A53
degrees F) during other months and in no cases to exceed 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F) due to the 1
discharge of heated liquids; 2
(18) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.007 ug/l expressed as tributyltin; 3
(l)(19) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds this 4
level due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. 5
Compliance with this turbidity standard can be met when land management activities employ Best 6
Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by the 7
Designated Nonpoint Source Agency (as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section). BMPs must be in 8
full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation and 9
maintenance of such BMPs; 10
(m) Toxic substances: numerical water quality standards (maximum permissible levels) to 11
protect aquatic life applicable to all tidal saltwaters: 12
(i) Arsenic, total recoverable: 50 ug/l; 13
(ii) Cadmium: 5.0 ug/l; attainment of these water quality standards in surface 14
waters shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations 15
unless appropriate studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable 16
metals to a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators 17
must be designed according to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second 18
Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-19
005a) or "The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable 20
Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental 21
Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by 22
reference including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider 23
conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental 24
conditions that limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal 25
translators; 26
(iii) Chromium, total: 20 ug/l; 27
(iv) Cyanide: 1.0 ug/l; 28
(v) Mercury: 0.025 ug/l; 29
(vi) Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l; collection of data on sources, transport and fate 30
of lead shall be required as part of the toxicity reduction evaluation for 31
dischargers that are out of compliance with whole effluent toxicity testing 32
requirements and the concentration of lead in the effluent is concomitantly 33
determined to exceed an instream level of 3.1 ug/l from the discharge; 34
(vii) Nickel: 8.3 ug/l; attainment of these water quality standards in surface waters 35
shall be based on measurement of total recoverable metals concentrations unless 36
appropriate studies have been conducted to translate total recoverable metals to 37
5

A54
a toxic form. Studies used to determine the toxic form or translators must be 1
designed according to the "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second Edition" 2
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or 3
"The Metals Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit 4
Limit From a Dissolved Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection 5
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are hereby incorporated by reference 6
including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall consider 7
conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental 8
conditions that limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal 9
translators; 10
(viii) Pesticides: 11
(A) Aldrin: 0.003 ug/l; 12
(B) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l; 13
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l; 14
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l; 15
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l; 16
(F) Endosulfan: 0.009 ug/l; 17
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l; 18
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l; 19
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l; 20
(J) Lindane: 0.004 ug/l; 21
(K) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l; 22
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l; 23
(M) Parathion: 0.178 ug/l; 24
(N) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l; 25
(ix) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs and congeners identified) 0.001 26
ug/l; 27
(x) Selenium: 71 ug/l; 28
(xi) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.007 ug/l expressed as tributyltin. 29
(4)(20) Action Levels for Toxic Substances:Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits: 30
(a) Copper:Copper, dissolved, chronic: 3 ug/l;3.1 ug/l; 31
(b) Silver:Silver, dissolved, chronic: 0.1 ug/l; 32
(c) Zinc:Zinc, dissolved, chronic: 86 ug/l;81 ug/l 33
If the chronic Action Levels for any of the substances listed in this SubparagraphItem (which are 34
generally not bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to aquatic life because of chemical form, 35
solubility, stream characteristics or associated waste characteristics) are determined by the waste 36
load allocation to be exceeded in a receiving water by a discharge under the specified low7Q10 37
6

A55
flow criterion for toxic substances (Rule .0206 in this Section),substances, the discharger shall be 1
required to monitor the chemical or biological effects of the discharge; efforts shall be made by all 2
dischargers to reduce or eliminate these substances from their effluents. Those substances for 3
which Action Levels are listed in this SubparagraphItem mayshall be limited as appropriate in the 4
NPDES permit if sufficient information (to be determined for metals by measurements of that 5
portion of the dissolved instream concentration of the Action Level parameter attributable to a 6
specific NPDES permitted discharge) exists to indicate that any of those substances may be a 7
causative factor resulting in toxicity of the effluent. NPDES permit limits may be based on 8
translation of the toxic form to total recoverable metals. Studies used to determine the toxic form 9
or translators must be designed according to: "Water Quality Standards Handbook Second 10
Edition" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-94-005a) or "The Metals 11
Translator: Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit From a Dissolved 12
Criterion" published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are 13
hereby incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments. The Director shall 14
consider conformance to EPA guidance as well as the presence of environmental conditions that 15
limit the applicability of translators in approving the use of metal translators. 16
17
Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1). 18
7

A56
SECTION VIII:
HEARING OFFICER’S SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR FUTURE STAFF REVIEW

In addition to the recommendations to be considered for adoption, the Hearing Officer has
identified items in the current water quality standards that are of significant interest to the US
EPA, other federal agencies, businesses, municipalities, Non-governmental Organizations and
the general public. The Hearing Officer recommends that DWR staff review national guidance
on the following parameters and consider the costs and benefits of modifying these criteria in
the next Triennial Review:

For the Protection of Aquatic Life:
• Review National Recommended Water Quality Criterion (NRWQC) for Ammonia
• Review Draft National Recommended Water Quality Criterion (NRWQC) for Selenium
• Review current Dissolved Oxygen criterion for potential modification to assure protection
of spawning areas, examine the necessity or utility of duration/frequency and depth
requirements.
• Nutrients:
o The Hearing Officer recommends that DWR continue to move forward with the
“NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan” (NC NCDP) with the objective to receive
recommendations from the Scientific Advisory Council on potential EMC actions.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=fda0bd83-a5cc-454a-
b035-11979364f80f&groupId=38364
For the Protection of Human Health
• Review Revised NRWQC recreational bacteria criterion
• Review NRWQC methyl mercury criterion:
o Request staff to carefully consider addition or modification to current Mercury
standard
• Staff should keep abreast of the US EPA updated draft NRWQC for human health and
aquatic life for chemical pollutants and advise the EMC when the additional criteria are
finalized.

A57
This publication is printed on permanent, acid-free paper in compliance with G.S. 125-11.13
NORTH CAROLINA
REGISTER
VOLUME 28 ● ISSUE 24 ● Pages 2975 – 3111
June 16, 2014
I. EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Executive Order No. 51 ...................................................................................... 2975 – 2976
Executive Order No. 52 ...................................................................................... 2977 – 2979
Executive Order No. 53 ...................................................................................... 2980 – 2981
II.IN ADDITION
Environmental Management Commission – Public Notice. ............................... 2982
Health Service Regulation, Division of – COPA ............................................... 2983
III. PROPOSED RULES
Environment and Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Management Commission ...................................................... 3004 – 3032
Insurance, Department of
Agent Services Division ................................................................................. 2984 – 2985
Justice, Department of
Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission .................. 2985 – 3004
Occupational Licensing Boards and Commissions
Irrigation Contractors Licensing, Board of ..................................................... 3032 – 3034
Landscape Architects, Licensing Board of ..................................................... 3034 – 3040
Soil Scientists, Board for Licensing of ........................................................... 3040 – 3041
IV. RULES REVIEW COMMISSION ................................................................. 3042 – 3052
V. CONTESTED CASE DECISIONS
Index to ALJ Decisions ...................................................................................... 3053 – 3069
Text of ALJ Decisions
12 DHR 09028 ................................................................................................ 3070 – 3074
12 OSP 04550 ................................................................................................. 3075 – 3082
13 EDC 16807 ................................................................................................ 3083 – 3087
13 OSP 02680 ................................................................................................. 3088 – 3108
14 EHR 00662 ................................................................................................ 3109 – 3111
PUBLISHED BY
The Office of Administrative Hearings
Rules Division
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Julian Mann III, Director
Molly Masich, Codifier of Rules
Dana Vojtko, Publications Coordinator
Tammara Chalmers, Editorial Assistant
Lindsay Woy, Editorial Assistant
Attachment A
A58
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3004
Commission must meet, and submit documentation to the
Standards Division verifying his or her compliance with, the
following requirements:
(1) Hold a current license, certification or
registration from another jurisdiction which is
substantially equivalent to or exceeds the
requirements required for certification;
(2) Be in good standing with the issuing agency
and not been disciplined by the agency that has
the jurisdiction to issue the license,
certification or permit; and
(3) Demonstrate competency in the occupation by:
(A) Having completed continuing
education comparable to the
education and training required for
the type of certification for which the
application is being made, as
determined by Paragraph (b) of this
Rule; or
(B) Having engaged in the active practice
of that occupational specialty for at
least two of the five years prior to the
date of application.
(d) A military trained individual or military spouse seeking
General Certification as a law enforcement officer must meet, at
a minimum, the requirements of Rule .0403(a)(2) of this Section.
The Division shall review the documents received to determine
if any additional training is required to satisfy the certification
requirements of this Subchapter.
(e) In the event the applicant's prior training is not substantially
equivalent to the Commission's standards, the Commission shall
prescribe as a condition of certification, supplementary or
remedial training deemed necessary to equate previous training
with current standards.
(f) Where certifications issued by the Commission require
satisfactory performance on a written examination as part of the
training, the Commission shall require such examinations for the
certification.
(d)(g) In those instances not specifically incorporated within
this Section Rule or where an evaluation of the applicant's prior
training and experience determines that required attendance in
the entire Basic Law Enforcement Training Course would be
impractical, the Director of the Standards Division is authorized
to exercise his discretion in determining the amount of training
those persons shall complete during their probationary period.
(e)(h) The following criteria shall be used by division Standards
Division staff in evaluating prior training and experience of local
confinement personnel to determine eligibility for a waiver of
training requirements:
(1) Persons who hold probationary, general, or
grandfather certification as local confinement
personnel and separate after having completed
a commission-accredited course as prescribed
in 12 NCAC Rule 9B .0224 or .0225 of this
Subchapter and have been separated for more
than one year shall complete a subsequent
commission-accredited training course in its
entirety and successfully pass the State
Comprehensive Examination during the
probationary period as prescribed in 12 NCAC
9B .0401(a); Rule .0401(a) of this Section;
(2) Persons who separated from a local
confinement personnel position after having
completed a commission-accredited course as
prescribed in 12 NCAC Rule 9B .0224 or
.0225 of this Subchapter and who have been
separated for less than one year shall serve a
new 12 month probationary period, but need
not complete an additional training program;
(3) Applicants who hold or previously held
"Detention Officer Certification" issued by the
North Carolina Sheriffs' Education and
Training Standards Commission shall be
subject to evaluation of their prior training and
experience on an individual basis. Where the
applicant properly obtained certification and
successfully completed the required 120 hour
training course, and has not had a break in
service in excess of one year, no additional
training will be required; and
(4) Persons holding certification for local
confinement facilities who transfer to a district
or county confinement facility shall
satisfactorily complete the course for district
and county confinement facility personnel, as
adopted by reference in 12 NCAC 9B 09B
.0224, in its entirety and successfully pass the
State Comprehensive Examination during the
probationary period as prescribed in 12 NCAC
9B .0401(a). Rule .0401(a) of this Section.

Authority G.S. 17C-2; 17C-6; 17C-10; 93B-15.1.

TITLE 15A – DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES

Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.2 that
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources intends
to amend the rules cited as 15A NCAC 02B .0206; .0211; .0212;
.0214-.0216; .0218; .0220.

Agency obtained G.S. 150B-19.1 certification:
OSBM certified on: April 23, 2014
RRC certified on:
Not Required

Link to agency website pursuant to G.S. 150B-19.1(c):
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/rules

Proposed Effective Date: January 1, 2015

Public Hearings:
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: Ground Floor Hearing Room, Archdale Building,
512 N Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC

Attachment A
A59
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3005
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Statesville Civic Center, 300 South Center Street,
Statesville, NC

Reason for Proposed Action: The Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) will conduct public hearings to consider
proposed permanent amendments to various rules that establish
the surface water quality standards for North Carolina. These
proposed amendments comprise the State’s Triennial Review of
Surface Water Quality Standards, which is mandated by the
federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or CWA).
If adopted, the proposals would implement the following
changes to the surface water quality standards for North
Carolina:

1) Based on revised US Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) research, new health information is available for 2,4 D ( a
chlorophenoxy herbicide). When implemented, the standard will
lower the applicable acceptable human health protective
concentration.
2) Updated aquatic life protective concentrations for Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium III, Chromium VI, Copper,
Lead, Nickel, Silver and Zinc are proposed. The revisions reflect
the latest scientific knowledge regarding the effects of the
pollutants on aquatic organisms. With the exception of Mercury
and Selenium, which are both bioaccumulative metals, the state
proposes changing to dissolved metal water quality standards.
The dissolved fraction more closely estimates the portion of the
metal that is toxic to aquatic life. The revised criteria are
average concentrations that can be present in a water body, but
should not result in unacceptable effects to aquatic organisms
and the designated use of the water body on both a shorter
(acute) and a longer (chronic) term basis. Where metals toxicity
is hardness-dependent, applicable hardness values are defined.
With the exception of Mercury and Selenium, the proposals
allow careful consideration of aquatic life biological integrity to
take precedence over ambient standard violations for water
quality assessment purposes.
3) The standards for Iron and Manganese are proposed for
removal. Both chemicals are federally designated "non-priority"
pollutants. The standard for Total Chromium is also proposed
for removal, but is replaced by human health and aquatic life
protective standards for Chromium III and Chromium VI.
4) Codify the use of 1Q10 stream flows for implementation of
acute water quality standards in NPDES permitting. Allow the
use of the median instream hardness values in calculating permit
limits based on proposed hardness-dependent metals standards.
5) The public will have the opportunity to comment on three
variances from surface water quality standards and federal
316(a) thermal variances. The three surface water standards
exemptions consist of two variances from the chloride standard
for Mt. Olive Pickle Company and Bay Valley Foods, LLC
(formerly Dean Pickle and Specialty Products Company)
(NC0001074 & NC0001970) and a variance from the color
standard for Evergreen Packaging (d.b.a. Blue Ridge Paper
Products) (NC0000272). Information concerning any of these
variances can be obtained by contacting the individual named in
the comment procedures.
6) Variances from applicable standards, revisions to water
quality standards, or site-specific water quality standards may
be granted by the Environmental Management Commission on a
case-by-case basis pursuant to GS 143-215.3(e), 143-214.3 or
143-214.1. For metals standards, the proposed language details
that alternative site-specific standards can be developed when
studies are designed in accordance with the "Water Quality
Standards Handbook: Second Edition" published by the US EPA
(EPA 823-B-94-005a). The mechanisms outlined in the US EPA
publication are for the Water Effect Ratio, the Recalculation
Procedure, and the Resident Species Procedure. The EMC is
seeking comment on the application of these provisions with
respect to modifying the metals criteria.

Comment Procedures:
It is important that all interested and potentially affected persons
or parties make their views known to the EMC whether in favor
of, or opposed to, any and all of the proposed amendments and
current regulations. As the state and US Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) have a strong interest in assuring
that the decisions are legally defensible, are based on the best
scientific information available, and are subject to full and
meaningful public comment and participation, clear records are
critical to the administrative review by the EMC and the US
EPA.
The public hearing will be recorded. It will consist of a
presentation by DWR staff, followed by an open comment
period. The EMC appointed hearing officer may limit the length
of time that you may speak, if necessary, so that all those who
wish to speak will have an opportunity. You may attend the
public hearing to make verbal comments and/or submit written
comments. You may present conceptual ideas, technical
justifications, or specific language you believe is necessary and
relevant to 15A NCAC 02B surface water quality classifications
and standards regulations. No items will be voted on and no
decisions will be made at this hearing.

In case of inclement weather on either of the two published
hearing dates, a continuance date for the public hearing has
been established as July 29th , 1:30 p.m., Ground Floor Hearing
Room, Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC. A recorded message regarding any continuance to the
hearing record will be available at the below noted telephone
number.

Comments may be submitted to: Connie Brower, 1611 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611; phone (919) 807-
6416, main line [phone]; fax [phone]; email
[e-mail]

Comment period ends: 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 22, 2014

Procedure for Subjecting a Proposed Rule to Legislative
Review: If an objection is not resolved prior to the adoption of
the rule, a person may also submit written objections to the
Rules Review Commission after the adoption of the Rule. If the
Rules Review Commission receives written and signed
objections after the adoption of the Rule in accordance with G.S.
150B-21.3(b2) from 10 or more persons clearly requesting
Attachment A
A60
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3006
review by the legislature and the Rules Review Commission
approves the rule, the rule will become effective as provided in
G.S. 150B-21.3(b1). The Commission will receive written
objections until 5:00 p.m. on the day following the day the
Commission approves the rule. The Commission will receive
those objections by mail, delivery service, hand delivery, or
facsimile transmission. If you have any further questions
concerning the submission of objections to the Commission,
please call a Commission staff attorney at 919-431-3000.

Fiscal impact (check all that apply).
State funds affected
Environmental permitting of DOT affected
Analysis submitted to Board of Transportation
Local funds affected
Substantial economic impact (≥$1,000,000)
No fiscal note required by G.S. 150B-21.4

CHAPTER 02 – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SUBCHAPTER 02B – SURFACE WATER AND
WETLAND STANDARDS

SECTION .0200 – CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SURFACE
WATERS AND WETLANDS OF NORTH CAROLINA

15A NCAC 02B .0206 FLOW DESIGN CRITERIA FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(a) Water quality based effluent limitations are developed to
allow appropriate frequency and duration of deviations from
water quality standards so that the designated uses of receiving
waters are protected. There are water quality standards for a
number of categories of pollutants and to protect a range of
water uses. For this reason, the appropriate frequency and
duration of deviations from water quality standards is not the
same for all categories of standards. A flow design criterion is
used in the development of water quality based effluent
limitations as a simplified means of estimating the acceptable
frequency and duration of deviations. More complex modeling
techniques can also be used to set effluent limitations directly
based on frequency and duration criteria published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 304(a) of
the Federal Clean Water Act as amended. Use of more complex
modeling techniques to set water quality based effluent
limitations will be approved by the Commission or its designee
on a case-by-case basis. Flow design criteria to calculate water
quality based effluent limitations for categories of water quality
standards are listed as follows:
(1) All standards except toxic substances and
aesthetics will be protected using the minimum
average flow for a period of seven consecutive
days that has an average recurrence of once in
ten years (7Q10 flow). Other governing flow
strategies such as varying discharges with the
receiving waters ability to assimilate wastes
may be designated by the Commission or its
designee on a case-by-case basis if the
discharger or permit applicant provide
evidence which establishes to the satisfaction
of the Director that the alternative flow
strategies will give equal or better protection
for the water quality standards. Better
protection for the standards means that
deviations from the standard would be
expected less frequently than provided by
using the 7Q10 flow.
(2) Toxic substance standards to protect aquatic
life from chronic toxicity will be protected
using the 7Q10 flow.
(3) Toxic substance standards to protect aquatic
life from acute toxicity will be protected using
the 1Q10 flow.
(3)(4) Toxic substance standards to protect human
health will be:
(A) The 7Q10 flow for standards to
protect human health through the
consumption of water, fish and
shellfish from noncarcinogens;
(B) The mean annual flow to protect
human health from carcinogens
through the consumption of water,
fish and shellfish unless site specific
fish contamination concerns
necessitate the use of an alternative
design flow;
(5) Aesthetic quality will be protected using the
minimum average flow for a period of 30
consecutive days that has an average
recurrence of once in two years (30Q2 flow).
(b) In cases where the stream flow is regulated, a minimum
daily low flow may be used as a substitute for the 7Q10 flow
except in cases where there are acute toxicity concerns for
aquatic life. In the cases where there are acute toxicity concerns,
an alternative low flow such as the instantaneous minimum
release may be used on a case-by-case basis.
(c) Flow design criteria are used to develop water quality based
effluent limitations and for the design of wastewater treatment
facilities. Deviations from a specific water quality standard
resulting from discharges which are affirmatively demonstrated
to be in compliance with water quality based effluent limitations
for that standard will not be a violation pursuant to G.S.
143-215.6 when the actual flow is significantly less than the
design flow.
(d) In cases where the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream is
estimated to be zero, water quality based effluent limitations will
be assigned as follows:
(1) Where the 30Q2 flow is estimated to be
greater than zero, effluent limitations for new
or expanded (additional) discharges of oxygen
consuming waste will be set at BOD5= 5 mg/l,
NH3-N = 2 mg/l and DO = 6 mg/l, unless it is
determined that these limitations will not
protect water quality standards. Requirements
for existing discharges will be determined on a
case-by-case basis by the Director. More
stringent limits will be applied in cases where
violations of water quality standards are
Attachment A
A61
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3007
predicted to occur for a new or expanded
discharge with the limits set pursuant to this
Rule, or where existing limits are determined
to be inadequate to protect water quality
standards.
(2) If the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows are both estimated
to be zero, no new or expanded (additional)
discharge of oxygen consuming waste will be
allowed. Requirements for existing discharges
to streams where the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows are
both estimated to be zero will be determined
on a case-by-case basis.
(3) Other water quality standards will be protected
by requiring the discharge to meet the
standards unless the alternative limitations are
determined by the Director to protect the
classified water uses.
(e) Receiving water flow statistics will be estimated through
consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey. Estimates for any
given location may be based on actual flow data, modeling
analyses, or other methods determined to be appropriate by the
Commission or its designee.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0211 FRESH SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS C WATERS
General. The water quality standards for all fresh surface waters
are the basic standards applicable to Class C waters. See Rule
.0208 of this Section for standards for toxic substances and
temperature. Water quality standards for temperature and
numerical water quality standards for the protection of human
health applicable to all fresh surface waters are in Rule .0208 of
this Section. Additional and more stringent standards applicable
to other specific freshwater classifications are specified in Rules
.0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0217, .0218, .0219, .0223, .0224 and
.0225 of this Section. Action Levels for purposes of NPDES
permitting are specified in Item (22) of this Rule.
(1) Best Usage of Waters: aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological
integrity (including fishing and fish), wildlife,
secondary recreation, agriculture and any other
usage except for primary recreation or as a
source of water supply for drinking, culinary
or food processing purposes;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters
shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation
and maintenance of biological integrity,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Sources of water pollution which preclude any
of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be
violating a water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to all fresh
surface waters:
(3) Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l;
(4)(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40
ug/l for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters
subject to growths of macroscopic or
microscopic vegetation not designated as trout
waters, and not greater than 15 ug/l for lakes,
reservoirs, and other waters subject to growths
of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation
designated as trout waters (not applicable to
lakes or reservoirs less than 10 acres in surface
area). The Commission or its designee may
prohibit or limit any discharge of waste into
surface waters if, in the opinion of the
Director, the surface waters experience or the
discharge would result in growths of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such
that the standards established pursuant to this
Rule would be violated or the intended best
usage of the waters would be impaired;
(5) Cyanide, total: 5.0 ug/L;
(6)(b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for
trout waters; for non-trout waters, not less than
a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum
instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l;
swamp waters, lake coves or backwaters, and
lake bottom waters may have lower values if
caused by natural conditions;
(7) Fecal coliform: shall not exceed a geometric
mean of 200/100ml (MF count) based upon at
least five consecutive samples examined
during any 30 day period, nor exceed
400/100ml in more than 20 percent of the
samples examined during such period.
Violations of the fecal coliform standard are
expected during rainfall events and, in some
cases, this violation is expected to be caused
by uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution.
All coliform concentrations are to be analyzed
using the membrane filter technique unless
high turbidity or other adverse conditions
necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of
controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube
dilution technique shall be used as the
reference method;
(8)(c) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge
deposits: only such amounts attributable to
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes as
shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable
for aquatic life and wildlife or impair the
waters for any designated uses;
(9) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
(10)(d) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110
percent of saturation;
(e) Organisms of the coliform group:
fecal coliforms shall not exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100ml (MF
count) based upon at least five
consecutive samples examined during
any 30 day period, nor exceed
400/100ml in more than 20 percent of
the samples examined during such
period. Violations of the fecal
coliform standard are expected during
Attachment A
A62
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3008
rainfall events and, in some cases,
this violation is expected to be caused
by uncontrollable nonpoint source
pollution. All coliform
concentrations are to be analyzed
using the membrane filter technique
unless high turbidity or other adverse
conditions necessitate the tube
dilution method; in case of
controversy over results, the MPN
5-tube dilution technique shall be
used as the reference method;
(11) Metals:
(a) With the exception of mercury and
selenium, freshwater aquatic life
standards for metals shall be based
upon measurement of the dissolved
fraction of the metal. Mercury and
Selenium water quality standards
must be based upon measurement of
the total recoverable metal.
Alternative site-specific standards can
be developed where studies are
designed in accordance with the
"Water Quality Standards Handbook:
Second Edition" published by the US
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA 823-B-94-005a) hereby
incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments;
(b) Freshwater metals standards that are
not hardness-dependent are as
follows:
(i) Arsenic, dissolved, acute:
340 ug/l;
(ii) Arsenic, dissolved, chronic:
150 ug/l;
(iii) Beryllium, dissolved, acute:
65 ug/l;
(iv) Beryllium, dissolved,
chronic: 6.5 ug/l;
(v) Chromium VI, dissolved,
acute: 16 ug/l;
(vi) Chromium VI, dissolved,
chronic: 11 ug/l;
(vii) Mercury, total recoverable,
chronic: 0.012 ug/l;
(viii) Selenium, total recoverable,
chronic: 5 ug/l;
(ix) Silver, dissolved, chronic:
0.06 ug/l;
Hardness-dependent freshwater
metals standards are located in Sub-
Item (c) and in Table A: Dissolved
Freshwater Standards for Hardness-
Dependent Metals;
(c) Hardness-dependent freshwater
metals standards are as follows:
(i) Hardness-dependent metals
standards shall be derived
using the equations specified
in Table A: Dissolved
Freshwater Standards for
Hardness-Dependent Metals.
If the actual instream
hardness (expressed as
CaCO3 or Ca+Mg) is less
than 25 milligrams/liter
(mg/l), standards shall be
calculated based upon 25
mg/l hardness. If the actual
instream hardness is greater
than 25 mg/l and less than
400 mg/l, standards will be
calculated based upon the
actual instream hardness. If
the instream hardness is
greater than 400 mg/l, the
maximum applicable
hardness shall be 400 mg/l;
(ii) Hardness-dependent metals
standards in NPDES
permitting: for NPDES
permitting purposes,
application of the equations
in Table A: Dissolved
Freshwater Standards for
Hardness-Dependent Metals
requires hardness values
(expressed as CaCO3 or
Ca+Mg) established using
the median of instream
hardness data collected
within the local US
Geological Survey (USGS)
and Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(NRCS) 8-digit Hydrologic
Unit (HU). The minimum
applicable instream hardness
shall be 25 mg/l and the
maximum applicable
instream hardness shall be
400 mg/l, even when the
actual median instream
hardness is less than 25 mg/l
and greater than 400 mg/l;

Attachment A
A63
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3009
Table A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness-Dependent Metals
Numeric standards listed below are calculated at 25 mg/l hardness for illustrative purposes.

Metal
Equations for Hardness-Dependent Freshwater Metals (ug/l) Standard
at 25
mg/l
hardness
(ug/l)
Cadmium,
Acute
{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.9151 [ln hardness]-3.1485} 0.82
Cadmium,
Acute
Trout
waters
{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236} 0.51
Cadmium,
Chronic
{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} ∙ e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451} 0.15
Chromium
III, Acute
0.316 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256} 180
Chromium
III,
Chronic
0.860 ∙ e^{0.8190[ln hardness]+0.6848} 24
Copper,
Acute
0.960 ∙ e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Or,
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)
3.6

N/A
Copper,
Chronic
0.960 ∙ e^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.702}
Or,
Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision
(EPA-822-R-07-001)
2.7

N/A
Lead,
Acute
{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460} 14
Lead,
Chronic
{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)} ∙ e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705} 0.54
Nickel,
Acute
0.998 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255} 140
Nickel,
Chronic
0.997 ∙ e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.0584} 16
Silver,
Acute
0.85 ∙ e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59} 0.30
Zinc,
Acute
0.978 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} 36
Zinc,
Chronic
0.986 ∙ e^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884} 36

(d) Compliance with acute instream
metals standards shall only be
evaluated using an average of two or
more samples collected within one
hour. Compliance with chronic
instream metals standards shall only
be evaluated using averages of a
minimum of four samples taken on
consecutive days, or as a 96-hour
average;
(e) With the exception of mercury and
selenium, demonstrated attainment of
the applicable aquatic life use in a
waterbody will take precedence over
the application of the aquatic life
criteria established for metals
associated with these uses. An
instream exceedence of the numeric
criterion for metals shall not be
considered to have caused an adverse
impact to the instream aquatic
community if biological monitoring
has demonstrated attainment of
biological integrity.
(f)(12) Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other
wastes: only such amounts as shall not render
the waters injurious to public health,
secondary recreation or to aquatic life and
Attachment A
A64
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3010
wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of
fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for
any designated uses. For the purpose of
implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious
substances, colored or other wastes shall
include but not be limited to substances that
cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of
the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines
pursuant to 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b) which are
hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments and additions.
This material is available for inspection at the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water
Resources, 512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina.Carolina; Copies may
be obtained from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402-9325 at a cost of
forty-five dollars ($45.00);
(13) Pesticides:
(a) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(b) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(c) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(d) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(e) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(f) Endosulfan: 0.05 ug/l;
(g) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(h) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(i) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
(j) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l;
(k) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
(l) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(m) Parathion: 0.013 ug/l;
(n) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l;
(g)(14) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area,
which generally shall range between 6.0 and
9.0 except that swamp waters may have a pH
as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural
conditions;
(h)(15) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall
not result in fish-flesh tainting or impairment
of other best usage;
(16) Polychlorinated biphenyls (total of all PCBs
and congeners identified): 0.001 ug/l;
(i)(17) Radioactive substances:
(i)(a) Combined radium-226 and
radium-228: the maximum average
annual activity level (based on at least
four samples collected quarterly) for
combined radium-226 and
radium-228 shall not exceed five
picoCuries per liter;
(ii)(b) Alpha Emitters: the average annual
gross alpha particle activity
(including radium-226, but excluding
radon and uranium) shall not exceed
15 picoCuries per liter;
(iii)(c) Beta Emitters: the maximum average
annual activity level (based on at least
four samples, collected quarterly) for
strontium-90 shall not exceed eight
picoCuries per liter; nor shall the
average annual gross beta particle
activity (excluding potassium-40 and
other naturally occurring
radio-nuclides) exceed 50 picoCuries
per liter; nor shall the maximum
average annual activity level for
tritium exceed 20,000 picoCuries per
liter;
(j)(18) Temperature: not to exceed 2.8 degrees C
(5.04 degrees F) above the natural water
temperature, and in no case to exceed 29
degrees C (84.2 degrees F) for mountain and
upper piedmont waters and 32 degrees C (89.6
degrees F) for lower piedmont and coastal
plain Waters; the temperature for trout waters
shall not be increased by more than 0.5
degrees C (0.9 degrees F) due to the discharge
of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20
degrees C (68 degrees F);
(19) Toluene: 11 ug/l or 0.36 ug/l in trout classified
waters;
(20) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07 ug/l expressed as
tributyltin;
(k)(21) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water
shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout
waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes or
reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes
and reservoirs not designated as trout waters,
the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if
turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural
background conditions, the existing turbidity
level shall not be increased. Compliance with
this turbidity standard can be met when land
management activities employ Best
Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by
Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by
the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as
defined by Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs
must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design,
installation, operation and maintenance of such
BMPs;
(l) Toxic substances: numerical water
quality standards (maximum
permissible levels) for the protection
of human health applicable to all
fresh surface waters are in Rule .0208
of this Section. Numerical water
quality standards (maximum
permissible levels) to protect aquatic
life applicable to all fresh surface
waters:
(i) Arsenic: 50 ug/l;
Attachment A
A65
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3011
(ii) Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l;
(iii) Cadmium: 0.4 ug/l for trout
waters and 2.0 ug/l for
non-trout waters; attainment
of these water quality
standards in surface waters
shall be based on
measurement of total
recoverable metals
concentrations unless
appropriate studies have
been conducted to translate
total recoverable metals to a
toxic form. Studies used to
determine the toxic form or
translators must be designed
according to the "Water
Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition" published
by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA
823-B-94-005a) or "The
Metals Translator: Guidance
For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit
From a Dissolved Criterion"
published by the
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-
007) which are hereby
incorporated by reference
including any subsequent
amendments. The Director
shall consider conformance
to EPA guidance as well as
the presence of
environmental conditions
that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the
use of metal translators;
(iv) Chlorine, total residual: 17
ug/l;
(v) Chromium, total
recoverable: 50 ug/l;
(vi) Cyanide, 5.0 ug/l, unless
site-specific criteria are
developed based upon the
aquatic life at the site
utilizing The Recalculation
Procedure in Appendix B of
Appendix L in the
Environmental Protection
Agency's Water Quality
Standards Handbook hereby
incorporated by reference
including any subsequent
amendments;
(vii) Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l;
(viii) Lead, total recoverable: 25
ug/l, collection of data on
sources, transport and fate of
lead shall be required as part
of the toxicity reduction
evaluation for dischargers
who are out of compliance
with whole effluent toxicity
testing requirements and the
concentration of lead in the
effluent is concomitantly
determined to exceed an
instream level of 3.1 ug/l
from the discharge;
(ix) Mercury: 0.012 ug/l;
(x) Nickel: 88 ug/l, attainment
of these water quality
standards in surface waters
shall be based on
measurement of total
recoverable metals
concentrations unless
appropriate studies have
been conducted to translate
total recoverable metals to a
toxic form. Studies used to
determine the toxic form or
translators must be designed
according to the "Water
Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition" published
by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA
823-B-94-005a) or "The
Metals Translator: Guidance
For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit
From a Dissolved Criterion"
published by the
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-
007) which are hereby
incorporated by reference
including any subsequent
amendments. The Director
shall consider conformance
to EPA guidance as well as
the presence of
environmental conditions
that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the
use of metal translators;
(xi) Pesticides:
(A) Aldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(B) Chlordane: 0.004
ug/l;
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
Attachment A
A66
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3012
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002
ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.05
ug/l;
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004
ug/l;
(J) Lindane: 0.01 ug/l;
(K) Methoxychlor:
0.03 ug/l;
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(M) Parathion: 0.013
ug/l;
(N) Toxaphene: 0.0002
ug/l;
(xii) Polychlorinated biphenyls:
(total of all PCBs and
congeners identified) 0.001
ug/l;
(xiii) Selenium: 5 ug/l;
(xiv) Toluene: 11 ug/l or 0.36
ug/l in trout waters;
(xv) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.07
ug/l expressed as tributyltin;
(4)(22) Action Levels for Toxic Substances:
Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits:
(a) Copper: 7 ug/l;Copper, dissolved,
chronic: 2.7 ug/l;
(b) Iron: 1.0 mg/l;
(c)(b) Silver:Silver, dissolved, chronic:
0.06 ug/l;
(d)(c) Zinc:Zinc, dissolved, chronic: 50
ug/l;36 ug/l;
(e)(d) Chloride: 230 mg/l;
The hardness-dependent freshwater action
levels for Copper and Zinc, provided here for
illustrative purposes, corresponds to a hardness
of 25 mg/l. Copper and Zinc action level
values for other instream hardness values shall
be calculated per the chronic equations
specified in Item (11) of this Rule and in Table
A: Dissolved Freshwater Standards for
Hardness-Dependent Metals. If the Action
Levels for any of the substances listed in this
Subparagraph Item (which are generally not
bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to
aquatic life because of chemical form,
solubility, stream characteristics or associated
waste characteristics) are determined by the
waste load allocation to be exceeded in a
receiving water by a discharge under the
specified low flow 7Q10 criterion for toxic
substances (Rule .0206 in this Section),
substances, the discharger shall monitor the
chemical or biological effects of the discharge;
efforts shall be made by all dischargers to
reduce or eliminate these substances from their
effluents. Those substances for which Action
Levels are listed in this SubparagraphItem
shall be limited as appropriate in the NPDES
permit based on the Action Levels listed in this
Subparagraph if sufficient information (to be
determined for metals by measurements of that
portion of the dissolved instream concentration
of the Action Level parameter attributable to a
specific NPDES permitted discharge) exists to
indicate that any of those substances may be a
causative factor resulting in toxicity of the
effluent. NPDES permit limits may be based
on translation of the toxic form to total
recoverable metals. Studies used to determine
the toxic form or translators must be designed
according to "Water Quality Standards
Handbook Second Edition" published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-
B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator:
Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion"
published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are
hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments. The Director
shall consider conformance to EPA guidance
as well as the presence of environmental
conditions that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the use of metal
translators.
For purposes other than consideration of NPDES
permitting of point source discharges as described in
this Subparagraph, the Action Levels in this Rule, as
measured by an appropriate analytical technique, per
15A NCAC 02B .0103(a), shall be considered as
numerical instream water quality standards.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0212 FRESH SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-I WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters
within water supply watersheds that are classified WS-I. Water
quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in
Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-I waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-I waters are as follows:
a source of water supply for drinking, culinary,
or food-processing purposes for those users
desiring maximum protection of their water
supplies; waters located on land in public
ownership; and any best usage specified for
Class C waters;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as
follows: waters of this class are protected
water supplies within essentially natural and
undeveloped watersheds in public ownership
with no permitted point source dischargers
except those specified in Rule .0104 of this
Subchapter; waters within this class must be
relatively unimpacted by nonpoint sources of
Attachment A
A67
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3013
pollution; land use management programs are
required to protect waters from nonpoint
source pollution; the waters, following
treatment required by the Division of
Environmental Health, Division, shall meet the
Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations
considered safe for drinking, culinary, and
food-processing purposes which are specified
in the national drinking water regulations and
in the North Carolina Rules Governing Public
Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500.
Sources of water pollution which preclude any
of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be
violating a water quality standard. The Class
WS-I classification may be used to protect
portions of Class WS-II, WS-III and WS-IV
water supplies. For reclassifications occurring
after the July 1, 1992 statewide
reclassification, the more protective
classification requested by local governments
shall be considered by the Commission when
all local governments having jurisdiction in the
affected area(s) have adopted a resolution and
the appropriate ordinances to protect the
watershed or the Commission acts to protect a
watershed when one or more local
governments has failed to adopt necessary
protection measures;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-I
Waters are as follows:
(a) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active
Substances): not greater than 0.5
mg/l to protect the aesthetic qualities
of water supplies and to prevent
foaming;
(b) Nonpoint Source Pollution: none
shall be allowed that would adversely
impact the waters for use as a water
supply or any other designated use;
(c) Organisms of coliform group: total
coliforms not to exceed 50/100 ml
(MF count) as a monthly geometric
mean value in watersheds serving as
unfiltered water supplies;
(d) Chlorinated phenolic compounds:
not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect
water supplies from taste and odor
problems from chlorinated phenols;
(e) Sewage, industrial wastes: none shall
be allowed except those specified in
Subparagraph Item (2) of this
Paragraph Rule or Rule .0104 of this
Subchapter;
(f) Solids, total dissolved: not greater
than 500 mg/l;
(g) Total hardness: not greater than 100
mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate
(CaCO3 or Ca + Mg);
(h) Toxic and other deleterious
substances:
(i) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for
non-carcinogens in Class
WS-I waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B) Chloride: 250
mg/l;
(C) Manganese: 200
ug/l;
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen:
10.0 mg/l;
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70
ug/l;
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex):
10 ug/l;
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l;
(ii) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for carcinogens
in Class WS-I waters:
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/1;
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l;
(C) Benzene: 1.19
ug/1;
(D) Carbon
tetrachloride: 0.254
ug/l;
(E) Chlordane: 0.8
ng/1;
(F) Chlorinated
benzenes: 488 ug/l;
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/1;
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05
ng/1;
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005
ng/l;
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08
ng/1;
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene:
0.44 ug/l;
(L) Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons (total
of all PAHs): 2.8
ng/l;
(M) Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l;
(N) Tetrachloroethylene:
0.7 ug/l;
Attachment A
A68
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3014
(O) Trichloroethylene:
2.5 ug/l;
(P) Vinyl Chloride:
0.025 ug/l.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0214 FRESH SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-II WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters
within water supply watersheds that are classified WS-II. Water
quality standards applicable to Class C waters as described in
Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-II waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-II waters are as follows:
a source of water supply for drinking, culinary,
or food-processing purposes for those users
desiring maximum protection for their water
supplies where a WS-I classification is not
feasible and any best usage specified for Class
C waters;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as
follows: waters of this class are protected as
water supplies which are in predominantly
undeveloped watersheds and meet average
watershed development density levels as
specified in Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A),
(3)(b)(i)(B), (3)(b)(ii)(A) and (3)(b)(ii)(B) of
this Rule; discharges which qualify for a
General Permit pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H
.0127, trout farm discharges, recycle (closed
loop) systems that only discharge in response
to 10-year storm events and other stormwater
discharges are allowed in the entire watershed;
new domestic and industrial discharges of
treated wastewater are not allowed in the
entire watershed; the waters, following
treatment required by the Division of
Environmental Health, Division, shall meet the
Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations
considered safe for drinking, culinary, and
food-processing purposes which are specified
in the national drinking water regulations and
in the North Carolina Rules Governing Public
Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500.
Sources of water pollution which preclude any
of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be
violating a water quality standard. The Class
WS-II classification may be used to protect
portions of Class WS-III and WS-IV water
supplies. For reclassifications of these
portions of Class WS-III and WS-IV water
supplies occurring after the July 1, 1992
statewide reclassification, the more protective
classification requested by local governments
shall be considered by the Commission when
all local governments having jurisdiction in the
affected area(s) have adopted a resolution and
the appropriate ordinances to protect the
watershed or the Commission acts to protect a
watershed when one or more local
governments has failed to adopt necessary
protection measures;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-II
Waters are as follows:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes,
non-process industrial wastes, or
other wastes: none shall be allowed
except for those specified in either
Item (2) of this Rule and Rule .0104
of this Subchapter; none shall be
allowed that have an adverse effect
on human health or that are not
effectively treated to the satisfaction
of the Commission and in accordance
with the requirements of the Division
of Environmental Health, North
Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Division.
Any discharger may be required upon
request by the Commission to
disclose all chemical constituents
present or potentially present in their
wastes and chemicals which could be
spilled or be present in runoff from
their facility which may have an
adverse impact on downstream water
quality. These facilities may be
required to have spill and treatment
failure control plans as well as
perform special monitoring for toxic
substances;
(b) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater
Pollution: none that would adversely
impact the waters for use as a water
supply or any other designated use;
(i) Nonpoint Source and
Stormwater Pollution
Control Criteria for Entire
Watershed:
(A) Low Density
Option:
development
density must be
limited to either no
more than one
dwelling unit per
acre of single
family detached
residential
development (or
40,000 square foot
lot excluding
roadway
right-of-way) or 12
percent built-upon
area for all other
residential and
Attachment A
A69
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3015
non-residential
development in the
watershed outside
of the critical area;
stormwater runoff
from the
development shall
be transported by
vegetated
conveyances to the
maximum extent
practicable;
(B) High Density Option:
if new development
exceeds the low
density option
requirements as stated
in Sub-Item
(3)(b)(i)(A) of this
Rule, then engineered
stormwater controls
must be used to control
runoff from the first
inch of rainfall; new
residential and
non-residential
development shall not
exceed 30 percent
built-upon area;
(C) Land within the
watershed shall be
deemed compliant with
the density
requirements if the
following condition is
met: the density of all
existing development
at the time of
reclassification does
not exceed the density
requirement when
densities are averaged
throughout the entire
watershed area at the
time of classification;
(D) Cluster development is
allowed on a
project-by-project
basis as follows:
(I) overall density of the
project meets
associated density or
stormwater control
requirements of this
Rule;
(II) buffers meet the
minimum statewide
water supply
watershed protection
requirements;
(III) built-upon areas are
designed and located
to minimize
stormwater runoff
impact to the
receiving waters,
minimize
concentrated
stormwater flow,
maximize the use of
sheet flow through
vegetated areas, and
maximize the flow
length through
vegetated areas;
(IV) areas of
concentrated
development are
located in upland
areas and away,
to the maximum
extent
practicable, from
surface waters
and
drainageways;
(V) remainder of tract
to remain in
vegetated or
natural state;
(VI) area in the
vegetated or
natural state may
be conveyed to a
property owners
association, a
local government
for preservation
as a park or
greenway, a
conservation
organization, or
placed in a
permanent
conservation or
farmland
preservation
easement;
(VII) a maintenance
agreement for the
vegetated or
natural area shall
be filed with the
Register of
Deeds; and
(VIII) cluster
development that
Attachment A
A70
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3016
meets the
applicable low
density option
requirements
shall transport
stormwater
runoff from the
development by
vegetated
conveyances to
the maximum
extent
practicable;
(E) A maximum of 10
percent of each
jurisdiction's portion of
the watershed outside of
the critical area as
delineated on July 1,
1993 may be developed
with new development
projects and expansions
of existing development
of up to 70 percent
built-upon surface area
in addition to the new
development approved
in compliance with the
appropriate
requirements of
Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or
Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(B) of
this Rule. For
expansions to existing
development, the
existing built-upon
surface area is not
counted toward the
allowed 70 percent
built-upon surface area.
A local government
having jurisdiction
within the watershed
may transfer, in whole
or in part, its right to the
10 percent/70 percent
land area to another
local government within
the watershed upon
submittal of a joint
resolution and review
by the Commission.
When the water supply
watershed is composed
of public lands, such as
National Forest land,
local governments may
count the public land
acreage within the
watershed outside of the
critical area in
calculating the acreage
allowed under this
provision. For local
governments that do not
choose to use the high
density option in that
WS-II watershed, each
project must, to the
maximum extent
practicable, minimize
built-upon surface area,
direct stormwater runoff
away from surface
waters and incorporate
best management
practices to minimize
water quality impacts.
If the local government
selects the high density
development option
within that WS-II
watershed, then
engineered stormwater
controls must be
employed for the new
development;
(F) If local governments
choose the high density
development option
which requires
stormwater controls,
then they shall assume
ultimate responsibility
for operation and
maintenance of the
required controls as
outlined in Rule .0104
of this Subchapter;
(G) Minimum 100 foot
vegetative buffer is
required for all new
development activities
that exceed the low
density option
requirements as
specified in Sub-Items
(3)(b)(i)(A) and
Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A)
of this Rule, otherwise a
minimum 30 foot
vegetative buffer for
development activities
is required along all
perennial waters
indicated on the most
recent versions of
U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5
Attachment A
A71
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3017
minute) scale
topographic maps or as
determined by local
government studies.
Nothing in this Rule
shall stand as a bar to
artificial streambank or
shoreline stabilization;
(H) No new development is
allowed in the buffer;
water dependent
structures, or other
structures such as flag
poles, signs and security
lights, which result in
only de minimus
increases in impervious
area and public projects
such as road crossings
and greenways may be
allowed where no
practicable alternative
exists. These activities
shall minimize
built-upon surface area,
direct runoff away from
the surface waters and
maximize the utilization
of BMPs;
(I) No NPDES permits
shall be issued for
landfills that discharge
treated leachate;
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint Source
and Stormwater Pollution
Control Criteria:
(A) Low Density Option:
new development is
limited to either no
more than one dwelling
unit of single family
detached residential
development per two
acres (or 80,000 square
foot lot excluding
roadway right-of-way)
or six percent built-upon
area for all other
residential and
non-residential
development;
stormwater runoff from
the development shall
be transported by
vegetated conveyances
to the maximum extent
practicable;
(B) High Density Option: if
new development
density exceeds the low
density requirements
specified in Sub-Item
(3)(b)(ii)(A) of this
Rule, then engineered
stormwater controls
must be used to control
runoff from the first
inch of rainfall; new
residential and
non-residential
development density not
to exceed 24 percent
built-upon area;
(C) No new permitted sites
for land application of
residuals or petroleum
contaminated soils are
allowed;
(D) No new landfills are
allowed;
(c) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active
Substances): not greater than 0.5
mg/l to protect the aesthetic qualities
of water supplies and to prevent
foaming;
(d) Odor producing substances contained
in sewage or other wastes: only such
amounts, whether alone or in
combination with other substances or
wastes, as shall not cause taste and
odor difficulties in water supplies
which cannot be corrected by
treatment, impair the palatability of
fish, or have a deleterious effect upon
any best usage established for waters
of this class;
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds:
not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect
water supplies from taste and odor
problems from chlorinated phenols;
(f) Total hardness: not greater than 100
mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate
(CaCO3 or Ca + Mg);
(g) Total dissolved solids: not greater
than 500 mg/l;
(h) Toxic and other deleterious
substances:
(i) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for
non-carcinogens in Class
WS-II waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B) Chloride: 250
mg/l;
Attachment A
A72
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3018
(C) Manganese: 200
ug/l;
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen:
10 mg/l;
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70
ug/l;
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex):
10 ug/l;
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l;
(ii) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for carcinogens
in Class WS-II waters:
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l;
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l;
(D) Carbon
tetrachloride: 0.254
ug/l;
(E) Chlordane: 0.8
ng/l;
(F) Chlorinated
benzenes: 488 ug/l;
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l;
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005
ng/l;
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08
ng/l;
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene:
0.44 ug/l;
(L) Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons (total
of all PAHs): 2.8
ng/l;
(M) Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l;
(N) Tetrachloroethylene:
0.7 ug/l;
(O) Trichloroethylene:
2.5 ug/l;
(P) Vinyl Chloride:
0.025 ug/l.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0215 FRESH SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-III WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface water
supply waters that are classified WS-III. Water quality
standards applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule
.0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-III waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-III waters are as
follows: a source of water supply for drinking,
culinary, or food-processing purposes for those
users where a more protective WS-I or WS-II
classification is not feasible and any other best
usage specified for Class C waters;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as
follows: waters of this class are protected as
water supplies which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds and meet
average watershed development density levels
as specified in Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A),
(3)(b)(i)(B), (3)(b)(ii)(A) and (3)(b)(ii)(B) of
this Rule; discharges that qualify for a General
Permit pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0127,
trout farm discharges, recycle (closed loop)
systems that only discharge in response to
10-year storm events, and other stormwater
discharges are allowed in the entire watershed;
treated domestic wastewater discharges are
allowed in the entire watershed but no new
domestic wastewater discharges are allowed in
the critical area; no new industrial wastewater
discharges except non-process industrial
discharges are allowed in the entire watershed;
the waters, following treatment required by the
Division of Environmental Health, Division,
shall meet the Maximum Contaminant Level
concentrations considered safe for drinking,
culinary, or food-processing purposes which
are specified in the national drinking water
regulations and in the North Carolina Rules
Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC
18C .1500. Sources of water pollution which
preclude any of these uses on either a
short-term or long-term basis shall be
considered to be violating a water quality
standard. The Class WS-III classification may
be used to protect portions of Class WS-IV
water supplies. For reclassifications of these
portions of WS-IV water supplies occurring
after the July 1, 1992 statewide
reclassification, the more protective
classification requested by local governments
shall be considered by the Commission when
all local governments having jurisdiction in the
affected area(s) have adopted a resolution and
the appropriate ordinances to protect the
watershed or the Commission acts to protect a
watershed when one or more local
governments has failed to adopt necessary
protection measures;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-III
Waters are as follows:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes,
non-process industrial wastes, or
other wastes: none shall be allowed
except for those specified in Item (2)
of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this
Subchapter; none shall be allowed
that have an adverse effect on human
Attachment A
A73
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3019
health or that are not effectively
treated to the satisfaction of the
Commission and in accordance with
the requirements of the Division of
Environmental Health, North
Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Division.
Any discharger may be required by
the Commission to disclose all
chemical constituents present or
potentially present in their wastes and
chemicals which could be spilled or
be present in runoff from their facility
which may have an adverse impact on
downstream water quality. These
facilities may be required to have
spill and treatment failure control
plans as well as perform special
monitoring for toxic substances;
(b) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater
Pollution: none that would adversely
impact the waters for use as water
supply or any other designated use;
(i) Nonpoint Source and
Stormwater Pollution
Control Criteria For Entire
Watershed:
(A) Low Density Option:
development density
must be limited to
either no more than
two dwelling units of
single family detached
residential
development per acre
(or 20,000 square foot
lot excluding roadway
right-of-way) or 24
percent built-upon area
for all other residential
and non-residential
development in
watershed outside of
the critical area;
stormwater runoff from
the development shall
be transported by
vegetated conveyances
to the maximum extent
practicable;
(B) High Density Option:
if new development
density exceeds the
low density option
requirements specified
in Sub-Item
(3)(b)(i)(A) of this
Rule then development
must control runoff
from the first inch of
rainfall; new
residential and
non-residential
development shall not
exceed 50 percent
built-upon area;
(C) Land within the
watershed shall be
deemed compliant with
the density
requirements if the
following condition is
met: the density of all
existing development
at the time of
reclassification does
not exceed the density
requirement when
densities are averaged
throughout the entire
watershed area;
(D) Cluster development is
allowed on a
project-by-project
basis as follows:
(I) overall density
of the project
meets
associated
density or
stormwater
control
requirements
of this Rule;
(II) buffers meet
the minimum
statewide water
supply
watershed
protection
requirements;
(III) built-upon
areas are
designed and
located to
minimize
stormwater
runoff impact
to the receiving
waters,
minimize
concentrated
stormwater
flow, maximize
the use of sheet
flow through
vegetated
areas, and
Attachment A
A74
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3020
maximize the
flow length
through
vegetated
areas;
(IV) areas of
concentrated
development
are located in
upland areas
and away, to
the maximum
extent
practicable,
from surface
waters and
drainageways;
(V) remainder of tract
to remain in
vegetated or
natural state;
(VI) area in the
vegetated or
natural state may
be conveyed to a
property owners
association, a
local government
for preservation
as a park or
greenway, a
conservation
organization or
placed in a
permanent
conservation or
farmland
preservation
easement;
(VII) a maintenance
agreement for the
vegetated or
natural area shall
be filed with the
Register of
Deeds; and
(VIII) cluster
development that
meets the
applicable low
density option
requirements
shall transport
stormwater
runoff from the
development by
vegetated
conveyances to
the maximum
extent
practicable;
(E) A maximum of 10
percent of each
jurisdiction's portion of
the watershed outside of
the critical area as
delineated on July 1,
1993 may be developed
with new development
projects and expansions
of existing development
of up to 70 percent
built-upon surface area
in addition to the new
development approved
in compliance with the
appropriate
requirements of
Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or
Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(B) of
this Rule. For
expansions to existing
development, the
existing built-upon
surface area is not
counted toward the
allowed 70 percent
built-upon surface area.
A local government
having jurisdiction
within the watershed
may transfer, in whole
or in part, its right to the
10 percent/70 percent
land area to another
local government within
the watershed upon
submittal of a joint
resolution and review
by the Commission.
When the water supply
watershed is composed
of public lands, such as
National Forest land,
local governments may
count the public land
acreage within the
watershed outside of the
critical area in figuring
the acreage allowed
under this provision.
For local governments
that do not choose to
use the high density
option in that WS-III
watershed, each project
must, to the maximum
extent practicable,
Attachment A
A75
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3021
minimize built-upon
surface area, direct
stormwater runoff away
from surface waters, and
incorporate best
management practices
to minimize water
quality impacts. If the
local government selects
the high density
development option
within that WS-III
watershed, then
engineered stormwater
controls must be
employed for the new
development;
(F) If local governments
choose the high density
development option
which requires
engineered stormwater
controls, then they
shall assume ultimate
responsibility for
operation and
maintenance of the
required controls as
outlined in Rule .0104
of this Subchapter;
(G) Minimum 100 foot
vegetative buffer is
required for all new
development activities
that exceed the low
density requirements as
specified in Sub-Item
(3)(b)(i)(A) and Sub-
Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of
this Rule, otherwise a
minimum 30 foot
vegetative buffer for
development is
required along all
perennial waters
indicated on the most
recent versions of
U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5
minute) scale
topographic maps or as
determined by local
government studies.
Nothing in this Rule
shall stand as a bar to
artificial streambank or
shoreline stabilization;
(H) No new development
is allowed in the
buffer; water
dependent structures,
or other structures such
as flag poles, signs and
security lights, which
result in only de
minimus increases in
impervious area and
public projects such as
road crossings and
greenways may be
allowed where no
practicable alternative
exists. These activities
shall minimize
built-upon surface
area, direct runoff
away from surface
waters and maximize
the utilization of
BMPs;
(I) No NPDES permits
shall be issued for
landfills that discharge
treated leachate;
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint
Source and Stormwater
Pollution Control Criteria:
(A) Low Density Option:
new development
limited to either no
more than one
dwelling unit of
single family
detached residential
development per acre
(or 40,000 square foot
lot excluding roadway
right-of-way) or 12
percent built-upon
area for all other
residential and
non-residential
development;
stormwater runoff
from the development
shall be transported
by vegetated
conveyances to the
maximum extent
practicable;
(B) High Density Option:
if new development
exceeds the low
density requirements
specified in Sub-Item
(3)(b)(ii)(A) of this
Rule, then engineered
stormwater controls
must be used to
Attachment A
A76
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3022
control runoff from
the first inch of
rainfall; development
shall not exceed 30
percent built-upon
area;
(C) No new permitted
sites for land
application of
residuals or petroleum
contaminated soils are
allowed;
(D) No new landfills are
allowed;
(c) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active
Substances): not greater than 0.5
mg/l to protect the aesthetic qualities
of water supplies and to prevent
foaming;
(d) Odor producing substances contained
in sewage, industrial wastes, or other
wastes: only such amounts, whether
alone or in combination with other
substances or wastes, as shall not
cause taste and odor difficulties in
water supplies which cannot be
corrected by treatment, impair the
palatability of fish, or have a
deleterious effect upon any best usage
established for waters of this class;
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds:
not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect
water supplies from taste and odor
problems from chlorinated phenols;
(f) Total hardness: not greater than 100
mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate
(CaCO3 or Ca + Mg);
(g) Total dissolved solids: not greater
than 500 mg/l;
(h) Toxic and other deleterious
substances:
(i) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for
non-carcinogens in Class
WS-III waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B) Chloride: 250
mg/l;
(C) Manganese: 200
ug/l;
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen:
10 mg/l;
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70
ug/l;
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex):
10 ug/l;
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l;
(ii) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for carcinogens
in Class WS-III waters:
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l;
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l;
(D) Carbon
tetrachloride: 0.254
ug/l;
(E) Chlordane: 0.8
ng/l;
(F) Chlorinated
benzenes: 488 ug/l;
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l;
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005
ng/l;
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08
ng/l;
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene:
0.44 ug/l;
(L) Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons (total
of all PAHs): 2.8
ng/l;
(M) Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l;
(N) Tetrachloroethylene:
0.7 ug/l;
(O) Trichloroethylene:
2.5 ug/l;
(P) Vinyl Chloride:
0.025 ug/l.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0216 FRESH SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WS-IV WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface water
supply waters that are classified WS-IV. Water quality standards
applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this
Section also apply to Class WS-IV waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-IV waters are as
follows: a source of water supply for drinking,
culinary, or food-processing purposes for those
users where a more protective WS-I, WS-II or
WS-III classification is not feasible and any
other best usage specified for Class C waters;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as
follows: waters of this class are protected as
water supplies which are generally in
Attachment A
A77
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3023
moderately to highly developed watersheds or
protected areas and meet average watershed
development density levels as specified in
Sub-Items (3)(b)(i)(A), (3)(b)(i)(B),
(3)(b)(ii)(A) and (3)(b)(ii)(B) of this Rule;
discharges which qualify for a General Permit
pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0127, trout farm
discharges, recycle (closed loop) systems that
only discharge in response to 10-year storm
events, other stormwater discharges and
domestic wastewater discharges shall be
allowed in the protected and critical areas;
treated industrial wastewater discharges are
allowed in the protected and critical areas;
however, new industrial wastewater discharges
in the critical area shall be required to meet the
provisions of 15A NCAC 02B .0224(1)(b)(iv),
(v) and (vii), and 15A NCAC 02B .0203; new
industrial connections and expansions to
existing municipal discharges with a
pretreatment program pursuant to 15A NCAC
02H .0904 are allowed; the waters, following
treatment required by the Division of
Environmental Health, Division, shall meet the
Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations
considered safe for drinking, culinary, or
food-processing purposes which are specified
in the national drinking water regulations and
in the North Carolina Rules Governing Public
Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500.
Sources of water pollution which preclude any
of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be
violating a water quality standard. The Class
WS-II or WS-III classifications may be used to
protect portions of Class WS-IV water
supplies. For reclassifications of these
portions of WS-IV water supplies occurring
after the July 1, 1992 statewide
reclassification, the more protective
classification requested by local governments
shall be considered by the Commission when
all local governments having jurisdiction in the
affected area(s) have adopted a resolution and
the appropriate ordinances to protect the
watershed or the Commission acts to protect a
watershed when one or more local
governments has failed to adopt necessary
protection measures;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-IV
Waters are as follows:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes,
non-process industrial wastes, or
other wastes: none shall be allowed
except for those specified in Item (2)
of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this
Subchapter and none shall be allowed
that shall have an adverse effect on
human health or that are not
effectively treated to the satisfaction
of the Commission and in accordance
with the requirements of the Division
of Environmental Health, North
Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Division.
Any discharges or industrial users
subject to pretreatment standards may
be required by the Commission to
disclose all chemical constituents
present or potentially present in their
wastes and chemicals which could be
spilled or be present in runoff from
their facility which may have an
adverse impact on downstream water
supplies. These facilities may be
required to have spill and treatment
failure control plans as well as
perform special monitoring for toxic
substances;
(b) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater
Pollution: none shall be allowed that
would adversely impact the waters
for use as water supply or any other
designated use.
(i) Nonpoint Source and
Stormwater Pollution
Control Criteria For Entire
Watershed or Protected
Area:
(A) Low Density Option:
development activities
which require a
Sedimentation/Erosion
Control Plan in
accordance with 15A
NCAC 04 established
by the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control
Commission or
approved local
government programs as
delegated by the
Sedimentation Control
Commission shall be
limited to no more than
either: two dwelling
units of single family
detached development
per acre (or 20,000
square foot lot
excluding roadway
right-of-way) or 24
percent built-upon on
area for all other
residential and non-
residential development;
or three dwelling units
per acre or 36 percent
Attachment A
A78
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3024
built-upon area for
projects without curb
and gutter street systems
in the protected area
outside of the critical
area; stormwater runoff
from the development
shall be transported by
vegetated conveyances
to the maximum extent
practicable;
(B) High Density Option: if
new development
activities which require
a Sedimentation/Erosion
Control Plan exceed the
low density
requirements of Sub-
Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this
Rule then development
shall control the runoff
from the first inch of
rainfall; new residential
and non-residential
development shall not
exceed 70 percent
built-upon area;
(C) Land within the critical
and protected area shall
be deemed compliant
with the density
requirements if the
following condition is
met: the density of all
existing development at
the time of
reclassification does not
exceed the density
requirement when
densities are averaged
throughout the entire
area;
(D) Cluster development
shall be allowed on a
project-by-project basis
as follows:
(I) overall density of
the project meets
associated density
or stormwater
control
requirements of this
Rule;
(II) buffers meet the
minimum statewide
water supply
watershed
protection
requirements;
(III) built-upon areas are
designed and
located to minimize
stormwater runoff
impact to the
receiving waters,
minimize
concentrated
stormwater flow,
maximize the use of
sheet flow through
vegetated areas, and
maximize the flow
length through
vegetated areas;
(IV) areas of
concentrated
development are
located in upland
areas and away, to
the maximum
extent practicable,
from surface
waters and
drainageways;
(V) remainder of tract
to remain in
vegetated or
natural state;
(VI) area in the
vegetated or
natural state may
be conveyed to a
property owners
association, a local
government for
preservation as a
park or greenway,
a conservation
organization, or
placed in a
permanent
conservation or
farmland
preservation
easement;
(VII) a maintenance
agreement for the
vegetated or
natural area shall
be filed with the
Register of Deeds;
and
(VIII) cluster
development that
meets the
applicable low
density option
requirements shall
Attachment A
A79
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3025
transport
stormwater runoff
from the
development by
vegetated
conveyances to the
maximum extent
practicable;
(E) If local governments
choose the high density
development option
which requires
engineered stormwater
controls, then they shall
assume ultimate
responsibility for
operation and
maintenance of the
required controls as
outlined in Rule .0104
of this Subchapter;
(F) Minimum 100 foot
vegetative buffer is
required for all new
development activities
that exceed the low
density option
requirements as
specified in Sub-Item
(3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub-Item
(3)(b)(ii)(A) of this
Rule, otherwise a
minimum 30 foot
vegetative buffer for
development shall be
required along all
perennial waters
indicated on the most
recent versions of
U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5
minute) scale
topographic maps or as
determined by local
government studies;
(G) No new development
shall be allowed in the
buffer; water dependent
structures, or other
structures, such as flag
poles, signs and security
lights, which result in
only de minimus
increases in impervious
area and public projects
such as road crossings
and greenways may be
allowed where no
practicable alternative
exists. These activities
shall minimize
built-upon surface area,
divert runoff away from
surface waters and
maximize the utilization
of BMPs;
(H) For local governments
that do not use the high
density option, a
maximum of 10 percent
of each jurisdiction's
portion of the watershed
outside of the critical
area as delineated on
July 1, 1995 may be
developed with new
development projects
and expansions to
existing development of
up to 70 percent
built-upon surface area
in addition to the new
development approved
in compliance with the
appropriate
requirements of Sub-
Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this
Rule. For expansions to
existing development,
the existing built-upon
surface area shall not be
counted toward the
allowed 70 percent
built-upon surface area.
A local government
having jurisdiction
within the watershed
may transfer, in whole
or in part, its right to the
10 percent/70 percent
land area to another
local government within
the watershed upon
submittal of a joint
resolution for review by
the Commission. When
the designated water
supply watershed area is
composed of public
land, such as National
Forest land, local
governments may count
the public land acreage
within the designated
watershed area outside
of the critical area in
figuring the acreage
allowed under this
provision. Each project
Attachment A
A80
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3026
shall, to the maximum
extent practicable,
minimize built-upon
surface area, direct
stormwater runoff away
from surface waters and
incorporate best
management practices
to minimize water
quality impacts;
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint Source and
Stormwater Pollution Control
Criteria:
(A) Low Density Option: new
development activities
which require a Sedimenta-
tion/Erosion Control Plan in
accordance with 15A NCAC
04 established by the North
Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission or
approved local government
programs as delegated by the
Sedimentation Control
Commission shall be limited
to no more than two
dwelling units of single
family detached
development per acre (or
20,000 square foot lot
excluding roadway right-of-
way) or 24 percent
built-upon area for all other
residential and non-
residential development;
stormwater runoff from the
development shall be
transported by vegetated
conveyances to the
maximum extent practicable;
(B) High Density Option: if new
development density
exceeds the low density
requirements specified in
Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this
Rule, engineered stormwater
controls shall be used to
control runoff from the first
inch of rainfall; new
residential and non-
residential development
shall not exceed 50 percent
built-upon area;
(C) No new permitted sites for
land application of residuals
or petroleum contaminated
soils shall be allowed;
(D) No new landfills shall be
allowed;
(c) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active
Substances): not greater than 0.5
mg/l to protect the aesthetic qualities
of water supplies and to prevent
foaming;
(d) Odor producing substances contained
in sewage, industrial wastes, or other
wastes: only such amounts, whether
alone or in combination with other
substances or waste, as will not cause
taste and odor difficulties in water
supplies which can not be corrected
by treatment, impair the palatability
of fish, or have a deleterious effect
upon any best usage established for
waters of this class;
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds:
not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect
water supplies from taste and odor
problems due to chlorinated phenols
shall be allowed. Specific phenolic
compounds may be given a different
limit if it is demonstrated not to cause
taste and odor problems and not to be
detrimental to other best usage;
(f) Total hardness shall not exceed 100
mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate
(CaCO3 or Ca + Mg);
(g) Total dissolved solids shall not
exceed 500 mg/l;
(h) Toxic and other deleterious
substances:
(i) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for
non-carcinogens in Class
WS-IV waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B) Chloride: 250
mg/l;
(C) Manganese: 200
ug/l;
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen:
10.0 mg/l;
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l; 70
ug/l;
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex):
10 ug/l;
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l;
(ii) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
Attachment A
A81
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3027
consumption for carcinogens
in Class WS-IV waters:
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l;
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l;
(D) Carbon
tetrachloride: 0.254
ug/l;
(E) Chlordane: 0.8
ng/l;
(F) Chlorinated
benzenes: 488 ug/l;
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l;
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005
ng/l;
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08
ng/l;
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene:
0.44 ug/l;
(L) Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons (total
of all PAHs): 2.8
ng/l;
(M) Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l;
(N) Tetrachloroethylene:
0.7 ug/l;
(O) Trichloroethylene:
2.5 ug/l;
(P) Vinyl Chloride:
0.025 ug/l.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0218 FRESH SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS WS-V WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface water
supply waters that are classified WS-V. Water quality standards
applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this
Section also apply to Class WS-V waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-V waters are as follows:
waters that are protected as water supplies
which are generally upstream and draining to
Class WS-IV waters; or waters previously
used for drinking water supply purposes; or
waters used by industry to supply their
employees, but not municipalities or counties,
with a raw drinking water supply source,
although this type of use is not restricted to
WS-V classification; and all Class C uses.
The Commission may consider a more
protective classification for the water supply if
a resolution requesting a more protective
classification is submitted from all local
governments having land use jurisdiction
within the affected watershed;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as
follows: waters of this class are protected
water supplies; the waters, following treatment
required by the Division of Environmental
Health, Division, shall meet the Maximum
Contaminant Level concentrations considered
safe for drinking, culinary, or food-processing
purposes which are specified in the national
drinking water regulations and in the North
Carolina Rules Governing Public Water
Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500; no
categorical restrictions on watershed
development or wastewater discharges are
required, however, the Commission or its
designee may apply management requirements
for the protection of waters downstream of
receiving waters (15A NCAC 02B .0203).
Sources of water pollution which preclude any
of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be
violating a water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-V
Waters are as follows:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes,
non-process industrial wastes, or
other wastes: none shall be allowed
that have an adverse effect on human
health or that are not effectively
treated to the satisfaction of the
Commission and in accordance with
the requirements of the Division of
Environmental Health, North
Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Division.
Any discharges or industrial users
subject to pretreatment standards may
be required by the Commission to
disclose all chemical constituents
present or potentially present in their
wastes and chemicals which could be
spilled or be present in runoff from
their facility which may have an
adverse impact on downstream water
supplies. These facilities may be
required to have spill and treatment
failure control plans as well as
perform special monitoring for toxic
substances;
(b) MBAS (Methylene-Blue Active
Substances): not greater than 0.5
mg/l to protect the aesthetic qualities
of water supplies and to prevent
foaming;
(c) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater
Pollution: none that would adversely
impact the waters for use as water
supply or any other designated use;
(d) Odor producing substances contained
in sewage, industrial wastes, or other
Attachment A
A82
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3028
wastes: only such amounts, whether
alone or in combination with other
substances or waste, as will not cause
taste and odor difficulties in water
supplies which can not be corrected
by treatment, impair the palatability
of fish, or have a deleterious effect
upon any best usage established for
waters of this class;
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds:
not greater than 1.0 ug/l to protect
water supplies from taste and odor
problems due to chlorinated phenols;
specific phenolic compounds may be
given a different limit if it is
demonstrated not to cause taste and
odor problems and not to be
detrimental to other best usage;
(f) Total hardness: not greater than 100
mg/l as calcium carbonate;carbonate
(CaCO3 or Ca + Mg);
(g) Total dissolved solids: not greater
than 500 mg/l;
(h) Toxic and other deleterious
substances:
(i) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for
non-carcinogens in Class
WS-V waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B) Chloride: 250
mg/l;
(C) Manganese: 200
ug/l;
(D)(C) Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(E)(D) Nitrate nitrogen:
10.0 mg/l;
(F)(E) 2,4-D: 100 ug/l;70
ug/l;
(G)(F) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex):
10 ug/l;
(H)(G) Sulfates: 250 mg/l.
(ii) Water quality standards
(maximum permissible
concentrations) to protect
human health through water
consumption and fish tissue
consumption for carcinogens
in Class WS-V waters:
(A) Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l;
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l;
(D) Carbon
tetrachloride: 0.254
ug/l;
(E) Chlordane: 0.8
ng/l;
(F) Chlorinated
benzenes: 488 ug/l;
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l;
(H) Dieldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(I) Dioxin: 0.000005
ng/l;
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08
ng/l;
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene:
0.44 ug/l;
(L) Polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons (total
of all PAHs): 2.8
ng/l;
(M) Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l;
(N) Tetrachloroethylene:
0.7 ug/l;
(O) Trichloroethylene:
2.5 ug/l;
(P) Vinyl Chloride:
0.025 ug/l.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

15A NCAC 02B .0220 TIDAL SALT WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR CLASS SC WATERS
General. The water quality standards for all tidal salt waters are
the basic standards applicable to Class SC waters. Additional
and more stringent standards applicable to other specific tidal
salt water classifications are specified in Rules .0221 and .0222
of this Section. Action Levels, for purposes of NPDES
permitting, are specified in Item (20) of this Rule.
(1) Best Usage of Waters: any usage except
primary recreation or shellfishing for market
purposes; usages include aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological
integrity (including fishing, fish and
functioning PNAs), wildlife, and secondary
recreation;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage: the waters
shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation
and maintenance of biological integrity,
wildlife, and secondary recreation. Any
source of water pollution which precludes any
of these uses, including their functioning as
PNAs, on either a short-term or a long-term
basis shall be considered to be violating a
water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to all tidal salt
waters:
(a)(3) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40
ug/l in sounds, estuaries, and other waters
subject to growths of macroscopic or
microscopic vegetation. The Commission or
its designee may prohibit or limit any
Attachment A
A83
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3029
discharge of waste into surface waters if, in the
opinion of the Director, the surface waters
experience or the discharge would result in
growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation such that the standards established
pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the
intended best usage of the waters would be
impaired;
(4) Cyanide: 1 ug/l;
(b)(5) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 5.0 mg/l,
except that swamp waters, poorly flushed
tidally influenced streams or embayments, or
estuarine bottom waters may have lower
values if caused by natural conditions;
(6) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus
faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus
avium and Enterococcus gallinarium: not to
exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per
100 ml based upon a minimum of five samples
within any consecutive 30 days. In accordance
with 33 U.S.C. 1313 (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act) for purposes of beach monitoring
and notification, "Coastal Recreational Waters
Monitoring, Evaluation and Notification"
regulations (15A NCAC 18A .3400) are
hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments;
(c)(7) Floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge
deposits: only such amounts attributable to
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, as
shall not make the waters unsafe or unsuitable
for aquatic life and wildlife, or impair the
waters for any designated uses;
(d)(8) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110
percent of saturation;
(e) Enterococcus, including Enterococcus
faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus
avium and Enterococcus gallinarium: not to
exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per
100 ml based upon a minimum of five samples
within any consecutive 30 days. In accordance
with 33 U.S.C. 1313 (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act) for purposes of beach monitoring
and notification, "Coastal Recreational Waters
Monitoring, Evaluation and Notification"
regulations (15A NCAC 18A .3400) are
hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments;
(9) Metals:
(a) With the exception of mercury and
selenium, tidal salt water quality
standards for metals shall be based
upon measurement of the dissolved
fraction of the metals. Mercury and
Selenium must be based upon
measurement of the total recoverable
metal. Alternative site-specific
standards can be developed where
studies are designed according to the
"Water Quality Standards Handbook:
Second Edition" published by the US
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA 823-B-94-005a) hereby
incorporated by reference, including
any subsequent amendments;
(b) Compliance with acute instream
metals standards shall only be
evaluated using an average of two or
more samples collected within one
hour. Compliance with chronic
instream metals standards shall only
be evaluated using averages of a
minimum of four samples taken on
consecutive days, or as a 96-hour
average;
(c) With the exception of mercury and
selenium, demonstrated attainment of
the applicable aquatic life use in a
waterbody will take precedence over
the application of the aquatic life
criteria established for metals
associated with these uses. An
instream exceedence of the numeric
criterion for metals shall not be
considered to have caused an adverse
impact to the instream aquatic
community if biological monitoring
has demonstrated attainment of
biological integrity;
(d) Acute and chronic tidal salt water
quality metals standards are as
follows:
(i) Arsenic, acute: 69 ug/l;
(ii) Arsenic, chronic: 36 ug/l;
(iii) Cadmium, acute: 40 ug/l;
(iv) Cadmium, chronic: 8.8 ug/l;
(v) Chromium VI, acute: 1100
ug/l;
(vi) Chromium VI, chronic: 50
ug/l;
(vii) Copper, acute: 4.8 ug/l;
(viii) Copper, chronic: 3.1 ug/l;
(ix) Lead, acute: 210 ug/l;
(x) Lead, chronic: 8.1 ug/l;
(xi) Mercury, total recoverable,
chronic: 0.025 ug/l;
(xii) Nickel, acute: 74 ug/l;
(xiii) Nickel, chronic: 8.2 ug/l;
(xiv) Selenium, total recoverable,
chronic: 71 ug/l;
(xv) Silver, acute: 1.9 ug/l;
(xvi) Silver, chronic: 0.1 ug/l;
(xvii) Zinc, acute: 90 ug/l;
(xviii) Zinc, chronic: 81 ug/l;
(f)(10) Oils, deleterious substances, colored or other
wastes: only such amounts as shall not render
the waters injurious to public health,
secondary recreation or aquatic life and
Attachment A
A84
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3030
wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of
fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for
any designated uses. For the purpose of
implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious
substances, colored or other wastes shall
include but not be limited to substances that
cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of
the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines
pursuant to 40 CFR 110.3;
(11) Pesticides:
(a) Aldrin: 0.003 ug/l;
(b) Chlordane: 0.004 ug/l;
(c) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(d) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(e) Dieldrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(f) Endosulfan: 0.009 ug/l;
(g) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(h) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(i) Heptachlor: 0.004 ug/l;
(j) Lindane: 0.004 ug/l;
(k) Methoxychlor: 0.03 ug/l;
(l) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(m) Parathion: 0.178 ug/l;
(n) Toxaphene: 0.0002 ug/l;
(g)(12) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area,
which generally shall range between 6.8 and
8.5 except that swamp waters may have a pH
as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural
conditions;
(h)(13) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall
not result in fish-flesh tainting or impairment
of other best usage;
(14) Polychlorinated biphenyls: (total of all PCBs
and congeners identified) 0.001 ug/l;
(i)(15) Radioactive substances:
(i)(a) Combined radium-226 and
radium-228: The maximum average
annual activity level (based on at least
four samples, collected quarterly) for
combined radium-226, and
radium-228 shall not exceed five
picoCuries per liter;
(ii)(b) Alpha Emitters. The average annual
gross alpha particle activity
(including radium-226, but excluding
radon and uranium) shall not exceed
15 picoCuries per liter;
(iii)(c) Beta Emitters. The maximum
average annual activity level (based
on at least four samples, collected
quarterly) for strontium-90 shall not
exceed eight picoCuries per liter; nor
shall the average annual gross beta
particle activity (excluding
potassium-40 and other naturally
occurring radio-nuclides) exceed 50
picoCuries per liter; nor shall the
maximum average annual activity
level for tritium exceed 20,000
picoCuries per liter;
(j)(16) Salinity: changes in salinity due to
hydrological modifications shall not result in
removal of the functions of a PNA. Projects
that are determined by the Director to result in
modifications of salinity such that functions of
a PNA are impaired will be required to employ
water management practices to mitigate
salinity impacts;
(k)(17) Temperature: shall not be increased above the
natural water temperature by more than 0.8
degrees C (1.44 degrees F) during the months
of June, July, and August nor more than 2.2
degrees C (3.96 degrees F) during other
months and in no cases to exceed 32 degrees C
(89.6 degrees F) due to the discharge of heated
liquids;
(18) Trialkyltin compounds: 0.007 ug/l expressed
as tributyltin;
(l)(19) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water
shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds
this level due to natural background
conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not
be increased. Compliance with this turbidity
standard can be met when land management
activities employ Best Management Practices
(BMPs) [as defined by Rule .0202 of this
Section] recommended by the Designated
Nonpoint Source Agency (as defined by Rule
.0202 of this Section). BMPs must be in full
compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation, operation and
maintenance of such BMPs;
(m) Toxic substances: numerical water
quality standards (maximum
permissible levels) to protect aquatic
life applicable to all tidal saltwaters:
(i) Arsenic, total recoverable:
50 ug/l;
(ii) Cadmium: 5.0 ug/l;
attainment of these water
quality standards in surface
waters shall be based on
measurement of total
recoverable metals
concentrations unless
appropriate studies have
been conducted to translate
total recoverable metals to a
toxic form. Studies used to
determine the toxic form or
translators must be designed
according to the "Water
Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition" published
by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA
823-B-94-005a) or "The
Attachment A
A85
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3031
Metals Translator: Guidance
For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit
From a Dissolved Criterion"
published by the
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-
007) which are hereby
incorporated by reference
including any subsequent
amendments. The Director
shall consider conformance
to EPA guidance as well as
the presence of
environmental conditions
that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the
use of metal translators;
(iii) Chromium, total: 20 ug/l;
(iv) Cyanide: 1.0 ug/l;
(v) Mercury: 0.025 ug/l;
(vi) Lead, total recoverable: 25
ug/l; collection of data on
sources, transport and fate of
lead shall be required as part
of the toxicity reduction
evaluation for dischargers
that are out of compliance
with whole effluent toxicity
testing requirements and the
concentration of lead in the
effluent is concomitantly
determined to exceed an
instream level of 3.1 ug/l
from the discharge;
(vii) Nickel: 8.3 ug/l; attainment
of these water quality
standards in surface waters
shall be based on
measurement of total
recoverable metals
concentrations unless
appropriate studies have
been conducted to translate
total recoverable metals to a
toxic form. Studies used to
determine the toxic form or
translators must be designed
according to the "Water
Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition" published
by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA
823-B-94-005a) or "The
Metals Translator: Guidance
For Calculating a Total
Recoverable Permit Limit
From a Dissolved Criterion"
published by the
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-
007) which are hereby
incorporated by reference
including any subsequent
amendments. The Director
shall consider conformance
to EPA guidance as well as
the presence of
environmental conditions
that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the
use of metal translators;
(viii) Pesticides:
(A) Aldrin: 0.003 ug/l;
(B) Chlordane: 0.004
ug/l;
(C) DDT: 0.001 ug/l;
(D) Demeton: 0.1 ug/l;
(E) Dieldrin: 0.002
ug/l;
(F) Endosulfan: 0.009
ug/l;
(G) Endrin: 0.002 ug/l;
(H) Guthion: 0.01 ug/l;
(I) Heptachlor: 0.004
ug/l;
(J) Lindane: 0.004
ug/l;
(K) Methoxychlor:
0.03 ug/l;
(L) Mirex: 0.001 ug/l;
(M) Parathion: 0.178
ug/l;
(N) Toxaphene: 0.0002
ug/l;
(ix) Polychlorinated biphenyls:
(total of all PCBs and
congeners identified) 0.001
ug/l;
(x) Selenium: 71 ug/l;
(xi) Trialkyltin compounds:
0.007 ug/l expressed as
tributyltin.
(4)(20) Action Levels for Toxic
Substances:Substances Applicable to NPDES
Permits:
(a) Copper:Copper, dissolved, chronic: 3
ug/l;3.1 ug/l;
(b) Silver:Silver, dissolved, chronic: 0.1
ug/l;
(c) Zinc:Zinc, dissolved, chronic: 86
ug/l;81 ug/l
If the chronic Action Levels for any of the
substances listed in this Subparagraph Item
(which are generally not bioaccumulative and
have variable toxicity to aquatic life because
of chemical form, solubility, stream
characteristics or associated waste
Attachment A
A86
PROPOSED RULES

28:24 NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER JUNE 16, 2014
3032
characteristics) are determined by the waste
load allocation to be exceeded in a receiving
water by a discharge under the specified
low7Q10 flow criterion for toxic substances
(Rule .0206 in this Section),substances, the
discharger shall be required to monitor the
chemical or biological effects of the discharge;
efforts shall be made by all dischargers to
reduce or eliminate these substances from their
effluents. Those substances for which Action
Levels are listed in this Subparagraph Item
mayshall be limited as appropriate in the
NPDES permit if sufficient information (to be
determined for metals by measurements of that
portion of the dissolved instream concentration
of the Action Level parameter attributable to a
specific NPDES permitted discharge) exists to
indicate that any of those substances may be a
causative factor resulting in toxicity of the
effluent. NPDES permit limits may be based
on translation of the toxic form to total
recoverable metals. Studies used to determine
the toxic form or translators must be designed
according to: "Water Quality Standards
Handbook Second Edition" published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 823-
B-94-005a) or "The Metals Translator:
Guidance For Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit From a Dissolved Criterion"
published by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA 823-B-96-007) which are
hereby incorporated by reference including
any subsequent amendments. The Director
shall consider conformance to EPA guidance
as well as the presence of environmental
conditions that limit the applicability of
translators in approving the use of metal
translators.

Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1).

TITLE 21 – OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS

CHAPTER 23 – IRRIGATION CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD

Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.2 that
the Irrigation Contractors' Licensing Board intends to adopt the
rule cited as 21 NCAC 23 .0105; and amend the rules cited as
21 NCAC 23 .0206; .0207; and .0505.

Agency obtained G.S. 150B-19.1 certification:
OSBM certified on:
RRC certified on:
Not Required

Link to agency website pursuant to G.S. 150B-19.1(c):
www.nciclb.org

Proposed Effective Date: October 1, 2014

Instructions on How to Demand a Public Hearing: (must be
requested in writing within 15 days of notice): Please submit a
written request for a public hearing to Barbara Geiger, P.O.
Box 41421, Raleigh, NC 27629.

Reason for Proposed Action:
21 NCAC 23 .0206(a) – The Board proposes to amend this rule
in order to allow the Board to elect to refer contested cases to
OAH for disposition as allowed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 150B-
40(e). The rule currently requires that all contested cases be
heard only by a majority of the Board.
21 NCAC 23 .0207 – The intention is to allow the Board
additional flexibility in the timely issuance of final agency
decisions, insofar as they meet the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act. This additional flexibility is
necessary as the Board continues to hold regular Board
meetings on a monthly basis.
21 NCAC 23 .0505 (l) and (m) – These amendments are
proposed in order to reflect the increasing diversity in accepted
industry practice in the treatment of the specified components.
21 NCAC 23 .0105 – Like other self-regulating professional
boards, the Board seeks to ensure the ethical integrity,
transparency and accountability of its licensees in the course of
their business conduct.

Comments may be submitted to: Barbara Geiger, P.O. Box
41421, Raleigh, NC 27629; fax [phone]; email
[e-mail]

Comment period ends: August 15, 2014

Procedure for Subjecting a Proposed Rule to Legislative
Review: If an objection is not resolved prior to the adoption of
the rule, a person may also submit written objections to the
Rules Review Commission after the adoption of the Rule. If the
Rules Review Commission receives written and signed
objections after the adoption of the Rule in accordance with G.S.
150B-21.3(b2) from 10 or more persons clearly requesting
review by the legislature and the Rules Review Commission
approves the rule, the rule will become effective as provided in
G.S. 150B-21.3(b1). The Commission will receive written
objections until 5:00 p.m. on the day following the day the
Commission approves the rule. The Commission will receive
those objections by mail, delivery service, hand delivery, or
facsimile transmission. If you have any further questions
concerning the submission of objections to the Commission,
please call a Commission staff attorney at 919-431-3000.

Fiscal impact (check all that apply).
State funds affected
Environmental permitting of DOT affected
Analysis submitted to Board of Transportation
Local funds affected
Substantial economic impact (≥$1,000,000)
Attachment A
A87
Attachment B A88
Attachment B A89
Attachment C A90
Public Hearing: July 15, 2014 2:00 PM
Triennial Review of Surface Water Quality Classifications and Standards
Ground Floor Hearing Room, Archdale Building
Raleigh, NC
Public Hearing: July 16, 2014 3:00 PM
Triennial Review of Surface Water Quality Classifications and Standards
Statesville Civic Center, 300 South Center Street
Statesville, NC
Hearing Officer: Mr. Steve Tedder, Chairman, Water Quality Committee, EMC
Good afternoon. This public hearing is now officially called to order.
My name is Steve Tedder, I have been appointed by the Environmental Management Commission of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as the presiding officer for today’s hearing.
This public hearing and comment period are being held in accordance with the federal Water
Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) which requires States, at least every three years, to
review and revise water quality standards to protect aquatic life and human health.
This hearing is also being conducted under the authority of North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter
143-214.1 and 143-215.3(a). In accordance with General Statute 150B, a public notice, containing the
proposed changes and the accompanying fiscal note, was published in the June 16, 2014 edition of
the North Carolina Register.
Notices were sent to those who have requested to be placed on the Division of Water Resources’
rule-making e-mail notification list. Notice to the public was also provided through the Department and
Division’s websites and a press release was issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
A written record of this hearing will be prepared for the Commission.
For this reason, the hearing is being tape-recorded.
Written comments received by August 22nd, 2014 will also be included in the hearing record.
Recognitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EMC members identified
Page 1 of 2
Attachment D A91
Now, Connie Brower, of the Classifications and Standards, Rule Review Branch, will present a brief
overview of the proposed changes to the NC water quality standards.

Connie’s presentation

If you have not already done so, and you would like to speak, please sign in at the registration table.
Only those registered to speak will be provided this opportunity.

We will now accept comments from the audience. Based upon the number of persons requesting a
chance to present; a limit on the amount of time available will be made. If you have written copies of
your comments, please provide staff an electronic or written copy. When your name is called, please
come up to the microphone and state your name and any business or group affiliation.

# People who wish to speak **Time limit per speaker
1-10 7 -8 minutes
10-30 4 minutes
31+ 3 minutes

Because a large number of people have requested to speak, it will be necessary to impose a time
limit of _____minutes per speaker. A member of the Division of Water Resources staff, __________,
will be timing the comments and will hold up a sign indicating when you have one minute remaining to
speak. We appreciate your cooperation with this time limit so that everyone who wishes to speak is
able to do so.

Please remember that this hearing is being recorded. I will now call on the first registered speaker.
Speakers

Thank you for attending today’s public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until August 22nd,
2014. Anytime between today and 5:00 PM- August 22nd, 2014, you may submit written comments
on the proposed rules, water quality variances or the fiscal analysis. Written comments received by
US Mail or by e-mail during this time period will be made a part of the public record.

In making any final decision, the EMC considers the written public comments record, the suggestions
of the hearing officer and any concerns of the commission members. Based upon careful
consideration by myself and the Water Resources staff, I will make recommendations for action to the
Environmental Management Commission.

We thank everyone for being here today. Staff will be around for a few minutes to answer any
additional questions you might have.

I now declare this public hearing closed.
Page 2 of 2
Attachment D A92
Attachment E
Attendee List – Public Hearing - July 2014
ATTENDEE LIST - PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 15, 2014
GROUND FLOOR HEARING ROOM, ARCHDALE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NC
EMC APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER
Steve Tedder (Environmental Management Commission Member)
DWR -DIRECTOR
Tom Reeder
DWR LEAD STAFF ON TRIENNIAL REVIEW
Tom Fransen
Jeff Manning
Connie Brower
DWR STAFF
Susan Massengale DWR- Public Information Officer
Carrie Ruhlman
Cam McNutt
Joanna Gmyr
Julie Grzyb
Ian McMillan
Andy Painter
Adugna Kebebe
Jennifer Smith
Tom Belnick
Nora Deamer
Tonya Godwin
Jucilene Hoffman
Elizabeth Kountis
Gary Kreiser
Steven Kroeger
Sarah M. Bass
Dianne Reid
Adriene Weaver
1 | Page
A93
Attachment E

Attendee List – Public Hearing - July 2014
US EPA OFFICIALS

Annie Godfrey Region IV – Atlanta, GA, Chief –Water Quality Standards Section
Lisa Perras Gordon Region IV – Atlanta, GA
Lauren Petter Region IV – Atlanta, GA

REGISTERED SPEAKERS

Peter Raabe American Rivers
Martha Ginalami Private Citizen
Lib Hutchby Private Citizen
Harvey Richmond Private Citizen
Mike Hanes Private Citizen
Karen Brashear City of Goldsboro
Brianna VanStekelenburg Sierra Club
Kenneth Waldroup City of Raleigh
Heather Deck Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper
Steve Brown Town of Cary/ League of Municipalities
Chad Ham Public Works Commission/ NC Water Quality Association
Mandy Hall NC Rural Water Association
Mick Noland City of Fayetteville, Public Works Commission
Matthew Starr Neuse RiverKeeper Foundation
Julie Youngman Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Libby Malcolm Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Alina Boccella Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Cassie Gavin NC Chapter – Sierra Club
Stephanie Schweickert NC Conservation Network
Karen Rindge WakeUp Wake County
Jennifer Dean Private Citezen
Elaine Chiosso Haw River Keeper

REGISTERED ATTENDEES

Kathleen Hopson Private Citizen
Julie Cook Private Citizen
John Shaw Private Citizen
Robert Matthews Crescero
Gray Jernigan Waterkeeper Alliance
Nick McCracken Evergreen Packaging
Sara Ludwig Duke University
Adrianne Coombes McKim & Creed
Jay Sauber Sauber WQ Consulting
Brian Jacobson URS Corporation
Sharon Owens Flowserve
Keith Larick NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Zachary Keith NC Sierra Club
Caroline Spence Sierra Club
2 | Page
A94
Attachment E

Attendee List – Public Hearing - July 2014
Gerald Tyrone Battle City of Durham
Andy McDaniel NC Dept of Transportation
Jay Stem NC Aggregates Association
Will Hendrick Southern Environmental Law Center
Erin Wynia NC League of Municipalities
Sarah Collins NC League of Municipalities
Frank Skee City of Greensboro
Abby Bishop NC Conservation Network
Erica Egenes NC Conservation Network
Bethany Georgoulis Division of Energy Mining and Land Resources

3 | Page
A95
Attachment E

Attendee List – Public Hearing - July 2014

ATTENDEE LIST - PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 16, 2014
STATESVILLE CIVIC CENTER
STATESVILLE, NC

EMC APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER
Steve Tedder (Environmental Management Commission Member)

DWR LEAD STAFF ON TRIENNIAL REVIEW
Jeff Manning
Connie Brower

DWR STAFF
Joanna Gmyr
Julie Grzyb
Elizabeth Kountis
Gary Kreiser
Steven Kroeger
Corey Bassinger
Sherri Knight
Mike Parker
Wes Bell
Marcia Allocco

US EPA OFFICIALS
Annie Godfrey Region IV – Atlanta, GA, Chief –Water Quality Standards Section
Lisa Perras Gordon Region IV – Atlanta, GA
Lauren Petter Region IV – Atlanta, GA

REGISTERED SPEAKERS
Kimberly Brewer Private Citizen
Rich Daves Pure Water Project
Will Hendrick Southern Environmental Law Center
Monica Hayes City of Winston Salem
Sara Behnke Private Citizen
Allen Hubbard Clean Water for NC
Katie Hicks Clean Water for NC
Sarah Collins NC League of Municipalities
Sam Perkins Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation
Ben Benoit Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation –Lincoln County Lakekeeper
Charles Miles Private Citizen

4 | Page
A96
Attachment E

Attendee List – Public Hearing - July 2014
REGISTERED ATTENDEES

Victoria Taylor Catawba Water Relicensing Coalition
Elizabeth Burton Yadkin Riverkeeper
Weston Johnson City of Statesville
Greg Padgett Town of Valdese
Jacob Reid City of Hickory
Susan McNeely City of Hickory
Dwight Bradshaw Daimler Trucks North America
Eric Moser Daimler Trucks North America
Forrest Westall Upper Neuse River Basin Association
Lydia Wright Pure H2O Project
Paul Martinez Pure H2O Project
Steve Jadlocki City of Charlotte
Bruce Henderson The Charlotte Observer
Joe Hudson City of Statesville
Jerry Byerly City of Statesville
Rich Mogensen Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Frank Skee City of Greensboro
Gerald Tyrone Battle City of Durham/ NC Pretreatment Consortium
Kathy Wolfe Private Citizen
Shannon Sypolt Charlotte –Mecklenburg Utilities
Tom Duckwell Friends of the Deep River
Nick McCracken Evergreen Packaging
Matt Nunez Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department
Danny Sigmon City of Newton
Garrett Gilbert City of Newton
Wilce Martin City of Newton
??? Stambe Private Citizen

5 | Page
A97
ATTACHMENT F
Summary of Written Comments

The following is a brief synopsis of the ~925 comments received; the reader is directed to
Attachment G

Metals (by topic):

• Adoption of Dissolved/ Equation-based Criteria/National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria (NRWQC) for Metals

All interested parties exhibited general support for the adoption of revised metals standards.
Numerous private citizens expressed concern for the delays that have prolonged the
adoption of the proposed revisions.

Federal agencies, private citizens, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): support
NRWQC for metals in dissolved form.

Local governments/representatives of local governments, and industries: Support adoption
of instream dissolved metals with implementation of NPDES total recoverable permit limits
using US EPA approved translators. {Note: the US EPA translators are part of an
implementation policy and are not “water quality standards”}

• Hardness Dependent Equation-Based Criteria
 Water “hardness” affects the toxicity of some metals to aquatic life by competing with the
dissolved metal ions for binding sites on an aquatic organism. The higher the water
hardness, the lower the toxicity of some metals. The extent of this hardness effect varies
greatly by metal and by metal speciation. In aquatic toxicity tests used to derive the
national criteria, the laboratory water hardness can be varied, to some degree, to
characterize the effect. However, numerous water quality standards have not been
tested at extremely low hardnesses, and, as recently as the NRWQC for Cadmium in
2001, the affect was tested infrequently below 30 mg/L. To reflect this “hardness
dependent” influence, the proposals are represented as equations. Reflective of the
NRWQC aquatic toxicity testing, the state proposed a range of instream hardness with a
floor of 25 mg/L. Metals whose toxicity is not influenced by water hardness are
expressed as a single numeric value in the proposal and do not have an associated
equation provided. Water hardness has not been found to affect the toxicity of metals to
saltwater organisms in saltwater environments.
Adoption of equations is supported by federal agencies, private citizens and local
governments as it replaces the current default hardness assumption and provides flexibility
in assessments. The US EPA supports a “floor” of hardness at 20 mg/L, the current
proposal is 25 mg/L. EPA notes that waters of the state are often below 25 mg/L.

1 | Page
A98
Local governments/representatives of local governments/industries with pre-treatment
agreements support the adoption of the median/mean instream hardness values for
permitting purposes, they also supported implementation of NPDES total recoverable permit
limits using US EPA approved translators and a mass balance approach for calculation of
NPDES permit limits. {Note: the US EPA translators are part of an implementation policy
and are not “water quality standards”}

• Adoption of NRWQC for acute metals criteria (to accompany the chronic criterion)

All interested parties cited agreement that acute criterion would be helpful for proper
decisions on the quality of NC waters. Numerous parties (local government, federal
agencies, private citizens, NGOs) expressed concern about funding for adequate
monitoring.

• Numerous commenters requested the ability to apply the Water Effects ratio to the
applicable water quality standards for metals. {Comments on this policy were
specifically requested in the NC Register Notice of Text}

 As this provision is currently available under the 15A NCAC 02B .0226 regulation for
“Exemptions to Water Quality Standards, the US EPA does not pose objections to
this modification.

• Adoption of NRWQC for Arsenic (Aquatic Life)

This proposal was not supported by private citizens and NGOs, citing a decreased
protection of aquatic life and/or human health.
 The reviewers were unaware that the applicable standard for human health remains
and is therefore protective of human health (and aquatic life).

• Adoption of Chromium VI Criteria and Chromium III criteria/Elimination of Total
Chromium

Generally supported by federal agencies, private citizens, NGOs.
Most cited importance of noting toxicity of Cr VI and regulating appropriately for protection of
human health and aquatic life.

• Maintenance of “Action Level” Regulations with respect to NPDES Permits

 No proposals were made to eliminate “Action Level” policies.

It is important to note that the proposed regulations in 15A NCAC 02B .0211 and
.0220 modify the numerical concentration (by equation), but maintain instream water
quality standards for Copper, Silver and Zinc.

2 | Page
A99
In 1984, North Carolina adopted Action Level water quality policies for copper, zinc,
iron, and silver with respect to NPDES permitting activities. This adoption did not
alter the instream water quality standards for these parameters. These policies were
developed to allow dischargers some flexibility in meeting the NPDES permit limits
derived from the applicable instream water quality standards. The regulatory
language was written to permit an examination of the bioavailability of the metal,
using Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. Under the Clean Water Act, the state
has primacy for establishment of water quality standards and classifications; EPA
must approve all state standards and reclassifications. In 1985, 1986 and 1990 when
EPA reviewed the action level water quality policies, in conjunction with the
applicable water quality standards, they only conditionally approved the policies and
subsequently requested information on how the Action Level policies would be
implemented. The implementation procedure presented to EPA involved establishing
WET testing limits and monitoring for discharges with the metals in their effluent. No
permit limits for the metals were to be given if the facility continued to pass their WET
limits or if upon failure of the WET testing an action level parameter was not found to
be a causative factor. The Division’s implementation procedure was reviewed by
EPA and reworked by the Division several times during 1999 and 2000 before EPA
finally approved it in October 2000.
As noted above, the use of “Action Levels” is strictly for use with NPDES permitting and is
widely supported by the regulated parties (local governments, industries, representatives of
local governments).

Maintenance of the Action Level metals policies was not supported by the US EPA, nor the
NGOs and most of the private citizens that commented on the topic. US EPA states that the
policy is not in alignment with 40 CFR 122.44(1)(i), the Clean Water Act, and Section 304(a)
national recommendations (NRWQC).

• Removal of Iron and Manganese from Applicable Metal Standards
Support of these proposals was mixed, but, the US EPA recognized the natural content of
the Iron and Manganese in NC waters. The two elements are not currently known to disrupt
public water supplies, nor designated uses.

• Cadmium Criteria Recalculation

• The recalculation of the NRWQC is an acceptable mechanism under Clean Water
Act and is supported by federal agencies, local governments/representatives of local
governments.
Non-governmental Organizations cite that the calculation is inadequately protective of
aquatic life because it is less protective than the federal.

3 | Page
A100
 While the Cadmium proposal is numerically higher than the NRWQC, it is equally
protective of the species known to inhabit the state’s waters.

• Adoption of Methyl Mercury Criteria (water column and fish tissue)

 No proposals were made to modify the current Mercury standard, nor were proposals
made to add a criterion for Methyl Mercury.

Revised standards for either the water column or the addition of meHg fish tissue criterion
are supported by federal agencies, private citizens and Non-governmental Organizations.

• Biological Assessment Used for Water Body Assessments
This provision was not supported by federal agencies, private citizens and NGOs, citing that
biological indicators are more restorative in nature – as opposed the Clean Water Act
mandate to protect water quality.

The regulated community supported the effort to more clearly assess the conditions of the
waters before making decisions of the waters conditions.

• Adoption of Site Specific Criterion

 No specific amendments were proposed for derivation of a “site-specific criterion”.

Commenters supported amendments to more specifically allow for SSC derivation using the
federally approved Water Effects Ratio (WER).

• Nutrient/Nutrient Related Criteria/Nutrient Criteria Development Plan

 While no specific amendments were proposed with respect to nutrients, a significant
number of comments were submitted in support of the state’ s Nutrient Criteria
Development Plan (NCDP)
Support from agricultural interests, local governments/representatives of local governments
and some citizens. These commenters were varied in their support of the current chlorophyll
a standard.

A number of private citizens and NGOs expressed concern that we lack speed in
determining appropriate nutrient standards (TN, TP, chlorophyll a criteria for all water
bodies).

4 | Page
A101
• Adoption of Revised NRWQ Ammonia Criteria

 Although no proposals were made to adopt ammonia criteria, the adoption of the
recently published NRWQC criteria was supported by federal agencies, private
citizens, Non-governmental Organizations.
Not supported by local governments/representatives of local governments, noting that
control was inherent in other programmatic efforts (notably the NPDES permits).

• Adoption of Instream “Flow” as a Criterion
Protective standards for flow were suggested by private citizens, federal agencies and
NGOs. Concern was expressed that adequate flow is warranted to protect aquatic life.
Commenters expressed the desire to have standards established for flow (quantity).

 Existing statutes provide regulatory authority to protect instream flows.

• Reorganization of Current Standards
US EPA noted that a separate section for standards applicable to trout waters would be
helpful.

• Protection of Recreational Opportunities, Public Water Supplies, Sensitive Species
Business noted that standards that assure recreational opportunities are protected are a
means to attract commercial and residential development to the state.

One local government suggested we adopt criteria for bromides to protect water supplies.

Federal agencies encouraged adoption of revised standards as a means to protect sensitive
and vulnerable species.

• Variances – Chloride
Agricultural Interests indicated support of current variances, specifically for chlorides at
pickle plants as a mechanism to sustain agricultural efforts.

Private citizens and NGOs cited concern for sufficient regulation to control discharges as
reason for disapproval.

• Triennial Review Process and Procedures

Some commented that there be more public hearings for the Triennial Review (requested
more hearings throughout the state), and some requested more stakeholder meetings on
the Triennial process.
5 | Page
A102

• Additional Comments and Concerns

o Dissolved oxygen criteria for varying water column depths. Comments cited concern
with lack of protection for aquatic species throughout the water column;

o Readjustment of the Fish Consumption Rate, used to calculate protective human
health standards, to account for subsistence fishermen;

o Examine fate and transport as it relates to adoption of any new or revised criteria;

o Stronger control of “emerging contaminants” such as: flame retardants, endocrine
disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals;

o Sediment criteria: concerns with possible re-suspension of heavy metals, nitrogen
and phosphorus to the water column;

o The general state of North Carolina’s surface water and ground waters was noted
and the specific need for more ambient monitoring and oversight of NPDES
dischargers;

o Lack of progress in implementing rulemaking efforts in both Falls and Jordan Lakes;

o Concerns with the effects of HB 74 and Rules Review Commission reviews that
could hamper water quality improvements and regulations;

o Concerns related to climate change;

o Concerns related to storm water controls.
6 | Page
A103
From:Patricia Adams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:30:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Adams
283 Inman Branch Rd
Waynesville, NC 28786
Attachment G A104
From:Kevin Furr
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:2.5%
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:54:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Furr
306 N. E. Connector
Albemarle, NC 28001
Attachment G A105
From:Hazel Poolos
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:8 years late in reviewing NC water quality standards is unacceptable
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:35:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Extremely important is to ADOPT A STANDARD THAT PROHIBITS, PROHIBITS, PROHIBITS THE
DISCHARGE OF FRACKING WASTEWATER CONTAMINANTS.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hazel Poolos
42717 Caudle Rd
Richfield, NC 28137
Attachment G A106
From:Sam Perkins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:2014 NC Surface Water Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 3:34:14 PM
Attachments:2014 NC Surface Water Triennial Review.pdf
Please find attached our comments to supplement those we made orally in Statesville at the public
hearing on July 16th, 2014.

Sincerely,
--
Sam Perkins
Catawba RIVERKEEPER®
Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc.
421 Minuet Lane, Suite 205
Charlotte, NC 28217-2784
Office: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
www.CatawbaRiverkeeper.org
Sign up for our e-newsletter!
Become a Member or Donate!
Find the Riverkeeper and the Foundation on Facebook!

Attachment G A107
From:Helen Williams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Against Fracking
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:57:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Helen Williams
17 Birchcrest Court
Durhan, NC 27713
Attachment G A108
From:hehowms
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Against Fracking
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:12:38 PM
I am in every way a conservative, and am strongly opposed to the State opening the door to the potential damage to
our amazing water resources in North Carolina through, most lately, fracking.
I love being near water. I love the North Carolina landscape. I am GRATEFUL for our abundant water resources,
both above and below the ground in this beautiful state. As a former California resident with family still in that
state, I am more than aware of the value of clean water to sustain our health and our agriculture and how dollar-
considerations can undermine both.
This is not a financial issue, though that appears to be controlling the dialog. Ultimately, our financial welfare rests
with productive land and people, not arid land and people with mounting health needs.
Please do not disregard the voters. The stock prices should not be the momentum behind the approval of fracking,
or other water-endangering decisions.
Ask the farmers.
….and please pass on my comments to the governor’s office. I support Mr. McCrory, but hope he will consider the
opposition’s concerns.
Helen Williams
17 Birchcrest Court
Durham, NC 27713

Attachment G A109
From:Julie Koenig
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:An ounce of prevention > a pound of cure. Do the right thing, for the love of all things natural!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:31:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julie Koenig
785 Jackeys creek lane
Leland, NC 28451
Attachment G A110
From:Betty Heater
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Be viligent with our water!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:16:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betty Heater
475 ROMANA DRIVE
Salisbury, NC 28146
Attachment G A111
From:Tish Wilson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Because it is common sense.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:46:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tish Wilson
1020 Kirby Branch Road
Zionville, NC 28698
Attachment G A112
From:Tammy Barr
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:bringing our standard up to date
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 2:50:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tammy Barr
4222 Garden Street
Winston Salem, NC 27105
Attachment G A113
From:Madeleine Watt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Changing water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:28:29 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of STRENGTHENING our current water quality standards, including
tightening standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D.
However, I was very DISSAPOINTED that the proposed standards would allow polluting industries to routinely
violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the
Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Madeleine Watt
Po box 3289
Cashiers, NC 28717
Attachment G A114
From:Groome, Martie
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards; [e-mail]; Brower, Connie
Cc:Drew, Steve; McDowell, Kenney; Williams, Elijah; Cooper, Lori W.; Osborne, Ed; Goots, Alicia; Skee, Joseph;
"[e-mail]"; Glenn McGirt; Scott Pickard; Joellen Gay([e-mail])
Subject:City of Greensboro Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 7:29:21 PM
Attachments:meg-August 2014 Triennial CommentsFINAL.doc
Attached please find the City of Greensboro comments on the Triennial Review. If you have
questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Martie Groome, Laboratory and Industrial Waste Section Supervisor
Water Resources Department
City of Greensboro
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Box 3136, Greensboro NC 27402-3136
www.greensboro-nc.gov

=======================================================
Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Attachment G A115
From:Groome, Martie
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards; [e-mail]; Brower, Connie
Cc:Drew, Steve; McDowell, Kenney; Williams, Elijah; Cooper, Lori W.; Osborne, Ed; Goots, Alicia; Skee, Joseph;
"[e-mail]"; Glenn McGirt; Scott Pickard; Joellen Gay([e-mail])
Subject:City of Greensboro Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 7:29:22 PM
Attachments:meg-August 2014 Triennial CommentsFINAL.doc
Attached please find the City of Greensboro comments on the Triennial Review. If you have
questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Martie Groome, Laboratory and Industrial Waste Section Supervisor
Water Resources Department
City of Greensboro
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Box 3136, Greensboro NC 27402-3136
www.greensboro-nc.gov

=======================================================
Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Attachment G A116
From:Waldroup, Kenneth
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:McLawhorn, Dan; Lynch, TJ
Subject:City of Raleigh verbal comments at the triennial review public hearing 7-15-14
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:35:41 AM
Attachments:COR Speakers Comments on WQS Rules w TJL edits.pdfATT00001.cATT00002.htm
Connie,

Here is a copy of the comments we shared at the public hearing yesterday. We will also be providing
 written comments before the August deadline. Thank you for your good work on this issue.

-Kenny

Kenneth R. Waldroup, PE
Assistant Public Utilities Director
City of Raleigh Public Utilities
Post Office Box 590Raleigh, North Carolina 27602Direct Phone [phone]Cell Phone [phone]Direct Fax [phone]
 P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.” —
Max DePree

Attachment G A117
From:Monica Stamm
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN AIR/WATER STANDARDS
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:32:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Monica Stamm
1212 Crescent Ave
Roselle, FL 07203
Attachment G A118
From:George Olson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean and Pure Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
George Olson
433 Toecane Road
Bakersville, NC 28705
Attachment G A119
From:Judge Stuart & Nancy Namm (Ret)
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Drinking Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:34:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judge Stuart & Nancy Namm (Ret)
101 Marshview Road
Hampstead, NC 28443
Attachment G A120
From:Kitsie Bean
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean our water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:40:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kitsie Bean
PO Box 158
Yadkinville, NC 27055
Attachment G A121
From:Muhammed Ekkandy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean our water
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:13:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Muhammed Ekkandy
730 CANDLER LN APT 414
CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
Attachment G A122
From:Kristen Childress
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean our waters
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:16:22 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kristen Childress
549 merrimon ave
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A123
From:Sam Brouse
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean up our rivers!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sam Brouse
15 allesarn rd
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A124
From:Yvonne Moody
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean up our water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:54:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
I'm also very concerned about water contamination by fracking chemicals. We need clean water for people and
agriculture, and to provide a positive environment for shellfish and sea life.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Yvonne Moody
609 Marsh Grass Ct
southport, NC 28461
Attachment G A125
From:Gilda Friedman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean up our water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:19:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gilda Friedman
4315 dogwood drive
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A126
From:Laurie Shafer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean up our water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:52:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurie Shafer
2110 Arrowcreek Drive
Apt 102
Charlotte, NC 28273
Attachment G A127
From:Robert Pleasants
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean up
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Pleasants
Po box 861
carolina beach, NC 28428
Attachment G A128
From:P. Manuel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water - NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:49:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
P. Manuel
128 S. Cherry St
kernersville, NC 27284
Attachment G A129
From:Chris Cameron
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water & Healthy Enviroment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:04:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Cameron
108 Clancey Court
durham, NC 27712
Attachment G A130
From:Roxy Darling
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER ACT
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:28:30 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Roxy Darling
936 Waterlily Rd
Coinjock, NC 27923
Attachment G A131
From:Jerome Goodwin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerome Goodwin
3106 Shopton Dr
Apex, 27502
Attachment G A132
From:Justin Johnson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for all North Carolinians
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 8:20:12 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Justin Johnson
2370 Bethel Road
Jonesville, NC 28642
Attachment G A133
From:Alisa Keegan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for LIFE
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:31:23 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alisa Keegan
1260 West Fourth St
Winston Salme, NC 27101
Attachment G A134
From:William Lamm
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water for N. C.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:14:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Lamm
105 Appenzell la
New abern, NC 28562
Attachment G A135
From:Deborah Ash
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for NC please!
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:52:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ash
115 Goose Creek Drive
Washington, NC 27889
Attachment G A136
From:Josep Colomer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water for NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:45:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities. I must say I drink tap water daily, and failure to strengthen the
water quality will directly affect my health.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Josep Colomer
5022 Gable Ridge Dr
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A137
From:Jerry Ayers
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:51:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As one who lives on a lake, I am very concerned with keeping our public waters clean. So, I am submitting my
comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening standards for toxic
metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed standards would allow
polluting industries to routinely violate water quality until dead organisms are evident. That is stupid, and it violates
the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerry Ayers
8341 Long Island Rd
Catawba, NC 28609
Attachment G A138
From:Carol Swing
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water for NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Swing
223 Dula Springs Road
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A139
From:Anne White
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:53:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne White
533 Greenwood Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Attachment G A140
From:Barry Silverstein
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for North Carolina
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:14:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barry Silverstein
5 Blue Damsel Court
Candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A141
From:John White
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for North Carolina
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:01:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John White
199 Four Seasons Lane
Murphy, NC 28906
Attachment G A142
From:Thomas Lillard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water for our children, our future
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:35:58 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
We need honesty and future-based protection of our national aquifer...less the sad Orwellian predictions come to
past...our water=our health. Why is the US lagging behind other countries in the sensitivity to Global Warming,
carbon emissions foot-printing, health, good sense? Come on, its time to use our good judgement for the future, not
create more awful toxic super sites....We don't need natural gas...we need fair implementation and federal support
for alternative technologies. Technologies that are being stymied by the petroleum giants. God help us. Are their no
honest leaders to aid our national skid?
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lillard
PO box 1107
Marshall, NC 28753
Attachment G A143
From:ELIZABETH MANGRUM
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER IN NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:31:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
If citizens of North Carolina do not like to pay $4.00 / gallon for gas, I wonder what they will be paying for a gallon
of clean water? If the NC General Assembly continues to gut environmental regulations protecting our water, we
could all end up paying for water!
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
ELIZABETH MANGRUM
355 RED FOX RIDGE ROAD
CAMERON, NC 28326
Attachment G A144
From:Kathleen Hundley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water in North Carolina Waterways
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:27:28 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Since the late 1990's, The Friends of the Rock y River and the Rocky River Heritage Foundation have been working
diligently to improve the water quality of that small river in Chatham County. We worked closely with our
Legislature to build awareness of their responsibilities to protect rivers in NC in general and the Rocky River in
particular. We have raised over $750,000 for research in water quality and citizen awareness and education such
that the Rocky River has a higher level of data on not only water quality, but the status of aquatic life of any
comparable river in the State of NC. As citizens, we have gone as far as we can to protect our river; now, it's up to
government, both State and Federal, to return NC rivers to clean, usable waterways for citizen use and enjoyment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Hundley
P.O. box 1177
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A145
From:Mirinda Kossoff
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is a Basic Right
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:26:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mirinda Kossoff
137 Edgewood Dr
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A146
From:Jerod Kratzer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is a fundamental right, not an option
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:38:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerod Kratzer
131 Shirley Drive
Cary, NC 25711
Attachment G A147
From:Carol Keister
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is a must
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:52:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Keister
139 Bridelpath Lane
Mooresville, NC 28117
Attachment G A148
From:Linda Alfredson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is a right!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:44:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Alfredson
21 Red Oak Road
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A149
From:Jeffrey DeLuca
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is Basic Right in a Modern Society
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:26:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey DeLuca
400 Sharon Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A150
From:Judith Stafford
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water is critical
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:35:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judith Stafford
2204 Anthony Drive
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A151
From:Larissa Bowman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is Essential to NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:20 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As our population grows, weather patterns change, and the preciousness of clean water becomes ever more
important and better understood, it is imperative that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for
metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll
continue to see fish kills and algal blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This
is unacceptable.
I ask you to please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus;
adopt a fish tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for
ammonia. Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me, my family, and ALL North
Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larissa Bowman
677 Brevard Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A152
From:Elizabeth Dunnagan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is essential
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:05:25 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dunnagan
8629 reindeer moss dr
Wake forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A153
From:Rebecca Carina
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is Essential
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:44:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Carina
2815 Bedford Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A154
From:Dave McLintock
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is important to me!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:49:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave McLintock
920 Tumbling Fork Rd
Waynesville, NC 28785
Attachment G A155
From:Christie Driscoll
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is Important to Me
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:48:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christie Driscoll
5308 Lansing Dr
Charlotte, NC 28270
Attachment G A156
From:John van Arnold
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is key to citizen well being
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:02:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As a former employee of Northrup Environmental Services who did contract work for EPA,NIEHS & NATIONAL
TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, I have seen 1st hand the damage heavy metals and toxins do to animal life. DO NOT
TAKE CHANCES WITH NORTH CAROLINA'S citizen HEALTH
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John van Arnold
100 Adam's Way
Chapel Hill, 27516
Attachment G A157
From:Becky Cleland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is Life: Protect North Carolina"s!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Becky Cleland
2142 Coxe Rd
Tryon, NC 28782
Attachment G A158
From:Christine Arvidson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is not OPTIONAL!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christine Arvidson
401 College Ave
West Jefferson, NC 28694
Attachment G A159
From:Daria Drake
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is out lifeline!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:34:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daria Drake
3504 Mossdale Ave
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A160
From:Lynn B. Spees
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water is very important to health
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:00:36 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynn B. Spees
280 28th Avenue Place, NE
Hickory, NC 28601
Attachment G A161
From:Deborah Osborne
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Is Vital For All Living Things
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:00:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Osborne
116 McNaron Ln
Mooresville, NC 28117
Attachment G A162
From:Lynn Gregory
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water is Vital
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynn Gregory
555 Smith Creek Rd
Mars Hill, NC 28754
Attachment G A163
From:Amy Bartley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water now
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:34:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Bartley
937 Homestead Park Dr
Apex, NC 27502
Attachment G A164
From:Katherine Matthews
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Petition
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:27:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Katherine Matthews
380 Luzelle Drive
Winston Salem, NC 27103
Attachment G A165
From:Dawn Mcginty
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water please!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:06:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dawn Mcginty
206 W Avondale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27403
Attachment G A166
From:Logan Paul
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water please!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Logan Paul
4449 Murphy school road
Durham, NC 32129
Attachment G A167
From:Sue Cole
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Please
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:16:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sue Cole
4808 Starmount Dr
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A168
From:carla caccia
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water please
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:19:40 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
carla caccia
581 greenland dr
fayetteville, NC 28305
Attachment G A169
From:Mr. James F. Moore, Sr.
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water regulation updates.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:59:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mr. James F. Moore, Sr.
215 Craig Street
Greensboro, 27406
Attachment G A170
From:lawrence adrian
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water regulations
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:21:45 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
lawrence adrian
101 kaitlin drive
durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A171
From:Inta Blomquist
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Resources
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:57:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Inta Blomquist
605 Drexel Road
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
Attachment G A172
From:Fred Stanback
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water rules
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:47:29 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fred Stanback
507 W Innes St. #270
Salisbury, NC 28144
Attachment G A173
From:Barbara Barron
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standard
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:49:45 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Barron
8902 Charlottes Mountain Road
Rougemont, NC 27572
Attachment G A174
From:Alyssa Belcher
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:16:05 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Belcher
536 Appeldoorn Circle
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A175
From:Brenda Hayes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:56:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Hayes
403 St. Mary's Rd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A176
From:SR. Jeanne Marie Kienast
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:45:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
SR. Jeanne Marie Kienast
500 Sacred Heart Circle
Belmont, NC 28012
Attachment G A177
From:Robert Howland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:27:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities. Don't allow fracking byproducts to be discharged into our
waterways.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Howland
176 Mountain Bluff Trl
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Attachment G A178
From:Allison Garwood
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:37:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Allison Garwood
436 Landsbury Drive
Waxhaw, NC 28173
Attachment G A179
From:Michele Skeele
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:54:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michele Skeele
519 3rd Ave West
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A180
From:robert stratton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:28:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
robert stratton
2436 gold cup ct
matthews, NC 28105
Attachment G A181
From:L Simon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:50:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
L Simon
11 spring hollow circle
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A182
From:Linnea Angermuller
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:51:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linnea Angermuller
400 Lamp Post Drive
Zirconia, NC 28790
Attachment G A183
From:Jeffery White
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:40:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffery White
25 Pisgah View Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A184
From:Deidre Duffy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:35:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Development standards also need to stricter in order to protect our waterways.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deidre Duffy
67 Craggy
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A185
From:Gracie Woody
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:40:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gracie Woody
7804 Craig Road
Belews Creek, NC 27009
Attachment G A186
From:casie Sampson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:41:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
casie Sampson
8611 Keller rd
summerfield, NC 27358
Attachment G A187
From:G.W. Cheney
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
G.W. Cheney
315 Hickory Lane
Boone, NC 28607
Attachment G A188
From:Carol Hay
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:52:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Hay
3929-A Red Hawk Rd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A189
From:Kathryn Pezzi
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Pezzi
96 Pine Lake Drive
Whispering Pines, NC 28327
Attachment G A190
From:Carl Gipson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carl Gipson
728 Spartacus Ct
Cary, NC 27518
Attachment G A191
From:Susan Kraus
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Kraus
2712 Towhee Court
Charlotte, NC 28269
Attachment G A192
From:Rebecca Carter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:33:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Carter
155 Jim's trail
Westfield, NC 27053
Attachment G A193
From:Larry Cooper
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larry Cooper
1009 Goodworth Drive Suite 104
Apex, NC 27539
Attachment G A194
From:Maggie McKinney
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Maggie McKinney
234 N. Anderson Street
MORGANTON, NC 28655
Attachment G A195
From:Ruth Noble
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:27:05 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ruth Noble
26 Rylee Ridge
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A196
From:Corey Cavalier
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:02:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Corey Cavalier
7033 Sandringham Court
Raleigh, NC 27613
Attachment G A197
From:Margie Stewart
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:38:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Margie Stewart
2606 Francis St
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A198
From:Marcia Sobel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:04:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marcia Sobel
110 Kimberly Dr
Greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A199
From:James Smiley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:03:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Smiley
684 Deadmon Road
Mocksville, NC 27028
Attachment G A200
From:Annette Haynes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:59:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Annette Haynes
9002 Scotch Heather Way
Charlotte, NC 28277
Attachment G A201
From:Julia Rogers
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:29:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Rogers
328 Colony Rd
Statesville, NC 28677
Attachment G A202
From:Richard Herring
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:03:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Herring
1813 Cherokee Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Attachment G A203
From:Carol Kemmler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:58:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxins in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Why would you even propose that our water be allowed to get to the point of no return before we start to try to
return? This state does enough pandering to special interests at the expense of its citizens. It's time to pay attention
to the people's needs. We need strong standards, NOW.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Kemmler
5737 Chrismon Rd
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Attachment G A204
From:David Mayfield
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:53:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clearly with irresponsible companies like Duke Energy (our Governor's former sweetheart company), our water
quality laws must be strengthened to prevent such self-serving, damaging corporate behavior.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Mayfield
5736 Burck Drive NW
Concord, NC 28027
Attachment G A205
From:Harbans Sahni
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:44:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Harbans Sahni
3703 Sipes Lane
charlotte, NC 28269
Attachment G A206
From:Ryan Scarborough
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:25:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ryan Scarborough
203 Polks Landing Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A207
From:Elinor Metzger
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:54:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elinor Metzger
24 Clubhouse Trail apt 1313
Highlands, NC 28741
Attachment G A208
From:Donna Kersey
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 11:56:58 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Kersey
631 Union Road
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Attachment G A209
From:Elizabeth Hay
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:53:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hay
690 Junaluska Road
Andrews, NC 28901
Attachment G A210
From:Elisabeth Jezierski
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:55:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elisabeth Jezierski
1101 Norwood
9194894205
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A211
From:THOMAS CADWALLADER
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER STANDARDS
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:20:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards TO FURTHER REDUCE IN SITU metals,
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to
see fish kills and algal blooms, and we’ll run the risk of DETERIORATING our drinking water supplies. This is
unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
THOMAS CADWALLADER
404 DIMOCK WAY
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A212
From:Diane Affonso
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 8:27:02 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Affonso
108 Wintergreen Ct
Rocky Mount, NC 27801
Attachment G A213
From:shaun murphy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standards:
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:29:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
shaun murphy
6020 bartlett court
fayetteville, NC 28314
Attachment G A214
From:Cecil Clark
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water Standars
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:17:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cecil Clark
27 Sandon Dr
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A215
From:Pauline Valestin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water!!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:31:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Hello & thank you for your time.
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pauline Valestin
113 Wood Hollow Dr
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A216
From:Beth Collom
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:04:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Beth Collom
18202 Old Arbor Court
Davidson, NC 28036
Attachment G A217
From:Edward Dale
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:19:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edward Dale
17C Bear Creek Ln
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A218
From:Ilona Csapo
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:24:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ilona Csapo
85 great oak ln
Fairview, NC 28730
Attachment G A219
From:gerhard moh
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:00:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
gerhard moh
1103 jamestown rd
morganton, NC 28655
Attachment G A220
From:Elizabeh McClure
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:47:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elizabeh McClure
145 Wesley Branch Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A221
From:Joan Parker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:26:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joan Parker
5011 Harness Lane
Colfax, NC 27235
Attachment G A222
From:Rebecca Malone
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:35:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Malone
415 Chunns Cove Rd
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A223
From:alyce salvo
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:00:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
alyce salvo
4216 whispering oaks dr
charlotte, NC 28215
Attachment G A224
From:Pam Nelligan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:39:51 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pam Nelligan
102 dron place
Wilmington, NC 28409
Attachment G A225
From:susan Howell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 5:14:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
susan Howell
1920 #K Quail Ridge Rd
Greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A226
From:Jane Forbes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:09:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
OK, IT IS TIME TO REALIZE THAT WITHOUT CLEAN, SAFE WATER WE CANNOT LIVE. FOR
WHATEVER REASONS, POLITICAL, "WHINNING BY CITIES AND COMMUNITIES" THAT THEY
CANNOT AFFORD CLEAN WATER, THE SPINELESS LEGISLATURE, WHATEVER, ACTION MUST BE
TAKEN NOW TO CLEAN UP OUR WATER.
JORDAN LAKE THAT SUPPLIES WATER TO MANY TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES IS SO FILTHY THAT
FISH AND OTHER WILDLIFE CANNOT LIVE IN IT. THE WATER SMELLS, HAS ENORMOUS LEVELS
OF AGRICULTURE RUNOFFS, CHEMICALS, AND BACTERIA. IT IS TIME TO ACT DECISEVILY AND
GET IT CLEAN.
THERE ARE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE IGNORED. THE SIMPLE SOLUTION WOULD BE
TO MAKE THE UPSTEAM TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES DRINK WATER FROM JORDAN LAKE. ALSO,
PROVIDE WATER FROM JORDAN LAKE TO THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVENOR. WOULD THEY
DRINK IT- NOT A CHANCE, BUT THEY WANT US TO.
DEVELOP A VOLUNTEER WORKFORCE TO CLEAN UP WHAT THE COMMUNITIES WILL NOT.
BETTER YET PUT THE UNEMPLOYED TO WORK. THE CCC DID A GREAT JOB DURING THE
DEPRESSION. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE A GOAL AND DREAM TO WORK FOR, A LOT OF
DISSATISFACTION GOES AWAY.
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE DATA FROM DUKE AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES AND RESEACH ABOUT
FRACKING? AND YOU WANT US TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT. GIRT UP YOUR POWERS AND ACT.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jane Forbes
635 Bear Tree Creek
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A227
From:patti whipple
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
patti whipple
105 north court
atlantic beach, NC 28512
Attachment G A228
From:Cheryl Kennedy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:27:48 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Kennedy
500 Water Wheel Cove
Clyde, NC 28721
Attachment G A229
From:Maura Berry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 6:13:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Maura Berry
5631 Lakeside Dr
Pfafftown, NC 27040
Attachment G A230
From:AnneMarie Williams-Ransmeier
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
AnneMarie Williams-Ransmeier
7228 Quail Meadow Lane
Charlottw, NC 28210
Attachment G A231
From:Melanie Wilson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:26:09 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melanie Wilson
547 Woodsong dr
old fort, NC 28762
Attachment G A232
From:Joanne Barber
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:23:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joanne Barber
1896 Bell Road
Otto, NC 28763
Attachment G A233
From:NANCY Forrest
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:28:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
PEOPLE CAN NOT LIVE WITHOUT CLEAN WATER.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
NANCY Forrest
2234 F Basil Holt RoAD
Burlington, NC 27258
Attachment G A234
From:Eric Siebert
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:11:25 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Siebert
489 brewington dr
burgaw, NC 28425
Attachment G A235
From:Walter Edwards
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:43:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Walter Edwards
104 Shorelake Dr
Apt C
Greensboro, NC 27455
Attachment G A236
From:Jacob Smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:44:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jacob Smith
818 S Dogwood LN
Swansboro, NC 28584
Attachment G A237
From:Kathy Dick
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:04:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathy Dick
192 mylands rd e
Louisburg, NC 27549
Attachment G A238
From:Terry Foskett
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:28:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terry Foskett
9104 Spotter Drive
Apex, NC 27502
Attachment G A239
From:Richard Monson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:00:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Monson
1805 Hampton Forest Dr
Concord, NC 28027
Attachment G A240
From:NANCY O"DELL
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:11:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
NANCY O'DELL
PO BOX 1407
MURPHY, NC 28906
Attachment G A241
From:Karen Willis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:33:59 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Willis
2223 W Club Blvd
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A242
From:Christopher Charland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:59:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Charland
1693 Colonist Square SW
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Attachment G A243
From:Michele Hickman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:09:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michele Hickman
341 Lafayette Street
Wilmington, NC 28411
Attachment G A244
From:Regina Epley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:27:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Regina Epley
445 Ned Marsh Rd
Salisbury, NC 28146
Attachment G A245
From:Nicole Campbell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:54:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nicole Campbell
1617 Lyndale Place
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A246
From:Jock Simmons
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:19:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jock Simmons
1903 Todd St
Newton, NC 28658
Attachment G A247
From:Mary Jackson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:23:48 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Jackson
1373 LEES CHAPEL RD
GREENSBORO, NC 27455
Attachment G A248
From:Bertram Montgomery
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:51:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bertram Montgomery
1623 Alice Ave
Greensboro, NC 27401
Attachment G A249
From:Brenda Russell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:17:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Russell
4824 N. Tryon St
Lot 16
Charlotte, NC 28213
Attachment G A250
From:claudia mikulaninec
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:08:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
claudia mikulaninec
148 park blvd
ws, NC 27127
Attachment G A251
From:Maria zytnik
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:16:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Maria zytnik
1114 China Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
Attachment G A252
From:Edith M. Conrad
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:06:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edith M. Conrad
89 Dorchester Ave
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A253
From:Z. Vijay Director
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:56:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Z. Vijay Director
po box 970
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A254
From:Kathryn Casey
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:30:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Casey
3725 Cattail Ln
Greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A255
From:Jennifer Brandon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:46:46 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Brandon
174 Brody Ln
Lexington, NC 27295
Attachment G A256
From:gigi grill
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:12:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
gigi grill
110 Holly Hills Ln
Manteo, NC 27954
Attachment G A257
From:sylvie delaunay
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:38:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
sylvie delaunay
10 forest lake drive
asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A258
From:lisa Morice
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:18:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
lisa Morice
35 Turtle Wallow
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A259
From:Jim McGlinn
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:15:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Dear Ms. Brower,
What carcinogens are in the air we breathe and the water we drink? Cancer has attacked too many of my friends and
family--it's like the plague from the middle ages.
Are you someone who can help solve the problem by fighting for strict standards of water and air purity?
Please communicate to the EMC the importance of prohibiting the discharge of fracking contaminants into our
rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim McGlinn
1032 Windsor Drive
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A260
From:Jamie Abeln
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:12:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jamie Abeln
313 Ivywood Lane
Raeford, NC 28376
Attachment G A261
From:Andrea Poole
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrea Poole
2174 skyview dr
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Attachment G A262
From:Jessica Luscombe
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:56:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Luscombe
6028 mcdaniel ln lot 167
charlotte, NC 28213
Attachment G A263
From:Catherine Mitchell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Clean water is essential for life.
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Catherine Mitchell
PO Box 596
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Attachment G A264
From:Raimundas Sidabras
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:46:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Raimundas Sidabras
1155 Rama rd
Sandy Ridge, NC 27046
Attachment G A265
From:Pam Dix
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:48:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pam Dix
11127 Aprilia Lane
Cornelius, NC 28031
Attachment G A266
From:Paige Pinder
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:39 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paige Pinder
2329 Albright Dr
Greensboro, NC 27408
Attachment G A267
From:Jonathan sires
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:44:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan sires
7448 valleybrook rd
Charlotte, NC 28270
Attachment G A268
From:Beth Alexander
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:39:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Beth Alexander
1400 recapture ct
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A269
From:David Paynter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:35:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Paynter
6242 Head Rd
Wilmington, NC 28409
Attachment G A270
From:William Warfel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Warfel
1673 Banbury Dr
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Attachment G A271
From:Kurt & Margaret Storck
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:23:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kurt & Margaret Storck
8713 karibuni Drive, Apt. B
Waxhaw, NC 28173
Attachment G A272
From:Ken Heverly
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:27:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ken Heverly
2029 Eastwood Rd., #124
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attachment G A273
From:Laura Maddy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:12:31 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Maddy
4644 Bournewood Lane
Charlotte, NC 28226
Attachment G A274
From:Anthony Flores
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:52:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anthony Flores
917 Shelby Dr
Apt. B
Greensboro, NC 27409
Attachment G A275
From:Gary Gore
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:32:07 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Gore
140 Stoney Creek Lane
Union Grove, NC 28689
Attachment G A276
From:dave currall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:11:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
dave currall
4300 lyman ave
None
Raleigh, NC 27616
Attachment G A277
From:Ed Mezynski
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:33:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ed Mezynski
338 W Salisbury St
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A278
From:Sharon Swaney
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:27:07 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sharon Swaney
7206 White Tail Drive
Julian, NC 27283
Attachment G A279
From:Patricia Stark
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:48:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Stark
250 Stone Creek Trail
Brevard, NC 28712
Attachment G A280
From:Melinda Scott
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:32:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melinda Scott
2010-F Quail Ridge Road
Greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A281
From:Deborah Minshew
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:18:08 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Minshew
879 Herman Lane Rd
Stantonsburg, NC 27883
Attachment G A282
From:Rhonda Ferotti
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Ferotti
2715 Greenville Hwy
Flat Rock, NC 28731
Attachment G A283
From:Ronald Godfrey
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:28:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ronald Godfrey
13061 Debra Dr
Laurinburg, NC 28352
Attachment G A284
From:Michele Harvey
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:37:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michele Harvey
15 Ocaso Dr
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A285
From:Mike Tuziw
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:30:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mike Tuziw
4625 Meadow Fork Rd
Hot Springs, NC 28743
Attachment G A286
From:Deborah Hankins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:21:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Hankins
349 Scottsdale Drive
Wilmington, NC 28411
Attachment G A287
From:Gerald Collins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:23:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gerald Collins
212 N Walker St
Burgaw, NC 28425
Attachment G A288
From:Donna Krug
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:34:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Krug
16 Denise Circle
Concord, NC 28025
Attachment G A289
From:Sarah Charles
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:56:58 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sarah Charles
1701 gentry ct
High Point, NC 27265
Attachment G A290
From:Mary Manuel-miller
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:08:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Manuel-miller
4275 Lynnridge Ct
Walkertown, NC 27051
Attachment G A291
From:Jean Wheelock
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:45 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jean Wheelock
22 Hibriten Drive
Asheville, NC 28801
Attachment G A292
From:natalie granberry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Monday, August 25, 2014 3:40:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
natalie granberry
2978 heritage commons ln
gastonia, NC 28054
Attachment G A293
From:Kay Doost
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:26:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kay Doost
1618 Marion Street
Greensboro, NC 27403
Attachment G A294
From:ROBERT Durivage
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 10:00:07 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
ROBERT Durivage
38 hurst dr
candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A295
From:Renee McCann
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:16:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Renee McCann
118 Eastgreen Dr
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A296
From:april crisp
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2014 12:40:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
april crisp
376 cricket ridge rd
mount olive, NC 28365
Attachment G A297
From:Cynthia Campbell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:50:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Campbell
6407 Dunham Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28304
Attachment G A298
From:Jessica Kellam
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:39:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Kellam
202 Ashland Drive
Apartment A
Greensboro, NC 27403
Attachment G A299
From:Sally Woodard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:00:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sally Woodard
801 Azalea Avenue
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A300
From:Sandy Forrest
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:30:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
It is your job (or should be) to make sure all of us have clean water.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandy Forrest
612 Bethany Church Rd
Moravian Falls, NC 28654
Attachment G A301
From:Julia Howe
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:17:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Water should be drinkable for all of us, you and your families, too. No contamination of any kind should be
permitted.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Howe
989 Brasstown Road
Cullowhee, NC 28723
Attachment G A302
From:Linda Peterson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:42:49 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Peterson
404 Woodlark Ct
Indian Trail, NC 28079
Attachment G A303
From:Sandee Smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:00:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandee Smith
40014 Matt Neal Rd #12
Norwood, NC 28128
Attachment G A304
From:Patricia Kingsbury
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:33:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Kingsbury
920 Acorn Drive
Purlear, NC 28665
Attachment G A305
From:Ann Lane
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:26:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Lane
932 Logan Cr
Cary, NC 27511
Attachment G A306
From:Renee Hayes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:59:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Renee Hayes
6903 Fairview Church Rd
Trinity, NC 27370
Attachment G A307
From:LURIE FISHR
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:54:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
LURIE FISHR
28 TT
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Attachment G A308
From:Cris Shewchuk
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:39:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cris Shewchuk
2933 Alpine Forest Ct
Charlotte, NC 28270
Attachment G A309
From:Lynne Carmichael
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:36:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynne Carmichael
1200 turnstone
Rocky mount
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
Attachment G A310
From:Neil Infante
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:24:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil Infante
314 Churton Grove Blvd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A311
From:Phyllis Swank
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:18:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Swank
750 Weaver Dairy Rd
# 1212
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A312
From:William St. George
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:15:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William St. George
2217 Camellia Dr
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attachment G A313
From:Carol & Mike Birkett
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:58:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol & Mike Birkett
5500 Fortunes Ridge Dr., #78D
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A314
From:jeff hopkins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:55:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
jeff hopkins
69 amber court
Lindenhurst, IL 60046
Attachment G A315
From:Girish Bose
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:53:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Girish Bose
9141 Linden Tree Lane
Charlotte, NC 28277
Attachment G A316
From:Kayla Johnston
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kayla Johnston
202 Yorktown rd
Kernersville, 27284
Attachment G A317
From:Dennis Raines
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:38:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dennis Raines
3319 Caratoke hwy
Elizabeth City, NC 27906
Attachment G A318
From:Diane Young
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Young
PO Box 1803
Kernersville, NC 27285
Attachment G A319
From:Olivia Baregrounds
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 11:13:17 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Olivia Baregrounds
1250 L T Hardee Rd
Greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A320
From:Sara Gritsavage
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:09:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sara Gritsavage
PO Box 276
Edneyville, NC 28727
Attachment G A321
From:Frank Stroupe
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:15:00 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank Stroupe
329 Raintree Dr
matthew, NC 28104
Attachment G A322
From:Amber White
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water, please!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:18:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amber White
39 Cider Mill Dr. Apt. 208
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Attachment G A323
From:Michelle Wells
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:09:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michelle Wells
113 Modena Dr
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A324
From:RICK RESTA
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:CLEAN WATER
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:36:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
RICK RESTA
344 AMARYLLIS WA
WAKE FOREST, NC 27587
Attachment G A325
From:Martha Brimm
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Water
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:13:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Martha Brimm
7 Surrey Lane
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A326
From:randy marrs
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:clean water
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 8:54:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
randy marrs
15 woodvale avenue
asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A327
From:Edith Simpson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean water: Depending on you
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:46:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edith Simpson
15 Springdale Rd
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A328
From:Andrew L. Lilley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean Wter
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew L. Lilley
14 Glenview Dr
Lake Junaluska, NC 28745
Attachment G A329
From:Matthew Voos
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean(er) Water
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:25:57 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew Voos
4709-1202
Bayridge Xing
Raleigh, NC 27604
Attachment G A330
From:Matt Miller
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Clean, Sustainable Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:03:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matt Miller
1629 Wellington Ave
Newton, NC 28658
Attachment G A331
From:Carol Greenwood
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Cleaner water for North Carolina
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:46:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Greenwood
10710 Nickleby Way
Apt 106
Raleigh, NC 27614
Attachment G A332
From:Christopher Lowry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Cleaner Water requirements :
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:19:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lowry
37 Montford Ave
Asheville, NC 28801
Attachment G A333
From:Brian OHara
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Cleaner Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:31:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brian OHara
2061 Mares Way
Greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A334
From:John Woodell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:cleaner water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:58:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Woodell
3066 Speedway rd
North Wilkeboro, NC 28659
Attachment G A335
From:Sonia McLamb
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Cleanwater
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:11:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sonia McLamb
111 rose lane
Stony Point, NC 28678
Attachment G A336
From:David Cook
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Comment on Water Quality Regulations
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:36:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Cook
411 East Cannon Avenue
Albemarle, NC 28001
Attachment G A337
From:Brianna Van Stekelenburg
To:Brower, Connie
Cc:Cassie Gavin
Subject:Comments - Triennial Review of water quality standards
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:20:39 AM
Dear Ms. Brower,
I am a Policy Analyst Intern with the NC Chapter of the Sierra Club. The NC Chapter
has over 61,000 members and supporters in North Carolina, who are concerned
about water quality.
We are appreciative that North Carolina will be upgrading our water quality standards
for toxic metals to the nationally recommended criteria. This is a step in the right
direction but we ask that the Division go further.
While North Carolina has a mercury standard, it currently does not regulate
methylmercury. When Mercury is deposited into water or onto land, microorganisms
found in soils and sediments convert it to methylmercury, which is a highly toxic form.
In this form, it is consumed by aquatic plants and animals. Fish that eat these plants
and animals build up methylmercury in their bodies.
People in North Carolina are typically exposed to methylmercury by eating fish and
shellfish like trout, catfish and carp. In 2011, 1.5 million people 16 years and older
spent a combined total of 23.5 million days fishing and 1.5 billion dollars on fishing in
North Carolina. The highest concentrations of methylmercury are usually found in
large fish that eat other fish. In North Carolina, the highest concentrations are found
in largemouth bass and bowfin.
Mercury, especially in the form of methylmercury, is highly toxic to humans. It can
interfere with fetal, infant, and childhood brain development, and cause health
problems for adults as well. North Carolina does not currently regulate
methylmercury, although that is the form that mercury takes in fish and therefore
directly threatens the wildlife and the people who eat the fish. We recommend that
DENR adopt a methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national
recommendation of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of fish tissue to better protect human
health.
Again, it is good that the state is moving forward with adopting metals standards, but
the public is counting on the state to appropriately regulate a wide range of toxic
substances in our waters - such as methylmercury - in order to protect public health.
Thank you,
Brianna Van Stekelenburg
Attachment G A338
From:Cassie Gavin
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Comments - Triennial Review of water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:23:15 PM
Dear Ms. Brower,
The North Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club has more than 61,000 members and supporters across the state who care about water quality. Our members are concerned that the legislature and the McCrory administration may not be prioritizing our Clean Water Act obligations. This is especially true with respect to the clean-up of Jordan Lake.
We are appreciative that North Carolina will be adopting nationally recommended criteria for toxic metals. High concentrations of toxic metals in our waters can poison people and wildlife. This is a positive step forward.
The North Carolina Sierra Club asks the Division fill in remaining significant gaps in our water protection standards. North Carolina's lack of statewide nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards and the lack of protection for in-stream flow are two big concerns.
A big gap in our water quality programs is the lack of statewide nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards. As you know, in 2001, the EPA required states to set water quality standards sufficient to protect waters from nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. Now, its 13 years later - and North Carolina still has not adopted these standards. We know that when too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams - algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and can suffocate and kill fish. Over a third of North Carolina drains to waters classified as nutrient sensitive. This problem is a threat to all uses of our waters - such as swimming, fishing and drinking. Despite the overwhelming evidence that nitrogen and phosphorus standards are needed, the Division is not proposing adoption of these as part of the Triennial Review. We urge the Division to stop delaying this important step forward and adopt numeric nutrient criteria this year.
In addition to protecting of our water quality - the Division should also ensure protection of water quantity. Having sufficient water quantity - or flow - is important to protect traditional uses of our rivers, including providing drinking water, swimming, fishing and boating. Our rivers support a strong tourism industry, including whitewater rafting and fishing, that depend on sufficient flow. Unfortunately, the Division is not proposing protections for instream flow as part of this Triennial Review. We urge the Division to adopt protections for instream flow this year so that future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming in our state’s rivers and lakes like we do today.
Thank you again for proposing some significant and needed updates to water quality standards. As you know, since the February Dan River coal ash spill, the public has been especially focused on water quality issues and we are interested in seeing the state show leadership to proactively protecting our waters. We urge the Division to take the opportunity presented by this Triennial Review process to step up and address remaining gaps in our water programs - like for nutrients and flow.
Thank you,
Attachment G A339
--
Cassie Gavin, Director of Government Relations
Sierra Club - NC Chapter
[e-mail]
19 W. Hargett Street, Suite 210
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.833.8467 x 104
Attachment G A340
From:Heidi Zehnal
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Comments from MEC Meeting that may be under EMC jurisdiction
Date:Monday, August 25, 2014 11:43:26 AM
I understand that some of the comments below may relate to the EMC's jurisdiction, not the MEC - related to wastewater, etc., so I wanted to be sure you also received these comments. Thank you, Heidi Zehnal, Chatham Country resident.
Public Comments – MEC Meeting 8/20/14There is someone associated with my family out West who works in the oil and gas and fracking industries. Even he feels that it is risky to do fracking in North Carolina, due to the geology – with the fractured shale and the shale being so close to the water table, compared to places like Pennsylvania and Colorado. Even with better geology, there were 209 water well contamination cases confirmed in Pennsylvania since 2007. I am bringing this up because allowing fracking wells and wastewater storage pits to be 100 feet from rivers, streams, and lakes and 300 feet from wetlands and trout streams seems like a recipe for disaster. If those wells start leaking into waterways feeding our water supplies in the Triangle and other parts of the state, they could cause harm, forever. Also, flood maps aren’t always up to date and flooding events occur out of the norm, so the 100 foot setback from the 100 year flood plain allowance could likely not be sufficient, especially with open waste pits. The Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative Study recommends larger setbacks than the MEC proposes. There is also no allowance for runoff from sloped land. Spills could be a problem with fracking operations so close to rivers and streams. In Colorado alone, there were 495 spills reported in 2013 and 22% resulted in water contamination of groundwater and surface water. Related to open waste pits, 25% of problems in Marcellus wells were from pit and storage problems, such as leaks overtopping pits, wildlife drinking the water, and air pollution. In 2012, Pennsylvania’s DEP recommended eliminating pit storage due to the unacceptable risks and other states are only allowing watertight tanks inside a secondary containment station. A study done last year by Downstream Strategies, an environmental consulting firm in Pennsylvania, showed that up to 4.3 million gallons of clean water are used to frack a single well and more than half of the wastewater was treated and discharged into rivers and streams. The EPA came out with an internal document this spring making it clear that fracking wastewater discharges into rivers and streams are covered under the Clean Water Act. The document lists almost two dozen individual substances such as benzene, radium, and arsenic that have been found at high enough levels in shale wastewater to pose hazards to drinking water safety, human health and the environment and other potential pollutants have to be removed for the water to be considered fully treated. In typical fracking wastewater, drinking water contaminant levels (MCLs) were exceeded for 8 parameters, water quality criteria for human health protection were exceeded for 9 parameters, and criteria for aquatic
Attachment G A341
protection were exceeded by 16 parameters. 100% of fracking wastewater needs to be tested before it is recycled and/or disposed of and new toxicants, carcinogens, or endocrine disruptor chemicals known to cause health damage at very low concentrations (less than 1 ppm) need to be characterized. A study in Environmental Science and Technology showed that plants can’t handle fracking water’s high levels of contaminants and water flowing out of treatment plants showed elevated levels of fracking chemicals. David Carpenter, Director of the University of Albany’s Institute for Health and the Environment noted at a New York State General Assembly hearing that wastewater treatment facilities are not fully capable of fully treating fracking wastewater. North Carolina lacks water quality standards or effluent limit guidelines for many fracking contaminants and facilities can treat and discharge fracking wastes into rivers and lakes without removing contaminants of concern. With 750 to 1000 chemicals in fracking wastewater and 80 to 330 tons of chemicals used per well, many unknown, something else must be done other than putting it into rivers and streams. NC also lacks the necessary regulatory framework to ensure safe surface disposal and treatment facilities designed to remove fracking contaminants from wastewater, so the state needs to ban the disposal of fracking wastewater at facilities that discharge effluent to surface waters. Contaminants that are suspected carcinogens, teratogens, toxicants, or endocrine disruptors should not be allowed to be discharged. Companies need to identify a safe disposal facility before drilling begins and there needs to be more emphasis on recycling and reuse of fracking wastewater and significant penalties for illegal dumping of fracking wastes. There also needs to be a rule on fracking wastewater being applied to crops or sprayfields, which runs off into rivers and streams and can contaminate aquifers.

Heidi ZehnalChatham County, NC resident
Additional Comments:There are some missing safety rules for regulating fracking in North Carolina that are very important that I wanted draw attention to. Several people have mentioned the Shearon Harris Nuclear plant, but I wanted to reiterate why there needs to be a rule about fracking near that plant. It is located on three fault lines, including the Jonesboro fault. There have been recent proven incidents in Canada, Ohio, and the UK showing that fracking itself has caused earthquakes and I also read some information from Texas saying that fracking itself has caused earthquakes there, not just the wastewater injection wells from fracking. One of the largest concentrations of radioactive nuclear waste in the country from several nuclear plants is located in three waste pools at Shearon Harris
Attachment G A342
and if there was a crack in the pools from an earthquake and water leaked out and a fire ensued, it would be dangerous for the entire East Coast. There could also be core damage to the nuclear plant itself from an earthquake. It is a very serious issue and rules must be in place to keep fracking away from those fault lines. Also, there needs to be a rule against fracking wastewater being sprayed on land, since it runs off into rivers and streams and can contaminate aquifers and harm crops. To illustrate how dangerous fracking fluids can be that are part of the wastewater, in a published news story, Cathy Behr, an emergency room nurse in Durango, Colorado almost died after treating a wildcatter who had been splashed in a fracking fluid spill at a BP natural gas rig. Behr stripped the man and stuffed his clothes into plastic bags while the hospital sounded alarms and locked down the ER. The worker was released, but a few days later, the nurse Behr lay in critical condition facing multiple organ failure. These fracking fluids are not benign, as the industry tries to make them out to be. That is one reason why fracking wastewater is so difficult to treat and we can’t allow fracking wastewater to go into rivers and streams or be sprayed onto land. In addition, a rule related to methane leakage is important, since NOAA determined that there is a 9% leakage rate from fracking wells nationwide, which makes fracking worse than coal fired plants for greenhouse gases going into the environment, since methane is so much more potent that CO2. The Society of Professional Engineers Journal has published research on high failure rates of fracking wells related to well integrity and the University of Texas has come with standards related to well integrity. Duke University scientists found higher levels of methane near fracking sites, University of Texas scientists found higher levels of arsenic, and University of Missouri researchers found endocrine disruptors that interfere with hormones, so keeping up the focus on strengthening rules related to well integrity is important. There have been proven well integrity issues in places like West Virginia, Northeast Pennsylvania, and Ohio, as well as other places around the country, where methane and other chemicals leaked into shallow water aquifers. Heidi ZehnalChatham County Resident

Attachment G A343
From:Battle, Gerald
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Brower, Connie; Hicks, Reginald; Westbrook, Vicki
Subject:Comments from the City of Durham
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 2:51:45 PM
Attachments:CofDurhamAug2014TriennialScan.pdf
Thank you.

Gerald Tyrone Battle
Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Management, City of Durham
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701

(O) [phone] x. 35556
(C) [phone]
(F) [phone]

[e-mail]
http://www.durhamnc.gov/

Attachment G A344
From:Battle, Gerald
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Brower, Connie; Hicks, Reginald; Westbrook, Vicki
Subject:Comments from the City of Durham
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 2:51:45 PM
Attachments:CofDurhamAug2014TriennialScan.pdf
Thank you.

Gerald Tyrone Battle
Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Management, City of Durham
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701

(O) [phone] x. 35556
(C) [phone]
(F) [phone]

[e-mail]
http://www.durhamnc.gov/

Attachment G A345
From:Katie Hicks
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Hope Taylor
Subject:Comments of Clean Water for NC - 2014 Triennial Review
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:48:18 AM
Attachments:NC Triennial Review 2014 - written comments of CWFNC.pdf
Ms. Brower,
Please find attached the written comments of Clean Water for North Carolina
regarding the April 2014 proposed draft amendments to NC's water quality
standards.
Respectfully,
Katie Hicks
Assistant DirectorClean Water for North Carolina
828-251-1291 / 1-800-929-4480
[e-mail]
www.cwfnc.org
Connect on Twitter - Follow on Facebook - Join CWFNC
Attachment G A346
From:Anne Coan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Mitchell Peele
Subject:Comments of NC Farm Bureau Federation on Triennial Review Rules - 8-22-14
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 4:43:45 PM
Attachments:Water Quality - Triennial Review Comments of NCFB - 8-22-14.pdf
Attached please find the comments of the NC Farm Bureau Federation on the proposed Triennial
Review rule changes and the variances. If you have questions, please let me know. Anne Coan

Attachment G A347
From:Gordon, Lisa Perras
To:Brower, Connie; Manning, Jeff
Cc:Wetherington, Michele; Petter, Lauren
Subject:Comments on NC"s Proposed Triennial Review
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 1:21:56 PM
Attachments:2014 Feb 4 EPA Rec Crit and Ammonia Letter to NC.pdf2014 Jan 3 EPA to NC Triennial Review Comments with Attachments.pdf2010 Aug NC Triennial Cmts Chart.pdf2010 Aug NC Triennial Cmts Letter.pdfConnie, Please accept these comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the current North Carolina Triennial Review. The EPA has provided earlier comments dated January 3, 2014 and August 20th, 2010, for this triennial review. We resubmit those comments in their entirety for your consideration for this triennial review as many of the revisions and comments remain the same. In particular, please note the comments in these letters that specifically address the proposed changes to the metals criteria, the low end hardness cap, the biological ‘trump’ and the action levels, as well as the request to ensure that the State submit the methods and analyses conducted to support the revised WQS as required by  40 CFR 131.6. This is important for all revisions but especially important for those areas that are not adopting federally recommended criteria (40 CFR 131.11(b)).  We are also including as part of our comments EPA’s February 4th, 2014, letter encouraging the State to consider adoption of the EPA’s most recent ammonia and bacteria criteria. For those changes in our letters that NC does not intend to address in this triennial, we urge NC to fully evaluate in the next triennial. In addition to those previous comments, we add the following: 1. Since the date of our January 3rd,, 2014 letter, the EPA and NC Division of Water Resources have entered into a mutually agreed plan to develop numeric nutrient criteria. The work in that plan has already begun and the EPA looks forward to continuing to work with the State on that process so that numeric nutrient criteria can be adopted into the State WQS in a future triennial review as outlined in the milestone section of that plan.2. The EPA attended the public hearings in both Raleigh and Statesville, NC on July 15th and 16th. During those hearings, numerous suggestions were made to modify the proposed metals criteria by including a multiplier of “x 1 WER” to allow for the use of a Water Effects Ratio. The EPA supports the use of this multiplier. Appendix L of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Handbook, entitled, Interim Guidance on Determination and Use
of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals, (EPA-823-B-94-001, February 1994) and Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharge of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-
Attachment G A348
005, March 2001) provide detailed information on how to properly conduct a WER and those sections may be directly referenced in the state WQS. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to assist North Carolina with any questions regarding the use or applicability of WERs.3. Since the date of the original proposal reviewed for the January 3, 2014 comments, the section regarding the derivation of the hardness for the use with the hardness based metals (Section 15 NCAC  02B .0211 (11)(c)(i)) was revised. EPA notes that the actual instream hardness will be used when calculating the metals criteria and supports that revision. For permitting purposes, the updated revision (Section 15 NCAC  02B .0211 (11)(c)(ii))states that the hardness shall be established using the “median of instream hardness data collected within the local US Geological Survey (USGS) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit.” EPA notes that 8 digit HUCs can be hundreds of miles in size and include multiple eco-regions with varying physical conditions. The use of so large of an area may result in hardness that are either over-protective (hardness lower than in the receiving water) or under-protective (hardness higher than in the actual receiving water.) The EPA recommends that NC consider using hardness values that more closely reflect the hardness in the actual receiving stream for the NPDES permittee. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to continue to evaluate this section with NC DWR in the coming weeks. The EPA wants to be able to quickly review and respond to these changes once they are submitted to us. Therefore, please let us know at your earliest convenience of any changes that will be made to these proposed revisions so that we can begin our evaluation. Your incredible persistence and diligence in moving this triennial ahead is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Lisa Perras GordonWater Quality StandardsNC CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAtlanta, Georgia(404) 562-9317 
Attachment G A349
From:Buchan, Edward
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:comments on triennial review
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 3:25:20 PM
Attachments:201408221521.pdf
ATT00001.c
Please find attached the City of Raleigh’s comments on the proposed rule changes as described in
the triennial review.

Best regards,

Ed Buchan
Environmental Coordinator
City of Raleigh - Public Utilities Department
[phone]
Attachment G A350
From:Mike Hanes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Comments to NC Environmental Management Commission Regarding Water Quality Standards July 21, 2014
Date:Monday, July 21, 2014 10:50:37 AM
Comments to NC Environmental Management Commission
Regarding Water Quality Standards July 21, 2014
My name is Mike Hanes, I was born and raised in Winston-Salem, NC. I moved to Raleigh in
1966 to attend NCSU and later received my MPH from UNC-CH…. Before my retirement I worked in Health and Human services at the Federal, State and Local Levels of government
for nearly 40 years.
I love NC, but I’m deeply concerned about its future. Below are my comments regarding NCs Water Quality and your responsibility to make sure NCs water is clean and safe.
Although it is worthy that you are proceeding with a review of NCs WQ Standards, I have two major concerns.
Your proposal for allowing polluting industries and municipalities to violate your own
standards up to the point that stream life begins to die seems a loophole for major polluters to bypass the very standards that you are setting forth.
With all the news of expected fracking in NC, it is difficult to understand why you are not proposing any standards for fracking contaminants and their safe discharge. How
will you deal with these waste waters, where will they go and how will you regulate them?
As you proceed, I would ask for your best professional judgement and to do your utmost to
protect NC, its people, its children and its future.
Thank you…. Mike Hanes, MPH
Attachment G A351
From:Juliana Baxley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Concerned resident for water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:00:28 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Please consider the following:
Upgrade our standards for toxic heavy metals, something our neighboring states did years ago;
Reject an EMC proposal to let toxic metals exceed standards until aquatic life dies;
Tighten the standard for a type of herbicide that causes blood cancers and reproductive problems and has been found
in rising amounts in surface drinking water sources;
Adopt criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which can cause algal blooms and fish kills, and can threaten the safety
of drinking water;
Adopt a standard for methylmercury in fish, a form of mercury that is closely tied to many serious health problems,
including learning disabilities, birth defects, and heart disease;
Adopt a standard for ammonia pollution, which is discharged by some wastewater treatment plants and can kill fish
and shellfish downstream;
Adopt a standard that prohibits the discharge of fracking wastewater contaminants.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Juliana Baxley
415 pecan dr
Selma, NC 27576
Attachment G A352
From:Shannon Grimes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:concerns about fracking
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shannon Grimes
4533 Birmingham Way
Raleigh, NC 27604
Attachment G A353
From:christina logan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Connie Brower DWR water planning section
Date:Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:05:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
christina logan
249 Scottsdale drive
advance, 27006
Attachment G A354
From:Cheryl Chabot
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Connie Brower
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:58:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Chabot
319 Juanita Lane
New Bern, NC 28560
Attachment G A355
From:Velimir Visnjic
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Connie Brower, DWR Water Planning Section
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:05:48 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Velimir Visnjic
3216 Edsel pl
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A356
From:Harry Arnold
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Connie Brower, DWR Water Planning Section
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:00:53 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Harry Arnold
4952 Morrowick Rd
Charlotte, NC 28226
Attachment G A357
From:Dan Johnson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Connie Brower
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:46:41 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dan Johnson
3416 Amber Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Attachment G A358
From:Emily Auman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Current Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:20:21 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Emily Auman
7 Provincetown Ct
Greensboro, NC 27408
Attachment G A359
From:Mercedes Hyman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Dear Connie,
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:30:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mercedes Hyman
6832 Main Street # 324
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attachment G A360
From:Elizabeth Adams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Demanding clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:35:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Adams
3066 Imperial Oaks Drive
Raleigh, NC 27614
Attachment G A361
From:Garret Meyer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Dirty water in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:28:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Garret Meyer
4901 Mashpee Lane
Apex, NC 27539
Attachment G A362
From:Robert Richardson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Do the right thing for North Carolina
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:49:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Richardson
3100 Pearces rd
Zebulon, NC 27597
Attachment G A363
From:Jeshua Stahler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Do your job.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:03:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeshua Stahler
113 hensdale rd
Raeford, NC 28376
Attachment G A364
From:Caitlin Burke
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Don"t let polluters compromise our water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:23:19 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D.
However, I oppose the proposal allowing polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as
stream life appears to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to
prevent pollution, not merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Caitlin Burke
103 Ashtree Ct
Cary, NC 27519
Attachment G A365
From:Joanne McGrath
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Drinking water quality affects human health!
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:02:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joanne McGrath
924 Chestnut Cove Rd
Sylva, NC 28779
Attachment G A366
From:Robert Sauer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Enforce clean water standards
Date:Thursday, July 10, 2014 4:13:17 PM
With the failure of the governor and state legislature to lead the way to protecting clean water
in North Carolina, it falls to those in state government to enforce the existing standards to the
best of their abilities. Please do what you can to keep coal ash, chemical waste and water
reclaimed from fracking operations out of our all-too-precious clean water sources.
Attachment G A367
From:Allison Delavan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:enviornment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:47:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Allison Delavan
192 Crystal Falls
Fairview, NC 28730
Attachment G A368
From:Dick Canty
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment - Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:45:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dick Canty
23 Red Maple Drive
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A369
From:Gina DeBreto
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 2:43:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gina DeBreto
37 Skyview Pl Apt. 6
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A370
From:David Sachter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:environment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:04:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Sachter
580 Panther Branch Road
Alexander, NC 28701
Attachment G A371
From:June Linhart
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:28:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
June Linhart
4501 rivershyre way
Raleigh, NC 27616
Attachment G A372
From:Christine Conley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christine Conley
4800B Walden Ct
Raleigh, NC 27604
Attachment G A373
From:margaret Peeples
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:33:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
margaret Peeples
838 Heather Lane
Charlotte, NC 28209
Attachment G A374
From:Jo Ann Mount
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Mount
1238 West 4th St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Attachment G A375
From:Leigh Hart
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environment
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:35:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leigh Hart
910 Arrowhead Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A376
From:Adrienne Ferriss
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:environment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:59:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adrienne Ferriss
27 Pheasant Dr
asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A377
From:Ryan Tuchler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Environmental sustainability
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:45:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ryan Tuchler
5450 gallion Ridge Rd
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Attachment G A378
From:TJ Fox
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:forgrt the fracking keep our water supply clean& chemical free
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:19:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
TJ Fox
7607 nc hwy 210
Smithfield, 27577
Attachment G A379
From:J.A. Perry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Fracking & water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:20:36 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
J.A. Perry
24 Ridge Ave
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A380
From:Thomas Boyd
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Fracking is Dangerous
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 1:25:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Boyd
105 Colora Court
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A381
From:balex06
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Fracking
Date:Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:38:20 PM
Please prevent fracking. It destroys drinking water, a life giving substance. Without water,
you die in 3 days. Also fracking lowers property values. Please protect the people you represent.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 phablet!
Attachment G A382
From:Debra Wilfong
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:fracking
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:12:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debra Wilfong
1921 Kingston Dr
Gastonia, NC 28052
Attachment G A383
From:Mick Noland
To:"Steve Tedder"; DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Chad Ham
Subject:FW: Letter to Connie Brower - Comments on Proposed Amendments - Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:06:18 PM
Attachments:Comments on Proposed Amendments Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards.pdf
Fayetteville Public Works Commission comments on Proposed Amendments
Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards.

Mick Noland, PE
Chief Operations Officer
Water Resources Division
Public Works Commission of the
City of Fayetteville
955 Old Wilmington Road
P O Box 1089
Fayetteville, NC 28302
(W) 910-223-4733
(F) 910-829-0207
[e-mail]

 The information contained in this communication (including any attachment) is privileged and confidential information that is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Access to this communication by anyone else is unauthorized. If the reader is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply and notify us of this error and delete this message. Finally, the recipient should check this communication and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville, NC, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this communication.
Attachment G A384
From:Reeder, Tom
To:Manning, Jeff; Brower, Connie
Subject:FW: NC Surface Water Triennial Review
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 3:33:42 PM
Attachments:08-22-14 Comments to Connie Brower re triennial review.pdf
ncflagsmall[24].png
See below.
Tom Reeder
Director, NC Division of Water Resources
Phone: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Lou Ann Phelps <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:25 PM
To: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, Peter Raabe
<[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]' ([e-mail])"
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]' ([e-mail])"
<[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]' ([e-mail])"
<[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Julie Youngman <[e-mail]>, Will Hendrick <[e-mail]>
Subject: NC Surface Water Triennial Review
Hello, all,

Attached are comments that have been submitted today by Julie Youngman, Senior Attorney, and
Will Hendrick, Associate Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, to the Water Quality
Planning Section of NC DENR on behalf of the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Cape
Fear River Watch, River Guardian Foundation, Appalachian Voices, Winyah Rivers Foundation,
American Rivers, Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation, Eno River Association, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
To avoid crashing your email inbox, we have not attached the six letters from EPA referenced in the
Attachment G A385
comments. However, if you would like to have a copy of those letters, please let me know.
Together they are approximately 7 MB.

Best regards,

Lou Ann Phelps
Administrative and Legal Assistant
North Carolina Certified Paralegal
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 W. Rosemary St., Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.southernenvironment.org

Attachment G A386
From:Reeder, Tom
To:Brower, Connie
Cc:Manning, Jeff
Subject:FW: NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)
Date:Monday, August 25, 2014 8:12:28 AM
Attachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngNCLM Comments - Triennial Review.pdfncflagsmall[2].png
Tom Reeder
Director, NC Division of Water Resources
Phone: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Sarah Collins <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:18 PM
To: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Gillespie, Mitch" <[e-mail]>, "Poupart, Jeff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)
Director Reeder,

Forwarded are comments the N.C. League of Municipalities’ submitted regarding the proposed
changes to water quality standards regulations pursuant to the Triennial Review.

Best,
Sarah

Sarah W. Collins
Regulatory Affairs Associate
NC League of Municipalities
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.715.2919 office
Attachment G A387
919.368.1269 cell
[e-mail]

From: Sarah Collins Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:11 PMTo: '[e-mail]'; 'Steve W Tedder ([e-mail])'; 'Kevin Martin
([e-mail])'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'Cc: Brower, Connie ([e-mail]); Erin WyniaSubject: FW: NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)

Commissioners,

Forwarded are comments the N.C. League of Municipalities’ submitted regarding the proposed
changes to water quality standards regulations pursuant to the Triennial Review.

The comments do not reiterate all of our previous comments but rather highlight what we believe
are key issues that the EMC needs to consider in their deliberations. Our comments include
discussion of:
· Change from Total Recoverable to Dissolved Metals: The proposed changes reflect the
latest guidance from the USEPA and with the associated rules/approaches guiding
implementation represent a reasonable approach to protecting water quality in North
Carolina.
· Retention of Action Levels: The proposed rules update the action levels to dissolved chronic
criteria and propose to retain the language that allows compliance with whole effluent
toxicity (WET) requirements to negate the need for permit limitations for copper, silver, and
zinc in all waters plus chloride in freshwater. Elimination of the action level concept and
requiring dischargers to do additional testing to adjust these criteria through development
of a WER or other site specific approach is a waste of resources when the WET testing is
already demonstrating that water quality is being protected.
· Addition of Water Effect Ratio: The proposed rules do not include a provision for using a
water effect ratio (WER). Therefore, any special studies requiring consideration of site-
specific requirements in development of effluent limitation will require modification of the
applicable criteria through rule-making by the EMC. We believe it is a better use of resources
by the staff, EMC and the regulated community to define a water quality criterion for a
metal as the applicable criterion times a water effect ratio (WER), with the default WER
value being 1.
· Other Issues:o Recalculation of the national acute criterion for Cadmium to reflect different
protection needs in trout and non-trout waters is strongly supported.o Retention of the current chlorophyll a standard is supported since it seems
appropriate to consider any changes to the standard in conjunction with the
development of nutrient management requirements in conjunction with the
Attachment G A388
recently approved Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (June 2014).o We support continuation of previously approved variances until new information is
developed and reviewed with the EMC.
o We do not support the inclusion of any flow requirement in the water quality
standards for protection of ecological integrity as suggested by some commenters at
the public hearings. Ecological flow requirements are being investigated as part of
requirements for development of Basinwide hydrological models pursuant to
Session Law 2010-143 and should continue being investigated in that context.

The League commends DWR and the EMC in their development of a reasonable rule package and
associated implementation procedures to complete this delayed Triennial Review. The proposals,
with the suggested changes, reflect a reasonable balance to water quality protection and
environmental regulation.

Best,
Sarah

Sarah W. Collins
Regulatory Affairs Associate
NC League of Municipalities
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.715.2919 office
919.368.1269 cell
[e-mail] 

From: Sarah Collins Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:55 PMTo: '[e-mail]'Cc: Erin WyniaSubject: NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)

Attached are the North Carolina League of Municipalities’ comments regarding the proposed
changes to water quality standards regulations pursuant to the Triennial Review.

Best,

Sarah Collins

Sarah W. Collins
Regulatory Affairs Associate
NC League of Municipalities
Attachment G A389
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.715.2919 office
919.368.1269 cell
[e-mail] 

Attachment G A390
From:Sarah Collins
To:"[e-mail]"; "Steve W Tedder ([e-mail])"; "Kevin Martin ([e-mail])"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"; "[e-mail]"
Cc:Brower, Connie; Erin Wynia
Subject:FW: NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 5:10:52 PM
Attachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngNCLM Comments - Triennial Review.pdf
Commissioners,

Forwarded are comments the N.C. League of Municipalities’ submitted regarding the proposed
 changes to water quality standards regulations pursuant to the Triennial Review.

The comments do not reiterate all of our previous comments but rather highlight what we believe
 are key issues that the EMC needs to consider in their deliberations. Our comments include
 discussion of:
· Change from Total Recoverable to Dissolved Metals: The proposed changes reflect the
 latest guidance from the USEPA and with the associated rules/approaches guiding
 implementation represent a reasonable approach to protecting water quality in North
 Carolina.
· Retention of Action Levels: The proposed rules update the action levels to dissolved
 chronic criteria and propose to retain the language that allows compliance with whole
 effluent toxicity (WET) requirements to negate the need for permit limitations for copper,
 silver, and zinc in all waters plus chloride in freshwater. Elimination of the action level
 concept and requiring dischargers to do additional testing to adjust these criteria through
 development of a WER or other site specific approach is a waste of resources when the WET
 testing is already demonstrating that water quality is being protected.
· Addition of Water Effect Ratio: The proposed rules do not include a provision for using a
 water effect ratio (WER). Therefore, any special studies requiring consideration of site-
specific requirements in development of effluent limitation will require modification of the
 applicable criteria through rule-making by the EMC. We believe it is a better use of
 resources by the staff, EMC and the regulated community to define a water quality criterion
 for a metal as the applicable criterion times a water effect ratio (WER), with the default
 WER value being 1.
· Other Issues:
o Recalculation of the national acute criterion for Cadmium to reflect different
 protection needs in trout and non-trout waters is strongly supported.o Retention of the current chlorophyll a standard is supported since it seems
 appropriate to consider any changes to the standard in conjunction with the
 development of nutrient management requirements in conjunction with the
 recently approved Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (June 2014).
o We support continuation of previously approved variances until new information is
 developed and reviewed with the EMC.o We do not support the inclusion of any flow requirement in the water quality
 standards for protection of ecological integrity as suggested by some commenters
 at the public hearings. Ecological flow requirements are being investigated as part of
 requirements for development of Basinwide hydrological models pursuant to
Attachment G A391
 Session Law 2010-143 and should continue being investigated in that context.

The League commends DWR and the EMC in their development of a reasonable rule package and
 associated implementation procedures to complete this delayed Triennial Review. The proposals,
 with the suggested changes, reflect a reasonable balance to water quality protection and
 environmental regulation.

Best,
Sarah

Sarah W. Collins
Regulatory Affairs Associate
NC League of Municipalities
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.715.2919 office
919.368.1269 cell
[e-mail] 

From: Sarah Collins Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:55 PMTo: '[e-mail]'Cc: Erin WyniaSubject: NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)

Attached are the North Carolina League of Municipalities’ comments regarding the proposed
 changes to water quality standards regulations pursuant to the Triennial Review.

Best,

Sarah Collins

Sarah W. Collins
Regulatory Affairs Associate
NC League of Municipalities
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.715.2919 office
919.368.1269 cell
[e-mail] 
Attachment G A392

Attachment G A393
From:Gondek, John
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Joseph Gorsuch ([e-mail]); Gensemer, Bob; Canton, Steven;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:GEI Comments on NC Triennial Review -- Copper BLM
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:04:49 PM
Attachments:image001.pngGEI_BLMProposal_NC.pdf
Ms. Brower,

Attached is a comment letter from Robert Gensemer on behalf of the Copper Development Association
discussing an issue we would like your staff to consider in North Carolina’s triennial review of standards.

Please let us know if you need any additional information – we are here to help if you have any
questions. We look forward to speaking with you soon.

Thank you,
John

John Gondek
Ecotoxicologist
GEI Consultants, Inc. 
455 Winding Brook Drive, Suite 201 | Glastonbury, CT 06033
T: 860.368.5382 | M: 845.323.6424
www.geiconsultants.com | vCard | map | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook

Attachment G A394
From:Forrest Westall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Steve Tedder
Subject:General Comments on WQ Standards Relative to Triennial
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 12:25:05 PM
To:  DWR Triennial Review Staff and Hearing Officer Steve Tedder:

I have followed this process for the last what seems like many years.  I’m sure the Division and the
 Hearing Officer have had sufficient comments on the actual changes proposed and I think the staff
 has done a good job of providing opportunity to interested parties to interact with the Division.  This
 has been a multi-year process and I know agency folks are glad to see it come to this point.  What I
 mainly want to provide is comments on some eutrophication-targeted standards that are not
 proposed for change at this point.   I will share one reiteration point on the issue of biological
 evaluation of potential toxicity relative to action levels and really all aquatic related toxicity
 standards (excludes human health issues related to Hg, Se and other human health parameters that
 typically are targets for bioaccumulation).

Biological Confirmation of potential toxicity impacts:  NC has an excellent aquatic toxicity
 program that has been around for several decades.  While aimed primarily at WWTPs and
 other point sources, it is sometimes used for in-stream evaluations.  The ongoing issues
 related to EPA’s concern for action levels is at the core of this comment.  DWR has a solid
 program for evaluating effluent toxicity for facilities with toxic limits.  In the cases of action
 levels the parameters included have very variable toxicity depending on the composition of
 the effluent involved or the receiving waters, beyond just hardness.  The whole effluent
 aquatic toxicity program is an effective “safety net” to make sure that effluents are not
 causing toxicity issues and if toxicity results show issues there is a required toxicity
 minimization program.  In many ways this provision of toxicity management is superior to
 parameter limits.  The confusion related to elevation of some parameters that may be “false
 positives” or the result of elevated levels of variable toxicity parameters that do not have
 real impacts on natural waters affected.  The standards need to continue to provide the
 provision of action levels and to emphasize in discussions with EPA the tremendous effort
 NC makes to protect waters using direct biological monitoring.  If the standards need to
 note this provision to help deal with EPA, then a modification to do that should be
 considered for inclusion.

The future of Ecological-based Standards:  This area of the WQ Standards has received many
 comments from interest groups and others advocating the addition of Statewide TN and TP
 levels.  This is not appropriate for many reasons the primary one is that there is no
 justification or solid science for the numbers being offered.  The NC Nutrient Forum and the
 vast majority of technical literature on eutrophication, particularly for manmade reservoirs,
 but would apply to all water body type, clearly concludes that only site-specific evaluation
 can be used to establish realistic and effective nutrient criteria.  Additionally, in-stream TN
 and TP levels are not always appropriate or helpful in managing nutrient loading to address
 documented eutrophication problems.  The process for setting nutrient criteria has to site-
specific and directed at situations where management of loading will result in significant
Attachment G A395
 improvement of water quality.

NC has what can be considered numeric criteria for chlorophyll a, dissolved gasses (including
 reference to super-saturation of DO) and pH (values >9 SU).  Values higher than the levels
 specified may reflect the effects of excessive growth of aquatic vegetation.  These are
 strongly linked to the Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Classification and the wording of the
 chlorophyll a mirrors several of the phrases contained in the text of the NSW Classification. 
 I realize that the chlorophyll a standard has come under intense scrutiny and that there are
 many opinions about its value in improving water quality.  However, it cannot be reasonably
 disputed that this standard in conjunction with the NSW Classification has served NC well
 and has resulted in site-specific evaluations and the establishment of nutrient management
 programs.  However, the application of the chlorophyll a standard as currently applied as a
 “not to exceed” level is not appropriate and is entirely contrary to the reason for
 establishing the standard.  Because algae blooms are transient in nature and variable in the
 water column (particularly for blue-greens), a measurement at any point in time is likely to
 change within a very short timeframe.  Many other parameters that are often dissolved or
 at a molecular level in waters have a much greater likelihood of being relatively evenly
 distributed.  For metals and other toxics it makes much more sense to use a “not to exceed”
 approach.  Chlorophyll is not such a parameter.  This can be considered a time-sensitive
 consideration.  The ecological and physical condition of waters, particularly in lakes and
 estuaries can vary from location to location, even within relatively short distances.  The
 application of a chlorophyll standard should be allowed to be adjusted within a water body. 
 The State should look at making the chlorophyll standard more variable, considering the
 same factors that would allow sections of water bodies to have different standard levels. 
 Ideally this should relate to the hydrologic factors, soils and regional conditions that affect
 what level of chlorophyll a is most appropriate.  The chlorophyll standard also should be
 adjusted to apply to seasonal changes.  There are many characteristics of algae growth that
 is greatly affected by the variation of seasons in NC.  The bottom line here is that a lot of
 work needs to be done to provide much more flexibility in both the level of and application
 of the chlorophyll.  This needs to be done both in the next triennial review and the NCDP
 process.

Because others have advocated the addition of several other parameters for inclusion as
 numeric criteria, I wanted to provide an alternate view of the need for statewide TN and TP
 levels.  I believe that consideration of a more flexible chlorophyll standard can help to
 address some difficult issues with how it is applied currently.  I want to continue to advocate
 the use of site-specific evaluations and the use of the NSW process to initiate evaluation of
 the true need for eutrophication control.  We have limited resources as a state and people,
 those need to be used wisely to work on problems that truly rise to the level of needing
 action.

I am providing these comments as an interested citizen and not as a representative of any group or
 organization.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Attachment G A396

Forrest Westall
396 Locust Creek Road
Burnsville, NC 28714        

Attachment G A397
From:wade Harrison
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:greeting
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:51:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
wade Harrison
po box 814
wake forest, NC 27588
Attachment G A398
From:Burt Aycock
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:H2O Quality
Date:Friday, July 11, 2014 7:00:00 AM
Please create and maintain the highest possible standards for water quality.
(Well, if it's just about you and me and this year - don't worry about it.)
IT'S ABOUT THE GRANDCHILDREN !
Thank you,
Burt Aycock
Attachment G A399
From:Thomas Leonard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:H2O
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Leonard
228 N. Front St
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attachment G A400
From:Margaret Sowerwine
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Heavy metals
Date:Monday, July 14, 2014 11:43:23 AM
As a physician and mother, I think it is time for North Carolina to comply with decades-old EPA
standards. People in eastern NC catch and eat fish out of economic necessity, and these toxic metals
can affect children and fetuses.

If we wait till streams are biologically affected, it is too late. There is no simple way to get those toxins
back out of the water. We need to think in terms of PREVENTION.

Margaret Sowerwine, M.D., Chair
Medoc Group NC Sierra Club
[e-mail]
18 East Elm St., Rocky Mt. NC 27804
[phone]

Attachment G A401
From:James Clampet
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Hello
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:31:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Clampet
1165 quiet Creek lane
williamston, NC 27892
Attachment G A402
From:Deborah OBrien
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Higher Standards for Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:35:40 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah OBrien
1783 Dunmore Place
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A403
From:Carrie Goodykoontz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:higher standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carrie Goodykoontz
2206 Jackson St
Belmont, NC 28012
Attachment G A404
From:Anna Stubblefield
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Homeowners support CLEAN WATER over industrial "job creators"...
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anna Stubblefield
831 Scholastic Drive
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A405
From:pamela woods
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Honor basic rights and use common sense
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:46:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
pamela woods
9 remembrance rideg
flat rock, NC 28731
Attachment G A406
From:Mike Ruck
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I am very concerned about NC"s water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:46:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
We can no longer just sit by while our water quality is under attack from many directions.
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mike Ruck
4012 White Pine Drive
Raleigh, 27612
Attachment G A407
From:P Dean Addison
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I care about clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:34:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
P Dean Addison
8 Town Square Blvd
306
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A408
From:Robert Hyman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I Demand Good Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:07:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Hyman
4029 Bamburgh Lane
Apex, NC 27539
Attachment G A409
From:Barbara SMith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I support clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:29:42 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barbara SMith
3140 Sussex Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A410
From:Diane Clark
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I support strengthening our water quality standards!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:46:20 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
I hope all standards will reflect protection from chemicals used in hydrolic fracturing ("fracking"), and from issues
resulting from fracking as well (such as natural gas getting into wells).
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational, and business opportunities. Our water is one of our most treasured resources and it requires
strong protections to keep it clean and pure.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Clark
4115 Castleford Dr
Colfax, NC 27235
Attachment G A411
From:Deja Lizer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I Support Strong Clean Water Standards
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:48:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deja Lizer
2 melody ln
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A412
From:Carol Hoke
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I support strong clean-water standards for North Carolina!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:29:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Hoke
1541 Joshua Road
Rosman, NC 28772
Attachment G A413
From:Tim Leighton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I Support Stronger Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:48:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim Leighton
17019 Ashton Oaks Dr
Charlotte, NC 28278
Attachment G A414
From:Jamie Cheshire
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I urge you to think
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:03:59 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It shouldn't require much thought, but we've gone so much further than we ever should have gone; now we must
think.
Think about those parts of the world where water is scarce or unsafe. What is there? Poverty. Disease. Death. Where
are the valiant corporations dedicated to "the greater good?" Somewhere else. Not there.
WATER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GROWTH.
WATER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY.
WATER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CORPORATE ENTITLEMENT TO PROFIT FOR THE FEW AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE MANY.
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Please look at yourself in the mirror. Do you love yourself? Tell yourself so. Out loud so you can hear your own
voice say it. And the commit to being one of the strong, far sighted, courageous ones who stood up for the
restoration of our planet.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jamie Cheshire
796 Ransom Rd
winston-salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A415
From:Todd Yennior
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I want clean water!!!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:20:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Todd Yennior
1456 Joyceland Road
Kernersville, NC 27284
Attachment G A416
From:Colleen Gilgenbach
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I want clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:56:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colleen Gilgenbach
29 Monroe Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Attachment G A417
From:Ron Sutherland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:I want cleaner water & stronger water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:58:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It is well past time we adopted strong standards for water quality in North Carolina, including those for metals,
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ron Sutherland
5801 Mountain Island Dr
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A418
From:Paul Kim
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Importance of clean water for all life
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:48:51 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Kim
4009 City of Oaks Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A419
From:Ann Koppelman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Improve NC Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:16:49 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Koppelman
2308 Wabash Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A420
From:Lisa Yarger
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:improve water quality standards in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:25:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
North Carolina is a beautiful state; I want to keep it that way!
I am extremely concerned about the possibility of fracking coming to North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals
that are generated in fracking wastewater could be legally discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we
don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
I call upon the NC Environmental Management Commission to strengthen our water quality standards now and to
prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa Yarger
1025 Alabama Avenue
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A421
From:Eanna Heyliger
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Improve Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:32:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eanna Heyliger
4239 Patriots Hill Rd
Mint Hill, NC 28227
Attachment G A422
From:Chris McGratty
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Improve water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:33:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris McGratty
3700 Commonwealth Ave
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A423
From:Stephen Beets
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Improve Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:08:45 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As a concerned North Carolinian, I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our water quality
standards for the triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has
requested and as neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen
and phosphorus and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current
standard for total mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of
methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Beets
327 Caudle Road
Pinnacle, NC 27043
Attachment G A424
From:Sonny Keisler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Improving Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:06:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
North Carolina must strengthen its water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), mercury
and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal blooms, and we’ll run the
risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sonny Keisler
3006 River Forks Rd
Sanford, NC 27330
Attachment G A425
From:Daisy Buitrago
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Improving Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:47:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daisy Buitrago
2218 Gran Lake Dr
Apt F
Morrisville, NC 27560
Attachment G A426
From:Brandon Whitesell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:In support of strengthening our current water quality standards.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:53:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brandon Whitesell
408 Culpepper Ln
Raleigh, NC 27610
Attachment G A427
From:Terry LaRiviere
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Is North Carolina Concerned About Prevention of Disease
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:29:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
All the fuss about healthcare costs and no ability to consider the long term health effects of tainted water. This is
NOT how I want other States to see us (we are already considered to be a bunch of ignorant, uneducated hillbillies!)
Placing corporate interests ahead of the public interest will further this perception and create even more health care
costs for people who are already burdened with paying for the exorbitant costs of medical care.
Do you care?
If so, please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking
coming to North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be
legally discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those
contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terry LaRiviere
99 Glasgow Trail
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A428
From:William Koester
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:It’s way past time...
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:23:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Koester
40 Otis Campbell Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A429
From:Nicole Haynes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:It"s important
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 9:48:54 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nicole Haynes
749 Galloway drive
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Attachment G A430
From:Paula Stober
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Keep NC"s water standards strong
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:24:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paula Stober
3607 Timberoak Dr
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A431
From:Emma Segasture
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Keep North Carolina a Healthy Place for Future Generations
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:36:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Emma Segasture
1418 Orange Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Attachment G A432
From:William Heath
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Keep Our NC Water Clean!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:57:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Heath
7533 NC Hwy 55 West
Seven Springs, NC 28578
Attachment G A433
From:Virginia Leslie
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Keep our water safe and clean - NO Fracking
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:30 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Virginia Leslie
9206 Bracken Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A434
From:Joseph McCourt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Keep water clean
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph McCourt
7807 Greylock Ridge Road
Matthews, NC 28105
Attachment G A435
From:Jeffrey Deal
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Keeping NC Citizen Taxpayers" Water CLEAN
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:24:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Deal
220 Tall Timber
Boone, NC 28607
Attachment G A436
From:Amber Chesley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:lacking water standards
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 6:34:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amber Chesley
2605 Arendell St
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attachment G A437
From:Matt Parris
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Let"s clean it up
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:52:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matt Parris
34 Candler School Rd
Candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A438
From:Colleen Watson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Let"s Have Some Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:41:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colleen Watson
6907 Bickham Lane
Ehringhaus, Room #252
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A439
From:Anne Williams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Lets Set High Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:55:29 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Williams
418 Shandon Street
columbia, SC 29205
Attachment G A440
From:Donna Savage
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Let"s stay current!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:28:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Savage
P.O.Bx 493
Cullowhee, NC 28723
Attachment G A441
From:Alan Stacey
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Life essential clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:40:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alan Stacey
512 Stokes Rd
Graham, NC 27253
Attachment G A442
From:William Sharfman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Life without water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:45:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Sharfman
50 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10024
Attachment G A443
From:Justin Hilton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Limiting
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:37:41 AM
Please limit phosphorus and nitrogen discharging by large companies and large polluters,
especially. Clean water and air means so much to living in NC.
Best,
Lifetime NC residentJustin Hilton
Attachment G A444
From:Wilfred Robin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Long Overdue Update of NC CWA WQSs
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:22:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow dischargers to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears to
survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the most essential tenet of the Clean Water Act, which is to prevent
pollution, not merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wilfred Robin
549 11th Ave., Cir., NW
Hickory, NC 28601
Attachment G A445
From:Amy Adams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Ms. Brewer
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:16:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Adams
498 Hodges Gap Rd
Boone, NC 28607
Attachment G A446
From:Mary Bennett
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:My thoughts on water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:22:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Bennett
2013 McCarthy Street
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A447
From:Sarah Moore
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Cannot Jeopardize Our "Clean" Drinking Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:47:13 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sarah Moore
311 S. Lasalle Street
Apt 14 K
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A448
From:art kiser
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:37:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
art kiser
377 vanderbilt rd
asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A449
From:Monica and Donnie Brown
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC clean water
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:36:58 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Monica and Donnie Brown
7845 Dusty Trail
Germanton, NC 27019
Attachment G A450
From:Calvin Woodland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Environment
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Calvin Woodland
4512-306 Tesla Park Dr
Wilmington, NC 28412
Attachment G A451
From:Susan Davis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Environmental Management Commission strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:09:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Davis
216 Adams St
Burlington, NC 27217
Attachment G A452
From:Ryan Bondurant
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Environmental Management Commission to strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:07:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ryan Bondurant
603 thomas st
Reidsville, NC 27320
Attachment G A453
From:Joy Pickett
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Environmental Management Commission
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:48:04 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joy Pickett
1108 Pender street
Raleigh, NC 27610
Attachment G A454
From:RALEIGH STOUT
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Must Strengthen Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:20:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
RALEIGH STOUT
1001 YANCEYVILLE ST APT A
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
Attachment G A455
From:Virginia Browning
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC native requests strong water standards
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 6:29:27 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Virginia Browning
510 Marshburn Rd
Wendell, NC 27591
Attachment G A456
From:Beth Stanberry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC needs clean water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Beth Stanberry
PO Box 468
Asheville, NC 28802
Attachment G A457
From:David Phillips
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC protecting the air, water, and quality of life.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:34:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Phillips
PO Box 811
Zebulon, NC 27597
Attachment G A458
From:Liz Cullington
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Triennal Review of WQ Standards
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:30:07 PM
I am writing to oppose the use of "biological confirmation" as a substitute for water quality
measurements of toxic metals, or other water quality measurements. Not only would this fail to address metals in sediment, it could mean a dangerous build up in the aquatic food chain.
The state must maintain the current metal standards.
I support a new tighter standard for 2,4D herbicide and would urge DWQ to add standards for all commonly used herbicides and pesticides for which our state's waters are not currently
tested.
I am extremely concerned that, even without spills or illegal discharges to our state's waters, our rivers could be contaminated with the salty, radioactive, and mineral-laced "produced
waters" from fracking, via wastewater treatment plants, which is currently proposed as permissible under Mining and Energy Commission Rules (15A NCAC 05H .2003). Similarly
chemically contaminated fracking wastewater, which can also contain "biocides" and a number of substances harmful to aquatic life and human health could be sent to sewage
treatment plants (or treatment plants).
Unfortunately, the salts and biocides in these wastes can also damage the biological processes of sewage plants leading to additional threats to our water supplies downstream, as well as the
health of our rivers.
I urge DWQ to explore such chemicals and ingredients as are revealed to the public from drilling operations elsewhere in order to plan for additional testing parameters where
necessary. For starters, there is a list that the hydraulic fracturing industry will admit to, and it is here, but too long to paste into my comments. However, it's a list of things that you would
definitely not want in your water, and which downstream drinking water intakes are not currently required to test for.
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
There are multiple ammonia compounds on the list, just another reason for NC to not wait, and
to adopt a water quality standard for ammonia compounds, as EPA recommends, since our state allows land application of both WWTP sludge and waste from confined animal
operations (CAFOs).
As a resident of a county that depends on Jordan Lake for drinking water, I am opposed to the delay of the Jordan Lake rules, and the use of a few little useless Solarbees. Our state needs
nitrogen and phosphorus limits, not just upstream of Jordan Lake, but statewide.
I understand that NC has yet to adopt the national standard for methylmercury in fish, this is absolutely necessary, and testing and notification should be expanded, including notifications
in both English and Spanish for every affected water body or reach.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important issues.
Attachment G A459
Liz Cullington390 Rocky Hills Road, Pittsboro NC 27312-6377
Attachment G A460
From:Heather Deck
To:Brower, Connie
Cc:[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:NC Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 4:28:34 PM
Attachments:PTRF Triennial Review Comments_08_22_14.pdfappendix A_mussel distribution in Tar River basin.pdf
Ms. Brower,

Please find the attached comments from the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation re: NC Triennial Review.

Thank you,

Heather Jacobs Deck
Pamlico-Tar RIVERKEEPER
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
P.O. Box 1854
Washington, NC 27889
[phone] (office)
[phone] (fax)
[phone] (cell)
www.ptrf.org

Follow us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pamlicotar
Follow us at Twitter: www.twitter.com/ptrfriverkeeper”
Like us at Tar-Pamlico Water Trail: www.facebook.com/TarPamRiverCamping

Attachment G A461
From:Cindy Phipps
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water quality is vital
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:36:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cindy Phipps
326 Berry Hill Dr
Sylva, NC 28779
Attachment G A462
From:Brandon Tweed
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:34:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brandon Tweed
6700 Sandwell Ln
Apt 208
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A463
From:Lydia Degn-Sutton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lydia Degn-Sutton
801 E Woodcroft Pkwy
Apt 1904
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A464
From:Johnny Dillard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Johnny Dillard
1147 Laurelwood Place
Lenoir, NC 28645
Attachment G A465
From:Karen Bethune
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:42:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important and long overdue that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish
kills and algal blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Bethune
28 Stone River Dr
asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A466
From:A. Gardner
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:21:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
A. Gardner
154 Ridgeview Drive
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Attachment G A467
From:Melanie Lech
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:37:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melanie Lech
12512 Pickford Ct
Huntersville, NC 28078
Attachment G A468
From:David Monroe
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:27:40 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Monroe
206 Narcissus Mews
Caswell Beach, NC 28465
Attachment G A469
From:Suzanne Ward
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:53:40 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Ward
7624 Decatur Dr
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Attachment G A470
From:Carrie Kluiter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:41:05 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carrie Kluiter
273 Parrish Farm Ln
Benson, NC 27504
Attachment G A471
From:Sarah Collins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Erin Wynia
Subject:NCLM comments - Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review)
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 4:54:55 PM
Attachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngNCLM Comments - Triennial Review.pdf
Attached are the North Carolina League of Municipalities’ comments regarding the proposed
changes to water quality standards regulations pursuant to the Triennial Review.

Best,

Sarah Collins

Sarah W. Collins
Regulatory Affairs Associate
NC League of Municipalities
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.715.2919 office
919.368.1269 cell
[e-mail]

Attachment G A472
From:Botic, Katie
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NC-PC Response to Triennial Review of Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36:59 PM
Attachments:Triennial Review of Standards Response.pdf
Please see the attached response. Thank you.

Katie Botic
Environmental Compliance SpecialistCharlotte Mecklenburg Utilities4222 Westmont DriveCharlotte, NC 28217
704-336-4582
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Attachment G A473
From:Maria parrino
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:New Water Standards Need Immediately
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:23:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Maria parrino
p o box 1480
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A474
From:judy katz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:NO FRACKING!!! SAVE OUR WATER!!!!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:55:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
judy katz
1419 manns chapel
pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A475
From:Kent Lupton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:No One Should Have to Worry About Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kent Lupton
613 May Court
Gastonia, NC 28054
Attachment G A476
From:David Shelton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:No toxins in our water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:38:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Industry and development put a burden on clean water supplies, and we have to be careful not to let the interests of
polluters get out of hand, and spoil our water.
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children, and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and is the right of all North Carolinians and
Americans.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Shelton
329 Grady McNeilly Rd
Casar, NC 28020
Attachment G A477
From:Carl Barnes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:North Carolina Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carl Barnes
2611 Woodberry Dr
Winston Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A478
From:Benjamin Wheeler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:North Carolina deserves CLEAN water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:29 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Wheeler
4703 Heritage Drive
Durham, NC 27712
Attachment G A479
From:Lou Ann Phelps
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:North Carolina Surface Water Triennial Review
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 2:56:12 PM
Attachments:08-22-14 Comments to Connie Brower re triennial review.pdf
EPA letters re WQS - NC, AL, GA.pdf
Dear Ms. Brower,

Attached are comments submitted by Julia Youngman of the Southern Environmental Law Center,
on behalf of the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Cape Fear River Watch, River
Guardian Foundation, Appalachian Voices, Winyah Rivers Foundation, American Rivers, Neuse
Riverkeeper Foundation, Eno River Association, and Waterkeeper Alliance. Also attached are
enclosures referenced in the comments. A hard copy will follow by regular mail.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of these comments.

Best regards,

Lou Ann Phelps
North Carolina Certified Paralegal
Assistant to Julia F. Youngman
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 W. Rosemary St., Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.southernenvironment.org

Attachment G A480
From:Wendy King
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:North Carolina Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:55:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wendy King
914 East Washington Street
Nashville, NC 27856
Attachment G A481
From:Velvet Key
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:North Carolina"s Water Needs Improvements
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:01:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Velvet Key
11818 Elizabeth Madison Court
Charlotte, NC 28277
Attachment G A482
From:Bill Staton, MBA, CFA
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:North Carolina"s Water Quality Is in Serious Jeopardy
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Staton, MBA, CFA
2431 Hartmill Court
Charlotte, NC 28226
Attachment G A483
From:Ulla Reeves
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Nothing is more precious than clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:16:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ulla Reeves
221 FAIRFAX AVENUE
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A484
From:Yelena Porzio
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Only way to know its clean is to test it!
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:00:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Yelena Porzio
5119 Goshawk Dr
Hope Mills, NC 28348
Attachment G A485
From:Renee Giddens
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Our taxes pay for clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:24:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Renee Giddens
23 Chop Nut Circle
Smithfield, NC 27577
Attachment G A486
From:Teresa Baker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Our Water Quality matters to Me
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 3:11:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Baker
2652 NC Hwy 56
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Attachment G A487
From:Lauren Cotter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Our water quality stamdards must be improved!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:31:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lauren Cotter
6608 Lynndale Dr
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A488
From:Anne Kepplinger
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Our water
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 5:49:56 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Kepplinger
2844 Wycliff
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A489
From:bill clark
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:our water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:29:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
bill clark
4246 east little horse creek rd
lansing, NC 28643
Attachment G A490
From:Jeanne Fertig
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please adopt the proposed metals standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:51:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fertig
P.O. Box 2865
Cashiers, NC 28717
Attachment G A491
From:David Fregeau
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please be patient; unknowingly we will pay more later.
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:44:34 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Fregeau
12723 Winget Rd
charlotte, NC 28278
Attachment G A492
From:Bob Drake
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please clean water.. no more
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:13:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Drake
109 Wllow Drive
Garner, NC 27529
Attachment G A493
From:Pierre Chartier
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please do something about it!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:40:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pierre Chartier
107 Ashley Glen Dr
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A494
From:mark Gilbert
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:please do the right thing
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:01:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
mark Gilbert
492 mill creek rd lot 4
Newport, NC 28570
Attachment G A495
From:rocky reuter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:please ensure that our water is clean and healthy for us
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:20:52 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
rocky reuter
3941 D hahns lane
greensboro, NC 27401
Attachment G A496
From:Carlos Espinosa
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please establish very good water quality standards for North Carolina!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carlos Espinosa
212 Central Avenue
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A497
From:Gary Marshall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please help protect our water resources!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:48:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Marshall
16825 knoxwood dr
Huntersville, NC 28078
Attachment G A498
From:Mark Skinner
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please help
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 6:42:26 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Skinner
Rainbow Forest Drive
Charlotte, NC 28277
Attachment G A499
From:Erik Rosengren
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please improve and protect our clean WATER!
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 9:37:21 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
This is simple. Without clean water, we die. Or only the very wealthy will have access to clean water, which seems
to be fast approaching. Water is given to us by the earth and clean water is every beings birthright. There is no
amount of money or industrial progress that should be allowed to pollute the gorgeous water systems in North
Carolina. Act now to preserve the gift of life for our children and descendants. PLEASE. We have the ability to
make decisions now that will effect our immediate future.
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Erik Rosengren
75 Lakewood Drive #3
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A500
From:David Greenwald
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please improve the quality of our water in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:40:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my thoughts on strengthening our current water quality standards. I think we should tighten
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
David Greenwald
610 Madam Moores Lane
New Bern NC 28562
Sincerely,
David Greenwald
610 Madam Moores Lane
New Bern, NC 28562
Attachment G A501
From:Jessica Janecki
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please improve water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:34:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Janecki
920 Exum St
Durham, NC 27701
Attachment G A502
From:Anthony Jones
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please keep NC clean & green
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:57:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anthony Jones
213 Perry Street
Henderson, NC 27536
Attachment G A503
From:David Owens
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please keep our precious water clean
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:41:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Owens
914 Monmouth Ave. #1
Durham, NC 27701
Attachment G A504
From:Laurie Rieman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Keep our Water Clean
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:29:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurie Rieman
287 Tuskeegee Acres Road
Robbinsviile, NC 28771
Attachment G A505
From:Crystal Cabot
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Prevent a Cancer Epidemic, and Environmental Destruction
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Crystal Cabot
2342 Oxford Road
Henderson, NC 27536
Attachment G A506
From:Daniel Morris
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Prohibit Discharge of Fracking Contaminants in NC Waters
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:43:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Morris
3610 Alamosa Drive
High Point, NC 27265
Attachment G A507
From:Donna Haskins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Protect North Carolina"s Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:27:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Haskins
170 Cedar Elm Rd
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A508
From:Randy Knotts
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Protect Our Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:55:41 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy Knotts
105 auburn cove
mount holly, NC 28120
Attachment G A509
From:Joan Walker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please protect our drinking water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joan Walker
63 WASHINGTON AVE
ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
Attachment G A510
From:Colby Hall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please protect our water supply!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:34:09 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colby Hall
3731 Yorktown Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A511
From:Brenda Thompson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Protect Our Water!!!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:13:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Thompson
65 Monticello Rd
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A512
From:Teresa Howachyn
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Protect Our Water!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:55:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Howachyn
315 Lookout Terrace
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A513
From:Larry Hannon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Protect Our Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:26:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers.
Please work with other state agencies to protect our water from the threat of un-named chemicals use in fracking.
There is no substitute for clean water!
Finally, the current standard for total mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for
the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larry Hannon
6823 Needham Dr
Charlotte, NC 28270
Attachment G A514
From:David Stover
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Raise the Water Quality Standards in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Stover
101 east sprague st
Winston-Salem, NC 27127
Attachment G A515
From:Stephanie Crawford
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please stand UP FOR NC WATER NOW & always
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:46:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Crawford
25 bear creek road
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A516
From:Alison Smitley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen and update our water quality standards in NC!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alison Smitley
1403 Sycamore Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Attachment G A517
From:Betty Lawrence
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Strengthen Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:48:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betty Lawrence
142 Hillside St
Asheville, NC 28801
Attachment G A518
From:Steve Dean
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen NC Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:56:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Dean
114 Swain Lane
Topton, NC 28781
Attachment G A519
From:Ruth Steenwyk
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen NC"s water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:46:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ruth Steenwyk
1625 Ben Jones Drive
Mebane, NC 27302
Attachment G A520
From:Linda Vickery
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our NC watersheseds" standards as least to equal our neighboring stat
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 2:28:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Vickery
2407 Legacy Oaks Pl
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A521
From:Brittany Iery
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:07:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brittany Iery
1116 Holburn Pl
Raleigh, NC 27610
Attachment G A522
From:Chris Clarke
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:32:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Clarke
795 Elizabeth Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
Attachment G A523
From:Robert Blackwell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:15:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Blackwell
4311 Cove Loop Road
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A524
From:Pat Blackwell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:14:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pat Blackwell
4311 Cove Loop Road
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A525
From:Heidi Burke
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:02:05 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heidi Burke
1009 Meadowlands Trl
Calabash, NC 28467
Attachment G A526
From:Krista Stearns
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:17:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Krista Stearns
165 Brevard Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A527
From:Ryan Cannon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:25:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ryan Cannon
220 Barksdale Avenue
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Attachment G A528
From:Mary Wagner
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:please strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:34:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Wagner
294 Trillium Way
Clayton, NC 27527
Attachment G A529
From:Julia Jessop
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen our Water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:28:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the triennial review. North
Carolina should update our standards especially for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as neighboring states
did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus and a standard for
ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total mercury is not
adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Jessop
2713 McDowell Road
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A530
From:Dr. Diane Nelson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen vital clean water regulations
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:31:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Diane Nelson
244 sweet bay pl
x
Carrboro, NC 27510
Attachment G A531
From:Laura Bouchard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Strengthen Water Quality Standards in NC!!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Bouchard
P. O. Box 609
Tryon, NC 28782
Attachment G A532
From:Caroline Dyar
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:please strengthen water quality standards in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Caroline Dyar
101 Thomas Ln
Carrboro, NC 27510
Attachment G A533
From:Tracy Feldman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen water quality standards in the US
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:07:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tracy Feldman
2117 Strebor Street
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A534
From:Amy Kellum
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Strengthen Water Quality Standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:06:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Kellum
4615 Willa Way
Durham, NC 27703
Attachment G A535
From:Heather Norton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen water quality standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:00:20 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heather Norton
15310 Superior Street
Charlotte, NC 28273
Attachment G A536
From:Robert Belknap
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:02:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Belknap
900 Hillsborough Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Attachment G A537
From:Kelly Brookshire
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:50:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kelly Brookshire
419 Incinerator Road
Clyde, NC 28721
Attachment G A538
From:Martha Spencer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:15:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Martha Spencer
988 Henry Mountain Road
Brevard, NC 28712
Attachment G A539
From:James Schall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:19:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that
would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since
we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Schall
31 Elizabeth St
Asheville, NC 28801
Attachment G A540
From:Theresa McAskill
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please strengthen water standards & protect our health & the beauty of NC
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:00:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Everyone in my neighborhood is concerned about the quality of our drinking wtarer & also of our lakes & streams,
& our recreation water.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Theresa McAskill
3112 lassiter st
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A541
From:Carol shaffer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please take this serious!!!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:23:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams. If you care
about the water quality for your children and grandchildren please take a closer look at this. Testing of our waters
should be done yearly. Last time done was in 2006? Seriously? NC is too beautiful to let this slide.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol shaffer
700 Zelda court
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Attachment G A542
From:MARTIN HAZELTINE
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please think of your Grandchildren.
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
MARTIN HAZELTINE
7614 DUNBAR DRIVE SW
Sunset Beach, NC 28468
Attachment G A543
From:Michele Clark
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please update NC"s clean water standards! Protect our environment!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:04:36 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michele Clark
109 Shadowood Dr. Apt. V
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A544
From:Mike Hamer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please update water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:58:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mike Hamer
100 Park Drive
Greenville, 27858
Attachment G A545
From:Joyce Atkinson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Please work to strengthen our clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:52:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joyce Atkinson
7125 Trumble Woods
CONNELLY SPRINGS, NC 28612
Attachment G A546
From:Esther Murphy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Poisoned Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:13:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Esther Murphy
7235 Darden Rd
Apt. #127
WILMINGTON, 28411
Attachment G A547
From:James Stone
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Precious Water
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 3:34:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Stone
647 Town Mountain Road
Apt. 201
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A548
From:Chelsea Barnes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Prevent water pollution
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:14:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chelsea Barnes
2505 Tryon Pines Drive
Raleigh, NC 27603
Attachment G A549
From:Joanna Willard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:02:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joanna Willard
208 Applecross Dr
Cary, NC 27511
Attachment G A550
From:Debora Ellis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect NC Water - Strengthen our Regulations (and enforce them)
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:26:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debora Ellis
3936 2nd St. Dr. NW
HIckory, NC 28601
Attachment G A551
From:Linda Covington
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:PROTECT NC WATER
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:41:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Covington
62 Beverly Road W
Ashevile, NC 28806
Attachment G A552
From:James Embrey
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect NC"s Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:58:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Embrey
509 South Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Attachment G A553
From:Tiffany K
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:PROTECT NORTH CAROLINA"S PEOPLE!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tiffany K
Protect North Carolina Lane
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Attachment G A554
From:Jake Anderson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our drinking water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:29 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jake Anderson
420 High St
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A555
From:linda eiserloh
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our precious water while we still can!
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 7:59:55 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
linda eiserloh
168 doubleday rd
tryon, NC 28782
Attachment G A556
From:sam retsch-bogart
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect Our Water & AIR!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:24:22 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
sam retsch-bogart
100 Cardiff Place
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A557
From:Jayne Boyer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:13:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jayne Boyer
4316 Thetford Rd
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A558
From:Barbara Sloss
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:protect our water resources
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:26:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Sloss
5 Wagon Road
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A559
From:Laura Graziano
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:30:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Graziano
25 Stone Cottage Rd
Mars Hill, NC 28754
Attachment G A560
From:Jory Froggatt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:08:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jory Froggatt
5411 Ashbey lane
Summerfield, NC 27358
Attachment G A561
From:Dan Faris
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect Our Water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:41:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dan Faris
6000 Rose Valley Dr
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A562
From:Bobbi Hapgood
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our Water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:57:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bobbi Hapgood
13 Friday Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A563
From:Laura Graziano
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:04:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Graziano
25 Stone Cottage Rd
Mars Hill, NC 28754
Attachment G A564
From:fw hester
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect Our Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
fw hester
201 duncan street
raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A565
From:Katherine Williams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:protect our water, please!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:42:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. As a resident of Rockingham County, living in a zone
scheduled for fracking, I am extremely concerned about the possibility of fracking coming to North Carolina.
Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally discharged from
treatment plants into the Dan River and its tributaries since we don't have water quality standards for those
contaminants. Radiation is also a concern. The Dan River is where our water comes from here.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Katherine Williams
2102 bryant street
Madison, NC 27025
Attachment G A566
From:Ellen Osborne
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect Our Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:29:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ellen Osborne
6731
Hunt Rd
Pleasant Garden, NC 27313
Attachment G A567
From:Molly Murphy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protect our water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Molly Murphy
2116 Brandon Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attachment G A568
From:Carol Lynn Anderson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protecting NC air, water, and quality of life
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:19:38 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Lynn Anderson
2402-M Lake Brandt Pl
Greensboro, NC 27455
Attachment G A569
From:James Kelleher
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protecting NC"s Natural Resources
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:23:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Kelleher
3700 Cotswold Terr Unit 3D
Greensboro, 27410
Attachment G A570
From:jennifer smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:protecting the environment
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:46:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
jennifer smith
7816 calibre crossing drive
charlotte, NC 28227
Attachment G A571
From:Cassandra Beach
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Protecting water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:15:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As a former administrator at DNER (then NER & NRCD), I am writing to you today to submit my comments in
support of strengthening our water quality standards for the triennial review. North Carolina should update our
standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as neighboring states did years ago. The state should also
adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further
degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we
also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cassandra Beach
672 Spindlewood
672 Fearrington Post
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A572
From:Cynthia Gallion
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Public Health
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:46:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the triennial review. North
Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as neighboring states did years
ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus and a standard for ammonia
to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total mercury is not adequate to
protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Gallion
745 Hanska Way
Raleigh, NC 27610
Attachment G A573
From:Juanita Klostermeyer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Re: Strengthen and update our clean water standards.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:33:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Juanita Klostermeyer
139 Camden Ct
Shelby, NC 28152
Attachment G A574
From:Aimee Siluk
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Re: Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:43:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Aimee Siluk
13721 Pytchley Lane
Charlotte, NC 28273
Attachment G A575
From:Gordon, Lisa Perras
To:Brower, Connie; Manning, Jeff
Cc:Godfrey, Annie; Petter, Lauren; Wetherington, Michele
Subject:RE: Comments on NC"s Proposed Triennial Review
Date:Monday, August 25, 2014 9:11:55 AM
Connie,

With apologies, I realized that I inadvertently left off the following comment, which I’ve included
 now under No. 4 below. While we have discussed this in earlier communications and on the phone, I
 would like it to be included with our official comments.

Hope you fared well last Friday!

Thanks so much, 
Lisa Gordon

From: Gordon, Lisa Perras 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:21 PM
To: Connie Brower; 'Manning, Jeff'
Cc: Wetherington, Michele; Petter, Lauren
Subject: Comments on NC's Proposed Triennial Review
 Connie, Please accept these comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the current North Carolina Triennial Review. The EPA has provided earlier comments dated January 3, 2014 and August 20th, 2010, for this triennial review. We resubmit those comments in their entirety for your consideration for this triennial review as many of the revisions and comments remain the same. In particular, please note the comments in these letters that specifically address the proposed changes to the metals criteria, the low end hardness cap, the biological ‘trump’ and the action levels, as well as the request to ensure that the State submit the methods and analyses conducted to support the revised WQS as required by  40 CFR 131.6. This is important for all revisions but especially important for those areas that are not adopting federally recommended criteria (40 CFR 131.11(b)).  We are also including as part of our comments EPA’s February 4th, 2014, letter encouraging the State to consider adoption of the EPA’s most recent ammonia and bacteria criteria. For those changes in our letters that NC does not intend to address in this triennial, we urge NC to fully evaluate in the next triennial. In addition to those previous comments, we add the following: 
Attachment G A576
1. Since the date of our January 3rd,, 2014 letter, the EPA and NC Division of Water Resources have entered into a mutually agreed plan to develop numeric nutrient criteria. The work in that plan has already begun and the EPA looks forward to continuing to work with the State on that process so that numeric nutrient criteria can be adopted into the State WQS in a future triennial review as outlined in the milestone section of that plan.2. The EPA attended the public hearings in both Raleigh and Statesville, NC on July 15th and 16th. During those hearings, numerous suggestions were made to modify the proposed metals criteria by including a multiplier of “x 1 WER” to allow for the use of a Water Effects Ratio. The EPA supports the use of this multiplier. Appendix L of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Handbook, entitled, Interim Guidance on Determination and Use
of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals, (EPA-823-B-94-001, February 1994) and Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharge of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-005, March 2001) provide detailed information on how to properly conduct a WER and those sections may be directly referenced in the state WQS. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to assist North Carolina with any questions regarding the use or applicability of WERs.3. Since the date of the original proposal reviewed for the January 3, 2014 comments, the section regarding the derivation of the hardness for the use with the hardness based metals (Section 15 NCAC  02B .0211 (11)(c)(i)) was revised. EPA notes that the actual instream hardness will be used when calculating the metals criteria and supports that revision. For permitting purposes, the updated revision (Section 15 NCAC  02B .0211 (11)(c)(ii))states that the hardness shall be established using the “median of instream hardness data collected within the local US Geological Survey (USGS) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit.” EPA notes that 8 digit HUCs can be hundreds of miles in size and include multiple eco-regions with varying physical conditions. The use of so large of an area may result in hardness that are either over-protective (hardness lower than in the receiving water) or under-protective (hardness higher than in the actual receiving water.) The EPA recommends that NC consider using hardness values that more closely reflect the hardness in the actual receiving stream for the NPDES permittee. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to continue to evaluate this section with NC DWR in the coming weeks.4. As noted, NC DWR has proposed metals criteria to include updated chronic criteria for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc. NC has also proposed to add in a section at 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (11)(d) which states that, “Compliance with chronic instream metals standards shall only be evaluated using averages of a minimum of four samples taken on consecutive days, or as a 96-hour average.” It is EPA’s understanding that NC’s monitoring program does not currently monitor over four consecutive days. Please provide information on how monitoring will be done to assess
Attachment G A577
 against these new criteria once adopted. The EPA wants to be able to quickly review and respond to these changes once they are submitted to us. Therefore, please let us know at your earliest convenience of any changes that will be made to these proposed revisions so that we can begin our evaluation. Your incredible persistence and diligence in moving this triennial ahead is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Lisa Perras GordonWater Quality StandardsNC CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAtlanta, Georgia(404) 562-9317 
Attachment G A578
From:Augspurger, Tom
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Re: Triennial Review Hearings
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 4:18:22 PM
Attachments:20140822_Letter_Benjamin to Brower_Proposed water quality standards amendments.pdf
Good afternoon Connie,
The attached letter conveys the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s comments on the July 1, 2014 Notice of Rule-making Action related to water quality standards amendments. Thanks for
your diligence over the last couple years in getting the dissolved metals criteria changes proposed. Please give me a call if you have any questions about our input.
Regards,
Tom
------
Tom AugspurgerEcologist / Environmental Contaminants Specialist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh NC 27606919-856-4520 x21
[e-mail]
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Brower, Connie <[e-mail]> wrote:Good afternoon, everyone,
Public Notice of our Surface Water Triennial Review Public Hearings was made through the NC Register on June 16th. An announcement was also sent through our DENR/DWR Rulemaking List Serve and appears on both the DENR and DWR web pages/calendar of events in accordance with G.S. 150B. A DENR press release is scheduled for ~ 7 days prior to the scheduled hearings.
While these efforts have been effective, we may not be reaching all audiences. So, in an additional effort to assure that the interested parties are notified, we would like to ask the favor of your assistance. Would you please share the following information on your respective list serves and/or mail outs from your respective organizations or areas of expertise? As it is DWR’s strong desire to provide the Environmental Management Commission with feedback from all interested parties, your efforts will aid us greatly in that purpose.
Attachment G A579
Thank you, again,
Fondest regards,Connie Brower

Notice of Rule-making Action:
Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.2 that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources intends to amend the rules cited as 15A NCAC 02B .0206; .0211; .0212; .0214-.0216; .0218; .0220. The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) will conduct public hearings to consider proposed amendments to these rules that establish the surface water quality standards for North Carolina. These proposed amendments comprise the State’s Triennial Review of Surface Water Quality Standards, which is mandated by the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). Additionally, the Division will accept comments on the Fiscal Note prepared for this proposal. The Agency obtained G.S. 150B-19.1 certification of the Fiscal Note from Office of State Budget Management on April 23, 2014.
The complete text of the proposed rule revisions is available on the Division of Water Resources’ Proposed Rules Website, pursuant to G.S. 150B-19.1(c):
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/rules

Proposed Effective Date: January 1, 2015

Public Hearings:
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: Ground Floor Hearing Room, Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury St.,
Attachment G A580
Raleigh, NC

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Statesville Civic Center, 300 South Center Street, Statesville, NC
In case of inclement weather on either of the two published hearing dates, a continuance date for the public hearing has been established as July 29th , 1:30 p.m., Ground Floor Hearing Room, Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC. A recorded message regarding any continuance to the hearing record will be available at the below noted telephone number.
It is important that all interested and potentially affected persons or parties make their views known to the EMC whether in favor of, or opposed to, any and all of the proposed amendments and current regulations. The public hearing will be recorded. It will consist of a presentation by DWR staff, followed by an open comment period. The EMC appointed hearing officer may limit the length of time that you may speak, if necessary, so that all those who wish to speak will have an opportunity. You may attend the public hearing to make oral comments and/or submit written comments. You may present conceptual ideas, technical justifications, or specific language you believe is necessary and relevant to 15A NCAC 02B surface water quality classifications and standards regulations. No items will be voted on and no decisions will be made at this hearing.

How to Submit Comments:As the state and US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) have a strong interest in assuring that the decisions are legally defensible, are based on the best scientific information available, and are subject to full and meaningful public comment and participation, clear records are critical to the administrative review by the EMC and the US EPA. All persons interested in and potentially affected by the proposal are strongly encouraged to submit written comments, data or other relevant information by 5:00 p.m., Friday, August 22, 2014 to Connie Brower at the postal address or e-mail address listed below.

Attachment G A581
Connie Brower,
DWR Water Planning Section,
1611 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

e-mail: [e-mail]
Questions can be directed to Connie Brower at [phone], main line [phone]; or fax [phone].

www.portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq

Note: E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to NC Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt.

Attachment G A582
From:Tim Wadkins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Re: Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:31:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim Wadkins
65 Pine Tree Lane
Pisgah Forest, NC 28768
Attachment G A583
From:Rob Stott
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:RE:
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 2:36:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Stott
1609 Tippah Ave
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A584
From:lester coonse
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Regulation of North Carolin Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:54:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am dismayed at the inaction of DENR water quality division with regards to water quality. Coal ash is just a
reservoir for mercury and the extremely dangerous non priority pollutant 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin.
Because of what I perceive as NC DENR becoming a polluter protection agency with priorities set by politicians
connected to Duke Energies, I have asked and will continue to ask the national EPA director to remove NC DENR
as the regulatory agency for North Carolina's water quality. . .
Thank you.
Sincerely,
lester coonse
71
Pinewood Rd
granite falls, NC 28630
Attachment G A585
From:Valerie Baksa
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Renew and Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:10:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Valerie Baksa
130 Oak Grove Ave
Mt Holly, NC 28120
Attachment G A586
From:Julie Tuttle
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Request: Strengthen and updated our clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:21:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julie Tuttle
311 Boothe Hill Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A587
From:Rosalba Arroyo
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Rosalba Arroyo
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:56:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rosalba Arroyo
1716 furman ct
Kannapolis, NC 28083
Attachment G A588
From:Thomas Flick
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Safe Oil revenue only with Safe Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:07:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Flick
5002 Golden Acres Road
Oak Ridge, NC 27310
Attachment G A589
From:Donna Keziah
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Safe water to drink
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:50:30 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Keziah
3516 Keithcastle Ct
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A590
From:Dawn Tucker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:safe water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:41:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dawn Tucker
320 glendare drive apt m
Winston Salem, NC 27104
Attachment G A591
From:AMANDA LANGHEINRICH
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Sea, Rivers, lakes and Beer! Water is everything to NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:26:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
AMANDA LANGHEINRICH
57 JONESTOWN RD
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A592
From:Thomas Lehman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Standards for water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:09:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lehman
Orange County
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A593
From:John Breckenridge
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:State Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:21:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Breckenridge
954 White-Smith Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A594
From:John Freeze
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stop fracking & Have Cleaner Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:45:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As a resident of NC, please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of
fracking coming to North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater
could be legally discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for
those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Freeze
648 Chaney Road
Asheboro, NC 27205
Attachment G A595
From:Jeanne gibbs
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stop the fracking
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:58:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeanne gibbs
78 brant lane
Coats, NC 27521
Attachment G A596
From:R.Stephen Karvwatt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Nort Carolina"s water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
R.Stephen Karvwatt
803 Brooks Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A597
From:Michael Navascues
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:STRENGTHEN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:57:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
PLEASE SUPPORT A HEALTHIER NC ENVIRONMENT!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Navascues
6508 Falconbridge Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A598
From:Barry Anderson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and Update NC"s Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:09:39 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
plus a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
In review:
• Upgrade our standards for toxic heavy metals, something our neighboring states did years ago;
• Reject an EMC proposal to let toxic metals exceed standards until aquatic life dies;
• Tighten the standard for a type of herbicide that causes blood cancers and reproductive problems which has been
found in rising amounts in surface drinking water sources;
• Adopt criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which can cause algal blooms and fish kills, plus threaten the safety of
drinking water;
• Adopt a standard for methylmercury in fish, a form of mercury that is closely tied to many serious health
problems, including learning disabilities, birth defects, and heart disease;
• Adopt a standard for ammonia pollution, which is discharged by some wastewater treatment plants, killing fish and
shellfish downstream;
• Adopt a standard that prohibits the discharge of fracking wastewater contaminants.
• DO IT NOW!
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities. Federal law requires states to review water quality standards every
three years— North Carolina last did this in 2006. These laws do no good if you ignore or deny their urgency ...
PLUS IT'S THE LAW! Do you job NOW and do not forget, YOU work for US ... We The People ... NOT for
selfish, greedy corporate monopolies and the planet's worst fossil fuel polluters.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barry Anderson
111 W Oregon Ave
Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948
Attachment G A599
From:Melissa Griffin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and update NC"s water quality standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:28:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melissa Griffin
7001 Orchard Knoll Dr
Apex, NC 27539
Attachment G A600
From:Eric Luling
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and update North Caolina"s clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:21:17 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Luling
23 Warwick Rd
Asheville, NC 22803
Attachment G A601
From:William Beam
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and update our clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Beam
1104 Millcreek Ct
East Bend, NC 27018
Attachment G A602
From:Michael Gellar
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen and update our clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:50:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Gellar
1613 Grace Street
Yellow House
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A603
From:Stephen Boletchek
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and update our clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:29:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Boletchek
1106 Elbury Drive
Apex, NC 27502
Attachment G A604
From:Grover McCoury
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and update our clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 6:02:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grover McCoury
148 Wintergreen Lane
Boone, NC 28607
Attachment G A605
From:D & G Altman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen and Update our Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:58:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
D & G Altman
PO Box 643
Murphy, NC 28906
Attachment G A606
From:phyllis koerv
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen and update our clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:50:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
phyllis koerv
701 copperline dr
unit 204
chapel hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A607
From:Lois Heintz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen Cater Quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:44:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lois Heintz
8B Bent Grass Crt
Black Mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A608
From:Peter Jackson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen clean water protection
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:37:23 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Jackson
157 shadowrun road
hendersonville, NC 28792
Attachment G A609
From:linda santell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Clean Water Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:05:03 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
linda santell
310 maple avenue
reidsville, NC 27320
Attachment G A610
From:Angela Pack
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:36:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Angela Pack
2218 Kensington station PKWY
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A611
From:Todd Patton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:21:59 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Here are a few ways we can improve our water quality standards1:
- Upgrade our standards for toxic heavy metals, something our neighboring states did years ago;
- Reject an EMC proposal to let toxic metals exceed standards until aquatic life dies;
- Tighten the standard for a type of herbicide that causes blood cancers and reproductive problems and has been
found in rising amounts in surface drinking water sources;
- Adopt criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which can cause algal blooms and fish kills, and can threaten the safety
of drinking water;
- Adopt a standard for methylmercury in fish, a form of mercury that is closely tied to many serious health problems,
including learning disabilities, birth defects, and heart disease;
- Adopt a standard for ammonia pollution, which is discharged by some wastewater treatment plants and can kill
fish and shellfish downstream;
- Adopt a standard that prohibits the discharge of fracking wastewater contaminants.
It’s way past time for North Carolina to strengthen and update our clean water standards.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Todd Patton
4512 Bracada Dr
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A612
From:Mary Ellen Griffin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:35:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Griffin
228 Kilowatt Lane
Sylva, NC 28779
Attachment G A613
From:Marty Gooch
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:54:45 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marty Gooch
1529 Jenkins Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A614
From:may moore
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen clean water standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:19:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
may moore
27 yaupon way
oak island
oak island, NC 28465
Attachment G A615
From:danna mclintock
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Clean Water Standards
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:55:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
danna mclintock
920 tumbling fork road
Waynesville, NC 28785
Attachment G A616
From:Michela Rebuli
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michela Rebuli
605 Donald Ross Dr
Pinehurst, NC 28374
Attachment G A617
From:Donald Harland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC Water Quality Standards
Date:Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:46:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donald Harland
PO Box 2080
Candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A618
From:Mark Norton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:16:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Norton
15310 Superior St
Charlotte, NC 28273
Attachment G A619
From:Jody Ford
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:33:36 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jody Ford
101 Belles Way
New Bern, NC 28562
Attachment G A620
From:Chris Weeks
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:37:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Weeks
608 Timothy Drive
ElizabethCity, NC 27909
Attachment G A621
From:Robert Schwartz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Schwartz
748 Oaklawn Avenue
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
Attachment G A622
From:Tony McCarson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen NC"s clean water!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:16:21 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tony McCarson
3608 Long Ridge Rd
Durham, NC 27703
Attachment G A623
From:joe zinich
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
joe zinich
306 mountain laurel
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A624
From:Siddharth Sharma
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our current water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Siddharth Sharma
9031 JMKEYNES DRIVE
Charlotte, NC 28262
Attachment G A625
From:Willard Fullam
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our current water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:47:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Willard Fullam
5912 Haddington Drive
Charlotte, NC 28215
Attachment G A626
From:cheryl flournoy hustvedt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards in NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:37:24 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
cheryl flournoy hustvedt
2710 stuart drive
durham, NC 27797
Attachment G A627
From:Janet Tice
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards in NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:47:45 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Janet Tice
310 Umstead
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A628
From:Karen Greenhalge
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:30:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Greenhalge
246 Calhoun Ridge Drive
Waynesville, NC 28786
Attachment G A629
From:Charles Stopford
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:54:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Stopford
3321 New Sharon Church Rd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A630
From:Leigh Clodfelter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:47:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leigh Clodfelter
3923 Fountain Village Lane
High Point, NC 27265
Attachment G A631
From:Donna Bullock
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:54:49 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Bullock
6112 Sabine Dr
Fayetteville, NC 28303
Attachment G A632
From:Daniel Konzelman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:53:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Konzelman
34 Tappan Street
Spruce Pine, NC 28777
Attachment G A633
From:deborah hines
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:59:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
deborah hines
6714 Roberta Road
Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469
Attachment G A634
From:Claiborne Smisson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:00:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Claiborne Smisson
P. O. Box 12253
Raleigh, NC 27605
Attachment G A635
From:tonia crumpton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
tonia crumpton
123 Flora McDonald Lane
cary, NC 27511
Attachment G A636
From:Ernest Roberts
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ernest Roberts
3541 Springsweet Lane
Apt 33
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A637
From:Al Jones
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Al Jones
4716 Ludwell Branch Court
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A638
From:Gavin Dillard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gavin Dillard
528 Padgettown road
Black mountain, NC 28711
Attachment G A639
From:Cody Jones
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:07:52 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cody Jones
262 Hicks Chapel Loop
Marion, NC 28752
Attachment G A640
From:Janice Siebert
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standards
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2014 6:27:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Janice Siebert
10 Indigo Lake Ter
GREENSBORO, NC 27455
Attachment G A641
From:Marc Pendergast
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:53:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marc Pendergast
203 Glenview Pl
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A642
From:Renee McGuire
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards.
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 5:31:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Renee McGuire
2001 G Fall Dr
Wilmington, NC 28401
Attachment G A643
From:Anne Lanzi
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 10:59:02 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Lanzi
155 Michigan Ave
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A644
From:Carol Bentley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:52:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Bentley
2232 Shade Valley Road
Apt A
Charolotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A645
From:James Walsh
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:24:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Walsh
P. O. Box 246
Morganton, NC 28680
Attachment G A646
From:Bill Groves
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:19:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Groves
738 Middle Skeenah Rd
Franklin, NC 28734
Attachment G A647
From:JW Vogel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Our Water Quality Standars
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:29:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JW Vogel
103 B White St
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A648
From:arneeta scott
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen our water quality
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:30:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
arneeta scott
11cypress dr
asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A649
From:Colleen Payne
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen our water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colleen Payne
131 Skipwyth Court
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A650
From:Jana Murray
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Standards, Disallow Fracking
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:16:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jana Murray
P.O. Box 261
Rodanthe, NC 27968
Attachment G A651
From:C. Warren Pope
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Purity Standards in NC
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 5:33:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
C. Warren Pope
12 Mountain Site Ln. Ext
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A652
From:Anne Markey Jones
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:49:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Markey Jones
158 Buckingham Road
Winston Salem, NC 27104
Attachment G A653
From:Thomas Higgins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:49:56 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Higgins
1909 E. Chapman Ct
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A654
From:Clay Denman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:17:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clay Denman
7829 Timber Glow Trl
Knoxville, TN 37938
Attachment G A655
From:David Fouche
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:28:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Fouche
155 Euclid Street
Winston Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A656
From:brittney bergstrom
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:58:33 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
brittney bergstrom
6312 Oakbrook Cir
Raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A657
From:Peter Crow
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:19:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Crow
1401 Kershaw Dr
Raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A658
From:Julia Martin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:12:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
No single substance is more vital to our survival than water, yet we aren't doing enough to protect this precious
resource.North Carolina must strengthen its water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal blooms, and
we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
We have seen what can happen. We have seen people waiting in line for bottled water as they would in a Third
World country. We have heard the warnings that although fish is theoretically good for you, be careful what kind
you eat, and how often.
The time is past to ask you to protect our future. There is no future. There is only now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Martin
295 Hazel Mill Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A659
From:Abby Bishop
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:08:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Abby Bishop
2123 Fairview Rd
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A660
From:Art Smoker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:26:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Art Smoker
284 Arrowood Corner Rd
0
Mars Hill, NC 28754
Attachment G A661
From:Pat Vescio
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:38:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pat Vescio
Arvo lane
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A662
From:Katie Baird
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:21:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to express my support of strengthening our water quality standards for the triennial review. North
Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as neighboring states did years
ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus and a standard for ammonia
to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total mercury is not adequate to
protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are essential to all North Carolinians – for our health, property values,
recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Katie Baird
45 S. French Broad Ave
Asheville, NC 28801
Attachment G A663
From:Nancy Gonzalez
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:30:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Gonzalez
119 Dawnwood Ln
Statesville, NC 28677
Attachment G A664
From:Carol Soroos
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:21:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Soroos
2876 Wycliff Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A665
From:Lysandra Joseph
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:15:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lysandra Joseph
109 Smokemont Drive
Cary, NC 27513
Attachment G A666
From:George Phillips
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:49:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
George Phillips
124 Fidelity St, Apt 36
Carrboro, NC 27510
Attachment G A667
From:Shari Stratton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards.
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:40:49 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shari Stratton
11526 Dartington Ridge Ln
Charlotte, NC 28262
Attachment G A668
From:Frank Lorch
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:55:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank Lorch
1522 Lynway Dr
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attachment G A669
From:Regina Krzesicki
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 6:49:09 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Regina Krzesicki
10111 buggy horse road
Charlotte, NC 28277
Attachment G A670
From:Wendy Kobylarz-Chouvarda
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:23:39 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
This is going to be especially critical in light of NC's recent decision to allow fracking.
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wendy Kobylarz-Chouvarda
1 Hurst Drive
Candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A671
From:Adam Versenyi
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:36:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adam Versenyi
205 Oleander Road
Carrboro, NC 27510
Attachment G A672
From:Miriam Youngquist-Thurow
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:54:34 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Miriam Youngquist-Thurow
6209 Thurlow Court
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Attachment G A673
From:Donna Bowman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:38:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Bowman
68 Cedar Forest Loop
Hickory, NC 28601
Attachment G A674
From:Traci Hamilton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen water squality tandards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:28:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Traci Hamilton
6138 Candlewood Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A675
From:Anne White
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen Water Standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:36:43 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne White
45 Libbey Lane
Mills River, NC 28759
Attachment G A676
From:Willis Strickland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strengthen water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:23:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Willis Strickland
120 Riding Lane
Southern Pines, NC 28387
Attachment G A677
From:Sally and Chris MacMillan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthen WaterQuality Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:51:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sally and Chris MacMillan
414 Pocono Court
Arden, NC 28704
Attachment G A678
From:Kevin Wilson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthening Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Wilson
3767 Howard Ave
Tarboro, NC 27886
Attachment G A679
From:Keith Cutler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthening Our Water quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:29:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Keith Cutler
524 Tryst Lane
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A680
From:Lesia Mills
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthening Our Water Quallity Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:17:08 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. The current standard for total mercury
is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish
tissue.
Here are more ways we can improve our water quality standards:
1. Reject an EMC proposal to let toxic metals exceed standards until aquatic life dies;
2. Tighten the standard for a type of herbicide that causes blood cancers and reproductive problems and has been
found in rising amounts in surface drinking water sources;
3. Adopt criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which can cause algal blooms and fish kills, and can threaten the
safety of drinking water;
4. Adopt a standard for methyl mercury in fish, a form of mercury that is closely tied to many serious health
problems, including learning disabilities, birth defects, and heart disease;
5. Adopt a standard for ammonia pollution, which is discharged by some wastewater treatment plants and can kill
fish and shellfish downstream;
6. Adopt a standard that prohibits the discharge of fracking waste-water contaminants.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities. With out clean safe water and a healthy environment we will not be
able to survive, nor will our NC wildlife.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lesia Mills
PO Box 1183
Clayton, NC 27528
Attachment G A681
From:Kimberly Wiley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthening the Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:04:16 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Wiley
72 Chimney Hill Rd
Rochester, NY 14612
Attachment G A682
From:Jude Casseday
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthening Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:08:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Even though this effort is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks, I would like to see our state
leaders demonstrate some concern regarding this most necessary resource: clean water. Please strengthen our
current water quality standards. If fracking comes to North Carolina, many of the toxic chemicals that would be
generated in fracking wastewater could be legally discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't
have water quality standards for those contaminants. How appalling it is that businesses and individuals will dump
whatever they feel like into the water unless there is a regulation forbidding it. Even then, they probably will go
ahead and do it until they get caught. So, while this is a gesture at best, we need to go on record that we tried to
provide clean wayer for our own and for future generations.
Please prohibit fracking contaminants from our drinking water. Thank you!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jude Casseday
6 Bair Circle
Durham, NC 27804
Attachment G A683
From:Melanie Porter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthening Water Quality Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:15:21 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melanie Porter
17020 Northstar Drive
Huntersville, NC 28078
Attachment G A684
From:Leigh & Pamela Dunston
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthing Clean Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:59:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leigh & Pamela Dunston
1922 Main St
Blowing Rock, NC 28605
Attachment G A685
From:Jules Fraytet
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strengthne clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:15:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jules Fraytet
401 Hawthorne Lane STE 110
Charlotte, NC 28204
Attachment G A686
From:Allen Spalt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strenthem Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:52:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
With water quality and quantity two of the biggest issues for our future, it is imperative that NC have the strongest
possible clean water standards.
Thank you. I will be following this action closely
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Allen Spalt
300 James St
Carrboro, NC 27510
Attachment G A687
From:Debbie Bromfield
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strenthen Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:23:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debbie Bromfield
6835 Squirrels Foot Ct
Charlotte, NC 28217
Attachment G A688
From:Herman Lankford
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:strong clean water safeguards
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 2:22:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Herman Lankford
175 Britten Cove Rd
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A689
From:Michelle Lee
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strong Clean Water Standards for North Carolina
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:26:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michelle Lee
6746 Vlosi Dr
Charlotte, NC 28226
Attachment G A690
From:Betsey Granda
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strong Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:08:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betsey Granda
112 Circadian Way
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A691
From:Brett Dillingham
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:STRONG CLEAN WATER STANDARDS
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:16:00 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brett Dillingham
707 Village Creek Drive
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A692
From:Johnny Dillard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strong Standards for Clean Water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:45:47 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Johnny Dillard
1147 Laurelwood Place
Lenoir, NC 28645
Attachment G A693
From:Karen Nehlsen
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Strong Water Quality Standards for NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:37:30 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Nehlsen
1804 Ashton Drive
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A694
From:kurt irmiter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:stronger clean water rules
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
kurt irmiter
19 salm rd
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A695
From:Madeleine Pabis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stronger Clean Water Standards Needed ASAP
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:14:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Madeleine Pabis
100 E. Ellerbee Street
Durham, NC 27704
Attachment G A696
From:Martha Kennedy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stronger water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:56:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Martha Kennedy
174 Crepe Myrtle Cir
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A697
From:Cama Merritt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stronger water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), mercury and ammonia
pollution. We are having too many fish kills and algal blooms.
I urge you to adopt: (1) the proposed metals standards, (2) adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus, (3)
adopt a fish tissue standard for mercury to protect our children, (4) and adopt the standard recommended by EPA
for ammonia. I want clean water for me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cama Merritt
1244 Arbor Road #224
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
Attachment G A698
From:Gary Simpson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stronger water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:07:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am concerned about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
I also suggest that as a state we:
• Upgrade our standards for toxic heavy metals, something our neighboring states did years ago;
• Reject an EMC proposal to let toxic metals exceed standards until aquatic life dies;
• Tighten the standard for a type of herbicide that causes blood cancers and reproductive problems and has been
found in rising amounts in surface drinking water sources;
• Adopt criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which can cause algal blooms and fish kills, and can threaten the
safety of drinking water;
• Adopt a standard for methylmercury in fish, a form of mercury that is closely tied to many serious health
problems, including learning disabilities, birth defects, and heart disease;
• Adopt a standard for ammonia pollution, which is discharged by some wastewater treatment plants and can kill
fish and shellfish downstream;
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Simpson
82 Cynthia Lane
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A699
From:Peter Stein
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:stronger water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:58:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Stein
302 Columbia Place East
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A700
From:Celeste Irizarry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Stuff That Is Important
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:43:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Celeste Irizarry
4306 Hepatica Court
Greensboro, NC 27358
Attachment G A701
From:Lewise Busch
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Support clean water standards for NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:54:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue. It is also very important to ban fracking wastewater contaminants.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lewise Busch
750 Weaver Dairy Rd. 1223
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A702
From:keith levene
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Support Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:14:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
keith levene
405 carolina circle
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A703
From:Erik Minges
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Support Clean Water
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:53:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Erik Minges
1620 Crest rd
Raleigh, NC 27606
Attachment G A704
From:Valerie Anderson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:SUPPORT STRONG CLEAN WATER STANDARDS FOR NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:37:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Valerie Anderson
3 Billy Cove Rd
Candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A705
From:Mary Gallagher
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Support Strong Clean Water Standards for NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:04:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Gallagher
308 Bahama Loop
Fayetteville, NC 28314
Attachment G A706
From:Kenna Sommer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Support strong clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:41:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kenna Sommer
74 Crestmont Ave
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A707
From:Lori Campbell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Supporting clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:58:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
I am also interested in making sure my voice is heard related to supporting strong water pollution standards
upstream of Jordan Lake (which is where Cary gets its water). I think the sooner we apply water pollution
mitigation strategies, the better, even with the devices that have been recently installed in the lake. Mitigation
strategies must be implemented alongside the devices to maximize water quality for those of us downstream of
Greensboro and Burlingame politicians (who get their water from another source).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lori Campbell
P.O. Box 5307
Cary, NC 27512
Attachment G A708
From:Joseph Shea
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Take a Stand for Public Health in NC!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:41:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph Shea
1 buttons rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A709
From:dave schwartz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Thanks for your time
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:08:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
dave schwartz
126 oxford rd
greenville, NC 27858
Attachment G A710
From:myra dotson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:The Pollution our waters contain is illegal under the Clean Water Act!!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:08:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
myra dotson
8418 orange grove road
chapel hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A711
From:Ann Houston
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:This is OUR water too!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:55:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I do not understand how anyone thinks it is advisable to inject chemicals - with vast amounts of water - into our
unseen & uncharted aquifers, not to mention into our above-ground waterways. I am baffled & horrified by what
corporations will do, simply for profit.
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Houston
107 N. Hillsborough Ave
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A712
From:Tom Gingrich
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:This Tarheel is for Clean NC Water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:28:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom Gingrich
9 Spinet St
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A713
From:sarah faulkner
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Tighten Standards to protect our water
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2014 8:05:15 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
sarah faulkner
banks creek
Burnsville, NC 28714
Attachment G A714
From:Jim Smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Time to update our water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:09:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Smith
4620 Mial Plantation Rd
Raleigh, NC 27610
Attachment G A715
From:Nancy Yarosis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Tired of letting dirty fuel company"s getting away with poisoning people
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:20:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Yarosis
2375 Godwin Lake Rd
Benson, NC 27504
Attachment G A716
From:Timothy Plonk
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:To work it and to keep it.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:49:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Timothy Plonk
301 Morrison avenue
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A717
From:Ben Conley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Tougher Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:32:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ben Conley
309 Garrou Avenue
Apt/Suite
Valdese, NC 28690
Attachment G A718
From:Rachael Wooten
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Toxic fracking wastewater will wreak havoc on our water supply
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:30:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachael Wooten
2721 Kittrell Dr
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A719
From:Harvey Mitchell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:toxic verses clean water
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Upgrade our standards for toxic heavy metals, something our neighboring states did years ago; The coal ash spill
in the Dan River was preventable an therefore inexcusable. The same issue exists with the two coal ash ponds at
the Asheville Power Plant. Please help prevent a repeat of this inexcusable accident.
Reject an EMC proposal to let toxic metals exceed standards until aquatic life dies;
Tighten the standard for a type of herbicide that causes blood cancers and reproductive problems and has been
found in rising amounts in surface drinking water sources;
Adopt criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, which can cause algal blooms and fish kills, and can threaten the
safety of drinking water;
Adopt a standard for methylmercury in fish, a form of mercury that is closely tied to many serious health
problems, including learning disabilities, birth defects, and heart disease;
Adopt a standard for ammonia pollution, which is discharged by some wastewater treatment plants and can kill
fish and shellfish downstream;
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Harvey Mitchell
200 Patton Mountain Road
Asheville, NC 28804
Attachment G A720
From:MARTHA W GIROLAMI
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Reveiw.
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:06:07 PM
Attachments:Triennial Reveiw..pdf
Sent from my iPad
Attachment G A721
From:John Calhoun
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comment
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:06:31 PM
Aug 21, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
It is far past time for N.C. to update it's regulation of toxic metals
and chemicals in our water sources. We count on your agency to protect
Water Quality and to comply with the Clean Water Act, yet NC DENR has
lagged behind other states in adopting standards protecting our water.
Especially, methylmercury levels need to be monitored and regulated to
the national standard or better. Obviously nitrogen and phosphorus
numerical levels need to be monitored and standards set. Our state
depends on tourism and recreational uses for our rivers and streams.
It is absolutely imperative that there be standards to maintain minimum
water quantity and flow in rivers and streams. We will face water
shortages again, especially as our population grows, so maintaining
minimum stream flows is crucial.
It is time for NC DENR to work cooperatively with updating standards
for water quality, not delaying or trying to thwart good-faith efforts
to update standards and protect our water sources!
Sincerely,
Mr. John Calhoun
1416 Brookstown Ave
Winston Salem, NC 27101-1127
[phone]
Attachment G A722
From:Tony Misner
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comment
Date:Monday, July 14, 2014 4:22:03 AM
Jul 14, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please consider this statement
Sincerely,
Mr. Tony Misner
PO Box 553
Andover, NJ 07821-0553
Attachment G A723
From:Peter Raabe
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Grady McCallie ([e-mail])
Subject:Triennial Review Comments from NC Conservation Network and American Rivers
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 11:25:06 AM
Attachments:image001.pngAR - NCCN triennial review comments.docx
Please find attached the comments submitted on behalf of NC Conservation Network and
American Rivers.
Thank you for your time and efforts on this package of protections for water quality.
Peter

~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~~~
Peter Raabe | NC Conservation Director
331 West Main Street |Suite 304 | Durham, NC 27701
Office: 919-682-3500 |Cell: 202-441-6174 | [e-mail]

American Rivers | Rivers Connect Us
Facebook.com/AmericanRivers  | Twitter.com/AmericanRivers
www.americanrivers.org
Keep up on the latest river news and info: www.americanrivers.org/updates

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Attachment G A724
From:Celia Forno
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:26:26 PM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Celia Forno
3308 Auckland Ct
Fayetteville, NC 28306-7505
[phone]
Attachment G A725
From:Marilyn Constine
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:55:48 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Constine
337 Lake Knoll Ct
Lewisville, NC 27023-9814
[phone]
Attachment G A726
From:Kathryn Pezzi
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:55:35 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Pezzi
96 Pine Lake Dr
Whispering Pines, NC 28327-9373
[phone]
Attachment G A727
From:Sandra Core
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:54:58 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Sandra Core
945 S Shore Dr
Southport, NC 28461-8815
[phone]
Attachment G A728
From:Amy Hartzog
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:25:39 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Amy Hartzog
429 E Hemlock St
Yadkinville, NC 27055-7766
[phone]
Attachment G A729
From:Jewell Spataro
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:55:29 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jewell Spataro
162 Water Tower Dr
Forest City, NC 28043-7064
Attachment G A730
From:Melissa Ayers
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:54:51 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Melissa Ayers
345 Johns Rd
Lexington, NC 27295-7037
Attachment G A731
From:Kimberly Hurtt
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:54:29 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thank you.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Hurtt
1325 Harvard Park Way Apt 101
Garner, NC 27529-5222
[phone]
Attachment G A732
From:Joe Bearden
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:25:29 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Joe Bearden
1809 Lakepark Dr
Raleigh, NC 27612-6516
[phone]
Attachment G A733
From:Deb Killinger
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:24:48 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Deb Killinger
706 Bryan Ave
Hendersonville, NC 28739-5128
Attachment G A734
From:Nancee Neel
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:54:40 AM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Nancee Neel
3 Raven Rock Dr
Asheville, NC 28806
[phone]
Attachment G A735
From:Joan Dulberg
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:24:30 AM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Joan Dulberg
555 Pine Ridge Pl
Raleigh, NC 27609-4644
[phone]
Attachment G A736
From:Toni Sorter
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:25:30 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Toni Sorter
PO Box 2
Denver, NC 28037-0002
Attachment G A737
From:Adrian Smith
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:55:48 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Adrian Smith
PO Box 265
Moncure, NC 27559-0265
[phone]
Attachment G A738
From:Jane Jewell
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:53:22 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jane Jewell
3953 Westridge Meadow Cir
Clemmons, NC 27012-8609
Attachment G A739
From:Diane Blanks
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:26:24 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I strongly encourage you to make three additions to the current
proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Diane Blanks
357 Green St
Boone, NC 28607-3490
[phone]
Attachment G A740
From:Robin Kersey
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:26:15 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Robin Kersey
2280 McGill Dr
Fayetteville, NC 28305-5144
[phone]
Attachment G A741
From:Mary Lou & George Buck
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:24:42 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mary Lou & George Buck
3406 Mar Vista Cir
Charlotte, NC 28209-1513
[phone]
Attachment G A742
From:Jerry Nelon
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:24:17 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jerry Nelon
409 Fairway Dr
Lake Lure, NC 28746-9857
Attachment G A743
From:Chris Berg
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:54:41 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to fouled water inhospitable to
oxygen sensitive biota. Fish, larval insects of indicator types such as
caddis-fly, stone-fly and mayfly familes, gestating amphibians and many
other forms of wildlife are threatened, and water quality is adversely
affected by these nutrients when present at over-concentrated levels
compared to natural background.
Secondly, please adopt protections for in-stream flow, governing rates
of intentional withdrawal, this year: so that future generations will
be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming in our state's rivers
and lakes .
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methyl mercury, which is
highly toxic to humans. Methyl mercury can interfere with fetal,
infant, and childhood development, and poses risks to human adults.
North Carolina does not directly regulate methyl mercury, although that
is the form that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the
wildlife and the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt
a methyl mercury limit that meets or exceeds the national
recommendation of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help
protect human health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Chris Berg
6 Rosemary Trl
Flat Rock, NC 28731-9532
[phone]
Attachment G A744
From:Shoshana Serxner-Merchant
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:26:39 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Shoshana Serxner-Merchant
705 Dixie Trl
Raleigh, NC 27607-4154
[phone]
Attachment G A745
From:Julia Hartman
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:24:28 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Julia Hartman
70 Dalmatian Trl
Alexander, NC 28701-9210
[phone]
Attachment G A746
From:Lynne C
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:23:44 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Lynne C
5012 Lipscomb Dr
Garner, NC 27529-9641
[phone]
Attachment G A747
From:Fred Stanbeck
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:56:02 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Fred Stanbeck
220 Stonewall Rd
Salisbury, NC 28144-2860
[phone]
Attachment G A748
From:Fred Stanbeck
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:55:51 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Fred Stanbeck
220 Stonewall Rd
Salisbury, NC 28144-2860
[phone]
Attachment G A749
From:Patricia Fleming
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:53:30 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Patricia Fleming
4203 W South Ridge Rd
Nags Head, NC 27959-9156
[phone]
Attachment G A750
From:Dean Brodhag
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:23:45 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Dean Brodhag
1025 Regency Dr
Charlotte, NC 28211-4778
[phone]
Attachment G A751
From:Martha Spencer
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:57:48 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Martha Spencer
988 Henry Mountain Rd
Brevard, NC 28712-6762
[phone]
Attachment G A752
From:Patricia Carstensen
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:56:14 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Patricia Carstensen
58 Newton Dr
Durham, NC 27707-9744
[phone]
Attachment G A753
From:Morgan Crawford
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:24:52 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Morgan Crawford
3101 Sun Dr
Raleigh, NC 27614-9225
[phone]
Attachment G A754
From:David Shelton
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:23:34 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal. Not
to do so would be to ignore the devastating toxic effects of pollutants
in our waterways and the associated effects on our citizens' health and
well being. This must not be tolerated, and those who want to pollute
must accept responsibility and pay the price.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
David Shelton
329 Grady McNeilly Rd
Casar, NC 28020-8749
[phone]
Attachment G A755
From:James Coffey
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:57:50 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
James Coffey
17 Hickory Court Ln
Hendersonville, NC 28792-1229
[phone]
Attachment G A756
From:Susan & Larry Powell
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:56:56 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Susan & Larry Powell
701 W Trinity Ave Apt 108
Durham, NC 27701-1869
[phone]
Attachment G A757
From:Doris Whitfield
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:56:14 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards
so our lakes and streams are clean for communities to use and drink and
the fish are preserved, not killed.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. North Carolina should adopt a methylmercury limit
that meets or exceeds the national recommendation of 0.3 milligram per
kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Doris Whitfield
109 Renwick Ct
Raleigh, NC 27615-2946
[phone]
Attachment G A758
From:Adam Versenyi
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:54:47 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Adam Versenyi
205 Oleander Rd
Carrboro, NC 27510-1939
[phone]
Attachment G A759
From:Christi Dillon
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:53:27 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Christi Dillon
175 Forest Ridge Rd
Mooresville, NC 28117-6519
[phone]
Attachment G A760
From:Tiffany Erichsen
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:53:27 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Erichsen
2236 Lynnwood Dr
Wilmington, NC 28403-8044
[phone]
Attachment G A761
From:Elissa Engelbourg
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:29:22 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Elissa Engelbourg
307 Mosley Ct # 202
Rocky Mount, NC 27804-6520
Attachment G A762
From:Dorothy Campbell
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:26:44 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Campbell
1115 Scaleybark Rd Apt B
Charlotte, NC 28209-4588
[phone]
Attachment G A763
From:Steven Linden
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:26:04 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Steven Linden
501 Burge Mountain Rd
Hendersonville, NC 28792-8225
[phone]
Attachment G A764
From:Lois Heintz
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:25:08 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Lois Heintz
8b Bent Grass Ct
Black Mountain, NC 28711-7400
Attachment G A765
From:Elena Carleo
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:23:28 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Elena Carleo
393 Crestview Church Rd
Asheboro, NC 27205-0714
[phone]
Attachment G A766
From:Phyllis Swank
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:56:55 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Swank
750 Weaver Dairy Rd Apt 1212
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1434
[phone]
Attachment G A767
From:David Galloway
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:56:46 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
David Galloway
3705 Highgate Dr Apt G
Durham, NC 27713-9126
[phone]
Attachment G A768
From:Devon Seltzer
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:56:02 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Devon Seltzer
5856 Old Oak Ridge Rd
Apt 917
Greensboro, NC 27410-8424
[phone]
Attachment G A769
From:Roger Chellew
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:55:15 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Roger Chellew
104 Elmwood Ln
Clayton, NC 27520-4302
[phone]
Attachment G A770
From:Vic Cabaroc
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:53:48 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Vic Cabaroc
504 Tilden St
Raleigh, NC 27605-1524
Attachment G A771
From:Danna & Dave Mclintock
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:53:36 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Danna & Dave Mclintock
920 Tumbling Fork Rd
Waynesville, NC 28785-6010
[phone]
Attachment G A772
From:Michael Gellar
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:52:49 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Michael Gellar
1613 Grace St
Charlotte, NC 28205-2329
[phone]
Attachment G A773
From:Alison Woomert
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:25:04 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Alison Woomert
2604 Jefferson Choice
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-9748
[phone]
Attachment G A774
From:Barbara Harvey
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:23:48 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Barbara Harvey
102 Ayr Ct
Cary, NC 27511-6402
[phone]
Attachment G A775
From:Ann Lane
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:57:03 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Ann Lane
932 Logan Cir
Cary, NC 27511-5146
[phone]
Attachment G A776
From:Jan Ochs
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:56:48 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jan Ochs
90 Forest Ln
Pinehurst, NC 28374-9729
Attachment G A777
From:Kim Fanelly
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:55:49 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Kim Fanelly
9928 Blackbird Hill Ln
Mint Hill, NC 28227-5582
[phone]
Attachment G A778
From:Wendy Stevens
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:54:52 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Wendy Stevens
7024 Hidden Creek Dr
Charlotte, NC 28214-8842
[phone]
Attachment G A779
From:David Williams
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:54:26 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
David Williams
12 Willoughby Run Dr
Asheville, NC 28803-2168
[phone]
Attachment G A780
From:Robert Obeid
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:53:58 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Robert Obeid
477 George McKinney Rd
Bakersville, NC 28705-8035
Attachment G A781
From:Rhonda Ferotti
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:53:35 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Ferotti
PO Box 706
Flat Rock, NC 28731-0706
[phone]
Attachment G A782
From:Laura Glover
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:53:17 PM
Jul 16, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Laura Glover
Foxwood Ln
Wilmington, NC 28409-3979
[phone]
Attachment G A783
From:Marijean Dornback
To:Brower, Connie
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:30:23 PM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Marijean Dornback
408 Horatio Ct
Cary, NC 27519-9383
[phone]
Attachment G A784
From:Debbie Burroughs
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:01:24 PM
Jul 17, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Debbie Burroughs
111 Hobbs Acre Dr
Edenton, NC 27932-9203
[phone]
Attachment G A785
From:Susan Lindenberger
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:49:53 PM
Jul 22, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Fourth, I urge you to strengthen the requirements to remove coal ash
before it can enter ground or standing water. Coal ash contains toxic
heavy metals and is injurious to humans and wildlife.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Susan Lindenberger
222 Grandfather Ave
Blowing Rock, NC 28605-6114
Attachment G A786
From:Gary Lavinder
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:20:36 PM
Jul 22, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Gary Lavinder
348 S Greenbriar Rd
Statesville, NC 28625-4720
[phone]
Attachment G A787
From:Doug Wingeier
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Monday, July 21, 2014 5:47:12 PM
Jul 21, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Doug Wingeier
266 Merrimon Ave
Asheville, NC 28801-1218
Attachment G A788
From:John Robins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Monday, July 21, 2014 1:41:40 PM
Jul 21, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
John Robins
124 Concord St
Greensboro, NC 27406-3615
[phone]
Attachment G A789
From:Cashin Hunt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Monday, July 21, 2014 9:11:43 AM
Jul 21, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Cashin Hunt
2333 Rosewood Ave
Winston Salem, NC 27103-3638
Attachment G A790
From:Sam Leeper
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:09:37 PM
Jul 20, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Sam Leeper
409 Carlyle Way
Asheville, NC 28803-1239
[phone]
Attachment G A791
From:Darlene Hamilton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:09:24 PM
Jul 20, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Darlene Hamilton
1605 Beacon Valley Dr
Raleigh, NC 27604-8488
[phone]
Attachment G A792
From:howard Cohen
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Sunday, July 20, 2014 2:38:55 PM
Jul 20, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
howard Cohen
1116 Charter Pl
Charlotte, NC 28211-5620
[phone]
Attachment G A793
From:Bill Gupton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:09:10 AM
Jul 20, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Bill Gupton
6725 Morganford Rd
Charlotte, NC 28211-5406
[phone]
Attachment G A794
From:Cathy Holt
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:37:18 PM
Jul 19, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Cathy Holt
386 Kenilworth Rd
Asheville, NC 28805-1754
[phone]
Attachment G A795
From:Tom Clarke
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Saturday, July 19, 2014 12:37:36 PM
Jul 19, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Tom Clarke
2706 Stratford Dr
Greensboro, NC 27408-3326
[phone]
Attachment G A796
From:Holly Adkisson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:38:38 AM
Jul 19, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flow into our lakes and streams,
algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water, and can
suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for in-stream flow this year so that
future generations will also be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and
swimming in our state's rivers and lakes.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercury can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and can cause adults risk as well. North
Carolina does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the
form that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the
wildlife and people who eat the fish. To help protect human health,
North Carolina should adopt a methylmercury limit to meet or exceed the
national recommendation of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Holly Adkisson
1511 Lansdale Dr
Apt A
Charlotte, NC 28205-5788
[phone]
Attachment G A797
From:Betty Lawrence
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:09:02 AM
Jul 19, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Betty Lawrence
142 Hillside St
Asheville, NC 28801-1206
[phone]
Attachment G A798
From:Dieter Graumann
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:35:54 AM
Jul 19, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Dieter Graumann
4015 Black Locust Ter
Greensboro, NC 27405-8230
Attachment G A799
From:Frances Huffman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 10:04:56 PM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Frances Huffman
2400 Hoyt St
Winston Salem, NC 27103-4314
[phone]
Attachment G A800
From:Jin Adams Parker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 3:34:42 PM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jin Adams Parker
1924 Old Kanuga Rd
Hendersonville, NC 28739-6765
Attachment G A801
From:June Linhart
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 8:33:46 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
June Linhart
4501 Rivershyre Way
Raleigh, NC 27616-7412
[phone]
Attachment G A802
From:Michael Pennell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:45:47 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Michael Pennell
3355 Rocky Rd
Lenoir, NC 28645-8550
Attachment G A803
From:Jennifer Harris
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:45:02 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Harris
3829 Westridge Farm Ln
Clemmons, NC 27012-8688
[phone]
Attachment G A804
From:Beth Collom
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:38:47 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Beth Collom
18202 Old Arbor Ct
Davidson, NC 28036-7872
[phone]
Attachment G A805
From:Martha Brimm
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:37:09 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Martha Brimm
7 Surrey Ln
Durham, NC 27707-5172
[phone]
Attachment G A806
From:Andrea Crook
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:33:19 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Andrea Crook
5579 Nix Rd
Fayetteville, NC 28314-1416
[phone]
Attachment G A807
From:Kenneth Schammel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:31:33 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Schammel
8911 Rosalyn Glen Rd
Cornelius, NC 28031-8075
[phone]
Attachment G A808
From:Andrea Poole
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 1:29:39 AM
Jul 18, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Andrea Poole
2174 Skyview Dr
Fayetteville, NC 28304-5124
[phone]
Attachment G A809
From:Lucy Kaplan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 25, 2014 8:00:23 AM
Jul 25, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Lucy Kaplan
660 Chester Rd
Winston Salem, NC 27104-1704
Attachment G A810
From:Donald Harland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:29:54 PM
Jul 24, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Donald Harland
PO Box 2080
Candler, NC 28715-2080
[phone]
Attachment G A811
From:Patrick Brown
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:59:11 PM
Jul 24, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
In light of the Dan River Coal Ash spill fiasco, these standards are
really just the bare minimum that can be done to keep our water clear
and clean. The people of North Carolina deserve nothing less than this.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Patrick Brown
2901 Saint Claire Rd
Winston Salem, NC 27106-5025
[phone]
Attachment G A812
From:Keely Jordan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:59:35 PM
Jul 24, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Keely Jordan
420 Park Ridge Ln Apt G
Winston Salem, NC 27104-3561
[phone]
Attachment G A813
From:Gus Preschle
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:59:19 PM
Jul 24, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Gus Preschle
7711 Lasater Rd
Clemmons, NC 27012-8477
Attachment G A814
From:Christopher Ammon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 25, 2014 9:30:25 AM
Jul 25, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ammon
815 Woodside Park Ln
Durham, NC 27704-6046
Attachment G A815
From:Mary Goodkind
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:06:11 PM
Jul 27, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mary Goodkind
23 Ridgefield Pl
Biltmore Forest, NC 28803-3019
[phone]
Attachment G A816
From:Tammy Hopman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 25, 2014 6:31:50 PM
Jul 25, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Tammy Hopman
120 Martin Ridge Rd
State Road, NC 28676-9225
Attachment G A817
From:Juliana Baxley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, July 25, 2014 12:01:02 PM
Jul 25, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Juliana Baxley
415 Pecan Dr
Selma, NC 27576-2366
Attachment G A818
From:Audrey Tillinghast
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Monday, July 28, 2014 10:38:40 AM
Jul 28, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Audrey Tillinghast
5337 Cucumber Branch Rd
Snow Camp, NC 27349-9565
Attachment G A819
From:D Provance
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Monday, July 28, 2014 6:38:11 PM
Jul 28, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
D Provance
2624 Sweetgum Dr
Apex, NC 27539-8851
[phone]
Attachment G A820
From:Jill Gooch
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, August 01, 2014 2:14:53 PM
Aug 1, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Jill Gooch
1208 Oakview Dr
Greenville, NC 27858-5229
[phone]
Attachment G A821
From:Adrienne Gardner
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 3:06:23 PM
Aug 15, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercuru can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Adrienne Gardner
154 Ridgeview Dr
Mount Airy, NC 27030-9297
[phone]
Attachment G A822
From:Joe Bearden
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:06:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Bearden
1809 Lakepark Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A823
From:Heather Payne
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:36:08 PM
Aug 21, 2014
Connie Brower
Dear Brower,
Please accept the following comments on the proposed set of water
standards that the state is currently considering as part of the
state's "Triennial Review" required by the Clean Water Act.
I encourage you to make three additions to the current proposal.
First, I urge you to adopt nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient standards.
When too much nitrogen and phosphorus flows into our lakes and streams
- algal blooms result that can lead to stinky, bad-tasting water and
can suffocate and kill fish.
Secondly, please adopt protections for instream flow this year so that
future generations will be able to enjoy fishing, rafting and swimming
in our state's rivers and lakes like we do today.
Third, I urge you to propose a limit for methylmercury, which is highly
toxic to humans. Methylmercury can interfere with fetal, infant, and
childhood development, and cause adults risk, as well. North Carolina
does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
that mercury takes in fish and most directly threatens the wildlife and
the people who eat the fish. North Carolina should adopt a
methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the national recommendation
of 0.3 milligram per kilogram of fish tissue to help protect human
health.
Fourth, North Carolina should upgrade our standards for toxic heavy
metals, which our sister states did long ago.
Fifth, I request you adopt a standard for ammonia pollution. This
pollution can kill fish and shellfish downstream from the point of
discharge.
Sixth, a standard should be adopted which prohibits the discharge of
any fracking produced water, saltwater, or other fracking
contaminants.
Additionally, I strongly reject any proposal that toxic metal should be
allowed to exceed standards until aquatic life dies.
Thanks you and I hope you will make the additional changes listed above
to ensure that North Carolinians get the protections they deserve.
Sincerely,
Attachment G A824
Heather Payne
1300 Mason Farm Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-4604
[phone]
Attachment G A825
From:george
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:26:23 PM
Attachments:Triennial Review Water Quality Standards Revision Comments 2014.doc
Ms. Brower:Please find attached recommendations related to the draft triennial review water quality
standards.We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to the EMC's action on this
important issue that is vital to protecting North Carolina's citizens and the environment.Best regards,
GeorgeGeorge Matthis, President
River Guardian Foundation http://www.riverguardfdn.org
https://www.facebook.com/RiverGuardianFoundation/ https://twitter.com/RiverGuardianFd
Attachment G A826
From:Brianna Van Stekelenburg
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Comments
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:16:30 PM
Attachments:TriennialReviewComments-Methylmercury-2.pdf
Hi Connie Brower,
My name is Brianna Van Stekelenburg. I am a Policy Analyst Intern with the NC Chapter of the Sierra Club. I gave comments at the Triennial Review public hearing in
Raleigh, but I wanted to submit a written copy of them. I have attached them to this email.
Thank you,Brianna Van Stekelenburg
Attachment G A827
From:Thomas F Duckwall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review comments
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:00:18 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed changes to water quality
standards.
I support the tighter rules for toxic metals by use of the hardness equations for Cu, Zn, Cd, Ni, Cr III, Ag
and Pb and the use of standards for acute impacts (average of samples collected within an hour), but am
disappointed that NH3 is omitted (rec. in 1999 for fresh water).
I am concerned about disposal of "produced" water from hydraulic fracturing operationsand strongly urge
that allowable contaminant levels be zero or very low unless and until "safe levels" can be determined.
As a general principle I hold that cost considerations should be secondary to health concerns, and human
health issues should be seen as dependent on aquatic health. Costs and other burdens of contamination
(e.g. medical treatment) are often borne by families, and for those affected will far exceed the costs of
regulation and prevention that would have been pro-rated among community members. We cannot afford
to miss the chance to provide every citizen a fair opportunity for good health and a productive life.
I hope for a review of variances (color, temp.) in the near future, and that in the coming years "Triennial"
Reviews will be truly that.

Tom Duckwall, 5 Holly Crest Ct., Greensboro NC 27410

Attachment G A828
From:Fred Jamison
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review of North Carolina Water Quality Standards
Date:Friday, July 18, 2014 8:17:47 PM
Dear Ms. Brown:
As a citizen, I am deeply concerned about the continuing contamination and degradation of
water quality in North Carolina's lakes, rivers, and streams. It appears agricultural and industrial lobbying, state politics engineering regulatory delay and environmental neglect
have worked to compromise the effectiveness of needed robust state efforts to protect and improve North Carolina water quality standards. I am speaking up for clean water, healthy
rivers, and drinking water sources. My specific concerns are as follows:
· TToxic heavy metals. North Carolina is the only state in the southeast that has not adopted
toxic metals criteria recommended by EPA two decades ago. The current proposal would
upgrade our water quality standards for metals – cadmium, chromium III, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc - to match EPA’s national recommendations and protect wildlife and
human health. The proposed upgrade is a step in the right direction, but could do better. The toxicity of metals depends on the ‘hardness’ of water. In the mountains particularly, water
hardness can be low, making metals more toxic, but the proposal does not address these conditions. I recommend: the state should tighten the metals standards as proposed, but
should also tighten them further than proposed in vulnerable mountain streams with an especially low hardness.
· Biological trump. While the state has proposed to tighten and improve the standards for
toxic metals, it has also proposed to let polluting industries routinely violate the standards as
long as stream life appears to survive. This violates the Clean Water Act, as it only identifies damage after pollution has gone too far. I recommend: the state must abandon the ‘biological
trump.’ Polluters should be held accountable when they violate water quality standards.
· 2,4-D (chlorophenoxy herbicide). This herbicide is already widely applied, and genetic
engineering of crops is predicted to significantly expand its use. When consumed by humans,
2,4-D can damage the liver, kidney, and adrenal glands. I recommend: the state has proposed to tighten its standard for 2,4-D in waters used as sources for drinking water and food-
processing purposes; that change should be adopted into the final set of water quality standards.
Other Issues Needing To Be Addressed By The Triennial Review:
· Fracking chemicals. As a result of recent legislation, the state is on track to begin
issuing permits for extraction of natural gas via fracking in 2015. The fracking process generates massive volumes of contaminated wastewater. North Carolina lacks water quality
standards for hundreds of contaminants that can be in fracking wastewater; without such standards, the state has no effective way to limit pollutants in fracking wastewater discharged
to rivers, lakes, and streams. The proper vehicle for adopting such standards is the triennial review, but the state has not proposed any standards for fracking contaminants. I recommend:
the Environmental Management Commission should prohibit discharges of fracking
Attachment G A829
contaminants for which safe levels have not yet been scientifically determined.
· Nutrients. Excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) cause algal blooms (thick green
muck that fouls clear water) and fish kills. EPA recently approved a multi-year state plan to
study whether to adopt limits on nitrogen and phosphorus, but this process will not yield a limit for most of the state’s water bodies for more than a decade, if at all. I recommend:
North Carolina needs to address nutrient pollution, now, at the source, by adopting statewide nitrogen and phosphorus limits, if not in this triennial review then in the next.
· Ammonia. Released by wastewater treatment plants and other polluters, ammonia is
sharply toxic to aquatic life, especially mussels. North Carolina has no water quality standard
for ammonia, and the current package does not propose one. I recommend: the state should adopt EPA’s nationally recommended standards for ammonia – formulas that take account of
local temperature and water acidity (pH) – to protect life in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.
· Mercury. Especially in the form of methylmercury, mercury is highly toxic to humans,
interfering with fetal, infant, and childhood development, and placing adults at risk, too. However, North Carolina does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
in which mercury accumulates in fish and most directly threatens wildlife and people who eat the fish. I recommend: North Carolina should adopt a methylmercury limit that meets or
exceeds the national recommendation of 0.3 mg/kg of fish tissue to protect human health, while retaining its standard for inorganic mercury.
· Flow. If withdrawals leave too little water in a river or lake, that waterbody will not
sustain healthy fish and wildlife. Worse, pollution discharged into a depleted river remains
more concentrated, increasing the risks to people who use it downstream. Currently, North Carolina lacks explicit protections for flow in its water quality standards, and the state uses a
weak method to set permit limits. I recommend: North Carolina should add adopt strong protections for water flow.
· Variances. When the state reviews its water quality standards, it must also review
variances –permissions given to specific facilities to violate the standards. These include two chloride variances for pickle companies, Mt. Olive Pickle Company in Wayne County and
Bay Valley Foods in Duplin County; a color variance for Evergreen Paper Products in Haywood County; and thermal variances for the cooling systems at a long list of electric
power generating plants. I recommend: DENR should insist on all possible progress being made toward meeting water quality standards as a condition to granting continued variances
for these permits.
Overall, it is past time for North Carolina to upgrade our water quality standards. It is good that the state is moving forward with metals standards, but the package is painfully
limited. The state should go further now, and failing that, should prepare now for a much broader upgrade of state water quality standards next year.
Sincerely yours,
Attachment G A830
Fred C. Jamison
125 W. Pine Avenue
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attachment G A831
From:Wrenne Kapornyai
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review of Stds Response
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:27:10 PM
Attachments:Triennial Review 2014 Response 08212014.docx
Good morning Ms. Brower:

Attached please find my response.

Thank you for all you do.

Wrenne

Mrs. Wrenne Kapornyai
Lab Supervisor
Pretreatment Coordinator
Franklin County
North Carolina
Member NC-PC
[phone]
[e-mail]

Attachment G A832
From:Bob Boulden
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Triennial Review Proposed Changes and Deletions
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 4:49:19 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Please let me start by asking a rhetorical question. Are we, as NC legislators and regulatory experts, that
much smarter than the equivalent at the Federal level, in particular the folks at the EPA? If we are,
perhaps we should help the folks at the federal level and save everyone a lot of work, wasted time and
money! But seriously, we are not. So why do we continuously waste time and taxpayers money
"arguing" with the recommendations of the EPA? I have my opinion, but that is not important for this
letter.
Do not delete existing water quality standards for total chromium, manganese and iron. As stated, they
are naturally occurring, but when discharged to a receiving body of water they can and will upset the
natural balance of the river or creek if discharged in a large enough volume.
Do not allow for "aquatic life biological integrity" - it only helps those who wish to pollute! Once a stream
shows signs of stress, it may be too late to reverse the trend.
Do away with "Action Level" regulations pertaining to copper, silver, zinc and chloride. "Hard numeric
values" are readily available and must be enforced.
Hydraulic fracturing has not been addressed at all in the Triennial Review. We all know that it is
extremely water use intensive technology and we should be addressing the disposal of the millions and
millions of gallons of waste water that will be contaminated with many chemicals that we currently do not
address in the statutes already on the books in NC. Let's get "ahead of the ball" for a change and not
suggest claiming "trade secret" information to allow companies to discharge without regulation.
In summary, I suggest you re-read the first paragraph! If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at 252-402-5564. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Respectfully,
Bob Boulden
Attachment G A833
From:TJ Cawley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards; a tjcawley
Subject:Triennial Review Public Hearing Comment
Date:Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:44:24 PM
As a husband, father, and homeowner here in Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina I
respectfully submit the following recommendations for inclusion in your upcoming Triennial
Review and I hope that you do everything within your authority to preserve and protect our
water quality for this and future generations.
• Toxic heavy metals. North Carolina is the only state in the southeast that has not adopted
toxic metals criteria recommended by EPA two decades ago. The current proposal would
upgrade our water quality standards for metals – cadmium, chromium III, copper, lead, nickel,
silver, and zinc - to match EPA’s national recommendations and protect wildlife and human
health. The proposed upgrade is a step in the right direction, but could do better. The toxicity
of metals depends on the ‘hardness’ of water. In the mountains particularly, water hardness
can be low, making metals more toxic, but the proposal does not address these conditions.
I recommend: the state should tighten the metals standards as proposed, but should also
tighten them further than proposed in vulnerable mountain streams with an especially low
hardness.
• Biological trump. While the state has proposed to tighten and improve the standards for
toxic metals, it has also proposed to let polluting industries routinely violate the standards as
long as stream life appears to survive. This violates the Clean Water Act, as it only identifies
damage after pollution has gone too far.
I recommend: the state must abandon the ‘biological trump.’ Polluters should be held
accountable when they violate water quality standards.
• 2,4-D (chlorophenoxy herbicide). This herbicide is already widely applied, and genetic
engineering of crops is predicted to significantly expand its use. When consumed by humans,
2,4-D can damage the liver, kidney, and adrenal glands.
I recommend: the state has proposed to tighten its standard for 2,4-D in waters used as
sources for drinking water and food-processing purposes; that change should be adopted into
the final set of water quality standards.
What is missing from the triennial review proposal?
• Fracking chemicals. As a result of recent legislation, the state is on track to begin issuing
permits for extraction of natural gas via fracking in 2015. The fracking process generates
massive volumes of contaminated wastewater. North Carolina lacks water quality standards
Attachment G A834
for hundreds of contaminants that can be in fracking wastewater; without such standards, the
state has no effective way to limit pollutants in fracking wastewater discharged to rivers,
lakes, and streams. The proper vehicle for adopting such standards is the triennial review, but
the state has not proposed any standards for fracking contaminants.
I recommend: the Environmental Management Commission should prohibit discharges of
fracking contaminants for which safe levels have not yet been scientifically determined.
• Nutrients. Excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) cause algal blooms (thick green
muck that fouls clear water) and fish kills. EPA recently approved a multi-year state plan to
study whether to adopt limits on nitrogen and phosphorus, but this process will not yield a
limit for most of the state’s water bodies for more than a decade, if at all.
I recommend: North Carolina needs to address nutrient pollution, now, at the source, by
adopting statewide nitrogen and phosphorus limits, if not in this triennial review then in the
next.
• Ammonia. Released by wastewater treatment plants and other polluters, ammonia is sharply
toxic to aquatic life, especially mussels. North Carolina has no water quality standard for
ammonia, and the current package does not propose one.
I recommend: the state should adopt EPA’s nationally recommended standards for ammonia –
formulas that take account of local temperature and water acidity (pH) – to protect life in
North Carolina’s streams and rivers.
• Mercury. Especially in the form of methylmercury, mercury is highly toxic to humans,
interfering with fetal, infant, and childhood development, and placing adults at risk, too.
However, North Carolina does not directly regulate methylmercury, although that is the form
in which mercury accumulates in fish and most directly threatens wildlife and people who eat
the fish.
I recommend: North Carolina should adopt a methylmercury limit that meets or exceeds the
national recommendation of 0.3 mg/kg of fish tissue to protect human health, while retaining
its standard for inorganic mercury.
• Flow. If withdrawals leave too little water in a river or lake, that waterbody will not sustain
healthy fish and wildlife. Worse, pollution discharged into a depleted river remains more
concentrated, increasing the risks to people who use it downstream. Currently, North
Carolina lacks explicit protections for flow in its water quality standards, and the state uses a
weak method to set permit limits.
I recommend: North Carolina should add adopt strong protections for water flow.
• Variances. When the state reviews its water quality standards, it must also review variances
–permissions given to specific facilities to violate the standards. These include two chloride
variances for pickle companies, Mt. Olive Pickle Company in Wayne County and Bay Valley
Attachment G A835
Foods in Duplin County; a color variance for Evergreen Paper Products in Haywood County;
and thermal variances for the cooling systems at a long list of electric power generating
plants.
I recommend: DENR should insist on all possible progress being made toward meeting water
quality standards as a condition to granting continued variances for these permits.
Thank you for your time and your efforts,
TJ Cawley
Morrisville, North Carolina, 27560
Attachment G A836
From:Daniel Ferguson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Unacceptable Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:40:41 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ferguson
1602 Thore Road
Pinnacle, 27106
Attachment G A837
From:M W
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Unity Is What You Seek. Universal Love!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
M W
607 Rose Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attachment G A838
From:Stephen Blake
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update clean water standards now!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:08:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
We must strengthen our current water quality standards now. Ultimately this is the water that we drink, the water
that grows the food that we eat, the water that we bathe in.
The goal must be pollution prevention. It will cost taxpayers and ratepayers more to clean up behind polluters than
to prevent the damage in the first place.
The Duke Energy mess has made it clear that corporate polluters will take profits at the expense of the environment
while they stick the public with the clean up costs.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Blake
506 Merrybrook Ct
Address Line 2
Clemmons, NC 27012
Attachment G A839
From:Lawrence East
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:33:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lawrence East
316 Richlands Ave
Apt. 5
Jacksonville, NC 28540
Attachment G A840
From:Terry Brookins
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update NC Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:00:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terry Brookins
8805 Nellie Lane
Waxhaw, NC 28173
Attachment G A841
From:Karen Pearsall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update NC clean water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:44:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Pearsall
331 Ashland Dr
Goldston, NC 27252
Attachment G A842
From:Deborah Griffith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update NC water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:59:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Griffith
7054 Meeting Street
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A843
From:Sarah Pruteanu
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update our Clean Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sarah Pruteanu
100 Rivers Edge Drive
Apartment 124
Medford, MA 02155
Attachment G A844
From:Edith Coleman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update our water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:09:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edith Coleman
2600 Frederick Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19805
Attachment G A845
From:Mary Stone
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update our water to make it cleaner
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26:40 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Stone
500 Audubon Dr
Oriental, NC 28571
Attachment G A846
From:Richard Hamilton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:update water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:49:48 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Hamilton
1024 Washington St
Raleigh, NC 27605
Attachment G A847
From:charles pettee
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Update water standards -- no loopholes
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:38:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
charles pettee
318 Burris Pl
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A848
From:Terri Garretson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Updating Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:26:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terri Garretson
7424 Dunsany Court
Wake a Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A849
From:Lynne Royall
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Uphold the Clean Water Act
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:08:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in earnest support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including
tightening standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the
proposed standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream
life appears to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent
pollution, not merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities. Don't allow industry to pollute our water supply.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynne Royall
6016 Bramblewood Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A850
From:Antoinette De Luca
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:URGENT!!!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:36 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Antoinette De Luca
4307 Saquache Drive
Charlotte, NC 28269
Attachment G A851
From:Susan Leete
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Urgent: stronger water quality standards needed
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:36 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Leete
3100 Silas Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A852
From:Meghan Prior
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Urging NC Environmental Management Commission to Strenthen Our Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:20:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Meghan Prior
4210 Sunnydell Drive
Winston Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A853
From:nathalie worthington
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Vital Resource -- WATER
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:42:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
nathalie worthington
1434 farrington rd
apex, NC 27523
Attachment G A854
From:Laura Tweed
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Vote for stronger water quality regulations
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:53:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Tweed
6700 Sandwell ln
Apt208
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A855
From:Lissa Caldwell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water conservation
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:10:00 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lissa Caldwell
157 Deer Glade Lane
Waynesville, NC 28786
Attachment G A856
From:Libby Cook-Carlton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water In NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:07:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Dear Ms. Brower;
Please strengthen our current water quality standards here in North Carolina. I am very concerned about the
possibility of fracking coming to North Carolina especially after my Govenor allowed Duke Energy to dump their
coal ash in people's water sources in my state with only a slap on the wrist. Many of the toxic chemicals that would
be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally discharged from treatment plants into more rivers since we
don't have water quality standards for those contaminants and not many people who care who have clout or position
to do something.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams. You are all we
have,Ms. Brower please help us!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Libby Cook-Carlton
707 Stillwater Road
Boomer, NC 28606
Attachment G A857
From:David Vohwinkel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water is critical to life
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:03:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Vohwinkel
212 Allie Bell Ln
Rolesville, NC 27571
Attachment G A858
From:Antonio Aversano
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Is Life!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:18:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Antonio Aversano
165 Newfound Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Attachment G A859
From:Melissa Deal
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water is our greatest resource
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:49:29 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melissa Deal
PO Box 1458
Burgaw, NC 28425
Attachment G A860
From:Ben Bridgers
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water is our most precious asset
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:47:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ben Bridgers
PO Box 248
Sylva, NC 28779
Attachment G A861
From:Nina Broadway
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water pollution prevention
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:28:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nina Broadway
518 Buttonwood Dr
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A862
From:Rachael Rocamora
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water protection
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:07:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachael Rocamora
3019 Branderwood Drive
Greensboro, NC 27406
Attachment G A863
From:mary rand
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Protection
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:20:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
mary rand
1205 old coats rd
Lillington, NC 27546
Attachment G A864
From:Suzanne Everette
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water protection
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Everette
3315 Winston dr
Burlington, NC 27215
Attachment G A865
From:Betsy Malpass
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality & Protection - Prohibit Extraction for Fracking
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:28:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
In addition we have no water to sacrifice to Fracking activity, a practice I'll suited to North Carolina's resources. It
is vitally important NC pass a law to limit extraction of water from our rivers, lakes, ponds and acquifers, and to
control who, when, how, and how much can be withdrawn, as well as regulate handling of waste and contaminated
water.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betsy Malpass
908 Woodbine Drive
Please do not call
Chapel hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A866
From:Chandra Metheny
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Affects Everyone
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:42:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chandra Metheny
3105 Beaconwood Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Attachment G A867
From:Rachel Roper
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality and health
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:29:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Water quality is essential for our health.
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Roper
754 Gatewood Dr
Winterville, NC 28590
Attachment G A868
From:Jan Evans
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality at Atlantic Beach, NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:56:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
I would also like for the water quality at Atlantic Beach which is called "The Pond" to be checked for bacteria. I see
people all the time dumping dog feces into the water and at times some people who empty their boat heads in the
water rather than going offshore to release it. My grandchildren and many others swim in those waters and I would
like for there to be stricter requirements of residents on "The Pond" in the areas described. A simple rule would be
to enforce "No Dumping" in The Pond.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jan Evans
1301 Par Drive
Kinston, NC 28504
Attachment G A869
From:Elizabeth Woodruff
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality commenting
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:16:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please do not frack in our state because it puts the water is serious jeopardy and anything that is detrimental to the
water is DUMB to do. Please allocate money to clean up the coal ash rentention ponds in the state of N.C. We need
to work on the sewage system infrastructure to prevent leakages, install plants and animals (oysters) that will slow
down run off and filter the water, allow and educate about rain barrels and gray water systems, stop spraying such a
heavy amount of pesticides, and the list goes on and on. We need to do whatever we can to protect our water. We
need to start being smart!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Woodruff
724A Bonham Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attachment G A870
From:Lisa Almaraz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Creates Quality of Life
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards which are weak and in danger of exploitive industries that area
threat to us all. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to North Carolina. Many of the toxic
chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally discharged from treatment plants into
our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lisa Almaraz
568 Fortescue Road
Zirconia, NC 28790
Attachment G A871
From:[e-mail]
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject:Water Quality Hearing Comments
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:25:35 PM
I want to say that I fully expect the state to close some of the loopholes in the proposed standards, which
are woefully overdue, to ensure they include dissolved heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead,
chromium-6, as well as including limits on nitrogen and phosphorus and ammonia into our lakes, streams
and rivers.

These toxic pollutants have no place in NC waters in amounts that would imperil the health and safety of
our citizens and wildlife.

Harold Bankirer
17206 Linksview Lane
Huntersville, NC 28078
704 274-9680
Attachment G A872
From:Mary McDaniel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:17:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
I am concerned that my grandchildren will not have clean water to enjoy unless you act NOW.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary McDaniel
13106 Allison Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
Attachment G A873
From:Heidi Rozner
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:48:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heidi Rozner
15460 Stone Hollow Dr
Huntersville, NC 28078
Attachment G A874
From:Eric Zimdars
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality in NC
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 1:41:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Zimdars
167 Edgewood Rd
Asheville, NC 28770
Attachment G A875
From:Herbert House
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality is IMPORTANT!
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:48:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Herbert House
1921 W Front
Burlington, NC 27215
Attachment G A876
From:Tripp Carter
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality is important
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tripp Carter
751 Blowing Rock Road
Boone, NC 28607
Attachment G A877
From:matt szymanski
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:WATER QUALITY IS PARAMOUNT
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:49:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
matt szymanski
103 pinetree dr
matthews, NC 28104
Attachment G A878
From:Mark Hooper
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality protection in North Carolina
Date:Monday, August 18, 2014 4:11:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Hooper
273 East City Rd. Box 186
Smyrna, NC 28579
Attachment G A879
From:Steve Stallings
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Protection
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:31:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Stallings
317 King George Lp
Cary, NC 27511
Attachment G A880
From:Kenneth Crews
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standard
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:21:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Crews
P.O. Box 1062
Stem, NC 27702
Attachment G A881
From:Robyn Barnes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards for NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:17:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robyn Barnes
1211K Trillium Circle
Raleigh, NC 27606
Attachment G A882
From:Weldine Dossett
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards for triennial review
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:46:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Weldine Dossett
415 Aberdeen Terrace
Greensboro, NC 27403
Attachment G A883
From:John Davis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards Must Be Strengthened
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
In addition, the energy companies have been given immunity from revealing the chemicals they will use in this
process. It is bad enough that millions of gallons of fresh water will be diverted and made unusable for humans. The
EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Sincerely,
John Davis
220 S Elm St
Greensboro, NC 27401
Attachment G A884
From:Deborah McGuinn
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards need reviewing
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 3:08:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah McGuinn
1304 white memorial church rd
willow spring, NC 27592
Attachment G A885
From:Karen Piplani
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards Upgrade
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:53:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Piplani
1502 Halifax Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A886
From:Kathy Rayle
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 9:08:53 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathy Rayle
15 Borden Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attachment G A887
From:Patrick Jean
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:54:03 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review.
North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as the EPA has requested and as neighboring states did
years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus and a standard for
ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total mercury is not
adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Patrick Jean
3910 Herman Sipe Road
Conover, NC 28613
Attachment G A888
From:Kim Murphy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:15:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
At a time when the healthcare system is clearly broken, I am amazed that political pressure has the high probablility
of overriding common sense. All cancers are environmental diseases, and we are exposed to the cancer threat by
the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. Protecting the environment is clearly the best way to
protect public health, yet politicians appear to be more concerned about protecting campaign contributions.
I am particularly concerned about the EMC proposal suggesting that toxic metal levels
should be allowed to increase until there are actual aquatic life kills. I assume that you have at least one
ecotoxicologist on staff. Please ask that person about the difference between an LC50 and an LD50. Simply put,
you don't have to outright kill something to cause lasting detriment to that organism. As an example, let us consider
radiation poisoning. When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not everyone died immediately. The immediate
die-off is an example of an LD50. Others developed cancers that killed them after the event and/or destroyed their
ability to reproduce in the future. That's an example of an LC50. Both are devastating in their own rights.
When it comes down to protecting our health, it is clearly better to observe LC50 levels, rather then LD50 levels.
Please do the right thing here by protecting the health of the state rather than protecting large scale polluters.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kim Murphy
34 Princeton Dr
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A889
From:David Campbell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 4:29:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I support the strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening standards for toxic metals and
for the herbicide 2,4-D. The proposal to allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as
long as stream life appears to survive (the 'biological trump') is not acceptable, however. Unacceptable harm to
wildlife and risk to humans occurs well before everything starts dying. The proposed standard violates the Clean
Water Act.
North Carolina also needs to improve regulations of several harmful substances including heavy metals, excess
nitrogen and phosphorus, methylmercury (in fish and other aquatic life), ammonia (especially hazardous to aquatic
life, including many endangered or otherwise imperiled species), and fracking wastewater (often very salty, in
addition to the various possible toxic components).

Clean water and a healthy environment are essential to all North Carolinians – for our health, property values,
recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Campbell
College Manor Dr
Shelby, NC 28152
Attachment G A890
From:Ben Sorensen
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:09:54 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ben Sorensen
201 Wellington St
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A891
From:george love
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
george love
516 princeton st
raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A892
From:Nancy Mueller
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Friday, August 15, 2014 12:13:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Mueller
409 Moonridge Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A893
From:Julia Myers
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 11:03:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Myers
10108 Whitestone Rd
Raleigh, NC 27615
Attachment G A894
From:Oscar Revilla
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:47:52 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Oscar Revilla
Juan de Herrera
San Sebastian de los Reyes
Attachment G A895
From:Michael Tillman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 11:24:56 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Tillman
205 Hudson St. Apt. D
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A896
From:Laura Cotterman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:07:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Cotterman
2707 Shadetree Rd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A897
From:Bradley Pearce
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:52:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bradley Pearce
160 exline williams dr
pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A898
From:Ash B
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:08:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ash B
NC
Raleigh, NC 27557
Attachment G A899
From:Janette Moser
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:58:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Janette Moser
Wilson cove rd
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Attachment G A900
From:Susan Casar
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:18:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Casar
32 Poplar Creek Drive
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A901
From:Samantha Cornell
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:53:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Samantha Cornell
148 Anderby Dr
Clayton, NC 27527
Attachment G A902
From:Marlene Pratto
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:35:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am glad that you are reviewing our clean water standards. I cannot believe this has been neglected for so long.
Water is our most important and precious asset, yet governments and people do not take keeping it clean and useful
seriously enough.
I support strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening standards for toxic metals and for
the herbicide 2,4-D. (Toxic metals are hard, if not impossible to remove.) However, I was disappointed and shocked
that the proposed standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as
stream life appears to survive (the 'biological trump'). I am sorry, but this is just not good enough. Once life starts
to die, what will it take to restore the water quality. It is better to not allow the water quality to deteriorate. Also this
violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities. Please strengthen our standards, not weaken. them.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marlene Pratto
105 Ridgeway Drive
Greensboro, NC 27403
Attachment G A903
From:Robert White
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:22:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert White
9820 White Cascade Dr
Charlotte, NC 28269
Attachment G A904
From:Linda Smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:59:16 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Smith
983 W. Durness Ct
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A905
From:Josh Storm
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:07:33 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Josh Storm
2708 Campus Box
Elon, NC 27215
Attachment G A906
From:Aaron Allen
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:35:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Aaron Allen
3601 Dogwood Dr
Greensboro, NC 27403
Attachment G A907
From:Claudia Nix
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:20:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Claudia Nix
72 Sherwood Road
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A908
From:Amanda Tufts
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:46:36 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amanda Tufts
103 Troy Dr
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Attachment G A909
From:Aglaia OQuinn
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:23:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Aglaia OQuinn
5106 Murphy School Re
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A910
From:Wynne Queen
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:55:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wynne Queen
340 Davis Rd
Forest City, NC 28043
Attachment G A911
From:Iris Carman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:00:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Clean water is vital for a healthy and productive population. Our ability to filter contaminants from our water is so
very limited. Even those with great financial resources and power will be effected at some point in time by
contaminated water. Our governmental representatives should be examples of good stewards for all of our precious
and limited natural resources.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Iris Carman
327 Lakewood Drive
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
Attachment G A912
From:Jordan & Beth Holtam
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:02:28 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jordan & Beth Holtam
21 Mooney Lane
Weaverville, NC 28787
Attachment G A913
From:Karen Jones
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:14:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Jones
217 Ewbank Drive
Hendersonville, NC 28791
Attachment G A914
From:Scott Kelly
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:12:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. I was very disappointed that the proposed standards would
allow polluting industries to violate water quality standards routinely as long as stream life appears to survive (the
'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not merely respond
after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Scott Kelly
5242 Auburndale Road
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A915
From:Shel Anderson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:58:47 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shel Anderson
1706 Rosetta Dr
Durham, NC 27701
Attachment G A916
From:marian dodd
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:39:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
marian dodd
215 Pinecroft dr
raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A917
From:Sanae Moorehead
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:48:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sanae Moorehead
300 Beaufort Manor Drive
Beaufort, NC 28516
Attachment G A918
From:Nancy Sanderson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:14:51 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Sanderson
8454 Coulwood Oak Lane
Charlotte, NC 28214
Attachment G A919
From:Ann Floyd
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:21:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Floyd
8545 Chickenfoot Rd
Saint Pauls, NC 28384
Attachment G A920
From:Jay Newhard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:32:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Newhard
306 Treybrooke Circle #33
Greenville, NC 27834
Attachment G A921
From:James Pugh
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:04:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Pugh
2154 Norton Rd
Charlotte, NC 28207
Attachment G A922
From:Theresa Lauro
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:20:42 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Theresa Lauro
3014 Butter churn Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
Attachment G A923
From:Brenda Backer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:42:09 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Backer
145 Vista Drive
Davidson, NC 28036
Attachment G A924
From:Chris Sheldon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chris Sheldon
5903 Arcadia Dr
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A925
From:Bristol Bowman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:16:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bristol Bowman
7 Birchcrest Court
Durham, NC 27713
Attachment G A926
From:Sandra Smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:12:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandra Smith
5032 Dresden Court
Monroe, NC 28110
Attachment G A927
From:Jane Lynch
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:05:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jane Lynch
1408 Rosedale Ave
Durham, NC 27707
Attachment G A928
From:JASON HARPSTER
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:03:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JASON HARPSTER
105 MAGNOLIA AVE
PINEHURST, NC 28374
Attachment G A929
From:Sally Howard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:20:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sally Howard
4030 Lattimore Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A930
From:Susan Morance
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:40:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Morance
1513 East Franklin Street
Unit D-134
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A931
From:Randy Bernard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:07:03 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy Bernard
18 Plateau Rd
Asheville, NC 28805
Attachment G A932
From:Christine Brown
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:29:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christine Brown
1229 Newfound Hollow Dr
Charlotte, NC 28214
Attachment G A933
From:Thomas Blanton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:42:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Blanton
2228 Russell Drive
Granite Falls, NC 28630
Attachment G A934
From:Elaine Jones
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:27:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elaine Jones
3706 Cotswold Terrace, Unit 1-B
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A935
From:Clayton Denman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clayton Denman
547 Rustic Road
West Jefferson, NC 28694
Attachment G A936
From:George Rector
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:26:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
George Rector
947 Bo Cove Road
Cullowhee, NC 28723
Attachment G A937
From:Elena Carleo
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:41:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elena Carleo
393 Crestview Church Rd
Asheboro, NC 27205
Attachment G A938
From:Sandra Maddox
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:50:40 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandra Maddox
6304 Carl Cox Rd
Bennett, NC 27208
Attachment G A939
From:Darryl Wally
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:47:20 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Darryl Wally
240 Silene
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attachment G A940
From:Justin Mebane
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:45:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Justin Mebane
Covey Ln
Wilmington, NC 28411
Attachment G A941
From:Frederick Mayer
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:33 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frederick Mayer
214 Hickory Lane
Hampstead, NC 28443
Attachment G A942
From:Suzanne Schenkel
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:37:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Schenkel
106 Belmont Ct
Southern Pines, NC 28387
Attachment G A943
From:Ashley Lewis
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:22:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ashley Lewis
4052 Obra Rd
Graham, NC 27253
Attachment G A944
From:Eric McManus
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:18:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric McManus
8019 Gera Emma Drive
Charlotte, NC 28215
Attachment G A945
From:Julie Newberry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:17:46 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julie Newberry
400 Mayfield Circle Apt E
Durham, NC 27705
Attachment G A946
From:Frank Gottbrath
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:15:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank Gottbrath
1082 Cornell Ct
Leland, NC 28451
Attachment G A947
From:Sharon Whitmore
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:59:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sharon Whitmore
7500 New Sharon Church Rd
Rougemont, NC 27572
Attachment G A948
From:C. Warren Pope
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality Standards
Date:Friday, July 11, 2014 3:44:22 PM
Put an end to this mad rush to get rid of protections for NC’s water. Strengthen, or at least keep
your hands off and do not further weaken NC’s clean water protections. Get rid of the coal ash bill
and start anew, this time protecting water quality, not Duke Energy.

Very truly yours,
C. Warren Pope
[e-mail]

Attachment G A949
From:bette-burr fenley
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality standards
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:31:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
bette-burr fenley
211 carolina meadows villa
chapel hill, NC 27517
Attachment G A950
From:Kat Gejg
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:18:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kat Gejg
Raleigh
Raleigh, 27603
Attachment G A951
From:Denise Garland
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:24:53 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Denise Garland
10502 Sycamore Club Drive
Mint Hill, NC 28227
Attachment G A952
From:Gretchen Simpson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:11:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Clean water is a very valuable thing, and should be treated as such.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Simpson
494 Frank Rector Rd
Marshall, NC 28753
Attachment G A953
From:sharon weeks
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:55:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
sharon weeks
545 copperhead bend
Burnsville, NC 28714
Attachment G A954
From:Richard Loeppert
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:01:17 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Loeppert
1317 Rand Drive
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A955
From:Raymond Occhipinti
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:34:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Raymond Occhipinti
265 Brooklyn
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A956
From:Mark Weisser
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 7:09:50 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Weisser
6445 Mounting Rock Rd
Charlotte, NC 28217
Attachment G A957
From:Riley Maness
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:57:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Riley Maness
111 Walnut Creek Drive
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Attachment G A958
From:Jan Ross
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:51:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jan Ross
251 Jim's Branch
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Attachment G A959
From:Thomas Johnson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:34:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thomas Johnson
2455 Holloway Mtn Rd
BR, NC 28605
Attachment G A960
From:becky armstrong
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:54:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
becky armstrong
165 Finlay Brook Way
hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A961
From:Debora Horning
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:06:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debora Horning
3619 Marlowe Ave
Winston Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A962
From:Darielle Whitelaw
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:03:43 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Darielle Whitelaw
4706 BLUEBIRD CT
UNIT#F
Raleigh, NC 27606
Attachment G A963
From:Dwayne Dvoracek
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:36:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dwayne Dvoracek
110 Grayson Dr
Salisbury, NC 28147
Attachment G A964
From:Gustavo Sandoval
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:35:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gustavo Sandoval
505 Los Gatos Way
San Mateo, CA 94403
Attachment G A965
From:Ellen Fallon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:28:23 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ellen Fallon
604 Copperline Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A966
From:Amy Mull
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:50:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Mull
905 Deerfield Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A967
From:Kelly Gay
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:48:42 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kelly Gay
5409 stuarts ridge rd
wake forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A968
From:James Poe
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:59:36 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Poe
737 Florida Ave
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A969
From:William Woody
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:31:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
As you are already seeing with the coal ash problems and the possible start of fracking - water quality guidelines
need to be strengthen. - I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water
quality standards for the triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has
requested and as neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen
and phosphorus and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current
standard for total mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of
methylmercury appearing in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Woody
PO box 503
Manteo, NC 27954
Attachment G A970
From:Carol Moldoveanu
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:48:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Moldoveanu
650 Woodbriar Ct
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Attachment G A971
From:Rachel Young
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:40 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Young
325 Alberto St
Charlotte, NC 28207
Attachment G A972
From:Lynn Fowler
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:19:48 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynn Fowler
135 S. Mills River Road
Mills River, 28759
Attachment G A973
From:Christine Robinson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:24:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christine Robinson
4710 Long Leaf Hills Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Attachment G A974
From:Sheila Barnes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sheila Barnes
PO box 5114
7028 Archers
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
Attachment G A975
From:Melissa Hastings
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:08:56 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melissa Hastings
515 Tom Mann RD
Newport, NC 28570
Attachment G A976
From:Richard Strowd
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:08:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Strowd
4845 Manns Chapel Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A977
From:Karen hodges
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Monday, August 25, 2014 11:33:18 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Health is one of the most important values for me and my family, and water quality is essential to health. I have
been alarmed at the laxity with which NC government is failing to protect water quality in our state from such
threats as coal ash contamination.
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen hodges
2641 Palm Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28205
Attachment G A978
From:Gerri Morringello
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:31:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gerri Morringello
8310 Compass Pointe East Wynd
Leland, NC 28451
Attachment G A979
From:Philip Davenport
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:16:00 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Philip Davenport
10905 Fitzwilliam Street
Raleigh, NC 27614
Attachment G A980
From:Paul Williams
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:43:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Williams
933 Hawk Ridge Circle
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Attachment G A981
From:Ruth Miller
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:45:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ruth Miller
1819 Billabong Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Attachment G A982
From:Sara Loeppert
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:42:22 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sara Loeppert
1317 Rand Drive
Raleigh, NC 27608
Attachment G A983
From:Rebecca Giordano
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:22:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Giordano
33 Little Dove Court
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A984
From:Arden Kirkman
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:21:46 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arden Kirkman
5859 Thacker Dairy Rd
Whitsett, NC 27377
Attachment G A985
From:Alicia Hood
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:41:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alicia Hood
118 Long Pond Drive
Sneads Ferry, NC 28460
Attachment G A986
From:Marie Ashworth
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:40:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marie Ashworth
1236 Columbus Cir
Wilmington, MT 28403
Attachment G A987
From:Rivette Marchand-Hill
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:26:12 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rivette Marchand-Hill
122 Hardin Rd
Topton, NC 28781
Attachment G A988
From:Dennis George
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:56:39 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dennis George
108 Shadow Mountain Lane
Morrisville, NC 27560
Attachment G A989
From:Matthew Amick
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:05:27 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew Amick
512 Arrowhead Dr
Greensboro, NC 27410
Attachment G A990
From:Greg Raschke
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:47:26 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Greg Raschke
2412 Wentworth Street
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attachment G A991
From:Jennifer Angyal
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Angyal
7149 Ludgate Road
Gibsonville, NC 27249
Attachment G A992
From:Melissa Bishop
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:25:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melissa Bishop
2167B Deep Ford Rd
Lansing, nc 28643
Attachment G A993
From:Jude Maglione
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jude Maglione
10 Moreview Dr
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A994
From:Nancy Montgomery
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:57:32 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Montgomery
269 Pleasant Hill Loop Rd
Rutherford, NC 28139
Attachment G A995
From:Susan Periano
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water quality
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:56:08 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Periano
125 Bald Cypress Lane
Mooresville, NC 28115
Attachment G A996
From:SC McCormick
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Quality
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:54:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
SC McCormick
95 Mills Gap
22b
Asheville, NC 28803
Attachment G A997
From:cynthia bringle
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water safety
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:19:15 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
cynthia bringle
160 lucy morgan lane
bakersville, NC 28705
Attachment G A998
From:John Banks
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water safety
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:50:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Banks
1612 Riverview Rd
Raleigh, NC 27610
Attachment G A999
From:Lewise Busch
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water standards in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:04:02 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians. Please note also that
coal ash releases radioactive isotopes into the water when it reaches water supplies.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lewise Busch
750 Weaver Dairy Rd. 1223
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Attachment G A1000
From:Robert Trullinger
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards Review
Date:Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:00:57 AM
Dr. Robert Trullinger
107 Chatburn Circle
Cary, NC 27513

July 13, 2014

Connie Brower
DWR Water Planning Section
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

Dear Ms. Brower:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the review of North Carolina’s water quality standards.

I am very glad that the Commission has decided to review the water quality standards. Such a
review is long overdue. Over the past decade in the absence of strong regulations, we have seen our water quality has been seriously compromised. Large quantities of industrial
chemicals, fertilizer run-off, and herbicides have been introduced into our streams and rivers, and, by extension, into our drinking water. This increase in chemical pollution in our water
sources has created serious public health issues, particularly for children, due to the impact of chemical pollution in the drinking water on their physical and mental development.

The long term consequences of the lack of appropriate regulations to protect the safety of our
Attachment G A1001
drinking water will have serious economic and social costs. Our society will need to take care of those people. Taxpayers will need to provide the financial means to take care of those
individuals whose development was impaired because of the commitment to short term financial gains at the expense of future generations.

I urge the Commission to undertake a full review of North Carolina’s water quality standards
and to adopt measures that are at least as strong as those of the federal Environment Protection Agency. Our children deserve no less.

Thank you.

Robert Trullinger

914-924-0563
[e-mail]
Attachment G A1002
From:Katherine Gonzalez
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:26:40 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Katherine Gonzalez
3878 Longwood Drive SW
Concord
Concord, NC 28027
Attachment G A1003
From:joyce robinson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:21:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
joyce robinson
8010 covington ave
glen burnie, MD 21061
Attachment G A1004
From:Claire Brothers
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:18:18 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
THIS ALL GOES HAND IN HAND WITH OUR BEING WISE IN ALLOWING FRACKING AND ANY
OTHER INDUSTRY WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ALTER OUR WATER QUALITY. STANDARDS
MUST BE HIGH. STANDARDS MUST BE HIGH.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Claire Brothers
1709 Calico Dr
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attachment G A1005
From:JAMES & Leslea Kunz
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:40:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JAMES & Leslea Kunz
1218 Coral Reef Ct
New Bern, NC 28560
Attachment G A1006
From:Brenda Barry
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 9:20:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Barry
17860 NC Hwy 53 E
Kelly, NC 28448
Attachment G A1007
From:Daniel McCaslin
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:22:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel McCaslin
13718 Gatestone Lane
Pineville, NC 28134
Attachment G A1008
From:Angelica Regueiro
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:58:56 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Angelica Regueiro
11124 Northwoods Forest Drive
Charlotte, NC 28214
Attachment G A1009
From:william walls
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:08:06 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
william walls
po box 21
jamestown, NC 27282
Attachment G A1010
From:John George
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:29:13 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
As a 59 year old life long resident, voter, business owner and property owner I've seen our waters at their worst and
now approaching usability again. Please, let's not go backward. Have we not learned from the past? Let's leave a
legacy of opportunity in the outdoors. Not fear of poisoning.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John George
6348 Sharon Hills Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Attachment G A1011
From:Jon McVety
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:49:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon McVety
1413 Lindenberg Sq
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A1012
From:Evan Auld
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water standards
Date:Monday, July 14, 2014 3:02:03 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a lifetime concerned citizen of the state of North Carolina. Please limit and
appropriately regulate the release of phosphorous, nitrogen, heavy metals, and toxic contaminants to our waterways and aquatic resources by NPDES polluters. This includes but
is not limited to toxicity to humans. I am sure you are doing your best to ensure future generations will enjoy a state in better shape than we have enjoyed it.
Thank you,
Evan Auld
Attachment G A1013
From:Max Mattison
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:05:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Max Mattison
234 Alta Vista Dr
Candler, NC 28715
Attachment G A1014
From:bonnie vuolo
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water standars/quality
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:30:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
bonnie vuolo
6338 westview dr
newland, NC 28657
Attachment G A1015
From:Rachel Lominac
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:57:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Lominac
1010 7th st ne
Hickory, NC 28601
Attachment G A1016
From:betty sparrow
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:22:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
betty sparrow
817 reems ck
reems ck
weaverville n.c., NC 28787
Attachment G A1017
From:Kent Swenson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:21:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kent Swenson
225 dennis ln
Franklin, NC 28734
Attachment G A1018
From:David Andes
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:17:37 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Andes
4005 Stoney Creek Church Road
Elon, NC 27244
Attachment G A1019
From:Scott Sheppard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:08:17 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Scott Sheppard
PO Box 276
Edneyville, NC 28727
Attachment G A1020
From:Jack Dula
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:48:19 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jack Dula
173 Eastview St
None
Hudson, NC 28638
Attachment G A1021
From:Margie Zalesak
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water
Date:Monday, August 25, 2014 1:48:22 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Margie Zalesak
205 McCleary Ct
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attachment G A1022
From:james devine
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:35:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
james devine
320 westridge dr
raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A1023
From:TINA HOROWITZ
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:16:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
TINA HOROWITZ
4701 pine street m8
philadelphia, PA 19143
Attachment G A1024
From:Janice Valder
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:WATer
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:30:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I grew up hearing" a penny saved is a penny earned. Saving our water quality will not only save the pennies, it will
save lives. Please,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Janice Valder
1418 Euclid Ave`
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attachment G A1025
From:Amber Watson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:20:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amber Watson
702 N Carolina Ave
Carolina beach, NC 28428
Attachment G A1026
From:William Tripp
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:water
Date:Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:28:59 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Tripp
416 Withershinn Dr
Charlotte, NC 28262
Attachment G A1027
From:Toni Johse
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Water=Life
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:00:56 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Toni Johse
3123 Reunion Plaza Td
Apex, NC 27539
Attachment G A1028
From:Erica Gunnison
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We All Need Clean Water!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:57:54 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Erica Gunnison
100 Kentucky Dr
Asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A1029
From:Grayson Patton
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We All Need Clean Water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:50:04 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grayson Patton
3482 NC Hwy 268
Siloam, NC 27047
Attachment G A1030
From:Emily Soza
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We all need clean water
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:02:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Emily Soza
360 sawtooth dr
Fayetteville, NC 28314
Attachment G A1031
From:Juli Smith
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We Are What We Drink
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:53:55 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Juli Smith
400 US Highway 70 E
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attachment G A1032
From:Shawna Schnorr
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We ask for safer water standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:39:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shawna Schnorr
2701 Alder Ridge Lane
Raleigh, NC 27603
Attachment G A1033
From:Shereen Gillette
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We Deserve Clean Water!
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:18:51 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shereen Gillette
222 East Bland Street
Unit 3
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attachment G A1034
From:Lorelei Nemcik
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need better protection
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 5:40:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lorelei Nemcik
215 Calla Lilly Lane
Kernersville, NC 27284
Attachment G A1035
From:Constance Engle
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:WE NEED CLEAN WATER!
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:31:26 AM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Constance Engle
244 Englewood Drive
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Attachment G A1036
From:elza behrens
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:we need clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:34:57 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
elza behrens
2286 fork creek road
saluda, NC 28773
Attachment G A1037
From:Carol Pelosi
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need cleaner water in NC
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:41:11 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Pelosi
1255 South Main Street
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attachment G A1038
From:Marilyn Cosnstine
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:we need cleaner water to survive and grow
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:46:53 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Cosnstine
337 Lake Knoll Ct
Lewisville, NC 27023
Attachment G A1039
From:Diego Medina
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need our clean water
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:15:07 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diego Medina
48 Evergreen Hill Dr
Etowah, NC 28729
Attachment G A1040
From:Sam Hay
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need stronger clean water standards in NC
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:41:31 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sam Hay
118 Fox
Mooresville, NC 28117
Attachment G A1041
From:Gary Andrew
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We Need Stronger Water Standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:20:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies (think Toledo). This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians. Water is a precious
resource and as climate change continues, water will likely become scarcer. We must act now to keep our water
clean and safe to drink.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Andrew
319 N Downing St
Davidson, NC 28036
Attachment G A1042
From:Charles Butzgy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need to make our clean water standards improved.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:01:39 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Butzgy
5728 Crenshaw Drive
Hope Mills, NC 28348
Attachment G A1043
From:Michael Evon
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need to strengthen NC water quality standards
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:14:14 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
It's important that North Carolina strengthen our water quality standards for metals, nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), mercury and ammonia pollution. Without strong standards we'll continue to see fish kills and algal
blooms, and we’ll run the risk of algal toxics in our drinking water supplies. This is unacceptable.
Please adopt the proposed metals standards; adopt numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus; adopt a fish
tissue standard for mercury to protect our children' and adopt the standard recommended by EPA for ammonia.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to me and all North Carolinians.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Evon
606 Brook Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attachment G A1044
From:Edward Stavish
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We need to strengthen water quality protections
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 8:38:52 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edward Stavish
1285 Duckett Top Tower Road
Hot Springs, NC 28743
Attachment G A1045
From:Shirley Baker
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We The People
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 4:39:05 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shirley Baker
900 Shellbrook Court
Apartment 2
Raleigh, NC 27609
Attachment G A1046
From:Amanda Dillard
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We want better water quality standards!
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:32:10 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amanda Dillard
4241 Fox Street
Randleman, NC 27317
Attachment G A1047
From:Claire Brothers
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:We want CLEAN WATER.
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 6:37:01 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am submitting my comments in support of strengthening our current water quality standards, including tightening
standards for toxic metals and for the herbicide 2,4-D. However, I was very disappointed that the proposed
standards would allow polluting industries to routinely violate water quality standards as long as stream life appears
to survive (the 'biological trump'). This violates the Clean Water Act, which is supposed to prevent pollution, not
merely respond after the fact.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Claire Brothers
1709 Calico Dr
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attachment G A1048
From:Ann Mundy
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOOD WATER QUALITY?
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 10:05:21 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Mundy
47 Logan Circle
asheville, NC 28806
Attachment G A1049
From:Michael Keenan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Who are you looking out for, certainly not the people of NC?
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 3:37:58 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Keenan
48 CHEROKEE TRL
Fletcher, NC 28732
Attachment G A1050
From:Tish Yarborough
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:why are you killing our water supplies?
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 1:24:25 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
Please strengthen our current water quality standards. I am very worried about the possibility of fracking coming to
North Carolina. Many of the toxic chemicals that would be generated in fracking wastewater could be legally
discharged from treatment plants into our rivers since we don't have water quality standards for those contaminants.
The EMC should prohibit the discharge of fracking contaminants into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tish Yarborough
7517 Mason Landing Rd
Wilmington, NC 28411
Attachment G A1051
From:Andrew San Juan
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Why weaken regulation of our water resources?
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:32:35 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew San Juan
136 Sunny Acres Drive
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Attachment G A1052
From:jo ellen gay
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Cc:Reeder, Tom; Skvarla, John
Subject:Wilson"s Comment on Revised Water Quality Standards
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:20:35 AM
Attachments:EMC Triennial Review Comment 8-12-14.pdf
Please find attached our comments on the Revised Water Quality Standards. We appreciate the
opportunity to submit comments on this very important proposal.

JoEllen Gay
Water Reclamation Compliance Coordinator
City of Wilson
PO Box 10 Wilson, NC 27894-0010
(p) 252-399-2499 (c) 252-230-8318
[e-mail]
Mon.- Fri. 7:30 am -4 pm

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 132,et.seq., this electronic mail message and any attachment hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in
response to it may be considered public record and as such are subject to requests for review. ­­
Attachment G A1053
From:Starr Watson
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Without clean water there is no life
Date:Monday, August 11, 2014 2:56:24 PM
Dear DWR Water Planning Section Connie Brower,
I am writing to you today to submit my comments in support of strengthening our water quality standards for the
triennial review. North Carolina should update our standards for heavy metals as EPA has requested and as
neighboring states did years ago. The state should also adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus
and a standard for ammonia to prevent the further degradation of our rivers. Finally, the current standard for total
mercury is not adequate to protect human health; we also need a standard for the levels of methylmercury appearing
in fish tissue.
Clean water and a healthy environment are vitally important to all North Carolinians – for our health, property
values, recreational and business opportunities.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Starr Watson
3720 Merestone Dr
Wilmington, NC 28412
Attachment G A1054
From:Jeannie
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Written comments for water quality standards Triennial Review
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 2:37:55 PM
Attachments:JA-2014 Surface Water Quality Triennial Review of Standards.pdf
Connie Brower:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments.
Also, many thanks to you and others for safeguarding our precious water resource
so vital to the quality of life we all enjoy in NC.
Jeannie Ambrose
Chatham County
Attachment G A1055
From:Blodgett, Terry L.
To:DWR_Classifications_Standards
Subject:Written Comments: Triennial Review
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 2:34:19 PM
Attachments:Alcoa_Inc_Comments_on_Proposed_Amendment_to_NC_Surface_Water_Quality_Standards_of_April2014.pdf
Importance:High
PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT

Attn: Connie Brower
DENR/Division of Water Resources/Water Planning Section
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

RE: Written Comments: Triennial Review

Dear Ms. Brower,

Alcoa Inc. (Alcoa) respectfully submits the attached comments addressing proposed amendments to
Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 02B. Alcoa opposes changes which would regulate
cyanide on a “total cyanide” basis only. It is widely accepted and well documented that most forms
of cyanide, all of which are detected in a totals analysis, do not possess the potential to cause harm
to people or the environment. Conversely, it is widely accepted that it is the free forms of cyanide
in toxicity studies that that have the potential to cause harm if not properly regulated. To adopt a
cyanide water quality criteria based on a totals analysis for comparison to a chronic criteria based
on free cyanide toxicity testing is in our opinion overly simplistic and conservative. Companies
should be afforded the opportunity to develop site-specific criteria based on free cyanide limits in
receiving waters.

Sincerely,

Terry L. Blodgett
Alcoa Inc., International Project Development and Asset Management
Location EHS Manager
P.O. Box 472 | 4069 Charles Martin Hall Road | Rockdale, TX 76567
W: +1 512.446.8379 M: +1 512.760.8800 F: +1 512.446.8441
[e-mail]

Attachment G A1056