2018-Draft-IR-Review-Comments

CMSWS Attachments/2015QAPP1.1.pdf
Page - 1 QAPP 1.1 2015 SECTION A: PROJECT MANAGEMENT Page - 2 QAPP 1.1 2015 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Quality Management Plan (QAPP) A1.
Signature and Approval Page Rusty Rozzelle Date Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Manager Caroline Burgett Date Mecklenburg County QA/QC Officer Tony Roux Date
Mecklenburg County Bioassessment Lab Supervisor Olivia Edwards Date Mecklenburg County Field Measurement Lab Supervisor Steve Jadlocki Date City of Charlotte NPDES Administrator
State of North Carolina Date Page - 3 QAPP 1.1 2015 A2. Table of Contents SECTION A: PROJECT MANAGEMENT ..................................................................
1 A1. Signature and Approval Page .................................................................................. 2 A2. Table of Contents .........................................................
............................................. 3 A3. Distribution List ........................................................................................................ 4 A4. Project
Organization ................................................................................................. 5 A5. Problem Definition and Background ...............................................
...................... 10 A6. Project/Task Description and Schedule ................................................................. 13 A7. Quality Objectives and Criteria ..........................
................................................... 15 A8. Special Training/Certification ................................................................................ 17 A9. Documentation
and Records .................................................................................. 18 SECTION B: DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION ..................................... 20
B1. Sampling Process Design ........................................................................................ 21 B2. Sampling Methods .........................................................
.......................................... 21 B3. Sample Handling and Custody ............................................................................... 23 B4. Analytical Methods
.................................................................................................. 24 B5. Quality Control ............................................................................
............................ 25 B6. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance ........................... 26 B7. Instrument Calibration and Frequency..................................
............................... 27 B8. Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables ................ 27 B9. Non-Direct Measurements ................................................
...................................... 28 B10. Data Management ................................................................................................. 30 SECTION C: ASSESSMENT
AND OVERSIGHT..................................................... 31 C1. Assessments and Response Actions ........................................................................ 32
C2. Reports to Management .......................................................................................... 32 SECTION D: DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY .....................................
...... 33 D1. Data Review, Verification and Validation ............................................................. 34 D2. Validation and Verification Methods .......................................
............................. 34 D3. Reconciliation with User Requirements ................................................................ 35 Version Eff. Date Author Summary of
Changes Approved 1.0 08/18/2009 Jeff Price Original Draft Paul Clark 1.1 Caroline Burgett Staff updates, electronic recordkeeping Page - 4 QAPP 1.1 2015
A3. Distribution List Rusty Rozzelle Richard Farmer Mecklenburg County Water Quality Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Manager Environmental Supervisor - Yadkin [phone]
[phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Caroline Burgett David Caldwell Mecklenburg County Water Quality Mecklenburg
County Water Quality QA/QC Officer Environmental Supervisor - Catawba [phone] [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail]
Tony Roux John McCulloch Mecklenburg County Water Quality Mecklenburg County Water Quality Bioassessment Lab Supervisor Environmental Supervisor – S. Catawba [phone] [phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail] Olivia Edwards Steve Jadlocki Mecklenburg County Water Quality City of Charlotte, Storm Water Environmental
Supervisor - Monitoring Field Measurement Lab Supervisor NPDES Administrator [phone] [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail]
Paul Clark State of North Carolina Use Restoration Watershed Coordinator 919-707-9115 [e-mail] Page - 5 QAPP 1.1 2015 A4. Project Organization Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services (CMSWS) is comprised of two cooperative entities; Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (MCWQP) and the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS). All
water quality sampling and field measurement collection is conducted by the MCWQP on behalf of Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS). All monitoring is performed by permanent
or temporary staff of MCWQP. Data management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control activities are either conducted or supervised by the MCWQP QA/QC Officer. Field work is performed
by staff in each of the four sections, which correspond to four different functional groups of the program: Monitoring, Pollution Prevention, Compliance, and Pollution Control. Chemical,
physical and bacteriological analyses are performed by the Charlotte Water (formerly Charlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities) Laboratory. Macroinvertebrate and fish sampling and analysis are
performed by the Mecklenburg County Bioassessment Laboratory. Results of the MCWQP sampling efforts are provided to several entities; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (City
of Charlotte), Charlotte Water, the Towns of Davidson, Cornelius, Huntersville, Pineville, Matthews and Mint Hill, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR), private developers and the citizens of Mecklenburg County. An abbreviated organizational chart for MCWQP indicating all entities involved in the water quality sampling program
is provided in Figure A4.1. A complete organizational chart for the entire MCWQP is provided in Appendix 1. Information concerning individuals assigned to each role can be obtained
by contacting Rusty Rozzelle at 704- 336-5449 or [e-mail]. Project Manager and Supervision Program Manager Rusty Rozzelle MCWQP – Program Manager -
Manages MCWQP - Supervises QA/QC Officer, Group Supervisors and Administrative Support Staff - Ultimately responsible for ensuring that the program is conducted in accordance with this
QAPP - Reviews and approves all reports, work plans, corrective actions, QAPP and other major work products and revisions - Approves changes to program; ensures changes are consistent
with program objectives and customer needs - Program Development - Reports to Mecklenburg County & Towns elected officials Page - 6 QAPP 1.1 2015 QA/QC Officer Caroline Burgett
MCWQP – Environmental Analyst - Acts as liaison between program manager and supervisors, project officers and field personnel - Coordinates logistics of program, including sampling
schedule, production and maintenance of forms and station database - Responds to issues raised by program manager, customers or citizens. - Recommends response action or change when
necessary. - Performs all aspects of data management for MCWQP monitoring program - Fulfills requests for raw data - Assists in training field staff - Conducts periodic field audits
to ensure compliance with QAPP and SOP - Calculates SUSI index and communicates results to staff, elected officials and general public - Performs data screening and action/watch reports
and communicates results to MCWQP Supervisors to assign followup activities Water Quality Supervisors Olivia Edwards – Monitoring Group David Caldwell – Pollution Prevention John
McCulloch – Pollution Control Richard Farmer – Compliance - Supervise project officers and field staff ensuring that deadlines are met and tasks are completed in a timely manner -
Assign follow up activities when action/watch levels are exceeded (communicated to the supervisors by QA/QC Officer) - Assign staff resources as necessary to complete monitoring activities
- Supervise Bioassessment Laboratory Supervisor - Supervise State Certified Laboratory Supervisor (field measurements) - Supervise all activities of MCWQP in their respective program
goals - Act as follow-up, emergency response and service request monitoring project officer for their geographic area Field Activities Project Officers / Team Leads Sr. Environmental
Specialist TMDL Stream Walks (Josh DeMaury) Geomorphology Monitoring Env. Supervisor - Compliance Industrial Monitoring / Inspection (Richard Farmer) Municipal Facility Monitoring
/ Inspection Sr. Environmental Specialist CMANN (Ryan Spidel) Fish Monitoring Page - 7 QAPP 1.1 2015 Env. Supervisor - Monitoring FIM (Olivia Edwards) Bacteriological
Monitoring ISM Monitoring BMP Monitoring Sr. Environmental Specialist Lake Monitoring (David Ferguson) Sr. Environmental Specialist Biological Monitoring (Tony Roux) - Coordinate
and conduct sampling events - Ensure staff are properly trained in procedures for individual project area - Compile annual reports - Act as point of contact for individual project area
- Calculate Lake Water Quality Index - Review automated CMANN data for threshold exceedances - Work with QA/QC Officer to ensure deadlines and other project requirements (such as
specific parameters) are met - Responsible for maintaining specialized sampling equipment for assigned projects Field Staff Various - Perform sampling events in accordance with
QAPP and SOPs - Notify supervisor or QA/QC Officer of any issues encountered Laboratory Analysis Bioassessment Laboratory Supervisor- Biological Certificate Number - 036 Tony Roux
– Senior Environmental Specialist - Manage MCWQP Bioassessment Laboratory - Responsible for oversight of all biological sample collection (fish and macroinvertebrates) - Responsible
for developing training materials and training staff on proper biological sampling techniques - Responsible for oversight of all biological sample analysis and reporting of results
and indexes - Responsible for maintaining North Carolina State Certification for MCWQP Bioassessment Laboratory - Responsible for maintaining all sampling equipment Page - 8 QAPP 1.1
2015 State Certified Laboratory (Field Parameter Only) Supervisor – Certificate No. 5235 Olivia Edwards – Environmental Supervisor - Responsible for ensuring that all chemical/physical
monitoring equipment and procedures are in compliance with state certified laboratory requirements - Responsible for training staff in the proper use of field instruments - Responsible
for maintenance of field instruments - Responsible for ensuring that field parameter check-in/check-out procedures and forms are properly used and are in compliance with state certified
laboratory requirements. Primary Data End-Users Charlotte Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki – Charlotte’s NPDES Phase I Permit Administrator – 704-336-4398 - Responsible for ensuring
that all monitoring conducted to fulfill the requirements of Charlotte’s Phase I NPDES permit are completed. MCWQP is under contract with the City of Charlotte to conduct monitoring
and other activities. - Provides parameter lists, sampling schedule and basic requirements of monitoring program - Reviews data Mecklenburg County Phase II Jurisdictions Anthony Roberts
– Cornelius Town Manager – 704-892-6031 Max Buchanan – Huntersville Public Works Director – 704-875-7007 Ralph Massera – Matthews Director of Public Works – 704-847-3640 Brian Welch
– Mint Hill Town Manager – 704-545-9726 Haynes Brigman – Pineville Town Manager – 704-889-4168 Leamon Brice – Davidson Town Manager – 704-892-7591 - MCWQP is under contract with each
of Mecklenburg County’s Phase II jurisdictions to provide water quality monitoring services to fulfill requirements of the Phase II permits held by each of the towns. State of North
Carolina 319 Grant Administrator Heather Jennings – NCDENR – 919-807-6437 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Administrator Larry Horton – CWMTF – 919-707-9128 - MCDWP and Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services have received several grants for the installation of BMPs, creation of stream restoration projects, watershed studies and TMDL implementation projects. Each project
has specific monitoring requirements to demonstrate the effectiveness of the project. Data are typically reported on an annual basis to each grant’s administrator. Page - 10 QAPP 1.1
2015 Figure A4.1 – MCWQP Organizational Chart A5. Problem Definition and Background Introduction The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are located along a drainage divide
between the Catawba River Basin and the Yadkin River Basin. Therefore, approximately 98% of the streams in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County originate within the county borders. Streams
located in the western portion of the county, as indicated in the map below, drain to the Catawba River in North Carolina. The Catawba River along the western border of the county has
been damned to form Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie. Each of the lakes is utilized for water supply purposes for various communities and industries throughout the region.
Streams located in the eastern portion of the county drain to the Yadkin River, which has been designated as potential future habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter, a federally endangered
freshwater mussel. Streams located in the southern portion of the county drain to the Catawba River in South Carolina. These streams drain the most developed portion of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County, which is predominated by the City of Charlotte. Strong development pressure throughout Mecklenburg County has led to increased degradation of surface water from
non-point Page - 11 QAPP 1.1 2015 source runoff. The Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (MCWQP) was created in 1970 under the umbrella of the Mecklenburg County Health Department.
Recently, the MCWQP has been merged with several other entities to form Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services. The MCWQP is engaged in water quality monitoring efforts on reservoirs,
streams and ponds. Moreover, the MCWQP enforces storm water pollution prevention ordinances, enforces erosion control ordinances, conducts NPDES permit holder inspections and conducts
watershed planning. The MCWQP is a storm water fee funded program of the Mecklenburg County Government. Its purpose is to ensure the safety and usability of Mecklenburg County’s surface
water resources including; ponds, reservoirs and streams. Stream and lake monitoring are a critical component of ensuring the safety and usability of Mecklenburg County’s surface water
resources and elected officials and citizens rely upon communication of the monitoring results to determine the conditions of those resources. The MCWQP conducts several water quality
monitoring programs. These programs include the fixed interval monitoring network (FIM), in-stream storm water monitoring (ISM) program, biological monitoring program (macro invertebrates
and fish – these activities are conducted by the Bioassessment Lab), lake monitoring program, best management practice (BMP) monitoring program and bacteriological monitoring. Monitoring
sites for the FIM program were located in order to determine the water quality of a particular basin or sub-basin. Figure A5.1 shows the distribution of watersheds in Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County. Sites for the BMP program were selected based upon BMP type in order to assess performance of many different types and designs of BMPs. Monitoring sites for the
lake monitoring program were selected to determine the general water quality in the three reservoirs of the Catawba and to, more specifically, target swimming areas and areas of intense
development. The MCWQP has created this document to ensure that all data collected conforms to strict QA/QC guidelines in the collection of samples, management of information and communication
of results. It is also intended to communicate the policies and procedures of the MCWQP so that data it collects may be considered by other entities in local, regional or national studies.
Page - 12 QAPP 1.1 2015 Figure A5.1 – Mecklenburg County Watersheds and Reservoirs Stream classifications and water quality standards The state of North Carolina has developed
water quality standards for many parameters dependent upon the classification of the stream. All named water bodies in the state have been classified by intended use. Mecklenburg County
has Class B, C and WS IV water bodies. Monitoring results are compared to the water quality standards by MCWQP to determine compliance with the standard for communication of results
and assessment of the usability of the water for its intended use. MCWQP Monitoring Program Objectives There are several objectives of the MCWQP monitoring program; however, the primary
objective is to ensure the safety and usability of Mecklenburg County’s surface water resources. Samples are collected to determine compliance with applicable state standards and to
locate sources of water quality impairment (such as broken sanitary sewer lines). Lake Norman ROCKY RIVER WEST BRANCH LA NORMAN UPPER MTN ISLA D LAKE MC DOWELL CLARKE CREEK TORRENCE
CREEK Mountain Island Lake GAR CREEK LOWER MTN ISLAND / UPPER WYLIE LONG CREEK MALLARD CREEK BACK CREEK UPPER RWIN CREEK PAW CREEKSTEWART CREEK REEDY CREEK MC KEE CR EK TAGGART CREEK
BRIAR CREEK Lake Wylie LAKE WYLIE UPPER ITTLE SUGAR CREEK CAMPBELL CREEK CLEAR CREEK UPPER MC ALPINE CREEK COFFEY CREEK ST VENS CREEK KING BRANCH IRVINS CREEK SUGAR CREEK MCMULLEN
MID MC ALPINE CREEK STEELE CREEK LOWER IT LE SUGAR CREEK FOUR MILE CREEK LOWER MC ALPINE CR EK SIX MILE CREEK Page - 13 QAPP 1.1 2015 In addition to safety and usability, the
MCWQP collects and analyzes samples to determine the effectiveness of watershed planning efforts (BMP monitoring and habitat assessments). A6. Project/Task Description and Schedule
The MCWQP and its predecessors have conducted monitoring of Mecklenburg County’s surface waters since the early 1970s. The program has evolved into many different projects with distinct
purposes and desired outcomes. A Standard Administrative Procedure (SAP) has been developed for each specific monitoring project conducted by the MCWQP. The SAPs are included with this
document as Appendix 2. Measurement methods overview Field Measurements Measurements made in the field include water temperature, specific conductance, stream flow (or pipe flow),
chlorine, Secchi depth, DO, turbidity and pH. Field measurements are discrete and are to be made in situ by field staff at the time of sample collection. All field activities are to
be performed in accordance with the YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection (Short-term Deployment) SOP, which is included in Appendix 3. Analytical Methods Samples are
submitted to the CMU laboratory for analysis for fecal coliform bacteria, E- coli bacteria, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, TKN, total phosphorus, TSS, suspended sediment, turbidity
(lab), copper, zinc, chromium and lead. Other specific parameters may be analyzed on a case by case basis (such as industrial sampling). Data management All results are to be sent
to the QA/QC officer, who is responsible for the compilation, review, verification, validation, and warehousing of all water quality monitoring data products by the MCWQP. Field staff
completes electronic field data sheets to the QA/QC officer on the same day the samples and field measurements are collected. The CMU laboratory will provide finalized data electronically
and in electronically scanned copy (with original COC’s) to the QA/QC officer within 45 days of sample collection. The only exception to this is the CMANN program. CMANN data is reviewed
and quality assured by the CMANN project officer and submitted to the QA/QC officer electronically. On at least a monthly basis, data will be compiled, quality assured and added to
the Water Quality Data Repository (WQDR). Page - 14 QAPP 1.1 2015 Reporting Annual Reports Annual reports are prepared for each monitoring program (specifically, an annual report
for each program element will be prepared – most monitoring programs are comprised of several program elements). At a minimum, the annual report will include basic descriptive statistics
(minimum, maximum, median, 25th percentile and 75th percentile) of the sample results from the CMU laboratory and the field measurements collected under the program. Additionally, a
count of the number of action/watch and state standard exceedances are prepared for each parameter analyzed or measured. Current year results are compared to previous years and, where
applicable, water quality trends are identified. These reports are submitted to the customer and are available to citizens and outside agencies by contacting Rusty Rozzelle at 704-336-5449
or [e-mail]. Water Quality Indexes and Program Measures Two primary indexes are calculated using MCWQP monitoring results and subsequently reported to
elected officials and the citizens of Mecklenburg County. The Stream Use Support Index (SUSI) is an index developed by Charlotte/Mecklenburg Storm Water Services to communicate the
health of Mecklenburg County’s streams. It takes into account FIM, biological monitoring and CMANN results. The lake use support index (LUSI) is calculated for each of the reservoirs
in Mecklenburg County. The LUSI takes into account lab analysis and physical parameters of lake water quality. Documentation of both indexes is included with this document in Appendix
4. Several other program measures use results from water quality data collection for their calculation. These are described in Appendix 5. Program Indicators Several program indicators
are also calculated using MCWQP data. Program indicators are used to assess MCWQP progress toward meeting programmatic goals, which are required by the Mecklenburg County Manager. They
are part of the county manager’s M4R program. Goals are set for each program indicator at the beginning of each fiscal year and progress on meeting the goal is determined at the end
of the fiscal year. These results are used by the county manager to judge the effectiveness of the MCWQP. The indicators include miles suitable for human contact, assessment of TMDL
implementation strategies and turbidity levels in McDowell Creek. A description of the program indicators determined from water quality monitoring is included in Appendix 4 and Appendix
5. Revisions to the QAPP The work detailed in the SAPs is ongoing, but subject to change annually with the issuance of new fiscal year work plans. This QAPP shall be revised as necessary
and Page - 15 QAPP 1.1 2015 reissued biennially, or revised and reissued within 120 days of significant changes, whichever is sooner. The most recently approved QAPP shall remain
in effect until revisions have been fully approved; re-issuance (i.e., annual update) will be submitted to the stake-holders identified in distribution list (A.3) before the last version
has expired. If the entire QAPP is current, valid, and accurately reflects the project goals and organization’s policy, the annual re-issuance may be done by a certification that the
plan is current. This can be accomplished by submitting a cover letter stating the status of the QAPP and a copy of a new, signed approval page (A.1). Amendments Amendments to the
QAPP may be necessary to reflect changes in project organization, tasks, schedules, objectives, and methods; address deficiencies and identified non- conformances; to improve operational
efficiency; and/or accommodate unique or unanticipated circumstances. Requests for amendments are directed from the stake- holder or the Project Lead to the QA/QC Officer in writing.
The changes are effective immediately upon approval by the Water Quality Program Manager, the Project Lead, and the QA/QC Officer. Amendments to the QAPP and the reasons for the changes
will be documented, and revised pages will be forwarded to all persons on the QAPP distribution list by the QA/QC Officer. Amendments shall be reviewed, approved, and incorporated into
a revised QAPP during the annual revision process or within 30 days of the final approval in cases of significant changes. A7. Quality Objectives and Criteria Precision, accuracy and
sensitivity Results from the MCWQP monitoring program are compared to the NC water quality standards and internal action/watch levels (Appendix 6), so reporting limits for these parameters
should be at or below these critical values. All of the reporting limits used by the CMU Laboratory meet these criteria. Additional measurement performance specifications are included
in Table A.7.1. Bias The MCWQP monitoring program is based in judgmental sampling design, so by definition bias will exist due to station locations. However, this is acceptable given
that stations are generally established for targeted long term monitoring of known or suspected areas of concern; identification of temporal patterns at these static locations are major
objective or the program. Other sources of bias include: - Grab sampling is performed only during the weekly business day. - Stations are only sampled on Monday – Thursday. - Almost
all stations are located at road crossings. Page - 16 QAPP 1.1 2015 Use of consistent sampling methods, SOPs, and analytical methods minimizes bias from other sources. Representativeness
Environmental monitoring data generally show high variation due to natural conditions such as precipitation, seasonal and diurnal patterns, and biological activity. It is important
to ensure that the variations over time and/or space that are seen in the results are truly representative of the system under study. Monitored waterbodies must have sufficient flow
year-round at the specified sampling point to allow for the sampling of well-mixed areas (as required by SOP) of the waterbody. Sampling of BMPs must focus upon representative (or average)
storm events within the device’s design standard. This allows the samples to represent an “average” condition of the waterbody at that point in time. Careful selection of station locations
on larger perennial waterbodies (higher-order streams and rivers, estuaries, and reservoirs) allows representative samples to be obtained year-round. Comparability Fixed station locations
and standardized operating procedures for sampling and analytical methods ensure that comparable samples are taken at each site visit. Completeness It is expected that some site visits
or samples will be missed due to problems such as inclement weather, temporary station inaccessibility due to bridge construction, equipment problems, and staff issues such as illness
or vacant positions. Many of these impediments are unavoidable. However, under anything but extraordinary circumstances it is expected that at least 90% of scheduled station visits
and samples be completed annually. Page - 17 QAPP 1.1 2015 Table A7.1 Measurement Performance Specifications Analyte Units Matrix Reference RL % Comp ALKALINITY mg/L Water
SM 2320-B 3.00 90 AMMONIA-NITROGEN mg/L Water SM 4500-NH3H 0.10 90 CHLOROPHYLL A ug/L Water SM 10200 1.00 90 CHROMIUM ug/L Water EPA 200.8 5.00 90 COPPER ug/L Water EPA 200.8 2.00 90
E. COLI MPN/100 ml Water SM 9223-B 1.00 90 FECAL COLIFORM CFU/100 ml Water SM 9222-D 1.00 90 LEAD ug/L Water EPA 200.8 3.00 90 MANGANESE ug/L Water EPA 200.8 10.00 90 MERCURY ug/L Water

EPA 200.8 0.20 90 NITRATE/NITRITE mg/L Water EPA 353.2 0.05 90 ORTHO-PHOSPHATE mg/L Water SM 4500-PF 0.01 90 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION mg/L Water ASTM D3977-97 2.00 90 TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN mg/L Water EPA 351.2 0.25 90 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/L Water SM 4500-PF 0.01 90 TOTAL SOLIDS mg/L Water SM 2540-B 5.00 90 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS mg/L Water SM 2540-D 1.00
90 TURBIDITY NTU Water SM 2130-B 0.05 90 VOC ug/L Water EPA 8620 VAR 90 ZINC ug/L Water EPA 200.8 10.00 90 References: US EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastewater,
Manual #EPA-600/4-79-020. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Waste Water, 20th Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials. A8. Special Training/Certification Field Staff Since new employees can vary greatly in their background, experience,
and knowledge, field staff’s direct supervisor should determine training needs on a case-by-case basis and ensure that these needs are met. At the time of hiring, each field staff member
is assessed by a Group Supervisor and provided with an appropriate amount of training specific to their assignments. At a minimum, all field staff are to be trained in the methods described
in the appropriate SOPs (Appendix 3), this QAPP, and the appropriate SAPs (Appendix 2) pertinent to their work plan (assigned tasks). Every new field employee will be trained in
YSI calibration, safety, required documentation, sampling methods, sample handling, safety and other field activities. Training activities at time of hire are documented on the Employee
Training Form, which is included in this document at Appendix 7. This training is generally performed by Senior Environmental Specialists, Group Supervisors and experienced Environmental
Specialists. This is augmented by the QA/QC Officer, particularly concerning data management, documentation and problem identification. Completed Employee Training Forms are retained
by the QA/QC Officer Page - 18 QAPP 1.1 2015 during the employee’s term of employment with MCWQP. Experienced field staff will continue to accompany all new field staff during sampling
activities until the new staff member exhibits proficiency in the field, as determined by the trainer’s observations. After initial training at the time of hire, refresher training
is conducted at least annually for all monitoring activities. A sign-in sheet is circulated at the time of annual training. Staff not present at the training are responsible for scheduling
make up training with the trainer. Electronic scanned copies of sign-in sheets will be retained by the program. At a minimum, each field staff member will receive the following refresher
training annually: - YSI Calibration and Operation - Grab sample collection - Proper sample documentation (COC and field data sheets) - Bacteriological sample collection Field staff
are assessed on an ongoing basis by the direct supervisor and the QA/QC Officer to ensure field staff are performing activities in accordance with SOPs, SAPs and this QAPP. Results
of the field audits are retained by the QA/QC Officer for each project and employee. Laboratory (analytical) staff All analytical samples are submitted to the CMU Laboratory, which
is a North Carolina certified analytical lab. CMU Laboratory staff training is performed in accordance with the requirements inherent in this Certification. If another laboratory is
used, it must have North Carolina certification for all analysis performed. A9. Documentation and Records Quality assurance information, SOPs, and other support documentation Once
all approval signatures have been obtained, the QA/QC Officer will electronically distribute copies of the approved QAPP to persons on the distribution list in Section A3 of this document.
Copies must be disseminated within 30 days of final approval. The original hard copy with approval signatures will be kept on file with the QA/QC Officer. The QA/QC Officer is to be
notified of any changes that affect the SOPs, SAPs, analytical methods, or any other documentation referenced by this QAPP. The QA/QC Officer will then be responsible for distributing
the updated information, as described above. The QA/QC Officer will also be responsible for keeping current copies of all these documents on file at the LUESA South Office (address
above). Since the MCWQP monitoring program is ongoing, this QAPP will be reviewed on an annual basis by the QA/QC officer, and, if appropriate, any changes or updates made at that
time. However, critical revisions can be made at any time. The QA/QC Officer is responsible for completing revisions, obtaining signatures of approval, and disseminating the revised
document to those on the distribution list within 30 days of final approval. Page - 19 QAPP 1.1 2015 The version or revision number and date shall be easily identifiable by the document
control information on each page. A complete list of all revisions/updates will be provided with each annual update. Program records The records produced by the MCWQP monitoring program,
their location, retention time, format, and disposition at the end of the required retention time are summarized in Table A9.1. Table A9.1: Program Records Min Retention Format Disposition
QA/QC Officer Field data sheets 5 years Scanned originals TBD Field data electronic 5 years SQL TBD Analytical Reports – hard copy 5 years Scanned originals TBD Analytical Reports
– electronic 5 years SQL TBD CMANN Data electronic submittals 5 years SQL TBD CMU Laboratory Analytical Reports – hard copy 5 years Scanned originals TBD Analytical data - electronic
5 years SQL TBD Data assessment reports An assessment of the monitoring data generated by the MCWQP is prepared annually. It is prepared to document issues with the previous year’s
data set and to document format, data qualifiers and any known issues that may affect the quality of the year’s dataset. Page - 20 QAPP 1.1 2015 SECTION B: DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION
Page - 21 QAPP 1.1 2015 B1. Sampling Process Design The design of the MCWQP monitoring program is based upon specific project requirements. There are approximately 30-50 active sampling
sites throughout the County at any given time. These monitoring sites may serve the needs of one or many projects. Since each project has unique goals and criteria, the details for
each project are best addressed separately. Individual project details, including the locations of the various project specific monitoring sites, are included in the Project Standard
Administrative Procedures (SAPs), which are included in Appendix 2. B2. Sampling Methods Samples and measurements are to be taken in accordance with all SOPs (Appendix 3). Any irregularities
or problems encountered by field staff should be communicated to the QA/QC Officer, either verbally or via email. The QA/QC Officer will assess the situation, consult with other project
personnel if needed, and recommend a course of action for resolution. The SAPs (Appendix 2) identify sampling methods to be used for each monitoring program. The SOPs (Appendix 3)
describe specific sampling and measurement techniques. Exclusive of the SOPs, all in-stream flow measurements utilized by MCWQP are collected by the USGS and accessed thought the USGS
website. Additional information regarding USGS flow measurements are included in Section B.9. Flow measurements utilized for automated BMP monitoring and In-Stream storm water monitoring,
are collected using ISCO flow measurement equipment; typically a bubbler flow module or an area velocity meter. Flow measurements for TMDL dry-weather flows are typically estimated
visually, collected using a bucket and timer method, or through a depth of flow in pipe calculation (derived using the Manning equation). Sample preservation Chemical preservation
of water samples occurs instantaneously, in that MCWQP utilizes pre-preserved sample collection containers for all direct-grab surface water samples. Samples should then be place in
coolers with ice. The chemical preservatives utilized for each sample are listed in Table B.4.1. Biological samples are preserved according to their approved SOP. Automated samplers
utilized by MCWQP are refrigerated. Samples collected by the automated samplers are immediately cooled to 4C. Samplers are retrieved as soon as possible (not to exceed the parameter-of-interest
hold-times) and transferred to pre- preserved sample collection containers. Composite sample hold-times begin with the last aliquot collected, not when the sampler is retrieved. Table
B2.1 displays any sample storage, preservation and handling requirements typical for the various monitoring projects. Page - 22 QAPP 1.1 2015 Table B2.1: Sample Storage, Preservation
and Handling Requirements Documentation of Field Sampling Activities Field sampling activities are documented on the Field Data Sheets. Field data sheets are project specific and
can be found in the project SAPs included in Appendix 2. In general, field data sheets are used to record the following information: station ID, sampling time, sampling date, and sample
collector’s name/signature are recorded. Values for all measured field parameters are recorded. Flow data is typically collected after the sampling event from the USGS website. Detailed
observational data are recorded on the Field Data Sheets as necessary. Recording Data For the purposes of this section and subsequent sections, all personnel follow the basic rules
for recording information as documented below: 1. Legible writing in ink, with no modifications, write-overs or cross-outs; 2. Changes should be made by crossing out original entries
with a single line, entering the changes, and initialing and dating the corrections. 3. Close-outs on incomplete pages with an initialed and dated diagonal line. Page - 23 QAPP 1.1
2015 Deficiencies, Nonconformances and Corrective Action Related to Sampling Requirements Deficiencies are defined as unauthorized deviation from procedures documented in the QAPP.
Nonconformances are deficiencies which affect quality and render the data unacceptable or indeterminate. Deficiencies related to sampling methods requirements include, but are not limited
to, such things as sample container, volume, and preservation variations, improper/inadequate storage temperature, holding-time exceedances, and sample site adjustments. Deficiencies
are documented on field data sheets by field staff, or are reported directly to the QA/QC Officer. The QA/QC will initiate a Nonconformance Report (NCR) to document the deficiency as
needed. B3. Sample Handling and Custody All samples are to be handled by field staff in accordance with the applicable SAPs (Appendix 2) and SOPs (Appendix 3). Sample submission
forms Sample submission forms (also known as chain of custody forms or COCs) are developed by the QA/QC Officer for all monitoring programs with the exception of the Biological Monitoring
Program. The biological monitoring program follows the sample submission protocol outlined in their approved SOP. Each sheet corresponds to one monitoring event for one monitoring program
(samples collected for multiple monitoring programs must be submitted to the laboratory under separate forms). Examples of COCs for each monitoring program are provided in the SAP
(Appendix 2) for the program. Typically, they will include the following information: 1. Sample collectors initials 2. Date and time of sample collection 3. Depth (for lake samples)
4. Notes Field data is recorded on the field data sheets for the monitoring program. Example field data sheets are provided in the SAP (Appendix 2) for the program. Sample bottle
labels Sample bottle labels for each program are provided in the SAP (Appendix 2) for the program. They should be filled out using waterproof ink or be pre-printed with the equivalent
information. The bottle labels are printed from the special printer in the tech area on water proof, self-adhesive stock. Bottles labels should be affixed to the sample containers prior
to departure for the field. Page - 24 QAPP 1.1 2015 Label information includes, at minimum: 1. Site identification 2. Date and time of collection 3. Preservative added, if applicable
4. Sample type (i.e., analysis(es)) to be performed Sample Transport Immediately after sampling, labeling, and chemical preservation, samples are placed in coolers on ice along with
a “super” (trip, field, equipment) blank. Coolers are then hand delivered by field staff to the CMU Laboratory for check-in and subsequent analysis. Laboratory Once samples are checked
into the CMU Laboratory, laboratory staff handles the samples in accordance with the procedures outlined in their laboratory certification. Samples submitted by field staff that are
either out of hold time or fail the check-in temperature test may be rejected by the CMU Laboratory. B4. Analytical Methods Field measurements Refer to the YSI Multiprobe Calibration
and Field Data Collection SOP (Appendix 3) or appropriate YSI manual for field measurement analytical methods. Lab analyses Samples are submitted for analysis to the CMU Laboratory
in Charlotte, NC. Results should be reported to the QA/QC Officer within 30 days of sample submission. A summary of methods and RLs (the Laboratory Section’s minimum reporting limit)
are listed in Table A.7.1. Standards Traceability All standards used in the laboratory are traceable to certified reference materials. Laboratory standards and reagent preparation
is typically documented and maintained on the container. Each documentation includes information concerning the standard or reagent identification, starting materials, including concentration,
amount used and lot number; date prepared, expiration date and preparer’s initials/signature. The bottle is labeled in a way that will trace the standard or reagent back to preparation.
Standards or reagents used are documented each day samples are prepared or analyzed. All field standards are purchased as “Certified” standards. Typically, the date opened is maintained
on the individual containers. Page - 25 QAPP 1.1 2015 B5. Quality Control The Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program implements a comprehensive Quality Control (QC) program designed
to monitor the integrity of both field measurements and laboratory samples. The program consists primarily of blanks, and duplicates, but also equipment blanks and field checks of know
standards to ensure that all field data and samples collected are of the highest quality. A majority of the routine monitoring run blanks (i.e. direct surface water grab samples) are
considered by MCWQP to be “super-blanks”, or high-level scoping blanks that cover the practical extent of our sampling efforts. These blanks encompass error introduced from a number
of common sources; including reagent water (or buffer solution for bacteriological parameters), pre-preserved sample containers, field methods and cooler / trip blanks. In the event
that a parameter “hit” (i.e. above the lab reporting limit) is observed in a super-blank, additional investigations must be initiated in order to determine the source of the contamination.
This will result in additional work and consequently additional expense when contamination is discovered. Over a period of years, however MCWQP has determined that contamination problems
of this nature are almost non-existent. Any combination of the following traditional blanks and any other means deemed necessary to identify a source of sample contamination may be
employed at any time. 1. Bottle blank 2. Field blank 3. Reagent blank 4. Sample container blank 5. Transport, storage (cooler) 6. Equipment (ISCO) blank In general, one super-blank
is included with each routine sampling run. A sampling run generally consists of approximately 10 sites on average. ISCO automated sample collection containers are blanked at least
annual to ensure the cleaning procedures are adequate. Sample duplicates are generally thought to quantify natural variability in the streams, lakes, etc., due to the dynamic nature
of the systems. However, duplicates can also be utilized to determine sample repeatability. RPD for sample duplicates should run <20%, but bacteriological samples are known to vary
widely. For bacteriological duplicates >10 colonies/100ml sample, duplicates are evaluated based on a log range difference between pairs. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Laboratory
(CMU), contracted by MCWQP for all sample analysis, is a NC State Certified lab for water and wastewater sample analysis. CMU lab is certified as EPA NC00125. The CMU lab conducts thorough
and complete Page - 26 QAPP 1.1 2015 quality control in accordance with EPA and State standards for Certified Laboratory Practices. The CMU lab routinely conducts the following:
- Matrix spike - Matrix spike replicate - Analysis matrix spike - Surrogate spike - Analytical (preparation + analysis) bias - Analytical bias and precision - Instrument bias - Analytical
bias - Zero check - Span check - Mid-range check - Calibration drift and memory effect - Replicates, splits, etc. - Laboratory splits - Laboratory replicates - Analysis replicates -
Analysis duplicates - Sampling + measurement precision - Precision of all steps after acquisition - Shipping + inter-laboratory precision - Inter-laboratory precision - Analytical precision
- Instrument precision Annually, MCWP reports all instances of Quality Control violations. All violations are investigated and corrective actions are implemented wherever possible
to eliminate additional sources of contamination. B6. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Field Equipment All field staff are responsible for regular cleaning,
inspection, and maintenance of equipment they use for sampling activities. All equipment should be visually inspected daily for damage or dirt, and repaired or cleaned if needed before
use. If meters are stored for long periods (> 1 week) without being used, it is recommended that they be calibrated and inspected at least weekly to keep them in good working order.
Other required maintenance on field meters is conducted in accordance with the MCWQP Field Parameter Laboratory certification. Page - 27 QAPP 1.1 2015 Laboratory analytical equipment
Laboratory analytical equipment is maintained in accordance with CMU Laboratory’s Analytical Laboratory Certification requirements. B7. Instrument Calibration and Frequency Field
meters All field meters are to be inspected and calibrated at a minimum at the beginning and end of each day and checked at the end of each day they are used (Note: field meters are
not re-calibrated at the end of use, rather they are checked). Field staff should record calibration information on the appropriate form (located in the meter calibration area of the
laboratory). Calibration and documentation should occur in accordance with the YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection SOP (Appendix 3). Meters should also be checked
against standards periodically throughout the day and recalibrated if needed if any of the following occur: - Physical shock to meter; - DO membrane is touched, fouled, or dries out;
- Unusual (high or low for the particular site) or erratic readings, or excessive drift; - Extreme readings (e.g., extremely acidic or basic pH; D.O. saturation >120%); - Measurements
are outside of the range for which the meter was calibrated. Laboratory instrument calibration CMU laboratory instrument calibration shall occur in accordance with their analytical
laboratory certification. B8. Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables The CMU laboratory performs quality assurance of sample bottles, reagents, and chemical
preservatives that are provided to field staff. Containers that are purchased as pre-cleaned should be certified by the manufacturer or checked to ensure that the parameters tested
are below the published reporting limits. Containers should be stored in a manner that does not leave them susceptible to contamination by dust or other particulates and should remain
capped until use. Any containers that show evidence of contamination should be discarded. Certificates for glass containers certified by the manufacturer should be kept on file by the
CMU Laboratory. Field staff shall inspect all bottles before use. Any bottles that are visibly dirty or those with lids that have come off during storage should be discarded. Page
- 28 QAPP 1.1 2015 Certificates of purity for all preservatives obtained from an outside source should be provided when purchased, and these certificates kept on file by the CMU Laboratory.
Any preservatives that show signs of contamination, such as discoloration or the presence of debris or other solids, should not be used and should be discarded. A summary of inspections
to be performed by field staff is presented in Table B8.1. Table B8.1: Consumable inspections and acceptance criteria Item Acceptance Criteria Sample Bottles - No visible dirt, debris
or other contaminants pH standards - No visible discoloration, debris or other contaminants, within use date Conductivity Standards - No visible discoloration, debris or other contaminants,
within use date Acid preservatives - No visible debris or other contaminants, within use date Distilled or deionized water - No visible discoloration, debris or other contaminants
B9. Non-Direct Measurements All data will be generated through program field and activities and consequent lab analyses, with two exceptions: - Precipitation: Data are to be obtained
from the USGS database through their website at http://nc.water.usgs.gov/char/. Currently there are data available from more than 50 sites in and around Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
Data should be obtained from the nearest rain gauge. Figure B9.1 shows the distribution of rain gauges in and around Charlotte and Mecklenburg County - USGS Flow data: Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services has a cooperative agreement to help the US Geological Survey fund approximately 54 stream gages for the measurement of stream flow in and around Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County. Data should be obtained from the stream gauge at the site at http://nc.water.usgs.gov/char/. Figure B9.1 shows the distribution of stream gauges in and around Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County. Non-direct measurement data limitations All USGS data obtained by MCWP via the internet is recognized a preliminary data, subject to final review and approval.
USGS flow data is not considered final data until it has passed their internal QC review process. This process is typically completed within 120 days. Page - 29 QAPP 1.1 2015 Figure
B9.1: USGS Rain gage network in and around Mecklenburg County Page - 30 QAPP 1.1 2015 Figure B9.2: USGS Stream gages in and around Mecklenburg County. Page - 30 QAPP 1.1 2015
B10. Data Management MCWQP produces approximately 17,000 analytical data points annually. In addition there are numerous Macroinvertebrate assessments, fish counts, and habitat scores,
as well as approximately 350,000 remote water quality data points collected every year. Due to the quantity and complexity of information being produced, organized data management is
critical. Analytical results are submitted to the Data Manager electronically and in scanned original format from the CMU laboratory. Occasionally samples are subcontracted by the
CMU lab to outside sources. All outside sub-contract labs must be State Certified and provide data to MCWQP in both electronic and hard copy formats. Field data is submitted in scanned
original on formatted field data sheets. Original field data must be hand-key entered into electronic format for use and storage. Remote data from CMANN automated water quality sondes
are routinely downloaded from the respective internet servers in .csv file format. Individual data points are uniquely identified using a combination of Program Element Code, Location
Code, Location Description, Date/Time Collected and analyte. All data received are reviewed by the Data Manager / QC Officer for completeness, data entry errors, unlikely or impossible
values, etc., prior to approval. All approved data is then uploaded into a secured SQL database utilizing a custom, web- interface application, the Water Quality Data Repository (WQDR).
Approved data is available to MCWQP staff through the Environmental Data Management System (EDMS), or through Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) using Microsoft Access. Page - 31 QAPP
1.1 2015 SECTION C: ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT Page - 32 QAPP 1.1 2015 C1. Assessments and Response Actions The QA/QC Officer acts as the liaison between field staff, the CMU Laboratory,
program management and data end users. Issues with any aspect of the program noted by any of these should report them as soon as possible to the QA/QC Officer, who will assess the issue,
consult with other parties as needed, and determine the course of action to be taken. The QA/QC Officer will conduct field audits of each monitoring program at least annually. The
main purpose of these audits is to ensure that field staff are performing activities in accordance with current SOPs and to determine if there are any other issues that need to be addressed.
Concerns or irregularities noticed by the QA/QC Officer will be discussed with the field staff and project officer. If significant issues arise, the QA/QC Officer will notify the Program
Manager, and the field staff member’s direct supervisor and issue a corrective action report. If the issue continues after the notification, the QA/QC officer will prepare a memorandum,
describing the issue and providing recommendations for correcting the issue. The field staff member’s direct supervisor is responsible for ensuring that these significant issues are
resolved. C2. Reports to Management The QA/QC Officer reports significant issues to the Program Manager verbally and/or via written updates. The QA/QC Officer also maintains documentation
of the sampling schedule, which includes an accounting of all samples collected, samples to be collected and any issues with samples collected to date. The QA/QC Officer delivers periodic
updates to the supervisors, project officers and field staff on the status and schedule of the monitoring program. These updates occur at monthly staff meetings and monthly supervisor
meetings. Page - 33 QAPP 1.1 2015 SECTION D: DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY Page - 34 QAPP 1.1 2015 D1. Data Review, Verification and Validation Data verification and validation occurs
at every step of water quality data generation and handling. Field staff, laboratory staff, project officers and the QA/QC Officer are each responsible for verifying that all records
and results they produce or handle are completely and correctly recorded, transcribed, and transmitted. Each staff member and project officer is also responsible for ensuring that all
activities performed (sampling, measurements, and analyses) comply with all requirements outlined in the SAPs and SOPs pertinent to their project. The QA/QC Officer is responsible for
final verification, validation and acceptance of all results. One exception is the CMANN program where the CMANN project officer reviews all measurements and performs final verification,
validation and acceptance of results. D2. Validation and Verification Methods Field staff Field staff will visually check the following items as produced to ensure that they are complete
and correct: - Sample bottle labels - COCs - Field data sheets Laboratory staff CMU laboratory staff will perform data validation and verification in accordance with their Analytical
Laboratory Certification requirements. If circumstances arise where samples or analysis do not meet laboratory criteria, the Laboratory Section will report this using a text comment
field attached to the result record. QA/QC officer The MCWQP QA/QC Officer (QCO) is responsible for data review, validation, and verification. These duties are conducted on an ongoing
basis. As received, the QCO reviews all scanned original lab reports and electronic data transfers from the CMU Lab, remote databases (CMANN) and from outside vendors (subcontracted
labs). The QCO also reviews all data that has been hand-key entered by MCWQP staff. The QCO consults with the CMU Laboratory Manager and / or designated staff for clarification or

corrections as needed. When errors or omissions are discovered or suspected, a focused investigation will be conducted. In the event that errors are discovered in electronic data transfers
from CMU or CMANN, the QCO will contact the CMU Lab Manager, the CMU QC Lab Coordinator, or the designated MCWQP staff for Page - 35 QAPP 1.1 2015 resolution. In the event that errors
are discovered in hand-key entry data, the QCO will consult scanned original field data sheets and / or staff to resolve any identified issues. Final decisions on qualified or rejected
data are the responsibility of the QCO. Results in question that are found to be in error when compared to the original documentation will be corrected by the QCO. “Impossible” values
(e.g., pH of 19) will be rejected or corrected if a value can be determined from original documentation. “Unusual” values that are confirmed by original documentation are left intact
and unqualified. Validated and verified data are uploaded to the Water Quality Data Repository by the QCO. Data end-users The individuals that request data from the MCWQP may note
odd or possibly incorrect values. These questionable data should be brought to the attention of the QA/QC officer for focused verification. For most data, original lab reports and field
data submissions are on file at the Hal Marshall Center (700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202). These will be consulted to determine if correction or deletion of any records
in WQDR is required, using the same criteria as described above for data reviews. If original documentation for data collected is not available, confirmation and/or correction are not
possible. This historic data will remain unchanged in the main warehouse and it is up to each data user to determine the proper handling of these results. D3. Reconciliation with User
Requirements Section 7.0 – Performance Acceptance Criteria of each individual SAPs (Appendix 2) for each monitoring project outlines the acceptance criteria for each project. References
American Public Health Association. 1998. Standard methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. Washington, D.C.: APHA. Isco, Inc. 2007. 750 Area Velocity Module
Installation and Operation Guide. Lincoln, NE: ISCO Teledyne Isco. 2005. Avalanche Installation and Operation Guide. Lincoln, NE: ISCO. Isco. 2001. 730 Bubbl`er Module Instruction
Manual. Lincoln, NE: ISCO. NCDENR. 2004. Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) Quality Assurance Project Plan. Raleigh, NC: NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Page - 36 QAPP 1.1 2015 NC
Environmental Management Commission. 2003. Classifications and Water QualityStandards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of NC. 15A NC Administrative Code Section 2B .0200. U.S.
EPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/G-5). (EPA/240/R- 02/009). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. EPA. 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance
Project Plans (QA/R-5) (EPA/240/B-01/003). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. YSI Environmental User’s Manual. YSI EcoNet Remote Monitoring and Control Platform, Revision
B. Marion, MA: YSI Incorporated YSI Environmental User’s Manual. 2006. 6-Series Multiparameter Water Quality Sondes, Revision D. Yellow Springs, OH: YSI, Incorporated Appendices Appendix
1: MCWQP Organizational Chart Appendix 2: CMSWS Standard Administrative Procedures for all Monitoring Programs Appendix 3: CMSWS Standard Operating Procedures for Water Sample Collection
and Field Measurement Collection Appendix 4: CMSWS SUSI Index and LUSI Documentation Appendix 5: CMSWS Program Indicators Documentation Appendix 6: NCDENR Water Quality Standards /
CMSWS Action-Watch Levels Appendix 7: Employee Training Form APPENDIX 1: MCWQP ORGANIZATIONAL CHART I i\ 1lonitoring Sec.tion I Environmental Supen:isor Olivia Ed,vards • Sr. Env. Specialist
Dave Ferguson Sr. Env. Specialist Tony'Roux I Environmental Specialist Justin Klein Environmental Specialist Alex Hattaway I Em,ironmental Specialist Matthew Phillips I Environmen.tal
Inspector Phil Lung En,ironmental Specialist (Part Time) Da,id Buetow Water Quality Progra1n Organizational Chart October 1, 2015 En,·ironmental �·Ianager Rusty Rozzelle Environmental
Analyst IT Project Manager I Caroline Burgett Silvio Conte I I Pollution Pre,•ention Compliance Sect.ion Section • • Environme.ntal Supervisor Environmental Supen·isor David Caldwell
Richard Farmer Project Manager Sr Env. Spe,cialist Robert Billings Jon Beller I Environmental Specialist Sr. Env. Spe·c.ialist Joshua DeMaury Ron Eubanks I Sr. Env. Specialist En,·ironmental
Specialist Erin Hall Chad Broadway • Environmental Specialist En,·ironmental Spe.cialist Dylan Kirk Charlie Hansen I I Environmental Spe.cialist Environmental Specialist Deania Russo
Ken Friday I Admin. Support Asst. [!! ..l\ nganette Byrd I Pollution Control Sec.tion Environmental Supervisor John McCulloch Sr. Env. Spe.c-ialist Ryan Spidel I Environmental Specialist
. .\.ndre,v DeCristofaro Environmental Inspector Pre.stoJ Hines • Environmental Inspector Vacant • Environme.ntal Inspector babel Sepkowitz APPENDIX 2: CMSWS STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES FOR ALL MONITORING PROGRAMS CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 1 of 10 STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Continuous Monitoring and Notification Network (CMANN
Program Elements IC-S (1.10) & CMANN-CO) Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Ryan Spidel Sr. Environmental Specialist Project Officer
Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki
Water Quality Program Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015
Page: 2 of 10 Standard Administrative Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved 1.0 David Kroening Original Draft with comments by Olivia
Edwards Jeff Price 1.1 4/1/09 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 1.2 8/10/09 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 9/08/11 Jeff Price No Changes Jeff Price
8/9/12 Jeff Price No Changes Jeff Price 9/24/13 Jeff Price No Changes Jeff Price 1.3 9/24/15 Ryan Spidel Revised to include Sutron hardware and software, new CMANN WQD, and a new site
map. Caroline Burgett CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 3 of 10 1.0 Purpose 1.1 To collect data to identify and eliminate pollution sources and provide data for calculation
of the SUSI stream usability index. 2.0 Applicability 2.1 This Standard Administrative Procedure (SAP) is applicable to monitoring that is a part of the Continuous Monitoring and Notification
Network (CMANN) conducted under Mecklenburg County’s Water Quality Work Plan - Program Element IC-S (1.10) (within the City of Charlotte) and CMANN-CO (outside of Charlotte but within
Mecklenburg County). 3.0 Program Summary 3.1 CMANN consists of a total of 36 monitoring sites located throughout the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. Twenty-six (26) units
are funded by CSWS, and the remaining units are funded by Mecklenburg County. In general, CMANN units are located at fixed interval monitoring sites (see SAP - IC-S(1.1)) and are used
to collect data pertaining to overall watershed health. Two units are designated as mobile, and are moved throughout the City of Charlotte to monitor water quality hot spots in cooperation
with IDEP (IC-I(7)) targeted watersheds. Several units are being used in watersheds that CSWS is monitoring during stream restoration projects. The remaining units are being used
to monitor our local reservoirs (Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie). The automated monitoring units provide continuous water quality monitoring (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) for
turbidity, pH, temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen using YSI 6820 multi-parameter sondes. Every 60 minutes, the sonde takes a water quality reading for each of the aforementioned
parameters. The data is stored in the datalogger, and is then sent via a wireless modem to Sutron, a private company, for storage and display on the CMANN website. 4.0 Health and
Safety Warnings 4.1 Always exercise caution and consider personal safety first. Surface water sampling poses a number of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation,
threatening weather conditions, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and incidental contact with wild animals. 4.2 Always were gloves and exercise universal precautions.
Decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. Urban surface waters pose potential for pathogenic contamination. CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page:
4 of 10 4.3 CMANN equipment is powered by solar panels, which produce current capable of producing dangerous levels of electric current. Therefore, batteries and other electronic
equipment should be handled with extreme care and installation of new parts should only be performed by individuals trained for such tasks. 4.4 CMANN equipment is deployed directly
in the creeks and streams throughout Mecklenburg County. During rainfall events, maintenance and calibration activities should not be performed because of swift water and rapidly changing
conditions. 5.0 Interferences 5.1 Occasionally CMANN equipment can be inundated with sediment and debris causing erroneous readings from the sondes. 5.2 CMANN equipment must be calibrated
every 3 weeks. The values read by the sondes can wander if long time periods elapse between calibration events. 5.3 CMANN equipment is powered by solar panels recharging a 12 volt
battery located in a small enclosure with the datalogger. The battery may lose charge over time if the solar panel is obscured by vegetation or if the solar regulator is malfunctioning.
5.4 The CMANN system relies upon several computer applications including databases, web sites and web applications. As with all technology based systems, problems periodically occur
with the transfer and or display of the information from one application to another. 5.5 Occasionally individual probes will malfunction within a sonde, which produces erroneous values
and should be repaired and/or replaced as needed. 6.0 Sample Collection Procedure 6.1 CMANN equipment automatically collects water quality data for pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity and temperature. Equipment must be calibrated on a 3 week interval (sooner if problems with readings are noticed). Calibration of the CMANN equipment is to be completed
according to the Field Calibration and Maintenance of CMANN YSI Multiprobe Instruments SOP. Results of each calibration event must be recorded in the CMANN portion of the Water Quality
Database (WQD). 7.0 Performance / Acceptance Criteria 7.1 CMANN equipment must be calibrated at least once per 3 week period. If any of the parameters are outside of the accepted tolerance
for the standard the entire dataset for that parameter since the last successful calibration must be flagged. CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 5 of 10 Flagged data
is not incorporated into the WQD, however the entire dataset is retained by Sutron and is accessible via the website. 7.2 Calibration standards and tolerances are described in the
Field Calibration and Maintenance of CMANN YSI Multiprobe Instruments SOP. 7.3 All data meeting QA/QC standards must be approved and saved in the WQD. 7.4 Water quality thresholds
are programmed into the Sutron website and automated emails are submitted to various individuals for further investigation. Attachment 9.4 lists the threshold values for each parameter.
8.0 Data and Records Management 8.1 All CMANN calibrations are recorded in the CMANN portion of the WQD. Within the database, calibration solutions are inventoried and it notifies
the user of when the solutions should be swapped (see the CMANN SOP for swap intervals). 8.2 All data is stored on Sutron’s servers and a copy of the data is transferred to the WQD
waiting QA/QC acceptance. Once the data is accepted, it is then permanently stored on the WQD for future analysis. CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 6 of 10 9.0
Attachments 9.1 – Continuous Monitoring & Alert Notification Network (CMANN) Monitoring Sites # Site ID Stream Location Charge to Phase I 1 MC14A Long Creek Pine Island Dr. 2 MC17
Paw Creek Wilkinson Blvd. 3 MC22A Irwin Creek Irwin Creek WWTP 4 MC25 Coffey Creek Hwy 49 5 MC27 Sugar Creek Hwy 51 6 MC29A1 Little Sugar Creek E. Morehead St. 7 MC30A Edwards Branch
Sheffield Dr. 8 MC33 Briar Creek Colony Rd. 9 MC38 McAlpine Creek Sardis Rd. 10 MC40A Four Mile Creek Elm Ln. 11 MC42 McMullen Creek Sharonview Rd. 12 MC45 McAlpine Creek McAlpine Creek
WWTP 13 MC47A Steele Creek Carowinds Blvd. 14 MC49A Little Sugar Creek Hwy 51 15 MC5 UT McDowell Creek Bud Henderson Rd. 16 MC51 Six Mile Creek Marvin Rd. 17 MC66 Beaverdam Creek Windy
Gap Rd. 18 MY7B McKee Creek Reedy Creek Rd. 19 MY11B Mallard Creek Pavilion Blvd. 20 MY12 Back Creek Caldwell Rd. 21 MY13 Reedy Creek Reedy Creek Rd. 22 MY13A Reedy Creek Plaza Road
Ext. 23 MY13B UT Reedy Creek Confluence upstream of Hood Rd. 24 MY13C UT Reedy Creek Confluence downstream of McCarron WWTP 25 Mobile 1 TBD 26 Mobile 2 TBD *For an accurate, up
to date list of CMANN sites, please see the detailed Work Plan. CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 7 of 10 9.1 –CMANN Monitoring Sites Continued # Site ID Stream
Location Charge to Phase II 27 MC4 McDowell Creek Beatties Ford Rd. 28 MC50 Gar Creek Beatties Ford Rd. 29 MY1B Rocky River River Ford Rd. 30 MY10 Clark's Creek Harris Rd. 31 MY8 Clear
Creek Ferguson Rd. 32 MY9 Goose Creek Stevens Mill Rd. Charge to Mecklenburg 33 Kayak Lake Wylie USNWC Dock 34 LMU1 Mountain Island Lake RB Outfall 35 LMU2 Mountain Island Lake Upstream
of RB 36 VINE Lake Wylie Paw Creek Cove *For an accurate, up to date list of CMANN sites, please see the detailed Work Plan. CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 8
of 10 9.2 - CMANN Site Locations CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015 Page: 9 of 10 9.3 – CMANN WQD Calibration Form CMANN SAP; Rev. 1.3 Effective Date: 9/24/2015
Page: 10 of 10 9.4 – CMANN Alarm Parameter Thresholds Water Quality Parameter Streams Lakes* Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L) 4 4 Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%) 40 40 pH (SU)
<6 or >9 <6 or >9 Specific Conductivity (µS/cm3) 400 200 Temperature (°C) 32 32 Turbidity (NTU) 50 20 *Lake sites = Kayak Dock, LMU1, LMU2, VINE FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date:
9/1/15 Page: 1 of 12 STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Fixed Interval Stream Monitoring IC-S (1.1) Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program
Alex Hattaway Environmental Specialist Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering
and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water
Services Charlotte, NC FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 2 of 12 Standard Administrative Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes
Approved 1.0 Jeff Price Original Draft Jeff Price 1.1 8/10/07 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 1.2 1/1/08 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.3
4/1/09 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.4 8/10/09 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.5 9/17/10 Jon Beller Minor formatting changes, updates
Jeff Price 1.6 9/08/11 Jon Beller Updated to include WQD Jeff Price 1.7 9/10/12 Jon Beller Updated site list 1.8 9/12/13 Jon Beller Changed sampling date 1.9 6/16/15 Caroline Burgett
Updating staff contacts and site list Caroline Burgett 1.10 9/1/15 Caroline Burgett Dissolved Metals Caroline Burgett FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 3 of 12 1.0 Purpose
1.1 To collect data in support of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stream Use-Support Index (SUSI). SUSI is a calculated water quality index designed to represent instream water quality
conditions, relative to surface water quality standards and stream segment classification. 2.0 Applicability 2.1 This Standard Administrative Procedure (SAP) is applicable to Fixed
Interval Stream Monitoring events conducted under the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Work Plan - Program Element IC-S(1.1). 3.0 Program Summary 3.1 Collect surface water
grab samples and instantaneous in-stream field measurements on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 31 sites located throughout the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. A minimum
of one event per quarter must be during ambient conditions (72 hours of <.10 inch of rainfall) to use bacteriological data for certain program measures. If an ambient run is not completed
during a specific quarter, a separate bacteriological run must be completed on the first ambient day following the last event of the quarter. The sample sites are identified in Attachment
10.1. 3.2 Utilize the monthly sample results in a calculated index to represent the overall in-stream water quality conditions. For additional information on calculating the Stream
Use-Support Index, refer to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Stream Use-Support Index (SUSI) Administrative Procedure (Ref. 9.1). 4.0 Health and Safety Warnings 4.1
Always exercise caution and consider personal safety first. Surface water sampling poses a number of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation, threatening
weather conditions, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and incidental contact with wild animals. 4.2 Always were non-powdered nitrile gloves and exercise universal
precautions. Powdered latex gloves contain zinc and can interfere with metals analysis and TSS. Decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. Urban surface waters
pose potential for pathogenic contamination. 5.0 Interferences 5.1 Do not initiate Fixed Interval Monitoring sampling runs during active precipitation events to reduce the potential
for sample contamination. Weather FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 4 of 12 delayed sampling runs should be conducted as soon as possible in an effort to capture the
in-stream conditions created by the weather event. 5.2 For pre-preserved sample collection bottles; overfilled, spilled or otherwise damaged containers should be discarded and a new
sample should be collected. This reduces the risk of sample contamination and improper chemical preservation. 5.3 Any observed equipment problems or any identified inconsistencies
with Standard Operating Procedures during a sample event should be reported to the QA/QC Officer immediately. Issues identified in conflict with programmatic Data Quality Objectives
may result in re-samples, additional samples, a scratched run or a scratched sample event. 5.4 Do not use powdered latex gloves. Powder from the gloves can interfere with sample results.
6.0 Sample Collection Procedure Preparation 6.1 Identify staff resources responsible for sample collection. Coordinate the sample event details with staff resources and the CMU
lab as necessary. Note: A minimum of 8 staff (or 5 sampling teams) corresponding to the North, South, East, Central and West sample runs will be required to complete the sampling
event within the specified parameter hold-times. 6.2 For each of the 5 sample runs, print the following: 6.2.1 Field data sheet forms (Attachment 10.3) 6.2.2 Chain of Custody forms
(Attachment 10.4) 6.2.3 Sampling Site Location List (Attachment 10.5) 6.2.4 Sample collection bottle labels (Attachment 10.6) Note: Bottle labels require the use of special adhesive
backed, waterproof label paper and a label printer. Otherwise, labels may be printed by hand utilizing 6.3 Assemble the appropriate number of sets of the following sample collection
bottles; 1 set for each of the sites - plus additional sets for QC blanks (one blank set per sample run), and additional sets for site replicates (1 site per run - to be determined
by the Project or QA/QC Officer). Always carry an extra set of unlabeled bottles with each sampling run in the event that bottles are contaminated or otherwise unusable. 6.3.1 1 x
1000ml (unpreserved) – TSS, Turbidity FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 5 of 12 6.3.2 1 x 500ml (HNO3) – Total Metals , Hardness 6.3.3 1 x 500ml (H2SO4) – Nutrients (N-NH3,
NOX, TKN, TP) 6.3.4 3 x 100ml (sterile, NA2S2O3) – Bacteriological (Fecal Coliform, E Coli, Enterococcus) 6.3.5 1 x 250ml (unpreserved) – SSC 6.3.6 2 x 250 ml (HNO3) – Dissolved Metals
for Central, East, and West runs only. 6.4 Affix the self-adhesive labels to the appropriate sample collection bottles. Leave the Sample Collection Time blank. The collection time
will be recorded in the field at the actual time of collection. 6.5 For each of the 5 runs / sampling teams, fill a 4-liter certified clean bottle with reagent grade distilled/de-ionized
water from the CMU lab. This will serve as “sample” water for non-bacteriological QC blanks. 6.6 For each sampling run / team, require 1 bottle of sterilized bacteriological bufferblank
solution from the CMU lab. This will serve as “sample” water for QC bacteriological blanks. 6.7 For each of the 5 runs / sampling teams, calibrate a YSI multi-parameter sonde utilizing
the YSI Calibration Procedure (Ref. 9.2). 6.8 For each of the 5 runs / sampling teams, fill 3-5 coolers (or as many as needed) approximately ¼ full with ice. Make sure all samples
are covered at least ½ up the bottle with ice, but make sure not to submerge smaller bottle completely. An extra cooler of ice should be taken on days with extreme heat and ice used
on samples collected at beginning of run. Sample Collection 6.9 At the first sample site location for each run; fill the labeled sample blank bottles with either de-ionized water
(6.5) or sterilized bacteriological buffer blank solution (6.6) as specified in the Direct (Grab) Surface Water Sample Collection SOP (Ref. 9.3). 6.10 At each sample site location;
collect stream water in labeled sample collection bottles as specified in the Direct (Grab) Surface Water Sample Collection SOP (Ref. 9.3). Collect a replicate sample at the site as
directed by the Project or QA/QC Officer. 6.11 If a site requires dissolved metals (see current year workplan), then two samples must be collected and filtered at least 15 minutes
apart, but no more than 60 minutes apart. Collect a grab sample in a 1 L unpreserved bottle and filter as specified in section 10 in the Direct (Grab) Surface Water Sample Collection
SOP (Ref. 9.3). FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 6 of 12 6.12 At each sample site location; collect instantaneous in-stream field measurements utilizing a calibrated
YSI multi-probe sonde, as specified in the YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection (STD) SOP (Ref. 9.2). 6.13 At each sample site location; record in-stream field measurements
(“field data”) on WQ field data sheet forms where appropriate. Post-Sample Collection 6.14 Complete all appropriate entries on the laboratory Chain of Custody (COC) in preparation
for submitting QC blanks and surface water (stream) samples to the CMU laboratory for analysis. 6.15 Deliver QC blanks and water samples to the CMU Lab in coolers on ice. 6.16 Check-in
the YSI multi-parameter sonde per the YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection (STD) SOP post-field verification (Ref. 9.2). 6.17 Enter field data into WQD and forward
to Monitoring Team Supervisor and Project Officer for review. 6.18 Monitoring Team Supervisor or Project Officer will review data and submit to WQ Data Manager for final approval.
7.0 Performance / Acceptance Criteria 7.1 For each sample run, a complete event must include QC sample blanks. For each site sampled, a complete event must include direct-grab surface
water samples and in-stream instantaneous measurements (italics) for the following parameters: F Coliform* NO2-NO3 SSC Dissolve d Metals* @ SpCond E Coli TKN Turbidity* Zinc* Temp*
Enterococcus TP* Chromium* DO* Hardness N-NH3 TSS Total Metals*@ pH* USGS Flow Automated (continuous) in-stream field measurements will also be collected at sites equipped with CMANN
installations. Flow (cfs) for each sample site location will utilize USGS finalized data only. * Indicates critical parameter. FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 7 of
12 @ Indicates parameters site specific and subject to change based on current year’s workplan. 7.2 A total of 12 complete sample events will be collected at each of the sites per
year. 7.3 Direct-grab samples must be analyzed by a NC State certified laboratory for each parameter identified in 7.1 in order to be considered complete. 7.4 YSI multi-parameter
sondes must be calibrated before and after use. 8.0 Data and Records Management 8.1 All field data must be submitted to the QA/QC Officer electronically via WQD. 8.2 All lab
data must be submitted to the QA/QC Officer in electronic format. 8.3 All completed COCs will be transferred electronically to the QA/QC Officer. 8.4 Electronic transfer of analytical
data from the Laboratory database to the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 8.5 Transfer of all collected field data (flow and instantaneous in-stream measurements) to
the WQDR will be administered by field staff and reviewed by QA/QC Officer. 9.0 References 9.1 Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Stream Use-Support Index (SUSI) Administrative
Procedure. 9.2 YSI SOP - YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection (STD). 9.3 Grab SOP - Direct (Grab) Surface Water Sample Collection. FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date:
9/1/15 Page: 8 of 12 10.0 Attachments 10.1 - Fixed Interval Monitoring Sample Site Descriptions North Run # Site ID Stream Location 1 MC50 Gar Creek Beatties Ford Rd. 2 MC2 McDowell
Creek Sam Furr Rd. 3 MC4 McDowell Creek Beatties Ford Rd. 4 MY10 Clark's Creeks Harris Rd. 5 MY1B W. Rocky River River Ford Rd. South Run 1 MC36 Irvin’s Creek Trib Sam Newell Rd. 2
MC40C Four Mile Creek Trade St. (Pleasant Plains) 3 MY15 N. Fork Crooked Cr Stevens Mill Rd. 4 MY14 Duck Creek Tara Oaks 5 MY9 Goose Creek Stevens Mill Rd. 6 MY8 Clear Creek Ferguson
Rd. Central Run 1 MC30A Edwards Branch Sheffield Dr. 2 MC29A1 Little Sugar Creek Carolina Medical Center Dr. 3 MC33 Briar Creek Colony Rd. 4 MC38 McAlpine Creek Sardis Rd. 5 MC42 McMullen
Creek Sharonview Rd. 6 MC40A Four Mile Creek Elm Lane. 7 MC51 Six Mile Creek Marvin Rd. 8 MC22A Irwin Creek Irwin Creek WWTP. East Run 1 MY13 Reedy Creek Reedy Creek Rd. 2 MY13A Reedy
Creek Plaza Road Ext. 3 MY13B UT of Reedy Creek Teeter Property 4 MY13C UT of Reedy Creek Robinson Church Road 5 MY7B McKee Creek Reedy Creek Rd. 6 MY11B Mallard Creek Pavilion Blvd.
7 MY12B Back Creek Wentwater St. 8 MC5 UT McDowell Creek Bud Henderson Rd. West Run 1 MC14A Long Creek Mt Holly Rd. 2 MC17 Paw Creek Wilkinson Blvd. 3 MC25 Coffey Creek Hwy 49 4 MC27
Sugar Creek Hwy 51. 5 MC47A Steele Creek Carowinds Blvd. 6 MC49A Little Sugar Creek Hwy 51. 7 MC66 Beaverdam Creek Windy Gap Rd. 8 MC45 McAlpine Creek McAlpine Creek WWTP. 9 MC45B McAlpine
Creek Harrisburg Rd. in SC FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 9 of 12 10.2 – FIM Example WQ Field Data Sheet FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 10 of 12
10.3 – FIM Example Chain of Custody FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 11 of 12 10.4 – Example Sampling Site Location List FIM SAP; Rev. 1.10 Effective Date: 9/1/15
Page: 12 of 12 10.5 – FIM Example Sample Collection Bottle Label Mecklenburg County LUESA/WQP MC (Run Name) – Fixed Interval Monitoring Sample ID: (W–Site Name) Date: **/**/**
Time: Sample Type: Grab Staff ID: Preservative: (Preservative) Bottle: (Vol) ml Plastic Tests: (Parameter) ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 1 of 9 STANDARD
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Storm Water In-Stream Monitoring IC-S (1.5) Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Alex Hattaway Environmental

Specialist Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management
Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC
ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 2 of 9 Standard Administrative Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved 1.0
Jeff Price Original Draft Jeff Price 1.1 8/13/07 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 1.2 1/1/08 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.3 4/1/09 Jeff
Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.4 8/10/09 Jeff Price Updated to include ISCO automated Bacteriological sample collection guidance Jeff Price 1.5 7/1/11 Jonathan
Beller Updated sampling frequency and sites Jeff Price 1.6 9/8/11 Jonathan Beller Updated sampling frequency and sites Jeff Price 1.7 9/10/12 Jonathan Beller Updated sampling frequency
and sites 1.8 9/13/12 Jonathan Beller Added bacteria bottles to preparation section 1.9 6/16/15 Caroline Burgett Updating staff contacts; restricting site list to attachment ISM
SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 3 of 9 1.0 Purpose 1.1 To collect storm water runoff data to support fulfillment of the City of Charlotte’s Phase I NPDES Storm Water
permit. 2.0 Applicability 2.1 This Standard Administrative Procedure (SAP) is applicable to Storm Water InStream (ISM) Monitoring events conducted under the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services Work Plan - Program Element IC-S(1.5). 3.0 Program Summary 3.1 Collect full storm hydrograph flow-weighted composite samples at the sites identified in current
year’s Attachment 10.1. In addition to flow-weighted composite samples flow rate, continuous temperature and pH, and rainfall depth will be measured. 4.0 Health and Safety Warnings
4.1 Always exercise caution and consider personal safety first. Surface water sampling poses a number of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation, threatening
weather conditions, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and incidental contact with wild animals. 4.2 Always were gloves and exercise universal precautions. Decontaminate
hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. Urban surface waters pose potential for pathogenic contamination. 5.0 Interferences 5.1 Do not initiate Storm Water ISM sample
collection unless a minimum of 72 hours without appreciable rainfall has elapsed (0.1 inches or less in 3-days). The purpose of this requirement is to allow for the build-up of pollutants
on the land surface. 5.2 For pre-preserved sample collection bottles; overfilled, spilled or otherwise damaged containers should be discarded and a new sample should be collected.
This reduces the risk of sample contamination and improper chemical preservation. 5.3 Any observed equipment problems or any identified inconsistencies with Standard Operating Procedures
during a sample event should be reported to the QA/QC Officer immediately. Issues identified in conflict with programmatic ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 4 of 9
Data Quality Objectives may result in re-samples, additional samples, a scratched run or a scratched sample event. 5.4 Automated samplers are limited by the number of aliquots (of
a given volume) that can be drawn before the sample carboy is filled. Improperly paced sampling equipment has potential to miss portions of a precipitation event. 5.5 Sample collection
carboys must be cleaned and QC equipment blanks are used to verify equipment decontamination. 5.6 Refrigeration equipment may fail due to battery charge resulting in improperly preserved
samples 5.7 Cross-contamination of samples during transport. Always place filled samples collection bottles (samples) upright in the cooler so that the neck and cap are above the
level of the ice. Drain ice melt-water from coolers periodically to ensure that sample bottles are not submerged. 6.0 Sample Collection Procedure Preparation 6.1 Identify staff
resources responsible for sample collection. Coordinate the sample event details with staff resources and the CMU lab as necessary. 6.2 Conduct site set-up procedures as outlined
in the Automated Surface Water Sample Collection SOP. Make sure to utilize the set-up and sample collection procedure corresponding to the type of equipment (sampler) being used.
If a preprogrammed sample collection routine is being used ensure that the proper program is initiated on the sampler. 6.3 For each of the sites to be sampled print the following:
6.3.1 Chain of Custody form (Attachment 10.2) 6.3.2 Sample collection bottle labels (Attachment 10.3) Note: Bottle labels require the use of special adhesive backed, waterproof label
paper and a label printer. Otherwise, labels may be printed by hand. 6.4 Assemble one set of the following sample collection bottles for each site. 6.4.1 1 x 1000ml (unpreserved)
– TSS, Turbidity 6.4.2 1 x 500ml (HNO3) – Metals (Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn) 6.4.3 1 x 500ml (H2SO4) – Nutrients (N-NH3, NOX, TKN, TP) 6.4.4 1 x 250ml (unpreserved) – SSC ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective
Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 5 of 9 6.4.5 3 x 100ml (Na2SO3) – Fecal Coliform, E. Coli, Enterococcus 6.5 Affix the self-adhesive labels to the appropriate sample collection bottles. Leave
the Sample Collection Time blank. The sample collection time will be recorded from the automated sampling unit. Sample Collection 6.6 Samples are collected automatically by the ISCO
sampler based upon either the preprogrammed routine or the custom routine input to the unit. 6.7 Field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen and field turbidity)
are recorded by CMANN equipment. Each ISM sample collection site is equipped with a CMANN installation. 6.8 Samples are to be retrieved as outlined in the Automated Surface Water
Sample Collection SOP. 7.0 Performance / Acceptance Criteria 7.1 For each site, a complete sample event includes a flow weighted composite and in-stream instantaneous measurements
for the following parameters, where appropriate. F Coliform TKN *Chromium Dissolved O2 *% Hydrograph E Coli *TP *Copper Sp. Conductivity *Rainfall Enterococcus *TSS *Lead pH N-NH3
*SSC *Zinc *ISCO Flow NOx *Turbidity *Temp *Event Duration * Denotes critical parameters. 7.2 Samples must be analyzed by a NC State certified laboratory for each parameter identified
in 7.1 in order to be considered complete. 7.3 Samples should be collected only after a minimum of 72 hours dry weather. Samples should be submitted for analysis only if all key ISCO
samplers functioned for the entire event, as defined by the percentage of storm event hydrograph collected. Samples must meet or exceed 70% of the hydrograph in order to be considered
complete. For additional guidance regarding ISCO Bacteriological sample collection, see Attachment 10.4. 7.4 All data must be submitted to the QA/QC Officer. 8.0 Data and Records
Management ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 6 of 9 8.1 All field data must be entered by staff into WQD. Data is reviewed by Monitoring Team Lead and submitted
to the QA/QC Officer for final approval. 8.2 All lab data must be submitted to the QA/QC Officer in electronic format. 8.3 All completed COCs must be submitted to the QA/QC Officer.
8.4 Electronic transfer of analytical data from the Laboratory database to the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 8.5 Transfer of all collected field data (flow and instantaneous
in-stream measurements) to the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 9.0 References 9.1 ISCO SOP - Automated Sample Collection Procedure. ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date:
06/16/2015 Page: 7 of 9 10.0 Attachments 10.1 – Stormwater ISM Monitoring Sample Site Descriptions FY2015 # Site ID Stream Location Frequency 1 MC30A Edwards Branch Sheffield Drive
Quarterly 2 MC66 Beaverdam Creek Windy Gap Road Quarterly 3* MY13A Reedy Creek Plaza Road Ext. Monthly * MY13A will be monitored monthly once a stage/discharge relationship has been
established by USGS ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 8 of 9 10.2 – ISM Example Chain of Custody ISM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 06/16/2015 Page: 9 of 9 10.3 –
ISM Example Sample Collection Bottle Label Mecklenburg County LUESA/WQP MC (Site Name) – ISM Site Sample ID: (W–Site Name) Date: **/**/** Time: Sample Type: Grab Staff ID: Preservative:
(Preservative) Bottle: (Vol) ml Plastic Tests: (Parameter) 10.4 – ISCO Bacteriological Sample Collection Guidance The following guidelines must be met in order to collect valid Bacteriological
samples: 1. At the time of collection, the composite sample must be comprised of ≥15 sample aliquots. 2. Bacteriological samples must be pulled from the composite sampler ≤24 hours
from the time that the first sample aliquot is collected. 3. ISCO refrigeration unit must be functional and the sample must be cooled to ≤4°C at the time of bacteriological extraction.
4. Bacteriological samples must be extracted in the field and immediately placed in a cooler on ice, for direct transport to the CMU lab. IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15
Page: 1 of 11 STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Industrial / Municipal Facility Monitoring IN-M(1), IN-M(2), MH-M(1), MH-M(2) & ID4 Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental
Services Agency Water Quality Program Justin Klein Project Manager Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager
City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenb
urg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 2 of 11 Standard Administrative Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date
Author Summary of Changes Approved 1.0 Don Ceccarelli Original Draft with comments by Craig Miller (CSWS) Jeff Price 1.1 8/10/07 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 1.2
4/1/09 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.3 8/10/09 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates Jeff Price 1.4 9/15/11 Jeff Price Referenced facility lists to
work plan Jeff Price 8/9/12 Jeff Price No changes Jeff Price 9/24/13 Jeff Price No changes Jeff Price 1.5 9/30/15 Caroline Burgett Staff and facility updates Caroline Burgett IND/Mun
Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 3 of 11 1.0 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of both the Industrial and Municipal Facilities Monitoring Programs is to collect samples from
facilities located within the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County that have the potential to contaminate storm water, through outdoor (exposed) operations, improper material handling
and storage, housekeeping, etc., or that may discharge non-permitted flows into either the municipal separate storm sewer system or directly to surface water. 2.0 Applicability
2.1 This Standard Administrative Procedure (SAP) is applicable to Industrial and Municipal Facility Monitoring conducted under Mecklenburg County’s Water Quality Work Plan - Program
Elements IN-M(1), IN-M(2), MH-M(1), MH-M(2) and ID4. These program elements are implemented to fulfill requirements in the City of Charlotte’s Phase I NPDES permit and Mecklenburg
County/Six Towns’ Phase II NPDES permit. 3.0 Program Summary 3.1 Collect single event surface water grab samples from facilities identified through the Industrial and Municipal Facilities
Inspection Programs (IN-I(1), MH-I(1)). Facilities may be targeted for monitoring as a result of an on-site inspection, if they are found to have improper material handling and storage
practices, poor house-keeping, non-permitted flows that may enter either into the sanitary or storm sewer system, or are otherwise deemed to have reasonable potential to contaminate
storm water runoff or surface water flows. 3.2 Storm water runoff samples will be collected from facilities at identified discharge locations (permitted outfalls) during a representative
storm event. Sampling will be conducted in accordance with any existing NPDES storm water permits. 3.3 Non-permitted dry weather flows will be sampled during active flows, as close
to the source as possible, considering safety. 3.4 Collected samples will be analyzed by a State Certified Laboratory. Discharges that contain pollutants in excess of permitted
limits or any discharges that result in state water quality standard violations will initiate follow-up investigation / resolution proceedings as well as follow-up monitoring. IND/Mun
Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 4 of 11 4.0 Health and Safety Warnings 4.1 Always exercise caution and consider personal safety first. Surface water sampling poses
a number of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation, threatening weather conditions, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and incidental contact
with wild animals. 4.2 Always wear gloves and exercise universal precautions. Decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. Urban surface waters pose potential
for pathogenic contamination. 4.3 These samples are collected from the runoff from industrial facilities. As such the samples may be contaminated with hazardous materials. Use extreme
caution when sampling runoff from industrial facilities and ensure all proper personal protective equipment is used. 5.0 Interferences 5.1 For pre-preserved sample collection bottles,
overfilled, spilled or otherwise damaged containers should be discarded and a new sample should be collected. This reduces the risk of sample contamination and improper chemical preservation.
5.2 Any observed equipment problems or any identified inconsistencies with Standard Operating Procedures during a sample event should be reported to the QA/QC Officer immediately.
Issues identified in conflict with programmatic Data Quality Objectives may result in re-samples, additional samples, a scratched run or a scratched sample event. 5.3 Ensure that
the runoff sample collected originates from the facility in question. Also, choose a sampling location with minimal to no runoff from off-site parcels. Often industrial facilities
are located nearby other dense land uses and it is important to ensure a complete understanding of the piped storm sewer infrastructure. 6.0 Sample Collection Procedure Preparation
6.1 Identify staff resources responsible for sample collection. Typically the same staff person responsible for conducting the industrial inspection will be responsible for conducting
the sampling. Coordinate the sample event details with staff resources and the CMU lab as necessary. 6.2 For each of the samples to be collected, print the following: IND/Mun Mon
SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 5 of 11 6.2.1 Field data sheet forms (Attachment 10.3) 6.2.2 Chain of Custody forms (Attachment 10.4) 6.2.3 Sample collection bottle labels
(Attachment 10.5) Note: Bottle labels require the use of special adhesive backed, waterproof label paper and a label printer. Otherwise, self-adhesive labels may be printed by hand.
6.3 Assemble 1 set of the following sample collection bottles for each identified outfall and / or dry weather flow to be sampled: 6.3.1 2 x 1000ml (unpreserved) – TSS, Turbidity,
BOD(5) 6.3.2 1 x 1000ml (HCl) – HEM (Oil and Grease) 6.3.3 1 x 500ml (HNO3) – Metals (Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn) 6.3.4 1 x 500ml (H2SO4) – Nutrients (N-NH3, NOX, TKN, TP), COD 6.3.5 2 x 100ml
(sterile, NA2S2O3) – Bacteriological (Fecal Coliform, E Coli) 6.3.6 1 x 250ml (unpreserved) – SSC Note: Adjust bottles as necessary to accommodate additional permit parameters. 6.4
Affix the self-adhesive labels to the appropriate sample collection bottles. Leave the Sample Collection Time blank. The collection time will be recorded in the field at the actual
time of collection. 6.5 For each of the sites to be sampled calibrate a YSI multi-parameter sonde utilizing the YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection SOP (Ref. 9.2).
6.6 Fill a cooler (or as many as needed) approximately ¼ full with ice. Sample Collection Note: As a general guideline, collect a storm water sample during an event with a minimum
of 0.10 inches of rainfall preceded by at least 72 hours during which no event measuring greater than 0.10 inches has occurred. Collect the sample within the first 30 minutes of runoff,
or as close to that time as possible. 6.7 At the sample site location, collect chemical, physical and bacteriological grab samples utilizing the Direct (Grab) Surface Water Sample
Collection Procedure (Ref. 9.3). 6.8 At the sample site location, collect instantaneous in-stream field measurements utilizing the YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection
SOP (Ref. 9.2). 6.9 At the sample site location; record field data (in-stream measurements) on the WQ field data sheet forms where appropriate. See Attachment 10.2. IND/Mun Mon SAP;
Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 6 of 11 6.10 Measure the discharge rate at the location being sampled. Field staff may use the direct flow estimation method (1-5 gallon bucket
and stopwatch) or collect measurements for the application of the Manning Equation. If the manning equation is to be used to determine flow, measure the depth of water in the pipe,
the slope and the diameter of the pipe, and record the type of pipe material on the field data sheet. Post-Sample Collection 6.11 Complete all appropriate entries on the COC in preparation
for submitting samples to the CMU laboratory for analysis. 6.12 Deliver samples to the CMU Lab in coolers on ice. 6.13 Check-in the YSI multi-parameter sonde per the YSI Multiprobe
Calibration and Field Data Collection SOP post-field verification (Ref. 9.2). 6.14 Determine runoff event rainfall depth through the USGS internet site for the closest USGS raingage.
6.15 Submit the completed WQ field data sheet and a copy of the completed COC to the QA/QC Officer. 7.0 Performance / Acceptance Criteria 7.1 For each sampling site location, a complete
sample event includes a direct-grab surface water sample and in-stream instantaneous measurements (italics) for the following parameters, where appropriate: F Coliform TKN Turbidity
Zinc SpCond E Coli TP Chromium COD Temp N-NH3 TSS Copper DO Estimated flow rate NO2-NO3 SSC Lead pH Rainfall HEM (O&G) BOD(5) *Additional NPDES permitted parameters Critical Parameters
are determined by individual facility NPDES permits and/or Storm water Pollution Prevention Plans. 7.2 Direct-grab samples must be analyzed by a NC State certified laboratory for each
parameter identified in 7.1 in order to be considered complete. 7.3 YSI multi-parameter sondes must be calibrated before and after use. 7.4 All data must be submitted to the QA/QC
Officer. IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 7 of 11 8.0 Data and Records Management 8.1 All completed WQ field data sheets and copies of the completed COCs must
be submitted to the QA/QC Officer. 8.2 Electronic transfer of analytical data from the Laboratory database to the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 8.3 Transfer of all
collected field data (flow and instantaneous in-stream measurements) to the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 8.4 Data shall be reported through use of an EDMS work order
linked to facility in the appropriate GIS layer. 8.5 An annual report including all inspections and sampling events shall be prepared no later than 1 month after the end of the fiscal
year. 8.6 Violations of a facility’s discharge permit limits or surface water quality standards will be assigned for follow-up monitoring under IN-M(2) or MH-M(2) where appropriate.
Consult your supervisor about issuing a notice of violation to the facility. 9.0 References 9.1 YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection SOP 9.2 Direct (Grab) Surface
Water Sample Collection SOP IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 8 of 11 10.0 Attachments 10.1 Phase I Municipal Facility Monitoring Sites Municipal Facility
NPDES Permit # Central Yard (Two Person Team) NCG080822 CATS Transit Maintenance Operations Center NCG08000/NCG080815 CATS Bus Maintenance Operations Facility NCG080710/NCG080814 Light
Vehicle Shop COC# NCG080879 Sweden Road Heavy Equipment Shop NCG080840 For any additional sites, please see the current FY Work Plan. 10.2 Industrial Facility Monitoring Sites
For current FY facility monitoring sites, please see the Work Plan. IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 9 of 11 10.3 – Industrial Facility Field Data Sheet Mecklenburg
County Water Quality Program Industrial / Municipal Facility Field Data Event Date: Facility: YSI Calibration Comment: Staff ID:
YSI ID: YSI QC: √ Out ID √ Field ID √ In ID Site Sample Est. Flow Temp DO DO SpCond pH Field Comments / Observations Time CFS ºC mg/l
% Sat umhos/c m (Rainfall depth, Discharge, etc.) pH 7.0 Check Comments: IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective
Date: 9/30/15 Page: 10 of 11 10.4 Example Chain of Custody Form IND/Mun Mon SAP; Rev. 1.5 Effective Date: 9/30/15 Page: 11 of 11 10.5 Example Bottle Label Mecklenburg County
LUESA/WQP MC (Run Name) – Fixed Interval Monitoring Sample ID: (W–Site Name) Date: **/**/** Time: Sample Type: Grab Staff ID: Preservative: (Preservative) Bottle: (Vol) ml
Plastic Tests: (Parameter) SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 1 of 10 STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Structural Control Measure (SCM) Monitoring CR-MP (3), SWIM2 McDowell
Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Alex Hattaway Environmental Specialist Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC
Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program Administrator Marc
Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 2 of 10 Standard Administrative Procedure
Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved 1.0 Jeff Price Original Draft. Jeff Price 1.1 8/13/07 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor. Jeff Price
1.2 1/1/08 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates. Jeff Price 1.3 4/1/09 Jeff Price Minor formatting changes, updates. Jeff Price 1.4 8/10/09 Jeff Price Added Bacteriological
sample collection utilizing automated samplers. Jeff Price 1.5 9/2/09 Jon Beller Updated site list, removed PSD sampling requirements. Jeff Price 1.6 7/1/10 Jon Beller Updated site
list Jeff Price 1.7 7/1/11 Jon Beller Updated site list, updates. Jeff Price 1.8 9/10/12 Jon Beller Updated site list 1.9 6/16/15 Caroline Burgett Staff changes and site list. SCM
SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 3 of 10 1.0 Purpose 1.1 To collect storm water runoff data in support of the City of Charlotte’s Pilot BMP Study Program and Mecklenburg
County Special project sites. 2.0 Applicability 2.1 This Standard Administrative Procedure (SAP) is applicable to all storm water runoff events collected from BMPs under the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
- Water Quality Work Plan; Program Elements CR-MP (3), and SWIM Phase II McDowell. 3.0 Program Summary 3.1 Collect flow-weighted storm water composite samples from the influent(s)
and effluent of each of the BMP sites identified in Attachment 10.1 3.2 The data end-user will utilize the sample results to calculate pollutant removal efficiencies for each BMP
sampled. 4.0 Health and Safety Warnings 4.1 Always exercise caution and consider personal safety first. Surface water sampling poses a number of inherent risks, including steep and
hazardous terrain negotiation, threatening weather conditions, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and incidental contact with wild animals. 4.2 Always were gloves and
exercise universal precautions. Decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. Urban surface waters pose potential for pathogenic contamination. 4.3 Always exercise
caution in handling the equipment. Automated samplers utilize 12-volt DC power sources and peristaltic pumps. Electrical and mechanical hazards are inherent in their maintenance and
use. 4.4 Never lift or carry more than you can comfortably handle give site conditions. 12-volt batteries and 20-liter carboys full of sample water are very heavy. 5.0 Interferences
5.1 For pre-preserved sample collection bottles; overfilled, spilled or otherwise damaged containers should be discarded and a new sample should be collected. This reduces the risk
of sample contamination and improper chemical preservation. SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 4 of 10 5.2 ISCO sample collection containers should be thoroughly mixed
prior to pouring up individual sample collection bottles. This will ensure that representative samples are submitted for analysis. 5.3 Any observed equipment problems or any identified
inconsistencies with Standard Operating Procedures during a sample event should be reported to the QA/QC Officer immediately. Issues identified in conflict with programmatic Data Quality
Objectives may result in re-samples, additional samples, a scratched run or a scratched sample event. 6.0 Sample Collection Procedure Preparation 6.1 Identify staff resources responsible
for sample collection. Coordinate the sample event details with staff resources and the CMU lab as necessary. 6.2 For each site sampled, print the following: 6.2.1 Chain of Custody
forms (Attachment 10.2) 6.2.2 BMP Event Data Sheet (Attachment 10.3) 6.2.3 Sample collection bottle labels (Attachment 10.4) Note: Bottle labels require the use of special adhesive
backed, waterproof label paper and a label printer. Otherwise, labels may be printed by hand utilizing 6.3 Assemble sets of the following sample collection bottles for each site;
one set per sampler. Note: *Bacteriological samples are not required at all sites, see Attachment 10.1. 6.3.1 1 x 1000ml (unpreserved) – TSS, Turbidity 6.3.2 1 x 500ml (HNO3) – Metals
(Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn) 6.3.3 1 x 500ml (H2SO4) – Nutrients (N-NH3, NOX, TKN, TP) 6.3.4 3 x 100ml (sterile, NA2S2O3) – Bacteriological (Fecal Coliform, E Coli, Enterococcus)* 6.3.5 1 x 250ml
(unpreserved) – SSC 6.4 Affix the self-adhesive labels to the appropriate sample collection bottles. Leave the Sample Collection Time blank. The sample collection time will be recorded
from the automated monitoring equipment. SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 5 of 10 Sample Collection 6.5 At each sample site location; collect automated flow-weighted
composite samples utilizing the Automated Surface Water Sample Collection procedure (Ref. 9.2). 6.6 Where required; collect bacteriological samples directly from the automated flowweighted
composite. 6.7 Create entry in Water Quality Database (WQD) stating what site was set-up and the date of set-up and sample collection. 6.8 When sample is collected, Monitoring Team
Lead will enter event data into WQD for each site. 6.9 For failed events, staff will enter reason(s) event failed into WQD and forward to Monitoring Team Lead for review. 7.0 Performance
/ Acceptance Criteria 7.1 For each site, a complete sample event includes a flow weighted composite and in-stream instantaneous measurements for the following parameters, where appropriate.
F Coliform TKN *Chromium Dissolved O2 *% Hydrograph E Coli *TP *Copper Sp. Conductivity *Rainfall Enterococcus *TSS *Lead pH N-NH3 *SSC *Zinc *ISCO Flow NOx *Turbidity *Temp *Event
Duration *Denotes critical parameters. 7.2 Samples must be analyzed by a NC State certified laboratory for each parameter identified in 7.1 in order to be considered complete. 7.3 If
utilized, YSI multi-parameter sondes must be calibrated before use and checked-in after use. All calibration data must be recorded in the calibration log. 7.4 Samples should be collected

only after a minimum of 72 hours dry weather. Samples should be submitted for analysis only if all key ISCO samplers functioned for the entire event, as defined by the percentage of
storm event hydrograph collected. Samples must meet or exceed 70% of the hydrograph in order to be considered complete. For additional guidance regarding ISCO Bacteriological sample
collection, see Attachment 10.5. 7.5 All data must be submitted to the QA/QC Officer. SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 6 of 10 8.0 Data and Records Management 8.1 All
field data must be entered by staff into WQD. Data is reviewed by Monitoring Team Lead and submitted to the QA/QC Officer for final approval. 8.2 All lab data must be submitted
to the QA/QC Officer in electronic format. 8.3 All completed COCs will be scanned submitted to the QA/QC Officer through the contract Laboratory. 8.4 Electronic transfer of analytical
data from the Laboratory database to the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 8.5 Transfer of all collected field data (flow and instantaneous in-stream measurements) to
the WQDR will be administered by the QA/QC Officer. 9.0 References 9.1 YSI SOP – YSI Multiprobe Calibration and Field Data Collection (Short-term Deployment). 9.2 ISCO SOP - Automated
Surface Water Sample Collection. SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 7 of 10 10.0 Attachments 10.1– SCM Monitoring Sample Site Descriptions FY2015 1. Bruns Ave. Wetland1.
– 3 sample points @** 2. Providence Preparatory School1. – 3 sample points @ 3. Quick Trip #1065 Gas Station1. – 3 sample points @ 4. Colonial Ayrsley1. – 3 sample points @ 5. Oxford
City Park3. – 2 sample points @ 6. CMS South Park Site #1 Bioretention4. – 2 sample points @** 7. CMS South Park Site #3 Infiltration Trench2. – 2 sample points @** 8. CMS South Park
Site #8 Sand Filter1. – 4 sample points @** 9. CMS South Park Site #15 Wet Pond4. – 3 sample points @** 10. Hal Marshall Rain Garden1. – 2 sample points @** 11. Wellingford Wetland3.
– 2 sample points @** @ Conduct grab sample monitoring per CR-MP(3) SAP for Fecal Coliform, E-Coli, and Enterococcus bacteria at these sample points. ** Conduct continuous recording
temperature monitoring per CR-MP(3) SAP at these sample points. 1. Continue monitoring from FY14, starting July 2014, on going 2. Begin monitoring in August 2014 3. Begin monitoring
in September 2014 4. Begin monitoring in November 2014 SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 8 of 10 10.2 – Example Chain of Custody SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15
Page: 9 of 10 10.3 – Example BMP Event Data Sheet SCM SAP; Rev. 1.9 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 10 of 10 10.4 – BMP Example Sample Collection Bottle Label Mecklenburg County LUESA/WQP
BMP Monitoring Sample ID: (W–Site Name) Date: **/**/** Time: Sample Type: Composite Staff ID: Preservative: (Preservative) Bottle: (Vol) ml (type) Tests: (Parameter) 10.5
– ISCO Bacteriological Sample Collection Guidance The following guidelines must be met in order to collect valid Bacteriological samples: 1. At the time of collection, the composite
sample must be comprised of ≥15 sample aliquots. 2. Bacteriological samples must be pulled from the composite sampler ≤24 hours from the time that the first sample aliquot is collected.
3. ISCO refrigeration unit must be functional and the sample must be cooled to ≤4°C at the time of bacteriological extraction. 4. Bacteriological samples must be extracted in the
field and immediately placed in a cooler on ice, for direct transport to the CMU lab. APPENDIX 3: CMSWS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND FIELD MEASUREMENT
COLLECTION AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 1 of 12 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE AUTOMATED SURFACE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION Mecklenburg County Land Use
and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Alex Hattaway Environmental Specialist Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water
Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality
Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 2 of 12 Standard Operating Procedure Modification
/ Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved Date 1.0 2/26/07 Jeff Price Original Draft Jeff Price 7/27/07 1.1 1/1/08 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff
Price 1/1/08 1.2 7/1/08 Jon Beller Field Validation, minor formatting changes Jeff Price 7/1/08 1.3 1/1/09 Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 1/1/09 1.4 9/2/09 Jon Beller
New updates to account for ISCO Automated Fecal collection Jeff Price 9/2/09 1.5 9/8/11 Jon Beller New updates to account for addition of Water Quality Database Jeff Price 9/8/11 1.6
9/12/13 Jon Beller Minor changes to QC language 1.7 6/16/15 Caroline Burgett Update staff responsibilities AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 3 of 12 1.0
Scope and Applicability 1.1 This SOP is applicable to the collection of flow-weighted composite surface water samples utilizing portable auto-samplers. Flow weighted auto-composite
samples are suitable for both chemical and physical parameter analysis. 1.2 Automated samplers are not sterilized and therefore bacteriological samples collected in this manner are
known to be in conflict with standard methods and commonly accepted protocols. However, bacteriological samples will be collected from full storm composites for research purposes.
This data will be identified as special purpose data and utilized as such. 2.0 Summary of Method 2.1 Flow-weighted composite samples of surface water are collected from either free
flowing streams or impounded water sources utilizing automated samplers. 2.2 Surface water sub-samples, or aliquots, are pumped from the source utilizing a peristaltic pump and a computer-controlle
d sampling “head”. The sample aliquots are drawn from the source in proportion to measured water flow (discharge in cf) so that the final composite sample represents the entire range
of flow conditions, or hydrograph, observed at a site during a precipitation event. 2.3 The final composite sample is distributed among various certified clean, prepreserved bottles
suitable for relevant laboratory analysis. All samples are submitted to a NC State certified laboratory for the analysis and quantification of surface water pollutants. 3.0 Health
and Safety Warnings 3.1 Caution should always be exercised and personal safety considerations must be considered paramount for field monitoring. Surface water sampling poses a number
of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and occasional contact with wild animals. 3.2 Always wear gloves
when sampling and decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. Universal precautions should be exercised when exposed to urban surface waters with unknown potential
for contamination. 3.3 Always exercise caution in handling the equipment. Automated samplers utilize 12-volt DC power sources and peristaltic pumps. Electrical and mechanical hazards
are inherent in their maintenance and use. AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 4 of 12 3.4 Never lift or carry more than you can comfortably handle give site conditions.
12-volt batteries and 20-liter carboys full of sample water are very heavy. 4.0 Interferences 4.1 Improper sample pacing. Automated samplers are limited by the number of aliquots
(of a given volume) that can be drawn before the sample carboy is filled. Improperly paced sampling equipment has potential to miss portions of a precipitation event. 4.2 Improperly
cleaned (or contaminated) sampling equipment. Sample collection carboys must be cleaned and QC equipment blanks are used to verify equipment decontamination. 4.3 Cross-contamination
of samples during transport. Always place filled samples collection bottles (samples) upright in the cooler so that the neck and cap are above the level of the ice. Drain ice melt-water
from coolers periodically to ensure that sample bottles are not submerged. 4.4 Battery failure following sample collection. Failed refrigeration due to battery failure results in
improperly preserved samples. 4.5 Vandalism of equipment. Sampling equipment is often placed near inhabited areas that have the potential to be damaged by vandalism. 5.0 Equipment
and Supplies 5.1 The following equipment is generally needed for automated, flow-weighted composite surface water sample collection: • ISCO 6712 Avalanche refrigerated auto-sampler
• ISCO 750 Area Velocity Flow Module or ISCO 730 Bubbler Flow Module • Continuous Temperature Probe • ISCO 674 Rain Gage • ISCO 581 Rapid Transfer Device • Cleaned 18.9-liter sample
collection carboy • 12-volt deep cycle battery • Sampler collection tubing • Stainless steel bubbler tubing • Metal job box • Chain • Lock • Anchor • CMU Lab Chain of Custody Form (Attachment
13.1) AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 5 of 12 • CMU Sample Collection Bottle Selection Guidance Chart (Attachment 13.2) • Certified clean, pre-preserved sample
collection bottles appropriate for intended parameter analysis (provided by CMU) • Sample bottle self-adhesive labels • 4-liters of lab distilled/de-ionized reagent grade water • CMU
lab sterilized buffered bacteriological blank solution • Sharpie, pen • Map Book • Gloves • Hip waders, rubber boots • Hand sanitizer 6.0 Automated Sampling Site Set Up 6.1 Identify
a suitable site to locate the auto-sampler depending on objectives of the sampling program. 6.2 Set up metal job box near the stream or site to be sampled but far enough away to be
out of the flow range during storm events. 6.3 Screw the trailer anchors into the ground near the job box and lock the job box to the anchor with the safety chain. 6.4 Place the ISCO
6712 Avalanche automated sampler in the job box along with a 12-volt battery. 6.5 Attach the strainer tube and metal bubbler or Area Velocity sensor at the desired height in the stream,
pipe or pond. 6.6 Connect a measured length of vinyl tubing from the sampler through the bottom of the job box to the strainer. 6.7 Depending on the configuration, either connect
a piece of vinyl tubing from the sampler to the metal bubbler tube or connect the cable to the Area Velocity module. 6.8 Connect the power cables to the 12 V battery. 6.9 Complete
the initial programming of the 6712 Sampler using the procedure in Section 7.0. Refer to the ISCO Operating manual or consult the Monitoring Team Supervisor for further details.
6.10 Create new BMP entry for each site set-up in the Water Quality Database (WQD). AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 6 of 12 7.0 ISCO 6712 Avalanche Auto-Sampler
General Set-up and Programming Note: Programming steps represent general examples and choices only. Actual programming is unique to an individual site and must be modified in order
to collect representative samples. Modification of the programming steps is based on knowledge of the site, expected conditions, professional judgment and experience. 7.1 Place a
cleaned, 18.9-liter sample collection carboy in the auto-sampler’s refrigerated sample collection compartment. Insure that lid is removed and sample tube is placed into the carboy.
7.2 Place a charged 12-volt battery in the auto-sampler Job-Box and connect the unit’s power lead to the battery terminals. 7.3 Insert appropriate Flow Module into auto-sampler unit.
7.4 Turn on the auto-sampler “Power”. 7.5 Select “Program”. 7.6 Enter the Program Name (site id). 7.7 Enter the Site Description (site id repeated). 7.8 Enter Units as follows:
• Length (ft.) • Temperature (C) • Flow Rate (cfs – BMPs / Mgal - ISM) • Flow Volume (cf) • Velocity (fps) 7.9 Select the Mode of Operation based on the hardware configuration selected
in 8.3 and the site installation (unique to site; subsequent detailed information required): • Bubbler Flow Module 730 o V-Notch Weir (most common):  Specify V-Notch angle (Ex. 90º)
o Data Points (less common – orifice plates and ISM storm water)  New Set  Clear Data Set  Change Name  Edit Data Points (enter up to 50 data points; level and cfs) o Flume (uncommon)
• Area*Velocity Flow Module 750 AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 7 of 12 o Flow Meter o Area*Velocity o Channel Shape o Enter Type  Round Pipe (most common)
o Pipe Diameter (ft.) (Eg. 18 inch pipe = 1.5 ft. diameter) 7.10 Enter Current Level (ft.). • For BMP sites - storm flow only. o Bubbler  Enter water depth from bubbler to bottom
of V-Notch in weir (ft.) • Water level below bubbler o Distance from bubbler to invert of V-notch weir (negative ft.) • Water level above bubbler o Difference between water level and
invert of Vnotch weir (negative ft. – below invert; 0.0 ft. at invert; positive ft. above invert) Note: Measure distances in inches and divide by 12 to determine distances in ft.
Eg. Water level is below bubbler; bubbler is set 1 inch below V-notch weir. Set water depth at -0.08 ft (1 inch divided by 12 inches/ft = 0.08 ft.) o Area*Velocity  Enter (0.000
ft.) when no flow is present.  If flow is present, consult the Monitoring Team Supervisor. • For Stream sites - flow present. o Determine current water level from USGS internet website.
o Enter level (ft.). 7.11 Enter Offset (0.000 ft.) if prompted. 7.12 Enter Data Interval (5 minutes). 7.13 Enter sample collection container information. • Bottles (1). • Volume
(18.9 L). • Suction Line (Length of sampler tubing (ft.)). • Auto Suction Head • 0 Rinse • 0 Retry 7.14 Select One-Part Program. AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15
Page: 8 of 12 7.15 For Pacing; • Flow Paced • Flow Module Volume • Enter (cf) - unique to site; based upon drainage area, forecast precipitation volume, professional judgment and
experience. • No Sample at Start. 7.16 Run Continuously? - No. 7.17 Enter number of aliquots to Composite (90). 7.18 Enter Sample Volume (200 ml). 7.19 Select “Enable” • Bubbler
Module. • Select “Level”. • For BMP sites; o Water level below invert  Enter (>0.001 ft.). o Water level at or above invert  Enter current water level + (0.01 ft.). • For Stream sites;
Enter (current water level + 0.05 ft) - current level + margin of safety before sampler enable. • Area*Velocity Module. • Select “Level”. • For dry pipe; o Enter (>0.005 ft.) • For
pipe with flow; o Enter (current water level + 0.02 ft) - current level + margin of safety before sampler enable. 7.20 Enable. • Repeatable Enable. • No Sample at Enable. • No Sample
at Disable. 7.21 Countdown Continues While Disabled. 7.22 No Delay to Start. 7.23 Run This Program. 8.0 Auto-Sampler Composite Retrieval AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date:
6/16/15 Page: 9 of 12 8.1 Stop Program and View “Sampling Report”. 8.2 Scroll through the sampling report and record the time and date of the last aliquot sampled. Enter this information
on the Lab COC. 8.3 Connect ISCO RTD 581 to the auto-sampler’s Interrogator port. Disconnect RTD when “Download Complete” is indicated by steady green light. 8.4 Turn off the auto-sampler
“Power”. 8.5 Disconnect the battery leads to the auto-sampler. 8.6 Replace the cap on sample collection carboy. 8.7 Remove the sample collection carboy from the auto-sampler’s refrigerated
sample compartment and put in cooler for transport to the composite bottling staging area. 9.0 Auto-Sampler Composite Bottling 9.1 Print the appropriate COC forms required for the
event. 9.2 Coordinate the sample collection event details with required staff resources and with the CMU lab (number of sites, parameters for analysis, etc.) 9.3 Assemble the required
sample collection bottles for each site to be sampled. Preprint all known information on self-adhesive sample collection bottle labels. Make sure to leave the Sample Collection Time
blank (this will be completed when the last aliquot collection time is determined). 9.4 Label the sample collection bottles with the approximate Sample Collection Time (+/- 5 minutes).
9.5 Remove the sample collection bottle cap(s) and place the bottle(s) on a level, stable surface. 9.6 Shake the auto-sampler composite carboy to thoroughly mix the sample. 9.7
Fill the sample collection bottle(s) to the bottom of the neck or to the indicated mark with the auto-sampler composite, approximately 80-90% full. Be careful not to overfill the sample
collection bottles! Replace cap, seal tight. 10.0 Auto-Sampler Grab Sample Collection (pump-grab) AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 10 of 12 Note: Pump grabs
are not commonly collected, but may be utilized in special circumstances, as required. 10.1 Turn on the auto-sampler “Power”. 10.2 Select “Other Functions”, “Manual Functions”, “Grab
Sample”. 10.3 Enter sample Volume (ml), based on collection container. 10.4 Disconnect large diameter sample collection tubing from the peristaltic pump housing on the front, left-side
of the auto-sampler unit. 10.5 Carefully open the sample collection bottle cap. Be sure not to contact any inside surface of the bottle cap or the bottle. 10.6 Press Enter when ready
to collect the sample. 10.7 Allow a small amount of sample water to flow through the tube, onto the ground to clear the line. 10.8 Direct the flow from the large diameter sample collection
tubing into the sample collection bottle, but do not contact any surfaces of the collection bottle. 10.9 Fill the sample collection bottle to the indicated volume. Do not overfill
bottle. 10.10 Replace the sample collection bottle cap. 10.11 Re-connect the large diameter sample collection tubing. 11.0 Post-Sample Collection 11.1 For failed events, document
reason for failure (power fail, pacing…) in WQD and forward to Monitoring Team Lead for review. 11.2 Place all sample collection bottles (and blanks) upright in the cooler. Do not
submerge sample bottles in ice-melt water as indicated in 4.3. 11.3 For potential valid samples, give RTD to Monitoring Team Lead for pre-sample screening. 11.4 Monitoring Team Lead
will download RTD to Flowlink software. 11.5 Validate sample by determining if ≥70% of hydrograph collected. If <70% of the hydrograph was represented, discard the sample and follow
11.1. 11.6 Complete the COC. AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 11 of 12 11.7 Deliver all sample bottles in the cooler on ice to the CMU Lab for analysis.
11.8 Monitoring Team Lead will enter field data and Flowlink software data into WQD and forward to WQ Data Manager for final review. 11.9 Submit a copy of the completed COC form to
the WQ Data Manager. 12.0 Field QC Blank Collection (when required) 12.1 When required by a project or program element, assemble one set of sample collection bottles for QC blanks.
12.2 When QC blanks are required, fill a certified-clean 4-liter bottle with lab distilled/de-ionized reagent grade water for each auto-sampler. 12.3 Replace the small diameter
auto-sampler sample collection tubing on the back, left-side of the unit with a short section of clean, new tubing (Do not remove the internal tubing inside the sampler). 12.4 Remove
the cap from the distilled/de-ionized reagent grade water or the sterilized buffered bacteriological blank solution as appropriate. 12.5 Insert the short section of new sample collection
tubing into the distilled/deionized reagent grade water to draw the blank solution up through the autosampler unit. 12.6 Turn on auto-sampler “Power”. 12.7 Select “Other Functions”,
“Manual Functions”, “Grab Sample”. 12.8 Enter sample Volume (2500 ml required min for full parameter suite analysis). 12.9 Press Enter when ready to collect the sample. 12.10 Collect
the required volume of sample blank in the sample collection carboy. 12.11 Remove the blank collection bottle cap(s). 12.12 Shake the auto-sampler composite carboy to thoroughly mix
the sample (blank). 12.13 Place the blank collection bottle(s) on level, stable surface. Fill the blank collection bottle(s) to the bottom of the neck or to the indicated mark with
the appropriate blank solution, approximately 80-90% full. Be careful not to overfill the blank collection bottles! AUTO SAMPLER SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 6/16/15 Page: 12 of
12 12.14 Replace the blank collection bottle cap(s). 12.15 Refer to Section 11.0 for Post Sample Collection procedures. 13.0 References 13.1 ISCO 6712 Avalanche Operating Manual.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY STREAM BIOASSESSMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES MECKLENBURG COUNTY WATER QUALITY PROGRAM This report has been approved for release
Anthony J. Roux Senior Environmental Specialist Water Quality Program Date: ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………
1 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOASSESSMENT………………. 2 Sampling Methodologies……………………………………………. 2 Field Procedures…………………………………………………..… 4 Sampling Techniques………………………………………………..
4 Laboratory Techniques and Data Interpretation…………………..… 5 Taxa Richness Criteria……………………………………… 6 Biotic Index Criteria………………………………………… 7 Final Bioclassification for Standard
Qualitative Samples…... 7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control…………………………….. 9 FISH BIOASSESSMENTS………………………………………………… 10 Sampling Methodologies…………………………………………… 10 Field Procedures…………………………………
………………..… 10 Sampling Techniques……………………………………………….. 11 Laboratory Techniques and Data Interpretation…………………..… 12 Young-of-Year Adjustments………………………………… 12 North Carolina Index
of Biological Integrity……………….. 12 Fish Tissue Analysis…………………………………….….. 14 Quality Assurance and Quality Control…………………………….. 14 FINAL REPORTS………………………………………………………….. 15 Water
Quality Status Report………………………………………… 15 Fish Tissue Analysis Report………………………………………… 15 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………… 17 APPENDIX I: Bioassessment Sampling Sites……………………………… 20
APPENDIX II: Bioassessment Equipment and Supplies…………………… 22 APPENDIX III: Stream Survey Data Sheet………………………………… 24 APPENDIX IV: Macroinvertebrate Identification Sheet…………………… 26 APPENDIX
V: Taxonomic References for Benthic Macroinvertebrates…… 27 Taxonomic References for Fish……………………………. 34 APPENDIX VI: Tolerance Values for North Carolina Benthic Macroinvertebrates
36 APPENDIX VII: Fish Identification Sheet………………………………….. 54 APPENDIX VIII: Tolerance Ratings, Adult Trophic Guild and Young-of-Year Cut-Off Lengths for Fishes of Mecklenburg
County, NC. 56 APPENDIX IX: Expectations of the Number of Total Species and Darter Species Based Upon Drainage Area Size in the Catawba, Broad, New And Yadkin River Basins……………………………………
59 APPENDIX X: Mecklenburg County Bioassessment Collection Form……... 61 APPENDIX XI: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Samples Log….. 62 MECKLENBURG COUNTY STREAM BIOASSESSMENT
OPERATING PROCEDURES MECKLENBURG COUNTY WATER AND LAND RESOURCES WATER QUALITY PROGRAM JANUARY 1994 REVISED JUNE 2014 INTRODUCTION Stream water quality assessments generally
consist of measuring physical and chemical parameters from a single grab sample taken from a specified site on a weekly or monthly basis. The North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (1986, 2006a) pointed out that relying strictly on chemical monitoring is not sufficient for detecting trends in water quality. A spill event or small,
but significant, changes in water quality may be undetected by either the timing of the sampling or the type of chemical tests conducted. The chemical analysis required to screen for
complex pollutants is generally not feasible for ambient monitoring due to costs and manpower. Duda et al. (1982) demonstrated that routine chemical analysis of water samples was not
adequate in explaining the serious aquatic biological problems they detected in urban streams. Several studies have supported the use of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish to monitor
the water quality of streams and rivers (Cummins 1977, Penrose et al. 1980, Hocutt 1981, Karr 1981, Weiss et al. 1981, Duda et al. 1982, Hilsenhoff 1982, LaPoint et al. 1984, NCDENR
1986, Schaeffer et al. 1985, Johnson 1986, Karr et al. 1986, Hilsenhoff 1988, Lenat 1988, Waters 1995, Barbour et al. 1999). Changes in the species composition of the fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate communities can reflect changes in the watershed upstream, such as recent development, or in water quality brought about by a pollution problem (Cummins 1977, Penrose
et al. 1980, Karr 1981, Johnson 1986, Waters 1995, Barbour et al. 1999). Duda et al. (1982) indicated that benthic macroinvertebrates are useful as biological water quality indicators
because they are found in all types of aquatic habitats, less mobile than other groups of aquatic organisms, such as fish, and large enough to be easily collected. Ambient grab sample
monitoring may regularly miss slugs of pollutants, while the benthic macroinvertebrates are exposed to everything that enters the surface waters. The benthic macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality and have life cycles of 6 months to 2 years delaying the recovery from short-term pollution events until the next generation appears
(NCDENR 1986, Barbour et al. 1999). The benthic macroinvertebrate community structure reflects the effects of pollutants that enter surface waters including any synergistic or antagonistic
effects (Penrose et al. 1980, NCDENR 1986, Barbour et al. 1999), thus making them natural indicators of water quality (Duda et al. 1982, Hilsenhoff 1982, Lenat 1988, 1993). Gaufin
(1973), along with Duda et al. (1982) and Hilsenhoff (1982) showed that the use of benthic macroinvertebrates provides accurate and reproducible information on the status of a stream's
water quality. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 2 Fish communities have been shown to be good indicators of stream water quality (Hocutt 1981, Karr
1981, Fausch 1984, Karr et al. 1985, Karr et al. 1986, Leonard and Orth 1986, Miller et al. 1988, Crumby et al. 1990, Barbour et al. 1999). Like the benthic macroinvertebrates, fish
are sensitive to changes in water quality. Fish community structure reflects the impacts of pollutants that enter surface waters including any synergistic or antagonistic effects (Hocutt
1981, Karr 1981, Miller et al. 1988). Also, it may be easier to report the impacts of a pollutant on stream water quality to the general public when talking in terms of fish impact.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY STREAM BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM The Mecklenburg County Water and Land Resources, Water Quality Program (MCWQP) (formerly known as Mecklenburg County Department
of Environmental Protection (MCDEP)) has developed a STREAM BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM to enhance the protection of the water quality of streams in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County by determining the overall water quality of the streams using biological surveys. Sampling site locations are determined by stream size and location. Bioassessment sampling
sites are listed in Appendix I. In addition to ambient monitoring, bioassessment surveys can be used as a tool to determine the impact of a spill or test the effectiveness of a storm
water BMP. MCWQP has a Scientific Collection Permit and an Endangered Species Collection Permit issued by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). These permits,
which are renewed annually, authorize MCWQP’s biological survey activities. The Endangered Species Collection Permit requires that permission be obtained from the NCWRC before any
sampling be conducted in areas with endangered species. The back of the permit lists all such areas. All benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be taken during the summer months (May
to September). Fish samples may be taken throughout the year (except when the water temperature is <15°C). Sampling equipment required for benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling
is listed in Appendix II. A. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOASSESSMENTS 1. Sampling Methodologies The benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods to be used have been adapted from

those developed by NCDENR (Lenat 1988, NCDENR 2006a). These sampling strategies involve qualitative sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and are intended for use only in shallow,
freshwater streams, usually less than 1.5 meters deep. Turbid and high water stream conditions following a rain event severely impair sampling efficiency by making some critical habitats
inaccessible. An underestimation of taxa richness due to turbid high flows may lead to MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 3 an incorrect assessment
of water quality. If high water makes sampling conditions marginal, the sampling event will be canceled and the site will be sampled when the stream flow conditions returns to ambient
conditions. Water quality status is determined by the Taxa Richness of the three sensitive groups, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera (EPT) and the North Carolina Biotic Index
(NCBI) (NC STANDARD QUALITATIVE METHOD) or by just the EPT Taxa Richness (NC EPT METHOD). A third sampling method, the Qual 4 Method, is an abbreviation of the Standard Method, which
is to be used on small streams only. The STANDARD QUALITATIVE METHOD collection technique consists of 2 kick net samples, 3 sweep-net samples, 1 leaf-pack sample, 2 rock and/or log
wash samples, 1 sand sample (using the sweep net) and visual collections. Benthic macroinvertebrates are sorted in the field using forceps and white trays, and preserved in glass vials
containing 95% ethanol. The organisms are picked roughly in proportion to their abundance. It is not necessary to remove all individual specimens. Some organisms are not picked,
even if found in the samples. These include colonial species (Bryozoa, Porifera), Nematoda, Collembola, semiaquatic Coleoptera, and all Hemiptera except Naucoridae, Belostomatidae,
Corixidae and Nepidae. These are not picked either because abundance is difficult to quantify or because they are most often found on the water surface or on the banks and are not
truly benthic. If time prohibits the sorting of samples in the field, the debris collected will be placed in vials containing 95% ethanol and sorted at a later date in the lab. The
Standard Qualitative Method is used on large streams and streams impacted by a known point source, such as a wastewater treatment plant discharge. The QUAL-4 SAMPLING METHOD collection
technique is a modified version of the Standard Qualitative Method, where all organisms are picked. This method was designed to be used only in small streams, which have a Drainage
Area ≤ 3 square miles. With the Qual 4 method, four samples are collected rather than ten: one kick net sample, one sweep net sample, one leaf-pack, and visuals. All benthic macroinvertebrates
are sorted and preserved from the samples in the same manner as the Standard Qualitative Method. The time required for this technique is usually 2½ to 3 hours. The Qual 4 Method is
more appropriate for small 1st and 2nd order streams than the Standard Qualitative Method (NCDENR 2001, 2006a), although a bioclassification cannot be assigned from Qual 4 samples.
The EPT METHOD is a further modification of the Standard Qualitative Method. Only organisms belonging to the Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera groups are collected. The
EPT Method collections consist of 1 kick net, 1 sweep-net, 1 leaf-pack and 1 visual sample. Field notes are made concerning the abundance of other groups, especially any pollution
indicator species. The EPT Method will be used on small streams and larger streams not impacted by a known point source. A clean, unpolluted stream, such as Gar Creek (Catawba River
Basin) in northeast and Clear Creek (Yadkin River Basin) in southeast Mecklenburg County, are used as reference streams and are MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures
June 2014 4 sampled at the same time as the other sites each year. The Standard Method is used for collecting benthic macroinvertebrates from these reference sites. 2. Field Procedures
At each sampling site a STREAM SURVEY DATA SHEET (Appendix III) is filled out. On this sheet is recorded relevant data pertaining to the sampling site, field parameters, and notes
on taxa abundance, in-stream habitat, and general stream appearance. The field measurements, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature and pH, are taken prior to sampling the macroinvertebrates.
A photograph will be taken of the site if one is currently not on file. All samples are labeled with the collection site name and location, date of collection and initials of collectors.
The labels are placed inside each sample vial. 3. Sampling Techniques Macroinvertebrate sampling consists of kick net, sweep-net, leaf-pack, rock/log wash, sand, and visual samples.
Sampling techniques for each of these samples is described below. Kick Net. The Kick Net is a sampling tool consisting of a double layer of flexible nylon door or window screening
material between 2 poles. The kick net is generally used to sample riffle areas. At a stream site lacking riffles, kicks are taken from bank areas, macrophyte beds and root snags.
Species preferring faster current velocities are collected from the riffles. The kick net is positioned upright on the stream bed while the area upstream is vigorously disturbed by
kicking or hand stirring and scraping the substrate. The debris and organisms in the kick net are then washed down into a sieve bucket with a US Standard No. 30 mesh bottom, from which
the large debris (leaves, sticks and rocks) is removed. Two kicks are taken from riffle areas. These samples will be taken from areas of differing current speeds. Sweep Net.
The Sweep Net is a long-handled triangular net. The sweep net is generally used to sample bank areas, root masses, macrophyte beds and sandy/silty areas where species that prefer lower
current velocities can be found. Three samples are taken by physically disturbing an area and then passing the net through the disturbed area. The sweep net is used also used to collect
macroinvertebrates such as Oligochaeta and Chironomidae from SANDY habitats. To sample sandy habitats, the sweep net is placed just downstream of the sandy habitat, which is then vigorously
disturbed. Leaf-Pack Samples. Leaf-packs are collections of leaves and sticks that can be found piled up behind rocks, woody snags or other obstructions in the stream. Three or
four leaf-packs are collected and washed down into a sieve bucket and then discarded. The best leaf-packs generally consist of older leaves that have begun to break down and decay.
Leaves in pool areas should not be collected. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 5 Rock / Log Wash Technique. This technique is designed to sample
smaller invertebrates such as the Chironomidae. Rocks that have visible growths of periphyton, Podostemum, or moss, and logs and sticks are washed in a large plastic tub partially
filled with water. A single composite sample can be made from approximately 10-15 rocks and/or logs. The wash material in the tub is poured through a fine-mesh sampler (300 micron
nitex mesh placed between four or five inch PVC pipe fittings screwed together, the NCDWQ Chironomid-getter) and the water allowed to drain out. The residue is preserved in 95% ethanol
by placing the fine mesh sampler into another larger container, which is half filled with ethanol. The sample is allowed to sit for several minutes and then backwashed into a picking
tray. The sampler is rinsed between sites. This field preservation method makes small chironomids and oligochaetes, as well as fast moving organisms such as baetid mayflies, more
visible and easier to pick up with forceps. When collecting benthic macroinvertebrates using the Full-Scale collection method, 3 separate chironomid getters are to be used for each
of the individually obtained rock/log wash samples (two rock/log samples requires two separate chironomid getters) and the sand sample (one getter for the sand sample). These three
separate chironomid getters must not be composited into one sample. They should be field picked separately. Visual Search. The Visual Search is an inspection of large rocks and
logs for attached macroinvertebrates. Rocks and logs in all habitats ranging from riffles to pools need to be inspected. The tops of both rocks and logs serve as specialized microhabitats
for many species. Several species of caddisflies and the lepidoptera family Pyralidae build retreats in crevices on the top of rocks and logs. Stone cased caddisflies can be found
on the top and sides of rocks. Decaying wood should be picked apart and inspected for macroinvertebrates. The area under loose bark will also be inspected for macroinvertebrates.
The visual search should be limited to 10 minutes. 4. Laboratory Techniques and Data Interpretation All benthic macroinvertebrates in the sample are identified to the lowest possible
taxonomic level, recorded on a MACROINVERTEBRATE IDENTIFICATION SHEET (Appendix IV), and tabulated as RARE (1-2 specimens), COMMON (3-9 specimens) or ABUNDANT (≥10 specimens). Most
organisms can be identified using a dissecting microscope, but Oligochaeta and Chironomidae must be mounted on glass slides and identified with a high-powered compound microscope.
When making Chironomidae slides, no more than 4 organisms are to be placed under the same cover slip (22x22 mm size), with a maximum of 8 specimens per slide. Fewer organisms are to
be mounted per cover slip if smaller cover slips are used or if large specimens are mounted. Following identification, samples are labeled and stored for future reference. All data
collected from a site (Stream Survey Data Card and macroinvertebrate MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 6 identifications) are entered into a bioassessment
database. Any species, such as the clam Corbicula fluminea and the Megalopteran Corydalus cornutus, that are identified and left in the field are to be noted on the laboratory bench
sheet has having been identified In Situ. The following statistics are calculated for each Standard Qualitative Method sample following the procedures and criteria developed by NCDENR
(Lenat 1988, Eaton and Lenat 1991, Lenat 1993, NCDENR 2006a, NCDENR 2010): Total Taxa Richness, EPT Taxa Richness, Biotic Index Value (Total Sample), EPT Biotic Index Value and EPT
Abundance. The Total Taxa Richness and Biotic Index value statistics will not be generated for EPT Method samples. The Qual 4 method is used only for very small streams. NCDWQ has
not developed criteria for these small streams. Only EPT taxa richness values are used to determine biological impairment. A Not Impaired rating is given if the stream would receive
a bioclassification of Good-Fair or better using NCDWQ EPT criteria developed for larger streams (Table 1). Small streams that would have a minimum bioclassification of Fair or Poor
continue to be Not Rated. Note that prior to the year 2000, Chironomidae were collected but not identified. Therefore, Total Taxa Richness and Biotic Index Value (Total Sample) were
not calculated prior to the year 2000. Beginning with samples collected in the year 2000, all Chironomidae will be identified and all statistics will then be calculated. a. Taxa
Richness Criteria Taxa richness is the simplest measure of diversity. The NCDENR taxa richness criteria are based on the association of good water quality with high taxa richness.
The more sensitive species are gradually eliminated with increasing levels of pollution resulting in decreasing taxa richness values. Total taxa richness (ST) and taxa richness for
Ephemeroptera + Trichoptera + Plecoptera (SEPT) are calculated and the SEPT is used to assign a biological classification to each sample (Excellent, Good, Good/Fair, Fair and Poor).
Bioclassification criteria developed by NCDENR (2006a) for EPT taxa richness values for the North Carolina Piedmont for the EPT sampling method is listed in Table 1. For Standard
Qualitative samples, the EPT criteria are not directly used to assign bioclassifications because new criteria using borderline criteria were developed by NCDENR (2006a) (see Table 2).
EPT Method samples are scored solely on EPT taxa richness. It should be noted that Bioclassification criteria are based on values from summer collections (June - September) and
are assigned from the EPT taxa richness values (SEPT). Also, these ratings primarily reflect the influence of chemical pollutants and poorly assess the effects of sediment. Seasonal
effects (Fall, Winter and Spring) on EPT taxa richness values need to be taken into consideration when analyzing data from a given site or planning sampling activities. MCWQP Stream
Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 7 Table 1. Bioclassification criteria for EPT taxa richness values for North Carolina Piedmont stream EPT samples (Lenat 1988,
NCDENR 2006a). Bioclassification EPT Method Excellent > 27 Good 21 - 27 Good-Fair 14 - 20 Fair 7 - 13 Poor 0 – 6 b. Biotic Index Criteria NCDENR developed
the North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI) to account for differences in taxa richness due to collection methods, stream size, seasonal changes and ecoregions to compliment the Taxa Richness
Criteria method of water quality assessment (Lenat 1993, NCDENR 2006a, NCDENR 2010). The NCBI is intended to examine the general level of pollution, regardless of the source. Biotic
indices are calculated for both Standard Qualitative samples (BI) and EPT samples (BIEPT). Only the BI values are used to produce a final site water quality bioclassification. The
BIEPT values are intended to aid in the interpretation of the data. The Biotic Index value (BI or BIEPT) is derived using the following formula: where TVi is the tolerance value
of the ith taxa, and Ni is the abundance of the ith taxa. Tolerance values for North Carolina stream macroinvertebrates are listed in Appendix VI (Lenat 1993, NCDENR 2010). The abundance
information for each taxon is tabulated as RARE (1-2 specimens), COMMON (3-9 specimens) or ABUNDANT (≥10 specimens) and given the values of 1, 3 or 10, respectively. c. Final Bioclassification
for Standard Qualitative Samples For a Standard Method sample, equal weight is given to both the NCBI value and EPT Taxa Richness value in assigning bioclassifications. For both rating
systems, bioclassifications are TotalN NTV=BI i i∑ MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 8 assigned the following numbers: Excellent: 5 Good: 4
Good-Fair: 3 Fair: 2 Poor: 1 For Standard Qualitative samples, Borderline values are assigned near half-step values and are defined as boundary EPT values ± 1 and boundary biotic
index values ±0.05 (Table 2). The two ratings are then averaged together, rounding up or down to produce the final bioclassification. The exception to this occurs when the EPT and
NCBI score differ by exactly one. Table 3 contains the guidelines for rounding when the NCBI and EPT scoring differ by exactly one bioclassification, producing a score midway between
the two ratings (NCDENR 2006a). When making the rounding decision, the EPT abundance value criteria are used to decide which way to round (up or down). If the EPT N is less than the
value listed in Table 3, round down and if N is equal to or above the value, round up. Table 2. Work sheet for deriving a final bioclassification for Standard method qualitative
benthic macroinvertebrate samples for the North Carolina Piedmont (NCDENR 2006a). EPT SCORE EPT VALUE BI SCORE BI VALUE* 5 > 33 5 < 5.14 4.6 32 - 33 4.6
5.14 - 5.18 4.4 30 - 31 4.4 5.19 - 5.23 4 26 - 29 4 5.24 - 5.73 3.6 24 - 25 3.6 5.74 - 5.78 3.4 22 - 23 3.4 5.79 - 5.83 3 18 - 21 3
5.84 - 6.43 2.6 16 - 17 2.6 6.44 - 6.48 2.4 14 - 15 2.4 6.49 - 6.53 2 10 - 13 2 6.54 - 7.43 1.6 8 – 9 1.6 7.44 - 7.48 1.4 6 – 7 1.4
7.49 - 7.53 1 0 – 5 1 > 7.53 *Biotic Index corrections for non-summer Piedmont data: Fall (Oct-Nov): +0.1 Winter (Dec-Feb): +0.1 Spring (Mar-May): +0.2 MCWQP Stream
Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 9 Table 3. Rounding Criteria for Standard Qualitative samples taken from Piedmont streams where the NCBI and EPT scores
differ by exactly one bioclassification (NCDENR 2006a). Rounding Criteria: Round down if the EPT N < criterion, otherwise round up. Bioclassification (Score) EPT N Criterion for
Piedmont Streams Excellent (5) vs. Good (4) 135 Good (4) vs. Good-Fair (3) 103 Good-Fair (3) vs. Fair (2) 71 Fair (2) vs. Poor (1) 38 5. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Quality control of taxonomic identification is maintained in several ways. All organisms are identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible using current regional identification
manuals (Appendix V). Note that prior to the year 2000, Chironomidae had been collected but were not identified. Chironomidae have been identified beginning with samples taken in
the year 2000. If taxonomic questions occur, the identifications are verified by another taxonomist on the Biological Assessment Team. Taxonomic assistance is also obtained by consulting
with regional taxonomic experts such as those at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. A benthic macroinvertebrate reference collection is maintained with samples stored in
a reference cabinet for future reference. The specimens in the reference collection have been verified by taxonomic experts. A reference specimen list is maintained and updated periodically.
A species list for Mecklenburg County is also maintained. Currently, the Biological Laboratory Administrator checks the accuracy of taxonomic identification using a series of reviews.
If a taxonomic question occurs during the processing of a sample, another taxonomist within the Biological Assessment Team is consulted. If the taxonomic question cannot be resolved,
a regional taxonomic expert is consulted. A second check occurs during data entry into the Mecklenburg County Biological Assessment database. The database checks for the presence
of a given species on the Mecklenburg County species list. If the species is not found on the list, the taxonomist is prompted to recheck that identification. A final check occurs
when the final report is reviewed. For each site, the Biological Laboratory Administrator reviews the final species list and metrics calculated. For taxonomic consistency, Mecklenburg
County will have 10% of a given year’s samples, chosen at random, re-identified by a regional Benthic Macroinvertebrate taxonomic expert outside of MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard
Operating Procedures June 2014 10 MCWQP. An additional 10% of a given year’s samples will also be re-identified by in-house taxonomists. If the QA/QC result for a given sample is
less than 90%, five of that taxonomist’s samples will be re-identified and corrections made to the database. The Biological Laboratory Administrator will work with the taxonomist scoring
less than 90% on a QA/QC sample to correct any deficiencies in identification. Sample Chain of Custody will be maintained at all times. All samples are transported to MCWQP in County-owned
vehicles. The vehicles are locked when unsupervised and sample custody is maintained at all times by the field collectors. Upon arrival at MCWQP, the samples are placed in a lockable
cabinet and a Chain of Custody form (Appendix X) is placed in the sample logbook. The logbook also document the identification work done on each sample (Appendix XI). B. FISH BIOASSESSMENTS
1. Sampling Methodologies The fish sampling methods developed by NCDENR for use with the North Carolina Index of Biological Integrity (NCIBI) (NCDENR 2013) are to be used by MCWQP
when collecting fish from streams. This quantitative method is intended for use in streams that can be waded safely while wearing a backpack electrofishing unit to the extent of allowing
the sampler to reach all areas of the stream with an electrofishing probe and dipnet. Sampling can be conducted throughout the year except when the water temperature drops below 15
°C, below which the fish start to hide in the stream and an accurate assessment of the fish community becomes difficult to obtain (Menhinick, personal communication). In addition to
the community structure information collected using the NCIBI, fish tissue analysis may also be conducted. Heavy metals and chemical residues found in the tissue of fish resulting
from bioaccumulation and bioconcentration processes in fish can cause serious health problems for predators of fish including man. 2. Field Procedures At each sampling site, a
distance of 600 feet is selected that contains all available habitats typical of the stream, including pools and riffles. The segment is measured using a Hip Chain. Personnel measuring
the segment should avoid walking in the stream segment, if possible, to avoid scaring fish out of the sample segment and to minimize habitat disturbance. Depending upon the width of
the stream segment to be surveyed, more than one electrofishing unit will be used (Table 4) (NCDENR 2013). MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 11
Table 4. Sampling personnel required to effectively sample streams of varying widths (NCDENR 2013). Stream width (m) No. of electrofishing units No. of netters ≤ 3 1 1 3 to 10 2 2 10
to 15 2 or 3 2 or 3 ≥ 15 3 or 4 3 or 4 At each sampling site a STREAM SURVEY DATA CARD (Appendix III) is filled out. Relevant data is recorded on this card pertaining to the sampling
site, field parameters, in-stream habitat, and general stream appearance. The field measurements, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, pH and Temperature, are taken prior to fish sampling.
All field meters are to be inspected and calibrated according to Mecklenburg County’s SOP. A photograph should be taken of the site if one is currently not on file. 3. Sampling
Techniques Fish sampling is conducted using a backpack electrofishing unit within the selected stream segment. Extreme caution should be exercised when using the electrofishing unit.
Waders and gloves should be inspected for leaks prior to sampling and not used if a leak is detected. Sampling is to be initiated from the downstream end of the sampling segment.
All habitats are sampled including shallow areas along the stream banks. All fish stunned by the electrofishing unit are collected with small mesh dip nets. If the stream flow is
extremely fast, a seine is used to assist with the collection of fish. If the post rain stream turbidity or flow conditions prohibit a safe and thorough sampling of the stream, the
segment will be sampled at a later date when the stream flow returns to normal flow conditions. Fish that are identifiable to species in the field are measured to the nearest millimeter
(mm), recorded, and released. These fish are examined for sores, lesions, fin damage and skeletal anomalies, the number of which is to be recorded on the Fish Identification Field
Data Sheet (Appendix VII). Fish that are not identified to the species level in the field are placed in a labeled sample jar containing 15% formalin for identification in the lab.
Larger fish (30+ cm) should be injected with formalin. Jars should not be overcrowded with fish in a way that could cause damage to the specimens. When a tissue analysis is to be
conducted, at least 15 individuals that are approximately the same size of each of the following species are separated: Carp (Cyprinus carpio) or Redhorse (Moxostoma sp.); Catfish
(Ameiurus sp.); Redbreast Sunfish (Lepomis auritus) or Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus); and Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). These fish are measured and then wrapped individually
in aluminum foil, placed in zip-lock bags and stored on ice. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 12 4. Laboratory Techniques and Data Interpretation
After the fish have soaked in formalin for about 2 weeks, they are rinsed several times with tap water. The fish are then soaked in tap water for 24 hours to remove the formalin.
Once the formalin is removed, the fish are stored in a 75% ethanol solution. a. Young-of-Year Adjustments NCDENR has made adjustments in the calculation of the NCIBI for young-of-year
(YOY) fish (NCDENR 2013). The YOY, if collected, can affect the various fish community metrics and need to be excluded from the NCIBI calculations. NCDENR (2013) reported that assessments
made during the spring and early summer (April-June) generally lack the YOY fish while samples collected later in the summer and fall may contain an abundance of YOY fish. Efforts
are made to not collect YOY fish, and, if collected, all YOY fish are excluded from all NCIBI calculations. Between July 1 and December 30, when most YOY may be collected, Appendix
VIII should be used as a guide for the determination of YOY cut-off lengths. If a length for a particular species is not listed, best professional judgment or new knowledge of the
life history of the species in North Carolina or the Southeast may be used for individuals collected where there may be doubt as to whether or not a fish is a YOY fish (NCDENR 2013).
b. North Carolina Index of Biological Integrity All fish are identified to species and measured to the nearest mm (total length) individually. The data is recorded on a Fish Identification
Data Sheet (Appendix VII). The metrics found in Table 5 are used to calculate the NCIBI for each sample site. The NCIBI is determined by adding the scores for each of the 12 metrics.
Tolerance ratings and adult trophic guild assignments for North Carolina freshwater fish are listed in Appendix VIII. Graphs representing the relative number of species and number
of darter species that can be expected, based upon drainage area size, for the Catawba and Yadkin River basins is presented in Appendix IX. Drainage area size is calculated from USGS
7.5 minute series topographic provided by the USGS StreamStats website (http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north_carolina.html). The bioclassification criteria for NCIBI values
are listed in Table 6. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 13 Table 5. Scoring criteria for the NCIBI for wadeable streams of the Catawba and
Yadkin River basins with watershed drainage areas ranging between 2.8 and 245 mi2 (NCDENR 2013). MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 14 Table 6.
Bioclassification criteria for North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity scores for wadeable streams in the Catawba and Yadkin River basins (NCDENR 2013). Bioclassification NC IBI Values
Excellent 54, 56, 58 or 60 Good 48, 50, or 52 Fair-Good 42, 44, or 46 Fair 36, 38, or 40 Poor ≤ 34 c. Fish Tissue Analysis Mecklenburg County’s Water Quality Program does not
routinely conduct fish tissue analysis. However, when a study of fish tissue is needed, the following procedures are to be followed. The analysis of fish tissue for heavy metals and
chemical residue will be conducted by a private lab. Each fish species to be tested will be analyzed separately and listed by the fish genus and species name. For each of the fish
species tested, an equal amount of the muscle tissue is removed from 3 to 4 specimens and composited into 1 sample for that species. The laboratory project manager will determine the
amount of muscle tissue needed. The tissue samples are to be delivered to the private laboratory for analysis. Heavy metal and chemical residue data are compared to the U. S. Food
and Drug Administration (USFDA) action limits. Also, the North Carolina State toxicologist (North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services) will be consulted for assistance
with the data interpretation. If a fishing advisory is warranted, the Water Quality Program Manager is notified. 5. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality control of taxonomic
identification is maintained. A fish reference collection is maintained with samples stored for future reference. A species list for Mecklenburg County is maintained. All fish are

identified to species using current regional identification manuals (Appendix V). If questions occur, the identifications will be verified by consulting with regional taxonomic experts
at NCDENR and the NC Museum of Natural Sciences. Sample Chain of Custody is maintained at all times. All samples are transported to MCWQP in County-owned vehicles. The vehicles are
locked when unsupervised and sample custody is maintained at all times by the field collectors. Upon arrival at MCWQP, the samples are placed in a lockable cabinet and a Chain of Custody
form (Appendix X) is placed in the sample logbook. All data is entered into MCWQP’s database and is double checked for accuracy. During data MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard
Operating Procedures June 2014 15 entry, the database checks for the presence of a given species on the Mecklenburg County species list. If the species is not found on the list,
the taxonomist is prompted to recheck that identification. For each site, the Biological Laboratory Administrator reviews the final species list and metrics calculated. C. FINAL
REPORTS 1. Water Quality Status Report After the completion of a stream bioassessment study, a summary report is submitted to the Water Quality Program Manager documenting the Water
Quality Status of the study stream and any problems detected. The report includes the following information: 1. Stream and sample site location 2. Sampling date 3. Sample methodology
(Fish; EPT, Standard Qualitative Macroinvertebrate or Qual-4 Method) 4. Bioclassification water quality rating 5. Discussion of problems detected and corrected 6. General observations
2. Fish Tissue Analysis Report After the completion of a fish tissue contaminant study, a summary report is submitted to the Water Quality Program Manager documenting the fish
health status and fishing advisory recommendations for the study stream. The report includes the following information: 1. Stream and sample site location 2. Sampling date 3. Fish
species tested and laboratory results 4. State toxicology report and any fishing advisories recommended 5. Discussion of problems detected and corrected 6. General observations
MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 16 Prepared By Anthony J. Roux Sr. Environmental Specialist October 1993 Revised July 2000 Revised July 2003
Revised July 2005 Revised July 2006 Revised August 2007 Revised August 2008 Revised August 2011 Revised August 2012 Ryan Spidel Environmental Specialist Fish Bioassessment Revised
June 2014 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 17 REFERENCES Barbour. M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. Cloutman, D. G. and L. L. Olmsted. 1979. The fishes of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Charlotte Nature Museum, Inc. and Duke Power Co. Charlotte,
North Carolina. Crumby, W. D., M. A. Webb, F. J. Bulow, and H. J. Cathey. 1990. Changes in biotic integrity of a river in North-Central Tennessee. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society. 119:885893. Cummins, K. W. 1977. The use of macroinvertebrate benthos in evaluating environmental damage. Contribution No. 298. Kellogg Biological Station. pp. 139-149.
Duda, A. M., D. R. Lenat, and D. L. Penrose. 1982. Water quality in urban streams - what can we expect. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 54:1139-1147. Eaton, L. E.,
and D. R. Lenat. 1991. Comparison of a rapid bioassessment method with North Carolina's qualitative macroinvertebrate collection method. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society. 10:335-338. Fausch, K. D., J. R. Karr and P. R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society. 113:3955. Gaufin, A. R. 1973. Use of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the assessment of water quality. Pages 96-116 in J. Cairns and K. L. Dickson (editors).
Biological Methods for the Assessment of Water Quality. ASTM STP 528. American Society for Testing and Materials. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water
quality in streams. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No. 132. Madison, Wisconsin. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution
with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7:65-68. Hocutt, C. H. 1981. Fish as indicators of biological integrity. Fisheries. 6(6):28-30.
Johnson, P. 1986. Learning the language of a stream. National Wildlife. 24:30-35. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries. 6(6):21-27.
MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 18 Karr, J. R., R. C. Heidinger and E. H. Helmer. 1985. Effects of chlorine and ammonia from wastewater treatment
facilities on biotic integrity. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 57:912-915. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 5. Champaign, Illinois. LaPoint, T. W., S. M. Melancon,
and M. K. Morris. 1984. Relationships among observed metal concentrations, criteria and benthic community structural responses in 15 streams. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.
56:1030-1038. Lenat, D. R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society. 7:222233. Lenat, D. R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 12:279-290. Leonard, P. M., and D. J. Orth. 1986. Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small, coolwater
streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 115:401-414. Meikle, R. L. 1983. Drainage areas of select sites on streams in North Carolina. USGS Open -File Report 83-211.
U.S. Geological Survey. Raleigh, North Carolina. Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of Mecklenburg County. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Miller, D. L., P. M. Leonard, R. M. Hughes, J. R. Karr, P. B. Moyle, L. H. Schrader, B. A. Thompson, R. A. Daniels, K. D. Fausch, G. A. Fitzhugh, J. R. Gammon, D. B. Halliwell, P.
L. Angermeier, and D. J. Orth. 1988. Regional applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries. 13(5):12-20. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. 1986. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN): Data review 1985. Report No. 86-04. Division of Environmental Management. Raleigh,
North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring protocols for compensatory
stream restoration Projects. N.C. Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit. Raleigh, North Carolina. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 19 North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2006a. Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. Division of Water Quality, Biological Assessment Unit.
Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013. Standard operating procedures, biological monitoring: Stream fish community assessment
program. N.C. Division of Water Resources, Biological Assessment Unit. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2010. Tolerance
values for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Division of Water Quality, Biological Assessment Unit. Raleigh, North Carolina. Penrose, D. L., D. R. Lenat, and K. W. Eagleson. 1980. Biological
evaluation of water quality in North Carolina streams and rivers. Biological Series #103. N.C. Division of Environmental Management. Raleigh, North Carolina. Schaeffer, D. J., W.
H. Ettinger, W. J. Tucker, and H. W. Kerster. 1985. Evaluation of a community based index using benthic indicator organisms for classifying stream quality. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation. 57:167-171. Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society.
Bethesda, Maryland. Weiss, C. M., R. P. Maas, and S. A. Dressing. 1981. Stream monitoring for heavy metals by analysis of aquatic insect larvae. Report No. 162. Water Resource
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 20 APPENDIX I BIOASSESSMENT
SAMPLING SITES IN CHARLOTTE AND MECKLENBURG COUNTY A. Catawba River Basin Streams STREAM SAMPLING SITE 1. *McDowell Creek Sam Furr Road (SR2145) (MC2) 2. *McDowell Creek Gilead
Road (SR2136) (MC2A1) 3. *McDowell Creek Beatties Ford Road (SR2128) (MC4) 4. *Torrence Creek Bradford Hill Lane (MC3E) 5. *Gar Creek Beatties Ford Road (SR2074) (MC50) 6.
Long Creek Pine Island Drive (MC14A) 7. Paw Creek Wilkinson Boulevard (US74) (MC17) 8. Irwin Creek Westmont Drive (MC22A) 9. Sugar Creek NC Hwy 51 (NC51) (MC27) 10.
Coffey Creek York Road (NC49) (MC25) 11. Steele Creek Carowinds Bv (SR1441) (MC47A) 12. Little Sugar Creek Carolina Medical Center Drive (MC29A1) 13. Little Sugar Creek NC Highway
51 (NC51) (MC49A) 14. Edwards Branch Sheffield Drive (MC30A) 15. Southgate Branch Tarrington Avenue (B0801) 16. Edwards Branch Driftwood Drive (B0804) 17. Briar Creek Colony
Road (MC33) 18. McMullen Creek Sharon View Road (SR3673) (MC42) 19. McAlpine Creek Sardis Road (SR3356) (MC38) 20. McAlpine Creek McAlpine Creek WWTP (MC45) 21. *Irvins Creek
Sam Newell Road (MC36) 22. Fourmile Creek Elm Lane (SR3649) (MC40A) 23. *Fourmile Creek Trade Street (Matthews) (MC40C) 24. Sixmile Creek Marvin Road (SR3635) (MC51) 25.
Beaver Dam Creek Windy Gap Road (MC66) B. Yadkin River Basin Streams 26. *Goose Creek Stevens Mill Road (SR1524) (MY9) 27. *Duck Creek Tara Oaks Drive (MY14) 28. *Clear
Creek Ferguson Road (SR3181) (MY8) MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 21 29. McKee Creek Reedy Creek Road (SR2803) (MY7B) 30. Reedy Creek The
Plaza Road (SR2803) (MY13A) 31. Reedy Creek Reedy Creek Road (SR2804) (MY13) 32. Back Creek Wentwater Street (MY12B) 33. Mallard Creek Blockbuster Boulevard (MY11B) 34.
*Clarke Creek Eastfield-Harris Rd (SR1449) (MY10) 35. *West Branch Rocky River River Ford Road (MY1B) * Streams located outside Charlotte's city limits MCWQP Stream Bioassessment
Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 22 APPENDIX II LIST OF BIOASSESSMENT EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES A. Benthic Macroinvertebrates 1. Field Equipment Kick nets White plastic
picking trays Sweep nets Labels Wash buckets Forceps Sieve buckets Gloves Sample vials Waders Ethanol Camera Stream Survey Data cards YSI Multiprobe Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature/Cond
uctivity/pH Meter (Model 610XL & 6820) 2. Laboratory Equipment and Supplies Dissecting microscopes Microscope slides Compound microscopes Cover slips Ethanol Slide labels
and holders CMC-10 Mounting Media Squeeze bottles Petri dishes Forceps Vials Dissecting needles Identification manuals Sony Bravia 32" HD TV Monitor Sony HandyCam HDR-HC7
Camcorder B. Fish 1. Field Equipment Electrofishing unit ½ gallon sample jars Electrodes Formalin Gloves Labels Hip boots or waders Coolers Seine and dip nets Aluminum
foil Buckets Ziploc freezer bags Tape measure Notebook MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 23 Camera Stream Survey Data cards YSI Multiprobe Dissolved
Oxygen/Temperature/Conductivity/pH Meter (Model 610XL & 6820) 2. Laboratory Equipment and Supplies Fish measuring board Dissecting kit Ethanol Vials Identification manuals MCWQP
Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 24 APPENDIX III STREAM SURVEY DATA SHEET STREAM: DATE: ______________________
RIVER BASIN: Mecklenburg Co- COLLECTORS:______________________ LOCATION: ____________________________________ I. PHYSICAL
DATA: Water Appearance Substrate Type Substrate Coating Scum Foam Rocky Orange/Red ____ Muddy Green Sandy Yellowish ____ Milky
Tea Silty Black ____ Oily Clear Other Brown ____ Other Other ____ Instream Habitat Field
Parameters Pools Backwater Bank Erosion N Mod Sev __ Weeds Riffles Canopy % Type _______ Snags Detritus Tribs Present?
________________ Undercut Banks Avg Midstr Depth _________________ Root Mats Maximum Depth _________________ Other
Width _________________ Current _________________ Odor Other None Recent Rain ________________ Sewage Discharge Pipes _________________
Musky Trash - Small (paper) __________ Chemical - Medium (cans, bottles) __________ Other - Large (tires, carts) __________
- Other _______________________ II. WATER CHEMISTRY Temperature Dissolved Oxygen ______ Conductivity pH ______ III. BIOLOGICAL DATA Biological Survey:
Macroinvertebrate Fish _____ Field Observations ___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 25 CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS A. WATER
APPEARANCE 1. Scum - A film of yellow-brown material on water's surface (sometimes consists of pollen). 2. Foam - Surface bubbles or formation of bubbles when water is disturbed (soap
in water). 3. Muddy - Light brown to red (sediment suspended in water column). 4. Green - Water column green (nutrient enrichment promoting algal growth). 5. Milky - Whitish discoloration
often accompanied by white cottony masses on streambed and a sewage odor (sewage pollution). 6. Tea - Tea colored and clear (tannic acids from decaying plant material). 7. Oily - Multi-color
reflections on water surface (waste motor oil or fuel spill in stream). B. SUBSTRATE TYPE 1. Rocky - Bottom with many large rocks and gravel-sized stones. 2. Sandy - Bottom covered
with coarse to fine sand. 3. Silty - Bottom covered with particles smaller than sand often giving the bottom a soft feeling and composed of organic materials. C. SUBSTRATE COATING
1. Orange/Red - Orange to red film on bottom (often accompanied by oil sheen) usually indicating the presence of iron and iron bacteria. 2. Yellowish - Usually indicates chemical
(sulfur compound) discharge to stream. 3. Black - Dark green, olive or black bottom coloration usually indicating algal or bacterial growth due stream nutrient enrichment (storm
water runoff or sewage problem upstream). 4. Brown - Fine brown sediments indicating erosion problem upstream. D. ODOR 1. Sewage - Indicates sewage pollution. 2. Musky
- May indicate presence of untreated sewage, livestock waste, algae or other conditions. 3. Chemical - Indicates discharge of industrial waste or other source of chemical
pollutants. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 26 APPENDIX IV MACROINVERTEBRATE IDENTIFICATION SHEET STREAM:
COLLECTION DATE:____________________ RIVER BASIN: Mecklenburg Co- COLLECTORS: ____________________ LOCATION:
TAXONOMIST: ____________________ Page of ORDER/FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES TV No. ABUNDANCE TOTAL # ORGANISMS
SPECIES DIVERSITY _________ TOTAL TAXA (ST) BIOTIC INDEX _________ TOTAL EPT (SEPT) WATER QUALITY RATING _________ MCWQP Stream Bioassessment
Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 27 APPENDIX V I. Taxonomic References For Benthic Macroinvertebrate Identification General References Brigham, A. R., W. U. Brigham, and
A. Gnilka, (Eds). 1982. Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins. (Eds.). 1996.
An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, Iowa. 862 pp. Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg (Eds). 2008. An Introduction
to Aquatic Insects of North America. Fourth Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, Iowa. 1158 pp. Peckarsky, B. A., P. R. Fraissinet, M. A. Penton, and D. J. Conklin, Jr. 1990.
Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, N.Y. 442 pp. Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the Unites States:
Protozoa to Mollusca. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. 628 pp. Coleoptera Beaty, S.R. 2011. The Aquatic Coleoptera of North Carolina. A Biologist Handbook with Standard Taxonomic
Effort Levels. NCDENR, DWR, Biological Assessment Unit. Ciegler, J.C. 2003. Water Beetles of South Carolina. Clemson University Public Service Publishing. Clemson, S.C. 210 pp.
Epler, J. H. 2010. The Water Beetles of Florida - an Identification Manual for the Families Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae, Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae,
Hydraenidae, Hydrochidae, Hydrophilidae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae and Scirtidae. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 299 + iv pp. Hilsenhoff,
W. L. 1973. Notes on Dubiraphia (Coleoptera: Elmidae) with Descriptions of Five New Species. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 66: 55-61. Schmude, K. L. 1992. Revision
of the Riffle Beetle Genus Stenelmis (Coleoptera: Elmidae) in North America, With Notes on Bionomics. PhD Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diptera Chironomidae
Epler, J. H. 1992. Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae Diptera) of Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, FL. Epler, J. H. 2001.
Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. Epler, J. H.,
J. P. Cuda and T. D. Center. 2000. Redescription of Cricotopus lebetis (Diptera: MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 28 Chironomidae), A Potential
Biocontrol Agent of the Aquatic Weed Hydrilla (Hydrocharitaceae). Florida Entomologist. 83(2): 171-180. Lenat, D. 2001. Key to the Cricotopus/Orthocladius Group in North Carolina.
N.C. Biological Assessment. Unit. Raleigh, NC. Mason, W. T. 1973. An Introduction to the Identification of Chironomid Larvae. National Environmental Research Center. USEPA. 90
pp. N.C. Division of Water Quality. 198?. Notes on Microtendipes Group in North Carolina. N.C. Biological Assessment. Unit. Raleigh, NC. N.C. Division of Water Quality. 1994.
A Preliminary Key to the Larvae of the Tanytarsus/Micropsectra Group in Streams and Rivers of North Carolina. N.C. Biological Assessment. Unit. Raleigh, NC. Wiederholm, T. (Ed.).
1983. Chironomidae of the Holartic Region. Keys and Diagnoses: Part 1 - Larvae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement 19. 457 pp. Diptera - Other Gelhaus, J. K. 2002. Manual
for the Identification of Aquatic Cranefly Larvae for Southeastern United States. Prepared for the Carolinas Area Benthological Workshop, March 2002. Slaff, M. and C. S. Apperson.
1982. A Key to the Mosquitoes of North Carolina and the MidAtlantic States. N.C. Division of Health Services. Raleigh, N.C. Pfeiffer, J., E. Kosnicki, M. Bilger, and B. D. Marshall.
2006. A Photographic Key to the Simuliidae Larvae of EPA Region Three. Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Washington, DC. Ephemeroptera Beaty, S.R., M.D. Walters and V. Holland. 2013. The Ephemeroptera of North Carolina. A Biologist Handbook
with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels. NCDENR, DWR, Biological Assessment Unit. Bednarik, A. F. and W. P. McCafferty. 1979. Biosystematic Revision of the Genus Stenonema (Ephemeroptera:
Heptageniidae). Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 201: 1-73. Bergman, E. A. and W. L. Hilsenhoff. 1978. Baetis (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) of Wisconsin. The Great
Lakes Entomologist 11: 125-35. Berner, L. 1956. The Genus Neoephemera in North America (Ephemeroptera: Neoephemeridae). Entomological Society of America 49: 33-42. Berner, L. & R.
K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Serratella (Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). The Florida Entomologist 44: 149-158. Berner, L. 1975. The Mayfly Family Leptophlebiidae
in the Southeastern United States. The Florida Entomologist 58: 137 - 156. Berner, L. and M. L. Pescador. 1988. The Mayflies of Florida. University Press of Florida. 415 pp. Burian,
S. K. 2001. A Revision of the Genus Leptophlebia Westwood in North America (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae: Leptophlebiinae). Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin New MCWQP Stream Bioassessment
Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 29 Series. Vol 13, No. 3. 80 pp. Edmunds, G. F., S. L. Jensen and L. Berner. 1976. The Mayflies of North and Central America. University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn. 330 p. Flowers, R. W. 1980. Two New Genera of Nearctic Heptageniidae (Ephemeroptera). The Florida Entomologist 63: 296-307. Jacobus, L. M. 2000.
Variability in the Larvae of Serratella serrata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). Entomology News. 111(1): 39-44. Jacobus, L. M. 2011. The Mayfly Family Baetidae in the Southeastern
USA (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). 2011 Carolina Area Biologist Workshop, Hot Springs, NC. April 11-12, 2001. Jacobus, L. M. and W. P. McCafferty. 2003. Revisionary Contributions to
North American Ephemerella and Serratella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). J. N Y Ent. Soc. 111 (4): 174193. Jacobus, L.M. and W.P. McCafferty. 2004. Revisoinary Contributions to the
Genus Drunella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). J N Y Ent Soc. 112 (2-3): 127-147. Jacobus, L. M. and W. P. McCafferty. 2006. A New Species of Acentrella Bengtsson (Ephemeroptera:
Baetidae) from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Aquatic Insects. 28 (2): 101-111. Lewis, P. A. 1974. Taxonomy and Ecology of Stenonema Mayflies (Heptageniidae: Ephemeroptera).
EPA-670/4-74-006. Lewis, P. A. 1974. Three new Stenonema Species from Eastern North America (Heptageniidae: Ephemeroptera). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 76:
347-355. Lewis, P. A. 1978. Note on the Use of Pectinate Maxillary Spines to Separate Stenonema and Stenacron (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society
of Washington 80: 655. Lugo-Ortiz, C. R. and W. P. McCafferty. 1998. A New North American Genus of Baetidae and Key to Baetis Complex Genera. Entomology News. 109 (5): 345-353. Lugo-Ortiz,
C. R. and W. P. McCafferty. 1998. New Larval Variants and Distributional Records for Plauditus cestus (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Great Lakes Entomologist. 31 (3): 201-204. Lugo-Ortiz
CR; McCafferty WP; Waltz RD. 1999. Definition and Reorganization of the Genus Pseudocloeon (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) With New Species Descriptions and Combinations. Transactions of
the American Entomological Society 125(1-2):1-37. McCafferty, W. P. 1977. Biosystematics of Dannella and Related Subgenera of Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). Annals
of the Entomology Society of America. 70: 881889. McCafferty, W. P. 1990. A New Species of Stenonema (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae) from North Carolina. Proceedings of the Entomological
Society of Washington. 92: 760-764. McCafferty WP. 1981. Distinguishing larvae of North American Baetidae from Siphlonuridae (Ephemeroptera). Entomological News 92(4):138-140. McCafferty,
W.P. and T-Q. Wang. 1994. Phylogenetics and the classification of the Timpanoga complex (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 13(4): 569-579. McCafferty, W. P.,
and R.D. Waltz. 1995. Labiobaetis (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae): New Status, new North American Species, and Related New Genus. Entomological News 106(1): 19-28. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment
Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 30 McCafferty, W. P., and R.D. Waltz. 1998. A New Species of the Small Minnow Mayfly Genus Plauditus (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) From South
Carolina. Entomological News 109(5): 354356. McCafferty, W. P. and L. M. Jacobus. 2001. Revisions to Plauditus cestus and P. gloveri (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). 2001. Entomological
News 112: 305-310. McCafferty, W.P. & D.R. Lenat. 2003. A new Nearctic Paracloeodes (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Ent. News 114 (1): 33-36 McCafferty, W.P, R. D. Waltz, J. M. Webb, and
L. M. Jacobus. 2005. Revision of Heterocloeon McDunnough (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). J. of Insect Science 5:35. Morihara, D. K. and W. R. McCafferty. 1979. The Baetis Larvae of North
America (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 105: 139-221. Peckarsky, B. L. 2002. Baetidae Identification class notes 2/12/02 from WBC/NCDWQ.
Pescador, M. L. 1985. Systematics of the nearctic genus Pseudiron (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae: Pseudironinae). The Florida Entomologist 68: 432-444. Pescador, M.L., D.R. Lenat, &
M.D. Hubbard. 1999. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of North Carolina and South Carolina: An Update. Florida Entomologist 82: 316-332 Pescador, M., and B. A. Richard. 2004. Guide to the Mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) Nymphs of Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. Pfeiffer, J., E. Kosnicki, M. Bilger, and B. D. Marshall. 2006 (Draft).
A Photographic Key to the Baetidae of EPA Region Three. Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Environmental
Analysis Division, Washington, DC. Provonsha A. V. and W. P. McCafferty. 2006. A Second Species of the North American Mayfly Genus Amercaenis Provonsha and McCafferty (Ephemeroptera:
Caenidae). Journal of Insect Science 6:10, 6pp. Soluk, D.A. 198. The larva of Baetis daardanus McDunnough (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Ent. News 92(4): 147-151. Waltz, R. D. and W. P.
McCafferty. 1987. Systematics of Pseudocloeon, Acentrella, Baetiella and Liebebiella, New Genus (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Journal of New York Entomology Society. 95(4): 553-568.
Waltz, R. D. and W. P. McCafferty. 1989. New Species, Redescriptions, and Cladistics of the Genus Pseudocentroptiloides (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Journal of New York Entomology Society.
97(2): 151-158. Waltz, R. D. 1993. (Draft). Key to the Larvae of Baetid Genera Know East of the Mississippi River (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). MEIB Conference May 5-7, 1993 Chicago,
Illinois. Waltz, R. D. 2002. Baetopus trishae (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae): A New Species and New Genus for North America. Entomological News 113(3): 187-191. Wang, T.-Q. and W.P. McCafferty.

2004. Heptageniidae (Ephemeroptera) of the World. Part I: Phylogenetic Higher Classification. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 130(1): 11-45. Wiersema, N. A. and
L. S. Long. 2000. Plauditus grandis (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae), a New Small Minnow Mayfly from Tennessee. Entomological News 111: 45-48. Wiersma, N. A., C. R. Nelson, K. F. Kuehnl.
2004. A New Small Minnow Mayfly MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 31 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) from Utah, US.A. Entomological News 115:139-145. Heteroptera
Epler, J.H. 2006. Identification Manual for the Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Heteroptera of Florida (Belostomatidae, Corixidae, Gelastocoridae, Gerridae, Hebridae, Hydrometridae, Mesoveliidae,
Naucoridae, Nepidae, Notonectidae, Ochteridae, Pleidae, Saldidae, Veliidae). Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. Odonata Louton, J. A. 1982. Lotic
Dragonfly (Anisoptera: Odonata) Nymphs of the Southeastern United States: Identification, Distribution and Historical Biogeography. PhD Dissertation. Univ of Tennessee. Knoxville,
Tn. N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2006. Taxonomy Document: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Coleptera and Oligochaeta and Odonata. N.C. Biological Assessment Unit. Raleigh,
NC. Tennessen, K. 2004. CABW Odonata Manual: A Guide to Identifying Odonata Larvae of the Carolinas. February, 2004. Plecoptera Beaty, S.R. The Plecoptera of North Carolina. A Biologist
Handbook with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels. NCDENR, DWQ, Biological Assessment Unit. October 2011. Kondratieff, B.C., R.E. Zuellig, R.F. Kirchner, and D.R. Lenat 2006. Three new
Species of Perlesta (Plecoptera: Perlidae) from eastern North America and Notes on New State Records. Illiesia, 2(5):31-38. Nelson, C. H. and B. C. Kondratieff. 1983. Isoperla major,
a New Species of Eastern Nearctic Isoperlinae (Plecoptera: Perlodidae). Annals of Entomological Society of America. 76(2): 270-273. Pfeiffer, J., E. Kosnicki, M. Bilger, and B. D.
Marshall. 2006 (Draft). Separation of the Larvae of the Stonefly Families Leuctridae and Capniidae. Prepared by EcoAnalysts, Inc. for the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Washington, DC. Ray, D.H. and B. P. Stark. 1981. The Nearctic species of Hydroperla (Plecoptera: Perlodidae). Fla.
Entomol. 64:385-395. Stark, B. P. and S. W. Szczytko. 1981. Contributions to the Systematics of Paragnetina (Plecoptera: Perlidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 54(3):
625-648. Stark, B. P., S. W. Szczytko and C. R. Nelson. 1998. American Stonefly: A Photographic Guide to the Plecoptera. The Caddis Press. Columbus Ohio. 126 pp. Stark, B. P. and
B. J. Armitage (Eds.). 2000. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Eastern North America. Volume I: Pteronarcyidae, Peltoperlidae and Taeniopterygidae. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin New
Series, Volume 14. Number 1. 100 pp. Stewart, K. W. and B. P. Stark. 2002. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). Second Edition. The Caddis Press. Columbus,
Ohio. 510 pp. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 32 Trichoptera Beaty, S.R. 2010. Taxonomy Document with Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels for Trichoptera
of North Carolina. NCDENR, DWR, Biological Assessment Unit. Floyd, M. A. 1995. The Larvae and Pupae of the Caddisfly Species Helicopsyche paralimnella Hamilton (Trichoptera: Helicopsychidae).
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 97 (1): 46-49. Floyd, M. A. 1995. Larvae of the Caddisfly Genus Oecetis (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) in North America. Ohio
Biological Survey. Bulletin New Series 10(3): 85 pp. Floyd, M. A., J. C. Morse ands. C. Harris. 1997. Aquatic Insects of Lake Jocassee Catchment, North and South Carolina. Part
II: Caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Six Additional Drainages, With a Description of a New Species. Journal Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society. 113 (3): 133-142. Glover, J. B. 1996.
Larvae of the Caddisfly Genera Triaenodes and Ylodes (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) in North America. Ohio Biol. Survey. Bull. New Series. Vol 11, No. 2. 89 pp. Glover, J.B. and M.A.
Floyd. 2004. Larvae of the Genus Nectopsyche (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) In Eastern North America, Including a New Species From North Carolina. JNABS 23 (3): 526-541. Hetrick, N. D.,
J. C. Morse and J. L. West. 1998. Description and Phylogeny of Four Limnephiloid Caddisflies (Trichoptera) Based on First Instars. Annals of the Entomology Society of America. 91(5):
497-514. Keiper, J. B. 1999. Morphology of Final Instar Ochrotrichia xena (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae). Entomology News. 110(4): 231-235. Mackay, R. J. 1978. Larval Identification
and Instar Association in Some Species of Hydropsyche and Cheumatopsyche (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 71: 499-509. Morse, J. C. and
D. R. Lenat. 2005. A New Species of Ceraclea (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) Preying on Snails. JNABS 24 (4): 872-879. Pescador, M., A. K. Rasmussen, and S. Harris, 2004. Identification
Manual of the Caddisflies (Trichoptera) Larvae of Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 136 pp. Schuster, G. A. and D. A. Etnier. 1978.
A Manual for the Identification of the Larvae of the Caddisfly Genera Hydropsyche Pictet and Symphitopsyche Ulmer in Eastern and Central North America Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae).
EPA Report 600/4-78-060 128 pp. Shefter, P. W. and G. B. Wiggins. 1986. A Systematic Study of the Nearctic Larvae of the Hydropsyche morosa Group (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae).
A Life Science Misc. Pub. Royal Ontario Museum. Smith, D. H. and D. M. Lehmkuhl. 1980. The Larvae of Four Hydropsyche Species with the Checkerboard Head Pattern (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae).
Quaestiones Entomologicae. 16:625-634. Stocks, C. and J. C. Morse. 200? (Unpublished). Key to Larvae of Eastern Neartic Rhyacophila Species and Species Groups. Clemson University.
Clemson, S.C. 4 pp. Sturkie, S. K. and J. C. Morse. 1998. Larvae of the Three Common North American Species of Phylocentropus (Trichoptera: Dipseudopsidae). Insecta Mundi. 12:
175-179. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 33 Vineyard, R.N., G.B. Wiggins, H.E.Frania & P.W. Schefter. 2005. The Caddisfly Genus Neophylax (Trichoptera:
Uenoidae). ROM Contributions in Science, 2. 141pp Whitlock, H. N. and J. C. Morse. 1994. Ceraclea enodis, a New Species of Sponge-Feeding Caddisfly (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) Previously
Misidentified. J. N. Am. Benthol Soc. 13(4): 580-591. Wiggins, G. B. 1996. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera), Second Edition. University of Toronto Press.
Toronto. 457 pp. Wiggins, G. B. 1977. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). University of Toronto Press. 402 pp. Wymer, D. A. and J. C. Morse. 2000. Larvae,
Pupa and Adults of Glossosoma nigrior (Trichoptera: Glossomatidae) With a Review of the Eastern North American Species of Glossosoma. Entomological News. 111(3): 149-158 Annelida
– Hirudinea and Oligochaeta Brinkhurst, R. H. 1986. Guide to the Freshwater Aquatic Microdrile Oligochaetes of North America. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 84: 259 pp. Hiltunen, J. K. and D. J. Klemm. 1980. A Guide to the Naididae (Annelida: Clitellata: Oligochaeta) of North America. EPA Report 600/4-80-031. Kathman, R. D.
and R. O. Brinkhurst. 1999. Guide to the Freshwater Oligochaetes of North America. Aquatic Resources Center. College Grove, Tenn. 264 pp. Klemm, D. J. (Ed.). 1985. A Guide to
the Freshwater Annelida (Polychaeta, Naidid and Tubificid Oligochaeta, and Hirudinea) of North America. Kendall/Hunt. Dubuque, Iowa. 198 pp. Klemm, D. J. 1995. Identification
Guide to the Freshwater Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) of Florida and Other Southern States. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Fla. 82 pp. Milligan, M.
R. 1997. Identification Manual for the Aquatic Oligochaeta of Florida. Volume 1: Freshwater Oligochaeta. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Fla. 187 pp.
N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2006. Taxonomy Document: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Coleptera and Oligochaeta and Odonata. N.C. Biological Assessment Unit. Raleigh,
NC. Stimpson, K. S., D. J. Klemm, and J. K. Hiltunen. 1982. A Guide to the Freshwater Tubificidae (Annelida: Clitellata: Oligochaeta) of North America. EPA Report 600/3-82-033.
Gastropoda – Aquatic Snails Burch, J. B. 1982. Freshwater Snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of North America. EPA Report 600/382-026. Wood, D. H. 1982. The Aquatic Snails (Gastropoda)
of the Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. SRO-NERP-10. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Aiken, S.C. 46pp. Pelecypoda – Clams and Mussels Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook
and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 34 Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and Key
to the Freshwater Bivalves of South Carolina. 69 pp. Britton, J. C. and S. L. H. Fuller. 1979. The Freshwater Bivalve Mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae, Corbiculidae) of the Savannah
River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. SRO-NERP-3. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Aiken, S.C. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. 2003. N.C. Mussel Atlas and Identification Key.
Raleigh, NC. Crustacea – Amphipods, Isopods and Crayfish Eversole, A.G. and Jones, D.R. 2004. Key to the crayfish of South Carolina. Clemson University. Clemson. SC. 43 pp. Hobbs,
H. H. 1976. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. EPA Report 600/OD-76002. 173 pp. Holsinger, J.R. 1972. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North
America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Williams, W.D. 1976. Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of North America. Biota
of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. II. Taxonomic References For Fish Identification Bennett, D. H. and R. W. McFarlane. 1983.
The Fishes of the Savannah River Plant: National Environmental Research Park. SRO-NERP-12. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Aiken, S.C. 152p. Cloutman, D. G. and L. L. Olmsted.
1979. The Fishes of Mecklenburg County, N.C. The Charlotte Nature Museum, Inc. and Duke Power Co. Charlotte, N.C. 80 p. Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill. 1978. How to Know the Freshwater
Fishes. W. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 215 p. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN. 681 p. Jenkins, R.E.
and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. America Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD. 1079 p. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister
and J. R. Stauffer, Jr., 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. N.C. State Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C. 867 p. Manooch III, C. S. and D. Raver, Jr. 1984.
Fisherman’s Guide to the Fishes of the Southeastern United States. N.C. State Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C. 362 p. Menhinick, E. F., 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of
North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, N.C. 227 p. Menhinick, E. F. and A. L. Braswell (Eds). 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina:
Part IV. A Reevaluation of the Freshwater Fishes. N.C. State Museum of Natural MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 35 History. Raleigh, N.C. 106
p. Murphy, B. R. and D. W. Willis (Eds). 1996. Fisheries Techniques, Second Edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD. 732 p. Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez,
L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Sixth Edition. American Fisheries
Society. Bethesda, MD. 386 p. Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University
of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 p. Rohde, F.C., Arndt, R.G., Foltz, J.W., and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina
Press. 430 p. MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 36 APPENDIX VI TOLERANCE VALUES FOR NORTH CAROLINA STREAM MACROINVERTEBRATES (NCDENR 2010)
Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus lineatus 2.4 Baetidae Acentrella alachua 3.0 Acentrella nadineae 1.9 Acentrella
parvula 4.8 Acentrella spp 2.5 Acentrella turbida 2.0 Acerpenna pygmaea 3.7 Baetis flavistriga 6.8 Baetis intercalaris 5.0 Baetis pluto 3.4 Baetis
spp 5.0 Baetis tricaudatus 1.5 Baetopus trishae 0.1 Callibaetis spp 9.2 Centroptilum spp 3.8 Cloeon spp 7.3 Diphetor hageni 1.1 Heterocloeon amplum
3.4 Heterocloeon curiosum 2.1 Heterocloeon spp 3.7 Iswaeon anoka 4.4 Baetidae Paracloeodes spp 8.0 Plauditus bimaculatus 6.0 Plauditus cestus 4.6
Plauditus dubius 2.2 Plauditus punctiventris 4.0 Procloeon spp 1.9 Pseudocloeon ephippiatum 3.5 Pseudocloeon frondale 4.6 Pseudocloeon propinquum 5.8 Pseudocloeon
spp 4.0 Baetiscidae Baetisca berneri 1.4 Baetisca carolina 4.2 Baetisca gibbera 1.4 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 37 APPENDIX
VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Ephemeroptera Baetiscidae Baetisca spp 3.2 Caenidae Amercaenis spp 1.0 Brachycercus spp 2.1 Caenis
spp 6.8 Cercobrachys spp 1.0 Ephemerellidae Attenella attenuata 1.1 Dannella lita 0.0 Dannella simplex 3.4 Dannella spp 0.1 Drunella allegheniensis
0.3 Drunella conestee 0.0 Drunella cornutella 0.0 Drunella lata 0.0 Drunella spp 0.1 Drunella tuberculata 0.0 Drunella walkeri 0.6 Drunella wayah
0.0 Ephemerella catawba Gr 0.0 Ephemerella dorothea 3.3 Ephemerella hispida 0.1 Ephemerella invaria Gr 2.6 Ephemerella rossi Gr 0.0 Ephemerella rotunda
1.8 Ephemerella spp 2.1 Eurylophella bicolor 4.8 Eurylophella coxalis 3.3 Eurylophella doris 7.0 Eurylophella funeralis 2.5 Eurylophella spp 4.0 Eurylophella
temporalis 4.8 Eurylophella verisimilis 3.9 Penelomax septentrionalis 2.1 Serratella carolina 0.0 Serratella serrata 1.4 Serratella serratoides 1.7 Telagonopsis
deficiens 2.6 Tsalia berneri 0.0 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 38 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance
Value Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Ephemera blanda 2.4 Ephemera guttalata 0.0 Ephemera spp 2.0 Hexagenia spp 4.4 Heptageniidae Cinygmula subaequalis 0.0 Epeorus
dispar 1.0 Epeorus pleuralis 1.5 Epeorus spp 1.6 Epeorus vitreous 1.2 Heptagenia julia 0.1 Heptagenia marginalis 2.2 Heptagenia pulla 2.2 Heptagenia
spp 1.9 Leucrocuta aphrodite 2.9 Leucrocuta spp 2.0 Maccaffertium carlsoni 2.1 Maccaffertium exiguum 3.8 Maccaffertium ithaca 3.0 Maccaffertium lenati 2.5
Maccaffertium mediopunctatum 4.2 Maccaffertium meririvulanum 0.5 Maccaffertium mexicanum 4.7 Maccaffertium modestum 5.7 Maccaffertium pudicum 2.1 Maccaffertium
terminatum 4.4 Maccaffertium vicarium 1.5 Macdunnoa brunnea 0.6 Rhithrogena amica 0.3 Rhithrogena exilis 0.0 Rhithrogena fuscifrons 0.3 Rhithrogena
spp 0.0 Rhithrogena uhari 0.0 Stenacron carolina 1.3 Stenacron interpunctatum 6.4 Stenacron pallidum 2.8 Stenonema femoratum 6.9 Isonychiidae Isonychia
spp 3.6 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 39 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae
Leptohyphes spp 1.4 Tricorythodes spp 5.0 Leptophlebiidae Habrophlebia vibrans 0.3 Habrophlebiodes spp 1.0 Leptophlebia spp 6.0 Paraleptophlebia spp 1.2 Metretopodidae
Siphloplecton spp 3.3 Neoephemeridae Neoephemera purpurea 1.5 Polymitarcyidae Ephoron leukon 1.5 Potamanthidae Anthopotamus spp 1.5 Siphlonuridae Siphlonurus
spp 6.0 Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia spp 3.3 Paracapnia angulata 0.1 Chloroperlidae Alloperla spp 1.0 Haploperla brevis 1.4 Suwallia spp 2.6 Sweltsa
marginata 0.2 Leuctridae Leuctra spp 1.5 Nemouridae Amphinemura spp 3.8 Prostoia spp 5.2 Shipsa rotunda 0.3 Soyedina spp 0.0 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla
spp 1.3 Perlidae Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 Acroneuria arenosa 2.4 Acroneuria carolinensis 1.2 Acroneuria evoluta 1.7 Acroneuria lycorias 2.1 Agnetina spp
1.1 Beloneuria spp 0.0 Eccoptura xanthenes 4.7 Neoperla spp 2.1 Paragnetina fumosa 3.6 Paragnetina ichusa/media 0.2 Paragnetina immarginata 1.1 Paragnetina
kansensis 1.9 Paragnetina spp 1.5 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 40 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance
Value Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta placida 2.9 Perlesta spp 2.9 Perlinella drymo 1.3 Perlinella ephyre 1.3 Perlodidae Clioperla clio 5.2 Cultus decisus
1.5 Diploperla duplicata 2.8 Helopicus subvarians 1.2 Isoperla bilineata 5.2 Isoperla holochlora 0.7 Isoperla namata 2.5 Isoperla Nr holochlora 0.0
Isoperla Nr slossonae 1.4 Isoperla orata 0.0 Isoperla similis 0.8 Isoperla slossonae 1.2 Isoperla spp 4.8 Isoperla transmarina 4.8 Malirekus hastatus
1.0 Remenus bilobatus 0.9 Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys biloba 0.0 Pteronarcys dorsata 2.4 Pteronarcys proteud 0.4 Pteronarcys spp 1.8 Taeniopterygidae Strophopteryx
spp 3.3 Taeniopteryx burksi 6.6 Taeniopteryx spp 6.0 Trichoptera Apataniidae Apatania spp 0.6 Brachycentridae Brachycentrus appalachia 1.0 Brachycentrus lateralis
1.9 Brachycentrus nigrosoma 3.1 Brachycentrus numerosus 1.7 Brachycentrus spinae 0.0 Brachycentrus spp 2.2 Micrasema bennetti 0.0 Micrasema charonis 1.0
Micrasema rickeri 0.0 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 41 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Trichoptera
Brachycentridae Micrasema wataga 2.2 Calamoceratidae Anisocentropus pyraloides 1.3 Heteroplectron americanum 2.0 Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus spp 4.8 Glossosomatidae
Agapetus spp 0.0 Glossosoma spp 1.4 Protoptila spp 2.3 Goeridae Goera calcarata 1.0 Goera spp 0.7 Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis 0.0 Helicopsyche
paralimnella 0.0 Hydropsychidae Arctopsyche irrorata 0.0 Ceratopsyche alhedra 0.0 Ceratopsyche bifida 2.2 Ceratopsyche bronta 2.3 Ceratopsyche macleodi
0.7 Ceratopsyche morosa 2.3 Ceratopsyche slossonae 0.0 Ceratopsyche sparna 2.5 Ceratopsyche ventura 0.1 Cheumatopsyche spp 6.6 Diplectrona modesta 2.3 Hydropsyche
betteni 7.9 Hydropsyche decalda 3.2 Hydropsyche demora 2.6 Hydropsyche incommoda 4.6 Hydropsyche phalerata 3.7 Hydropsyche rossi 4.8 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche
scalaris 2.6 Hydropsyche venularis 5.1 Macrostemum spp 3.4 Parapsyche cardis 0.0 Hydroptilidae Hydroptila spp 6.5 Leucotrichia pictipes 4.6 Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp 1.0 Leptoceridae Ceraclea ancylus 2.8 Ceraclea maculata 6.2 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 42 APPENDIX VI
Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Trichoptera Leptoceridae Ceraclea spp 2.2 Ceraclea transversa 2.8 Mystacides sepulchralus 2.6 Nectopsyche
candida 6.5 Nectopsyche exquisita 4.3 Nectopsyche pavida 3.9 Nectopsyche spp 2.9 Oecetis georgia 3.6 Oecetis nocturna 5.0 Oecetis persimillis 4.6 Oecetis
scala Gr 2.7 Oecetis spp 5.1 Setodes spp 0.0 Triaenodes ignitus 4.8 Triaenodes injusta 2.7 Triaenodes melacus 4.1 Triaenodes perna/helo 3.8 Triaenodes
spp 4.1 Limnephilidae Hydatophylax argus 2.4 Ironoquia punctatissima 6.7 Pycnopsyche gentilis 1.8 Pycnopsyche guttifer 2.2 Pycnopsyche lepida 3.9 Pycnopsyche
scabripennis 2.5 Pycnopsyche spp 2.5 Molannidae Molanna blenda 1.6 Molanna tryphena 2.4 Odontoceridae Psilotreta spp 0.5 Philopotamidae Chimarra spp
3.3 Dolophilodes spp 1.0 Wormaldia spp 2.4 Phryganeidae Oligostomis pardalis 6.2 Ptilostomis spp 5.9 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus 6.8 Neureclipsis
spp 4.0 Nyctiophylax celta 0.7 Nyctiophylax moestus 3.8 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 43 APPENDIX VI Order Family
Latin Name Tolerance Value Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax nephophilus 0.6 Nyctiophylax spp 0.8 Polycentropus spp 3.1 Psychomyiidae Lype diversa
3.9 Psychomyia flavida 3.0 Psychomyia nomada 2.0 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila acutiloba 0.0 Rhyacophila atrata 0.0 Rhyacophila carolina 0.4 Rhyacophila fenestra/ledra
4.6 Rhyacophila formosa 0.1 Rhyacophila fuscula 1.6 Rhyacophila nigrita 0.0 Rhyacophila torva 1.5 Sericostomatidae Fattigia pele 0.0 Uenoidae Neophylax
consimilis 0.3 Neophylax fuscus 0.0 Neophylax mitchelli 0.0 Neophylax oligius 2.4 Neophylax ornatus 1.3 Neophylax spp 1.6 Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus
basalis 0.5 Helichus lithophilus 3.0 Helichus spp 4.1 Dytiscidae Agabus spp 8.9 Bidessonotus spp 4.0 Celina spp 8.0 Copelatus spp 10.0 Coptotomus spp
8.5 Cybister fimbriolatus 8.5 Hydaticus bimarginatus 9.1 Hydroporus mellitus 4.0 Hydroporus spp 7.0 Ilybius spp. 5.0 Laccophilus spp 9.8 Lioporeus spp
4.0 Neoporus mellitus 3.9 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 44 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Dytiscidae
Neoporus spp 5.0 Rhantus spp 3.6 Stictotarsus griseostriatus 4.9 Stictotarsus spp 4.9 Thermonectus spp 2.0 Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus 6.8 Dubiraphia
spp 5.5 Dubiraphia vittata 5.0 Macronychus glabratus 4.7 Microcylloepus pusillus 3.3 Optioservus ovalis 2.1 Optioservus spp 2.1 Oulimnius latiusculus
1.9 Oulimnius spp 1.9 Promoresia elegans 2.1 Promoresia spp 3.1 Promoresia tardella 0.0 Stenelmis crenata 7.8 Stenelmis spp 5.6 Gyrinidae Dineutus
spp 5.0 Gyrinus spp 5.8 Haliplidae Haliplus spp 8.7 Peltodytes lengi 8.0 Peltodytes spp 8.4 Helodidae Scirtes spp 7.5 Hydrophilidae Anacaena spp
1.0 Berosus spp 8.8 Derallus altus 2.0 Enochrus spp 8.5 Helophorus spp 7.6 Hydrobiomorpha casta 0.0 Hydrobius spp 2.0 Hydrochus spp 6.6 Laccobius
spp 6.5 Sperchopsis tessellates 4.4 Tropisternus spp 9.3 Noteridae Hydrocanthus spp 7.1 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 45
APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Coleoptera Psephenidae Ectopria nervosa 4.3 Psephenus herricki 2.3 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus
bicolor 2.4 Diptera Blephariceridae Blepharicera spp 0.0 Ceratopogonidae Alluaudomyia spp 6.0 Atrichopogon spp 6.1 Culicoides spp 8.6 Palpomyia (Complex)
5.7 Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis 8.5 Chaoborus spp 8.5 Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 2.0 Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.4 Ablabesmyia peleensis 9.7 Ablabesmyia
rhamphe 6.8 Ablabesmyia simpsoni 4.0 Ablabesmyia spp 7.2 Apedilum spp 1.0 Apsectrotanypus johnsoni 0.1 Axarus spp 2.0 Brillia flavifrons 3.9 Brillia
spp 5.7 Brundiniella eumorpha 2.0 Cardiocladius spp 6.2 Chironomus spp 9.3 Cladopelma spp 3.5 Cladotanytarsus spp 4.0 Clinotanypus pinguis 8.7 Clinotanypus
spp 7.8 Coelotanypus concinnus 8.0 Coelotanypus spp 8.0 Coelotanypus tricolor 8.0 Corynoneura spp 5.7 Cricotopus annulator Gr 8.4 Cricotopus bicinctus
8.7 Cricotopus cylindraceus 2.3 Cricotopus fugax 5.6 Cricotopus infuscatus Gr 9.1 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 46 APPENDIX VI
Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus spp 6.0 Cricotopus sylvestris Gr 9.9 Cricotopus vieriensis Gr 5.4 Cricotopus/Orthocladius
Group 9.9 Cryptochironomus blarina Gr 8.5 Cryptochironomus fulvus 6.7 Cryptochironomus spp 6.4 Cryptotendipes spp 6.2 Demicryptochironomus spp 2.2 Diamesa spp
6.6 Dicrotendipes fumidus 8.8 Dicrotendipes modestus 9.4 Dicrotendipes neomodestus 7.9 Dicrotendipes nervosus 9.5 Dicrotendipes simpsoni 9.8 Dicrotendipes spp
7.2 Diplocladius cultriger 8.0 Djalmabatista pulchra 5.0 Endochironomus nigricans 7.8 Endochironomus spp 7.8 Epoicocladius spp 0.1 Eiefferiella brehmi Gr 2.5
Eukiefferiella brevicalcar 2.9 Eukiefferiella claripennis 6.2 Eukiefferiella devonica Gr 3.4 Eukiefferiella gracei Gr 4.4 Eukiefferiella spp 3.3 Glyptotendipes spp
8.6 Goeldichironomus holoprasinus 10.0 Harnischia spp 9.1 Heleniella spp 0.0 Heterotrissocladius spp 5.2 Hydrobaenus spp 9.2 Kiefferulus dux 10.0 Labrundinia
pilosella 6.2 Labrundinia spp 6.2 Labrundinia virescens 4.3 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 47 APPENDIX VI Order Family
Latin Name Tolerance Value Diptera Chironomidae Larsia spp 6.5 Lipiniella spp 2.5 Lopescladius spp 1.2 Microchironomus spp 5.0 Micropsectra spp 2.4 Microtendipes
pedellus Gr 3.9 Microtendipes rydalensis Gr 1.1 Microtendipes spp 4.6 Nanocladius B 6.5 Nanocladius downesi 2.4 Nanocladius spp 7.4 Natarsia spp 9.6 Nilotanypusfimbriatus
4.1 Nilotanypus spp 4.1 Nilothauma spp 5.1 Odontomesa fulva 4.9 Orthocladius (Euorthocladius) spp 5.3 Orthocladius clarkei Gr 5.6 Orthocladius dorenus 5.8 Orthocladius
dubitatus Gr 9.0 Orthocladius lignicola 5.4 Orthocladius luteipes/thienemann 6.3 Orthocladius nigritus Gr 3.8 Orthocladius obumbratus Gr 8.1 Orthocladius robacki 6.4 Orthocladius
spp 4.4 Pagastia spp 1.8 Pagastiella ostansa 1.5 Parachaetocladius abnobaeus 0.7 Parachironomus monochromus 9.6 Parachironomus pectinatellae 6.5 Parachironomus spp
8.0 Paracladopelma nereis 0.9 Paracladopelma spp 6.3 Paracladopelma undine 4.5 Parakiefferiella spp 4.8 Parakiefferiella triqueta 5.2 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard
Operating Procedures June 2014 48 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name ToleranceValue Diptera Chironomidae Paralauterborniella nigrohalteralis 4.9 Paramerina
spp 4.1 Parametriocnemus spp 3.9 Paratanytarsus spp 8.0 Paratendipes spp 5.6 Pentaneura inconspicua 5.0 Phaenopsectra obediens Gr 6.6 Phaenopsectra punctipes Gr 7.1
Phaenopsectra spp 6.5 Polypedilum aviceps 3.6 Polypedilum fallax 6.5 Polypedilum flavum 5.7 Polypedilum halterale Gr 7.4 Polypedilum illinoense Gr 8.7 Polypedilum laetum
2.2 Polypedilum scalaenum Gr 8.5 Polypedilum spp 5.8 Potthastia gaedi 2.4 Potthastia longimanus 8.4 Potthastia spp 6.4 Procladius spp 8.8 Prodiamesa olivacea
8.8 Psectrocladius spp 3.6 Psectrotanypus dyari 10.0 Psectrotanypus spp 10.0 Pseudochironomus spp 4.9 Pseudorthocladius spp 1.5 Rheocricotopus robacki 7.9 Rheocricotopus

spp 4.7 Rheocricotopus tuberculatus 4.7 Rheopelopia spp 0.3 Rheosmittia spp 6.8 Rheotanytarsus spp 6.5 Robackia claviger 1.9 Robackia demeijerei 4.3 Saetheria tylus
7.3 Stelechomyia perpulchra 4.0 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 49 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value
Diptera Chironomidae Stempellina spp 0.0 Stempellinella spp 5.6 Stenochironomus spp 6.3 Stictochironomus spp 5.4 Sublettea coffmani 1.4 Sympotthastia spp 4.5 Synorthocladius
spp 4.2 Tanypus spp 9.2 Tanytarsus spp 6.6 Thienemaniella spp 6.4 Thienemaniella xena 8.0 Thienemanimyia Gr 8.4 Tribelos fuscicorne 6.8 Tribelos jucundum
5.7 Tribelos spp 6.4 Tvetenia bavarica Gr 3.6 Tvetenia discoloripes Gr 3.6 Tvetenia spp 3.6 Unniella multivirga 0.0 Xenochironomus xenolabis 6.6 Xylotopus par
6.1 Zavrelia spp 6.1 Zavrelimyia spp 8.6 Culicidae Anopheles spp 8.6 Culex spp 10.0 Dixidae Dixa spp 2.5 Dixella Indiana 4.9 Dolichopodidae Dolichopodidae
9.6 Empididae Hemerodromia spp 7.6 Ephydridae Ephydra 8.0 Ephydridae Notophila spp 8.0 Muscidae Limnophora spp 8.4 Psychodidae Psychoda spp 9.6 Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha clavipes 5.0 Rhagionidae Atherix lantha 1.8 Atherix spp 0.9 Sciomyzidae Sepedon spp 8.0 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures
June 2014 50 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Diptera Simuliidae Cnephia ornithophila 4.0 Prosimulium mixtum 3.6 Prosimulium spp
4.5 Simulium spp 4.9 Simulium venustum 7.3 Simulium vittatum 9.1 Stratiomyidae Nemotelus spp 5.0 Stratiomys spp 8.1 Syrphidae Eristalis spp 9.7 Tabanidae
Chrysops spp 6.7 Tabanus spp 8.5 Tanyderidae Protoplasa fitchii 4.0 Tipulidae Antocha spp 4.4 Dicranota spp 0.0 Erioptera spp 4.6 Hexatoma spp 3.5 Limonia
spp 9.3 Pilaria spp 7.0 Polymeda/Ormosia spp 6.5 Pseudolimnophila spp 6.2 Tipula spp 9.5 Heteroptera Belostomatidae Belostoma spp 9.5 Corixidae Sigara spp
8.7 Nepidae Ranatra spp 6.3 Lepidoptera Pyralidae Petrophila spp 3.6 Megaloptera Corydalidae Chauliodes pectinicornis 9.6 Corydalus cornutus 5.2 Nigronia fasciatus
6.1 Nigronia serricornis 4.6 Sialidae Sialis spp 7.0 Neuroptera Sisyridae Climacia areolaris 6.5 Climacia spp 6.5 Odonata Aeshnidae Basiaeschna janata
7.1 Boyeria grafiana 3.8 Boyeria vinosa 5.8 Nasiaeschna pentacantha 6.6 Calopterygidae Calopteryx spp 7.5 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures
June 2014 51 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Odonata Calopterygidae Hetaerina spp 4.9 Coenagrionidae Argia sedula 8.5 Argia spp
8.3 Enallagma spp 8.5 Ischnura spp 9.5 Cordulegasteridae Cordulegaster maculata 5.7 Cordulegaster spp 5.7 Corduliidae Epicordulia princeps 7.3 Epicordulia
spp 5.6 Helocordulia spp 5.8 Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.3 Neurocordulia spp 5.3 Neurocordulia virginiensis 1.1 Somatochlora spp 8.9 Tetragoneuria spp 8.0 Gomphidae
Dromogomphus spp 5.6 Gomphus spiniceps 6.1 Gomphus spp 5.9 Hagenius brevistylus 4.4 Lanthus parvulus 0.6 Lanthus spp 1.6 Lanthus vernalis 0.8 Ophiogomphus
spp 5.9 Progomphus obscurus 8.2 Stylogomphus albistylus 5.0 Lestidae Archilestes grandis 8.0 Lestes spp 9.4 Libellulidae Erythemis simplicicollis 9.7 Libellula
spp 9.4 Pachydiplax longipennis 9.6 Perithemis spp 9.4 Plathemis lydia 9.8 Macromiidae Didymops transversa 2.4 Macromia georgiana 6.2 Macromia spp 6.2
Arachnoidea Hydracarina Hydracarina 5.5 Crustacea Crangonyctidae Crangonyx serratus 7.2 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 52 APPENDIX
VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Crustacea Crangonyctidae Crangonyx spp 7.2 Gammaridae Gammarus fasciatus 7.0 Gammarus spp 7.1 Talitridae
Hyallela spp 7.2 Cambaridae Cambarus spp 7.5 Orconectes spp 2.7 Procambarus spp 9.3 Palaemonidae Palaemonetes paludosus 6.1 Palaemonetes spp 8.7 Asellidae
Asellus spp 4.2 Caecidotea spp (Streams) 8.4 Lirceus spp 7.4 Bivalvia Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 6.6 Sphaeriidae Pisidium spp 6.6 Sphaerium spp 7.2
Unionidae Elliptio complanata 4.7 Elliptio lanceolata 2.4 Elliptio spp 4.9 Gastropoda Ancylidae Ferrissia spp 6.6 Laevapex fuscus 6.6 Hydrobiidae Amnicola
limosa 4.1 Amicola spp 4.1 Somatogyrus spp 6.3 Lymnaeidae Fossaria modicella 6.0 Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 Stagnicola spp 8.1 Physidae Physa spp 8.7
Planorbidae Helisoma anceps 6.6 Menetus dilatatus 7.6 Pleuroceridae Elimia spp 2.7 Leptoxis spp 1.7 Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 5.8 Hirudinea Erpobdellidae
Erpobdella/Mooreobdella 8.6 Mooreobdella tetragon 9.4 Glossiphoniidae Desserobdella phalera 6.6 Gloiobdella elongata 9.1 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating
Procedures June 2014 53 APPENDIX VI Order Family Latin Name Tolerance Value Hirudinea Glossiphoniidae Helobdella triserialis 9.3 Placobdella papillifera
8.2 Placobdella parasitica 8.9 Placobdella spp 9.0 Oligochaeta Cambarinicolidae Pterodrilus alcicornis 5.0 Enchytraeidae Fridericia spp 9.8 Haplotaxidae Haplotaxis
gordioides 3.6 Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae 7.0 Megadrile Megadrile Oligochaete 9.0 Opisthopora 9.0 Naididae Dero spp 9.8 Nais spp 8.7 Pristina spp
7.7 Slavina appendiculata 8.4 Stylaria lacustris 8.4 Tubificidae Aulodrilus pluriseta 5.6 Branchiura sowerbyi 8.6 Ilyodrilus templetoni 9.3 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
9.4 Limnodrilus spp 8.5 Spirosperma nikolskyi 6.0 Tubifex tubifex 9.9 Nemertea Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma graecens 6.6 Turbellia Planariidae Cura foremanii 5.5
Dugesia tigrina 7.1 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 54 APPENDIX VII MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014
55 APPENDIX VII Contunied MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 56 APPENDIX VIII TOLERANCE RATINGS AND ADULT TROPHIC GUILD ASSIGNMENTS, AND YOUNG-OFYEAR
(YOY) CUT-OFF LENGTHS FOR FRESHWATER FISHES OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (Cloutman and Olmsted 1979, Menhinick 1991, NCDENR 2013) Family / Species Tolerance Adult
YOY Rating Trophic Guild (<TL, MM) Amiidae Amia calva (Bowfin) Tolerant Piscivore 200 Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata (American Eel) Intermediate Piscivore 100 Aphredoderidae
Aphredoderus sayanus (Pirate Perch) Intermediate Insectivore 50 Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio (River Carpsucker) Intermediate Omnivore 100 Carpiodes cyprinus (Quillback)
Intermediate Omnivore 100 Catostomus commersonii (White Sucker) Tolerant Omnivore 100 Erimyzon oblongus (Creek Chubsucker) Intermediate Omnivore 100 Ictiobus bubalus
(Smallmouth Buffalo) Intermediate Omnivore 100 Ictiobus cyprinellus (Bigmouth Buffalo) Intermediate Insectivore 100 Moxostoma collapsum (Notchlip Redhorse) Intermediate Insectivore
100 Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Shorthead Redhorse) Intermediate Insectivore 100 Moxostoma pappillosum (V-Lip Redhorse) Intermediate Insectivore 100 Scartomyzon sp. Cl. lachneri
(Brassy Jumprock) Intermediate Insectivore 100 Scartomyzon rupiscartes (Striped Jumprock) Intermediate Insectivore 100 Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris (Rock Bass)
Intolerant Piscivore 50 Lepomis auritus (Redbreast Sunfish) Tolerant Insectivore 50 Lepomis cyanellus (Green Sunfish) Tolerant Insectivore 50 Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed)
Intermediate Insectivore 50 Lepomis gulosus (Warmouth) Intermediate Insectivore 50 Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) Intermediate Insectivore 50 Lepomis microlophus
(Redear Sunfish) Intermediate Insectivore 50 Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass) Intermediate Piscivore 100 Pomoxis annularis (White Crappie) Intermediate Piscivore
75 Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black Crappie) Intermediate Piscivore 75 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 57 APPENDIX VIII Family / Species
Tolerance Adult YOY Rating Trophic Guild (<TL, MM) Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad) Intermediate Omnivore 100 Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad) Intermediate
Omnivore 100 Cyprinidae Carassius auratus (Goldfish) Tolerant Omnivore 50 Clinostomus funduloides (Rosyside Dace) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Cyprinella analostana
(Satinfin Shiner) Tolerant Insectivore 40 Cyprinella chloristia (Greenfin Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Cyprinella lutrensis (Red Shiner) Tolerant Insectivore
30 Cyprinella nivea (Whitefin Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Cyprinus carpio (Common Carp) Tolerant Omnivore 150 Hybognathus regius (Eastern Silvery Minnow)
Intermediate Herbivore 50 Hybopsis hypsinotus (Highback Chub) Intolerant Insectivore 40 Nocomis leptocephalus (Bluehead Chub) Intermediate Omnivore 50 Notemigonus
crysoleucas (Golden Shiner) Tolerant Omnivore 75 Notropis alborus (Whitemouth Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Notropis altipinnis (Highfin Shiner) Intermediate
Insectivore 40 Notropis chiliticus (Redlip Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Notropis chlorocephalus (Greenhead Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Notropis
cummingsae (Dusky Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Notropis hudsonius (Spottail Shiner) Intermediate Omnivore 50 Notropis petersoni (Coastal Shiner) Intermediate
Insectivore 40 Notropis procne (Swallowtail Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Notropis scepticus (Sandbar Shiner) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Semotilis atromaculatus
(Creek Chub) Tolerant Insectivore 50 Esocidae Esox americanus (Redfin Pickerel) Intermediate Piscivore 100 Fundulidae Fundulus rathbuni (Speckled Killifish) Intermediate
Insectivore 40 Ictaluridae Ameiurus brunneus (Snail Bullhead) Intermediate Insectivore 75 Ameiurus catus (White Catfish) Tolerant Omnivore 100 Ameiurus melas (Black
Bullhead) Tolerant Insectivore 75 Ameiurus natalis (Yellow Bullhead) Tolerant Omnivore 75 Ameiurus nebulosus (Brown Bullhead) Tolerant Omnivore 75 Ameiurus platycephalus
(Flat Bullhead) Tolerant Insectivore 75 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 58 APPENDIX VIII Family / Species Tolerance Adult YOY
Rating Trophic Guild (<TL, MM) Ictalurus punctatus (Channel Catfish) Intermediate Omnivore 100 Noturis insignis (Margined Madtom) Intermediate Insectivore 40
Pylodictis olivaris (Flathead Catfish) Intermediate Piscivore 150 Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus (Longnose Gar) Tolerant Piscivore 200 Moronidae Morone americana
(White Perch) Intermediate Piscivore 75 Morone chrysops (White Bass) Intermediate Piscivore 200 Morone saxatalis (Striped Bass) Intermediate Piscivore 175
Percidae Etheostoma collis (Carolina Darter) Intermediate Insectivore 30 Etheostoma flabellare (Fantail Darter) Intermediate Insectivore 30 Etheostoma fusiforme
(Swamp Darter) Intermediate Insectivore 30 Etheostoma olmstedi (Tessellated Darter) Intermediate Insectivore 40 Percina crassa (Piedmont Darter) Intolerant Insectivore
40 Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch) Intermediate Piscivore 80 Poecilidae Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish) Tolerant Insectivore 20 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment
Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 59 APPENDIX IX EXPECTATIONS OF THE NUMBER OF TOTAL FISH SPECIES BASED UPON DRAINAGE AREA SIZE (SQUARE MILES) IN THE CATAWBA, BROAD, NEW,
AND YADKIN RIVER BASINS (NCDENR 2001b) Inner Piedmont, Foothills, and Eastern Mountains, Metric No. 1 - 90% Maximum Species Richness 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 10 100 1000 Drainage
Area (Log10) No. species/600 ft. reach of stream Reference Samples Non Reference Samples Line 5 Line 3 Line 1 5 3 1 Y = 14.3*LogX+2.4 Y = 9.5*LogX+1.6 Y = 4.8*LogX+0.8 MCWQP
Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 60 APPENDIX IX EXPECTATIONS OF THE NUMBER OF TOTAL DARTER SPECIES BASED UPON DRAINAGE AREA SIZE (SQUARE MILES) IN
THE CATAWBA, BROAD, NEW, AND YADKIN RIVER BASINS (NCDENR 2001b) Inner Piedmont, Foothills, and Eastern Mountains, Metric No. 3 - 90% Maximum Species Richness 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 10 100
1000 Drainage Area (mi2) No. of species/600 ft. reach of stream Reference Samples Non Reference Samples Line 5 Line 3 Line 1 5 3 1 Y=2.4*LogX Y=1.6*LogX Y=0.8*LogX If d.a. >= 70 mi2,
then >=3 sp. = 5 MCWQP Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 61 APPENDIX X MECKLENBURG COUNTY BIOASSESSMENT COLLECTION FORM FIELD COLLECTION
INFORMATION STREAM NAME EDMS ID# SAMPLE STATION ID STREAM LOCATION SAMPLE DATE / / COLLECTORS INITIALS FISH BENTHIC
COLLECTION TEAM LEADER SIGNATURE & DATE TAXONOMIC INFORMATION/TRACKING EDMS ID# STORAGE LOCATION STORAGE DATE / / PRIMARY TAXONOMIST Note: Ten percent of all samples
must be Q/C TAXONOMIST verified by a quality control taxonomist. PROCESSED/VERIFIED SAMPLE LOCATION SIGNATURE & DATE APPENDIX XI MECKLENBURG COUNTY WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MCWQP
Stream Bioassessment Standard Operating Procedures June 2014 62 STREAM BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOASSESSMENT SAMPLES SAMPLING IDENTIFICATIO STREAM SITE DATE COLLECTORS
(initials) EDMS REPORT # DATE TAXONOM BEGIN END
CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 1 of 15 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE CMANN YSI Multi-probe Calibration
and Maintenance Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Ryan Spidel Sr. Environmental Specialist Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental
Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program
Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page:
2 of 15 Standard Operating Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved Date 1.0 3/3/07 Olivia Hutchins Original Draft Jeff Price 7/27/07
1.1 1/1/08 Olivia Edwards Modified to include the “sock” calibration method. Jeff Price 1/1/08 1.2 1/1/09 Jeff Price Formatting Changes – minor. Jeff Price 1/1/09 1.3 4/8/09 Olivia
Edwards Significant revisions include: lab/field calibrations distinctions; air-saturated water DO calibration; expanded pH tolerance limits, new model sondes; calibration intervals;
expanded Lake sonde calibration section Jeff Price 4/8/09 1.4 3/5/10 Olivia Edwards Revision to separate the CMANN YSI calibration from the Lake YSI calibration procedure. No significant
procedure changes to the CMANN calibration implemented. Calibration sheet appendix, DO table Appendix removed and all calibration data referenced to the CMANN Calibration Database.
Jeff Price 3/2/10 1.5 6/12/12 Olivia Edwards Revision to update the conductivity calibration procedures. 1.6 9/29/14 Ryan Spidel Revision to remove field post-deployment verification
and calibration. Minor procedural changes made throughout. Jeff Price 9/29/14 1.6 9/24/15 Ryan Spidel Minor revisions concerning the new CMANN database. Caroline Burgett 9/23/15 CMANN
SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 3 of 15 1.0 Scope and Applicability 1.1 This SOP is applicable to the maintenance and calibration of YSI multiprobe instruments
associated with the Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN). 2.0 Summary of Method 2.1 Maintenance and calibration is conducted on long-term deployed YSI
multiprobe instruments in the laboratory or field. Maintenance and calibration occurs approximately every three weeks to ensure the collection of reliable data. 3.0 Health and Safety
Warnings 3.1 Surface water sampling poses a number of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and occasional
contact with wild animals. Caution should always be exercised and personal safety considerations must be considered paramount. 3.2 Universal precautions should be exercised when exposed
to urban surface waters with unknown potential for contamination. Always wear eye protection and gloves when sampling and decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer.
4.0 Interferences 4.1 A primary interference is improper calibration of the multiprobe instrument. Great care must be exercised to ensure a correct calibration of an instrument
so that data collected is accurate and reliable. 5.0 Equipment and Supplies 5.1 The following equipment is generally needed for Laboratory Maintenance and Calibration of YSI multiprobe
instruments: • Eye protection • YSI 650 hand held unit • Cable • Tall calibration/storage cup • Conductivity Standard (1000 uS/cm) • pH standards (4.0, 7.0, and 10.0) • Turbidity Standards
(12.7 NTU, 126 NTU and 1000 NTU) • Deionized water wash bottle and carboy • C cell batteries • Phillips screwdriver CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 4 of
15 • DO membrane kit (membranes, KCl solution, and o-rings) • Bristle brush • ChemWipes • Q-tips • Turbidity and Optic DO wipers, wiper pads, and allen wrench • Replacement probes (Cond/temp,
DO, pH, and turbidity) • Probe o-ring lubricant • Adjustable wrench • Container filled with air-saturated tap water; air-stone 6.0 Laboratory Post-Deployment Verification and Calibration
of YSI Multiprobe (6820, 6820V2, and 6600) for Long-term Deployment During transport and while in the laboratory awaiting post-deployment verification or calibration, all sondes should
be stored using a transport cup filled with a small amount of water. 6.1 Preparation 6.1.1 Ensure that you have fresh Standard solutions for post-deployment verification and calibration
of the multiprobe. Replace conductivity, pH and turbidity Standard solutions as directed by the Water Quality Database (WQD). Swap intervals are defined by the number of uses and/or
days the standard has been in service at a work station (see table below). Standard Solution Max Use Max Age pH 4 10 10 pH 7 30 10 pH 10 10 10 Turbidity 12.7 NTU 30 10 Turbidity 126
NTU 30 10 Turbidity 1000 NTU 10 10 Conductivity 200 µS 20 10 Conductivity 1000 µS 10 10 6.1.2 To replace Standard solutions: a. Discard the old Rinse solution into a sink with running
water to help neutralize the old solution. b. Pour the active Standard solution into the corresponding Rinse bottle. c. Pour new Standard solution from the stock bottle into the Standard
bottle. CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 5 of 15 d. Record the replenishment in the WQD by selecting the correct work station, solution replaced, and the
lot number used. Note: Record initials and date on new stock bottles of standard when opened. Do not use out of date standards and report any expired standards to the equipment
maintenance coordinator. 6.1.3 Secure access to the CMANN Calibration and Maintenance Database. Note: All laboratory and field calibration and maintenance data will be recorded in
the CMANN portion of the WQD. If access to the database is unavailable during a field calibration, calibration and maintenance data will be recorded temporarily on field data sheets,
then transferred to the CMANN Database ASAP. Clearly labeled fields are available for all relevant data. 6.1.4 Post-Deployment Verification (sonde check-in) must occur within 24 hours
from the time the multiprobe was removed from the field. Multiprobe calibration must occur within 48 hours prior to deployment. 6.1.5 The sonde may need to be cleaned prior to post-deployment
verification to prevent contamination of the standards. If cleaning is required, remove the transport cup and rinse the probes with tap water. Avoid cleaning the turbidity and DO
optics, DO membrane (when the sonde has a 6562 DO probe) pH probe bulb, and conductivity anodes. A brush may be used to remove algae, sediment or debris build-up from the probes.
6.2 Dissolved Oxygen Post-Deployment Verification 6.2.1 Remove the transport cup. If the sonde has a 6562 DO probe, observe the condition of the DO membrane. In the CMANN database,
document if any air bubbles or wrinkles are present. If an air bubble or wrinkle is present, the DO membrane should be replaced after all parameters have been checked. 6.2.2 Install
a sonde guard. Connect the YSI 650 hand held unit to the multiprobe sonde. Submerge the sonde in the air-saturated water bucket. 6.2.3 Turn on the YSI 650 hand held unit by pressing
the Power button. The unit will power up to the 650 Main Menu. 6.2.4 Using the cursor keys to navigate, select Sonde Run and press Enter. 6.2.5 Allow the instrument to stabilize
for several minutes (≥2 minutes). Enter the temperature, percent saturation, DO reading, DO charge (for 6562 DO probe only), and barometric pressure from the handheld into the CMANN
database. The CMANN Database will provide the expected DO. The CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 6 of 15 actual DO must be within +/- 0.5 mg/L from the
expected DO reading for DO field data to be accepted. 6.3 Conductivity Post-Deployment Verification 6.3.1 Remove the sonde guard. Rinse the sonde sensors with tap water and clean
the outside of the probe with a brush (see 6.1.5). Do not use a brush to clean the conductivity anodes. Then rinse the sensors with deionized water in the calibration cup. 6.3.2
Pour the conductivity 200 uS/cm Rinse solution into the calibration cup. Insert the sonde into the calibration cup. Shake the calibration cup and sonde together to swirl the contents.
6.3.3 Remove the sonde from the calibration cup and shake off any excess Rinse solution. Do not rinse the sonde. 6.3.4 Pour the conductivity 200 uS/cm Rinse solution back into the
labeled container. Pour the conductivity 200 uS/cm Standard solution into the calibration cup. 6.3.5 Insert the sonde into the calibration cup. Shake the calibration cup and sonde
together to swirl the contents. Allow the instrument to stabilize for a few minutes. Enter the conductivity value into the CMANN database. The conductivity value must read 200 +/-
20 units for conductivity field data to be accepted. Pour the conductivity 200 uS/cm Standard solution back in to the labeled container. 6.4 pH Post-Deployment Verification 6.4.1
Rinse the sonde sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. 6.4.2 Pour the pH 7.0 Rinse solution into the calibration cup. Insert the sonde into the calibration cup. Shake
the calibration cup and sonde together to swirl the contents. 6.4.3 Remove the sonde from the calibration cup and shake off any excess Rinse solution. Do not rinse the sonde.
6.4.4 Pour the pH 7.0 Rinse solution back into the labeled container. Pour the pH 7.0 Standard solution into the calibration cup. 6.4.5 Insert the sonde into the calibration cup.
Shake the calibration cup and sonde together to swirl the contents. Allow the instrument to stabilize for a few minutes. Enter the pH value into the CMANN database.
The pH value must read 7.0 +/- 0.3 units for pH field data to be accepted. Pour the pH 7.0 Standard solution back into the labeled container. CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date:
September 24, 2015 Page: 7 of 15 6.5 Turbidity Post-Deployment Verification 6.5.1 Rinse the sonde sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. 6.5.2 Pour the turbidity 126
NTU Rinse solution into the calibration cup. Insert the sonde into the calibration cup. DO NOT shake the calibration cup (bubbles can obstruct the turbidity probe optic).
6.5.3 Remove the sonde from the calibration cup and shake off any excess Rinse solution. Do not rinse the sonde. 6.5.4 Pour the 126 NTU Rinse solution back into the labeled container.
Slowly pour the 126 NTU Standard solution into the calibration cup trying to prevent aeration of the Standard. 6.5.5 Insert the sonde into the calibration cup. DO NOT shake the calibration
cup (bubbles can obstruct the turbidity probe optic). Select Clean Optics. Allow the instrument to stabilize for a few minutes. Enter the turbidity value into the CMANN database.
The turbidity value must read 126 +/- 7 NTUs for turbidity field data to be accepted. Pour the turbidity 126 NTU Standard solution back into the labeled container. 6.6 Sonde Maintenance
6.6.1 Remove the turbidity and Optic DO wipers. Replace the wiper pads. Refer to the YSI Environmental Operations Manual for more information. Reattach the turbidity and Optic DO
wipers. 6.6.2 Thoroughly clean the probes using the bristle brush, ChemWipes,Q-tips, or a mild cleaner (Greenworks). Rinse the sonde with deionized water. 6.6.3 Replace the DO membrane
and allow to burn in overnight before calibrating the sonde. Replace any faulty sensors. Refer to the YSI Environmental Operations Manual for more information. 6.7 Dissolved Oxygen
Calibration 6.7.1 Remove the transport cup. If the sonde has a 6562 DO probe, observe the condition of the DO membrane. Document if any air bubbles or wrinkles are present.
If an air bubble or wrinkle is present, the DO membrane should be replaced. Allow the new DO membrane to stretch and settle overnight before proceeding with calibration.
6.7.2 Install a sonde guard. Connect the YSI 650 hand held unit to the multiprobe sonde. Submerge the sonde in the air-saturated water bucket. CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective
Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 8 of 15 6.7.3 Turn on the YSI 650 hand held unit by pressing Power. The unit will power up to the 650 Main Menu. Select Sonde Menu, press Enter,
select Calibrate, press Enter. 6.7.4 Select DO, press Enter, select DO%, press Enter. 6.7.5 The unit will display barometric pressure, press Enter. 6.7.6 Wait a few minutes
(≥2 minutes) for the unit to stabilize. Enter the temperature, percent saturation, DO reading, DO charge (for 6562 DO probe only), and barometric pressure from the handheld into the
CMANN Database. The CMANN Database will provide the expected DO. Note: For 6562 DO probes only, the DO charge must read 50 +/- 25 in order to function properly. Values outside
this range should be reported to the equipment maintenance coordinator as soon as possible. 6.7.7 Select Calibrate. Enter the calibrated DO value (mg/L) and percent saturation into
the CMANN database. 6.7.8 Escape to Calibrate menu. 6.8 Specific Conductivity Calibration 6.8.1 Thoroughly rinse the sonde sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. 6.8.2
Pour the conductivity 1000 uS/cm Rinse solution into the calibration cup. Insert the sonde into the calibration cup and make sure that the sensors are submerged. Shake the calibration
cup and sonde together to swirl the contents. 6.8.3 Remove the sonde from the calibration cup and shake off any excess Rinse solution. Do not rinse the sonde. 6.8.4 Pour the conductivity
1000 uS/cm Rinse solution back into the labeled container. Pour the conductivity 1000 uS/cm Standard solution into the calibration cup. 6.8.5 Insert the sonde into the calibration
cup and make sure that the sensors are submerged. Shake the calibration cup and sonde together to swirl the contents. Note: It is important to entirely submerse the sensors for calibrations

as temperature is also used in the calculations. CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 9 of 15 6.8.6 Select Conductivity and press Enter. Select Specific Conductivity
and press Enter. 6.8.7 Key in 1.0 mS/cm and press Enter. Note: 1000 uS/cm and 1.0 mS/cm are the same concentration expressed in different units. 6.8.8 Allow the sonde to equilibrate
for approximately 30 seconds or until the readings stabilize and enter the initial specific conductivity value into the CMANN database. 6.8.9 Select Calibrate and press Enter. Enter
the calibrated conductivity value into the CMANN database. Pour the conductivity 1000 uS/cm Standard solution back into the labeled container. *Note: Do not press Enter after
the conductivity 1000 uS/cm calibration occurs. 6.8.9 Thoroughly rinse the sonde sensors and calibration cup with dionized water. Ensure a proper calibration by checking the sonde
using the conductivity 200 uS/cm Standard solution and enter the value into the CMANN database (use the procedures as outlined in section 6.3). The reading should be 200 +/- 20. Values
outside of this range require recalibration and possible maintenance. Repeat steps 6.8.1 through 6.8.8 or contact the equipment maintenance coordinator as soon as possible. 6.8.10
Escape to Calibrate menu. Pour the conductivity 200 uS/cm Standard solution back into the labeled container. 6.9 pH Calibration 6.9.1 Thoroughly rinse the sonde sensors and calibration
cup with deionized water. Pour the 7.0 pH Rinse standard into the calibration cup. Insert the sonde into the calibration cup and make sure that the sensors are submerged. Shake the
calibration cup and sonde together to swirl the contents. 6.9.2 Remove the sonde from the calibration cup and shake off any excess Rinse solution. Do not rinse the sonde. 6.9.3
Pour the pH 7.0 Rinse solution back into the labeled container. Pour the pH 7.0 Standard solution into the calibration cup. 6.9.4 Insert the sonde into the calibration cup and make
sure that the sensors are submerged. Shake the calibration cup and sonde together to swirl the contents. CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 10 of 15 6.9.5
Select Calibrate and press Enter. Select ISE1 pH and press Enter. Select 3-Point Calibration and press Enter. 6.9.6 Key in 7.0 for the 1st standard and press Enter. When the reading
stabilizes, enter the initial pH value into the CMANN database. Select Calibrate. Enter the calibrated pH value into the CMANN database. Press Enter. 6.9.7 Thoroughly rinse the
sonde sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. When prompted for 2nd pH value, repeat steps 6.9.1 through 6.9.6 using the 4.0 Rinse and Standard solution, and then repeat
again using the pH 10.0 Rinse and Standard solution. Note: Do not press Enter after the pH 10.0 calibration occurs. 6.9.9 Ensure a proper calibration by checking the sonde using
the pH 7.0 Standard solution and enter the value into the CMANN database (use the procedures as outlined in section 6.4). The reading should be 7.0 +/- 0.3. Values outside of this
range require re-calibration and possible maintenance. Repeat steps 6.9.1 through 6.9.8 or contact the equipment maintenance coordinator as soon as possible. 6.9.10 Escape to Calibrate
menu. 6.10 Turbidity Calibration 6.10.1 Thoroughly rinse the sonde sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. Pour deionized water into the calibration cup. Insert
the sonde into the calibration cup. DO NOT shake the calibration cup (bubbles can obstruct the turbidity probe optic). 6.10.2 Select Turbidity and press Enter. Select 3-Point
Calibration and press Enter. Key in 0.0 NTU and press Enter. Select Clean Optics. Allow the turbidity reading to stabilize before proceeding. Enter the initial turbidity reading
into the CMANN database. Select Calibrate. Enter the calibrated value into the CMANN database. Press Enter. 6.10.3 Pour the deionized water out of the calibration cup. When prompted
for the 2nd turbidity value, enter 126.0 NTU and press Enter. Follow procedures 6.5.2 through 6.5.5. Select Calibrate before replacing the Standard into the labeled container.
Enter the calibrated value into the CMANN database. Press Enter. 6.10.4 When prompted for the 3rdnd turbidity value, enter 1000.0 NTU and press Enter. Follow procedures 6.5.2
through 6.5.5. Select Calibrate before CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 11 of 15 replacing the Standard into the labeled container. Enter the calibrated
value into the CMANN database. *Do Not Press Enter. 6.10.5 Ensure a proper calibration by checking the sonde using the turbidity 126 NTU standard solution and enter the value into
the CMANN database. The reading should be 126 +/- 7 NTUs. Values outside of this range require re-calibration and possible maintenance. Repeat steps 6.10.1 through 6.10.3 or contact
the equipment maintenance coordinator as soon as possible. 6.10.6 Rinse the sonde sensors with deionized water and store the sonde in a transport cup containing a small amount of water
until deployment. 7.0 Laboratory Post-Deployment Verification and Calibration of YSI Multiprobe (6820, 6820V2, and 6600) for Long-term Deployment of Lake Sondes During transport and
while in the laboratory awaiting post-deployment verification or calibration, all sondes should be stored using a transport cup filled with a small amount of water. Sondes that are
deployed in Mecklenburg County’s lakes use the same procedures for post-deployment verification and calibration outlined in Section 6.0 for Dissolved Oxygen (6.2 & 6.7), Conductivity
(6.3 & 6.8), and pH (6.4 & 6.9). Turbidity and Chlorophyll α use different procedures for sondes deployed in the lake and are listed below. 7.1 Turbidity Post-Deployment Verification
for Lake Sondes 7.1.1 Rinse the sonde sensor and calibration cup with deionized water. 7.1.2 Pour the turbidity 12.7 NTU Rinse solution into the calibration cup. Insert the
sonde into the calibration cup. DO NOT shake the calibration cup (bubbles can obstruct the turbidity probe). 7.1.3 Remove the sonde from the calibration cup and shake off any
excess Rinse solution. Do not rinse the sonde. 7.1.4 Pour the 12.7 NTU Rinse solution back into the labeled container. Pour the turbidity 12.7 NTU Standard solution into
the calibration cup. 7.1.5 Insert the sonde into the calibration cup. DO NOT shake the calibration cup (bubbles can obstruct the turbidity probe optic). Select Clean Optics.
Allow the instrument to stabilize for a few minutes. Enter the turbidity value into the CMANN database. The turbidity value must read 12.7 +/- CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective
Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 12 of 15 2.0 NTUs for turbidity field data to be accepted. Pour the turbidity 12.7 NTU Standard back into the labeled container. 7.2 Chlorophyll
α Post-Deployment Verification for Lake Sondes (if equipped) 7.2.1 Rinse the sonde sensor and calibration cup with deionized water. 7.2.2 Add 0.0 ug/L standard (deionized water)
to the calibration cup and submerse the sensors. 7.2.3 Select Clean Optics. Allow the instrument to stabilize for a few minutes ensuring that the sonde is not in direct
sunlight. Enter the chlorophyll α value into the CMANN database. The chlorophyll α value must read 0.0 +/- 0.5 ug/L for Chlorophyll α data to be accepted. 7.3 Turbidity Calibration
for Lake Sondes 7.3.1 Thoroughly rinse the sonde sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. Pour deionized water into the calibration cup. Insert the sonde into the
calibration cup. DO NOT shake the calibration cup (bubbles can obstruct the turbidity probe optic). 7.3.2 Select Turbidity and press Enter. Select 3-Point Calibration and press
Enter. Key in 0.0 NTU and press Enter. Select Clean Optics. Enter the initial turbidity reading into the CMANN database. Select Calibrate. Enter the calibrated value into the CMANN
database. Press Enter. 7.3.3 Pour the deionized water out of the calibration cup. When prompted for 2nd turbidity value, repeat step 7.3.2 using the 12.7 NTU Rinse and Standard
solution, and then repeat again using the turbidity 126 NTU Rinse and Standard solution, entering appropriate values into the CMANN database where prompted. 7.3.4 Ensure a proper
calibration by checking the sonde using the turbidity 12.7 NTU standard solution and enter the value into the CMANN database. The reading should be 12.7 +/- 2 NTUs. Values outside
of this range require re-calibration and possible maintenance. Repeat steps 7.3.1 through 7.3.3 or contact the equipment maintenance coordinator as soon as possible. 7.4 Chlorophyll
α Field for Lake 6600 Sondes (if equipped) 7.4.1 Escape to Calibrate menu. CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 13 of 15 7.4.2 Thoroughly rinse the sonde
sensors and calibration cup with deionized water. Add 0.0 ug/L standard (deionized water) to the calibration cup and submerse the sensor. 7.4.3 Move the calibration cup out of direct
sunlight. 7.4.4 From the Calibrate menu, select Chlorophyll. Select Chl ug/L and press Enter. Select 1-point calibration and press Enter. Where prompted, enter 0.0 ug/L and press
Enter. Select Clean Optics. Enter the initial chlorophyll α value into the CMANN database. Select Calibrate and press Enter. Enter the calibrated value into the CMANN database.
If the calibrated value does not read 0.0 +/- 0.5 ug/L, recalibrate. 8.0 Field Maintenance 8.1 Remove the sonde from the protective PVC sleeve. 8.2 Clean debris and sediment from
the protective PVC sleeve. Clean the inside of the PVC with a brush as needed. 8.3 Disconnect the multiprobe sonde from the field cable. Secure the cable connector. Do not immerse
the cable connecter in water when the sonde is disconnected. Calibrate the sonde in the field or replace the sonde with a laboratory calibrated sonde. 9.0 Quality Control/Assurance
9.1 Clearly document all maintenance/calibration activities on the YSI 6820/6820V2 in the CMANN WQD database. Data recorded on calibration sheets should be entered into the CMANN
database immediately after returning from the field. 9.2 The CMANN database reports whether a parameter was outside of the predefined range during post-deployment verification. If
data is outside of the predefined range during the verification, this data is rejected from the preceding calibration period. Data is accepted if the post-deployment verification was
within the predefined range. References 10.1 YSI Environmental Operations Manual CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 14 of 15 Attachments 11.1 Temperature/Barometr
ic Pressure Compensation Table Table 6.2–6. Solubility of oxygen in water at various temperatures and pressures Condensed from R.F. Weiss (1970) by D. Buetow (1/18/07). [Temp °C, temperature
in degrees Celsius; atmospheric pressures from 780 to 730 millimeters mercury begin after 35°C] Temp Atmospheric pressure, in millimeters of mercury °C 780 775 770
765 760 755 750 745 740 735 730 _____________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 15.0 14.9 14.8 14.7 14.6 14.5
14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1 14.0 0.5 14.8 14.7 14.6 14.5 14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.8 1.0 14.6 14.5 14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1 14.0
13.9 13.8 13.7 13.6 1.5 14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.4 2.0 14.2 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5
13.4 13.3 13.3 2.5 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 3.0 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1
13.0 12.9 3.5 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.8 12.7 4.0 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.6
12.6 4.5 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.4 5.0 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.2
5.5 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.2 12.2 12.1 6.0 12.8 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.0 11.9 6.5
12.6 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.8 7.0 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 7.5 12.3
12.2 12.1 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.6 11.5 8.0 12.1 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 8.5 12.0 11.9
11.8 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.4 11.3 11.2 9.0 11.8 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.2 11.1 9.5 11.7 11.6 11.6
11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.0 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.0 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.5 11.4 11.4 11.3 11.2
11.1 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.7 11.0 11.3 11.2 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6 11.5 11.2 11.1 11.0 11.0 10.9 10.8
10.7 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.4 12.0 11.0 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.3 12.5 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.5
10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 13.0 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.1 13.5 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.1
10.1 10.0 14.0 10.6 10.5 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.0 9.9 9.9 14.5 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.8
9.8 15.0 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.0 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.7 15.5 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.6
9.6 16.0 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.5 16.5 10.0 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.5
9.4 9.4 17.0 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3 CMANN SOP; Rev. 1.6 Effective Date: September 24, 2015 Page: 15 of
15 Temp Atmospheric pressure, in millimeters of mercury °C 780 775 770 765 760 755 750 745 740 735 730 _________________________________________________________
____________________ 17.5 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 18.0 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3
9.3 9.2 9.1 9.1 18.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.0 19.0 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3
9.2 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.9 19.5 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 20.0 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.1
9.1 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 20.5 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.6 21.0 9.1 9.1
9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 21.5 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 22.0 9.0
8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.4 22.5 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.3 23.0
8.8 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 23.5 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.2
8.1 24.0 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0 24.5 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1
8.1 8.0 8.0 25.0 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 25.5 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0
8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 26.0 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 26.5 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0
8.0 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 27.0 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 27.5 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9
7.9 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.5 28.0 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 28.5 7.9 7.9
7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 29.0 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.3 29.5 7.8
7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 30.0 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 30.5
7.7 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 31.0 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.1
7.1 31.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0 32.0 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1
7.1 7.0 7.0 32.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 33.0 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1
7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 33.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 34.0 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0
7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 34.5 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 35.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.6 DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 1 of 9 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE DIRECT GRAB SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
COLLECTION Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Olivia Edwards Monitoring Supervisor Project Officer Caroline Burgett Environmental
Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve Jadlocki Water Quality Program
Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 2
of 9 Standard Operating Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved Date 1.0 2/26/07 Jeff Price Original Draft Jeff Price 7/27/07 1.1 1/1/08
Jeff Price Formatting changes – minor Jeff Price 1/1/08 1.2 1/1/09 Jeff Price Field Validation, minor formatting changes. Jeff Price 1/1/09 1.3 4/23/09 Jeff Price J. Beller comments
included. Jeff Price 4/23/09 1.4 9/08/11 Jon Beller Minor updates Jeff Price 9/8/11 1.5 9/12/13 Jon Beller Reviewed with no changes Jon Beller 9/12/13 1.6 6/16/15 Caroline Burgett Staff
changes Caroline Burgett 6/16/15 1.7 9/1/15 Caroline Burgett Field Filtering Caroline Burgett 9/1/15 DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 3 of 9 1.0 Scope and Applicability
1.1 This SOP is applicable to the direct grab sample collection of representative surface water for the analysis of chemical, physical, and bacteriological parameters. 2.0 Summary
of Method 2.1 Representative surface water samples are collected directly from either free flowing or impounded water sources in certified clean, pre-preserved bottles suitable for
relevant laboratory analysis. All samples are submitted to a NC State certified laboratory for the analysis and quantification of surface water parameters. 3.0 Health and Safety Warnings
3.1 Surface water sampling poses a number of inherent risks, including steep and hazardous terrain negotiation, deep and/or swift moving water, stinging insects and occasional contact
with wild animals. Caution should always be exercised and personal safety considerations must be considered paramount. 3.2 Universal precautions should be exercised when exposed to
urban surface waters with unknown potential for contamination. Always wear gloves when sampling and decontaminate hands frequently using a no-rinse hand sanitizer. 3.3 Sampling
activities conducted from a boat pose additional risks related to boating accidents and drowning. Always obey all boating safety regulations and wear Personal Floatation Devices on-board
at all times. 3.4 Sample collection containers utilized by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Laboratory are pre-preserved. Some of these containers
are preserved with approximately 2ml of concentrated acid. Caution should be taken when opening, storing and transporting these containers. Always make sure caps a tightly screwed
in place. 4.0 Interferences 4.1 Improper sample collection location. Great care must be exercised to identify a well-mixed zone in free flowing waters so that samples are representative.
4.2 Improper sample technique. Sample bottles used in this procedure are prepreserved. Great care must be exercised to fill the bottles without overfilling. Too much sample in a
pre-preserved container can dilute the effectiveness of the preservative. VOC samples must have no air bubbles trapped in the bottles. DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15
Page: 4 of 9 4.3 Always wear non-powdered gloves. Powder from the gloves can contaminate samples. Keep in mind that protective gloves protect the sampler, not the sample. Protective
gloves are not certified-clean or sterile. Any contact with the sample or with the sample container will potentially contaminate the sample. 4.4 Cross-contamination of samples during
transport. Always place filled samples collection bottles (samples) upright in the cooler so that the neck and cap are above the level of the ice. Drain ice melt-water from coolers
periodically to ensure that sample bottles are not submerged. 5.0 Equipment and Supplies 5.1 The following equipment is generally needed for Direct Grab Sample Collection of representative
surface water: • CMU Lab Chain of Custody Form (Attachment 12.1) • CMU Sample Collection Bottle Selection Guidance Chart (Attachment 12.2) • Certified clean, pre-preserved sample collection
bottles appropriate for intended parameter analysis (provided by CMU) • Sample bottle self-adhesive labels • 4-liters of lab distilled/de-ionized reagent grade water • CMU lab sterilized
buffered bacteriological blank solution • Sharpie, pen • Map Book • Cooler • Ice • Non-Powdered Gloves • Hip waders, rubber boots • Hand sanitizer • Hand-held temperature probe 6.0
Field QC Blank Collection 6.1 Label the blank bottles with the approximate Sample Collection Time (+/- 5 minutes). 6.2 Remove the cap from the distilled/de-ionized reagent grade water
or the sterilized buffered bacteriological blank solution as appropriate. 6.3 Place the blank collection bottle(s) on level, stable surface. Remove the caps and fill the blank collection
bottle(s) to the bottom of the neck or to the indicated mark with the appropriate blank solution, approximately 80-90% full. Be careful not to overfill the blank collection bottles
unless the blank is for VOC parameters. VOC blanks should be overfilled as described in 9.4. DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 5 of 9 6.4 Replace the sample collection
bottle cap(s). For VOC blanks, follow the cap replacement guidance detailed in 9.5-9.7. 7.0 Chemical / Physical Direct (Grab) Sample Collection 7.1 Label the sample collection bottles
with the approximate Sample Collection Time (+/- 5 minutes). 7.2 Locate the appropriate sample site, bearing in mind the sampling considerations outlined in 4.1 and 4.2. Note: Make
sure sampling site is located upstream of any immediate disturbance to the stream, including the YSI probe if utilized for field measurement collection, unless the impact of the disturbance
is the reason for sampling. 7.3 Remove the sample collection bottle cap. 7.4 Tilt the sample collection bottle down at approximately 45° angle, and submerge ½ of the bottle mouth,
facing upstream from where you are standing. Fill tapered sample collection bottles to the bottom of the neck, approximately 80-90% full. Do not “scoop” sample as this may stir the
sediment on the bottom and affect sample. Do not overfill bottle! 7.5 Hold the filled bottle upright and replace the cap. 8.0 Bacteriological Direct (Grab) Sample Collection 8.1
Carefully open the sterile sample collection bottle cap. Be sure not to contact any inside surface of the bottle cap or the bottle. There are no longer cap tabs. 8.2 Holding the
bottle by the sides, tilt the bottle at approximately 45° angle. Dip the bottle mouth ½ submerged, upstream from where you are standing. Submerge until the bottle is full to the indicated
100ml volume. Note: For stream samples, do not overfill bottle. However, for lake samples fill the bottle above the line to collect extra volume. Leave only a small headspace.
If bottles are accidentally overfilled, it is acceptable to pour out a small amount of sample volume, just be sure not to lose the preservative/dechlor pellet or powder! 8.3 Hold
the filled bottle upright and replace the cap. DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 6 of 9 9.0 Volatile Organic Chemical (VOC) Direct (Grab) Sample Collection 9.1
Carefully open 2 sample collection bottles (vials) for each sample collected by removing the red caps. 9.2 Tilt the base of each sample collection bottle down at approximately 45°
angle. 9.3 Submerge each entire bottle in an upright position, facing upstream from where you are standing. 9.4 Fill both VOC sample collection bottles to the top (100% full), plus
a meniscus. 9.5 Hold the filled bottles upright to replace the caps. 9.6 Carefully displace excess sample water from under the cap as you tighten. 9.7 Turn the sample collection
bottles upside down and check for any trapped air bubbles under the cap or in the bottle. If any air bubbles are present, discard the sample from the vials and repeat beginning at
step 9.2. 10.0 Field – Filtered Direct (Grab) Sample Collection 10.1 Where dissolved metals are to be collected, two field staff must perform collection using peristaltic pump and
filter. Silicone (0.19” ID) and polyethylene “rigid” tubing (0.17” ID x 0.25” OD) must be cut with ceramic scissors in a clean, laboratory environment, and packaged with an unused,
disposable 0.45 micron filter, ahead of time prior to field use. Two sets of tubing and filters are required for each site that requires dissolved metals sampling. 10.2 In the field,
designate one staff member to be “Clean Hands” (CH), the only staff to be in direct contact with the sampling container lid and neck, tubing, and filter. The second person, “Dirty hands”
(DH) will set up the apparatus, operate the pump, and provide assistance to CH. 10.3 DH labels the sample collection bottles with the approximate Sample Collection Time (+/- 5 minutes).
10.4 CH and DH both wear powder-free latex or nitrile gloves while collecting the sample. CH may change gloves at any point if they feel they have contamination potential with their
current gloves. 10.5 DH sets up the pump, opens the pump head. CH removes clean, new, disposable silicone tubing from packaging and places it along pump head. DH closes the pump head
to secure tubing in place. DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 7 of 9 10.6 CH attaches rigid tubing (if not already attached to silicone tubing) and filter to either
side of the silicone tubing. 10.7 DH operates pump, ensuring correct flow direction and speed through tubing and filter. CH directs rigid tubing in creek or sample bottle, ensuring
sample is pulling from a well-mixed area and not collecting sediment. CH also holds filter end upright, to allow filling and flushing of tubing and filter. Allow filter to flush for

approximately ten (10) seconds. 10.8 Following flushing, DH stops the pump to allow CH to remove cap from sample bottle. CH places cap in clean place while sample collection occurs.
10.9 DH activates pump, while CH directs flow from filter to fill the sample bottle. Fill tapered sample collection bottles to the bottom of the neck, approximately 8090% full. DH
stops the pump once sample collection bottle is full. CH replaces the cap on the sample bottle. 10.10 All tubing and filter material is non-reusable and must be properly disposed of.
Filter and tubing from a blank sample may be re-used immediately for a single creek sample and then disposed. 11.0 Post-Sample Collection 11.1 Using the hand-held temperature probe,
measure the water temperature directly from the surface water source, not from the sample collection bottle. 11.2 Record the water temperature on the appropriate lab COC form.
11.3 Place all sample collection bottles (and blanks) upright in the cooler. Do not submerge sample bottles in ice-melt water as indicated in 4.3. 11.4 Complete the COC. 11.5 Deliver
all sample bottles in the cooler on ice to the CMU Lab for analysis. DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 8 of 9 12.0 Attachments 12.1 CMU Chain of Custody
Form (Example) DIRECT GRAB SOP; Rev. 1.7 Effective Date: 9/1/15 Page: 9 of 9 12.2 CMU Sample Collection Bottle Selection Guide Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page:
1 of 7 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Olivia Edwards Environmental Supervisor Monitoring Supervisor
Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality Program Manager City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management Storm Water Services Steve
Jadlocki Water Quality Program Administrator Marc Recktenwald Water Quality Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC Onset HOBO Water Level Monitoring,
Soil Moisture, and Rainfall Data Collection Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page: 2 of 7 Standard Operating Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author
Summary of Changes Approved Date 1.0 10/1/2014 Jeff Price Original Draft Caroline Andrews 01/26/15 1.0 10/7/2014 Philip Lung Field verification Caroline Andrews 01/26/15
Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page: 3 of 7 1.0 Scope and Applicability 1.1 This SOP is applicable to water level and soil moisture monitoring, as well
as rainfall data collection using Onset HOBO data loggers. 2.0 Summary of Method 2.1 Free water levels are monitored in open wells in order to quantify infiltration rates. Soil
moisture levels can be monitored in order to identify wetting fronts, if desired. Rainfall data volume and intensity are monitored on-site in order to develop the best relationship
between precipitation and infiltration. 3.0 Health and Safety Warnings 3.1 Water level sampling on open wells poses very few risks. The most significant risks include steep and hazardous
terrain negotiation, stinging insects and occasional contact with wild animals. Caution should always be exercised and personal safety considerations must be considered paramount.
3.2 Universal precautions should be exercised when exposed to water with unknown potential for contamination. Always wear gloves when sampling and decontaminate hands with a no-rinse
hand sanitizer as needed. 4.0 Interferences 4.1 Improper well installation. Wells must reach the bottom of the excavation and be free from obstruction, so that water may flow freely
in and out. 4.2 Wells must be properly vented to the atmosphere in order for water level to rise and fall freely. 4.3 Debris could clog the pores of a rain gauge. Also, the data
logger connection cable could interfere with the tipping bucket action. 4.4 All level sensors and data loggers are battery operated. Power failures will result in data collection
interruption. 4.5 Data cables for instruments data loggers often run along the surface or are buried just beneath. These can be severed or damaged by lawn / landscape activities and
vandals. Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page: 4 of 7 5.0 Equipment and Supplies 5.1 The following equipment is generally needed for water level monitoring, soil moisture
measurement, and rainfall data collection: Initial install only: • Water level loggers • Rain gauge • Soil moisture probes Each site visit: • Onset Hobo Optic shuttle • Onset
U-1 Shuttle • Towels • Storm water key A297 • Ratchet set (1/2, 9/16, and 3/4 inch sockets plus extension) • Screwdriver (Phillips / flathead combo) 6.0 Water Level Data Collection
Note: Water level probes can only be downloaded with the HOBO Optic Shuttle 6.1 Connect the correct adaptor to the Optic Shuttle. 6.2 Unscrew the bolts from the well housing manhole
if you are in a parking lot. 6.3 Unlock the well caps with the storm water key (A297) and remove the lock from the cap. 6.4 Hold the well tube firmly in one hand to prevent it from
turning, while unscrew the locking well cap from the well tube in a counter-clockwise motion. 6.5 Pull the logger from the well using the attached steel cable. 6.6 Wipe any moisture,
mud and debris from the logger and make sure the area around the black cap is clean and dry. 6.7 Remove the black cap by unscrewing it in a counter-clockwise motion. 6.8 Align the
arrow on the optic shuttle adaptor with the flat spot on the logger threads. 6.9 Press together firmly to seat the connection. 6.10 Cover the area of the connection with your hand
and shield from direct sunlight. 6.11 Depress and release the activation lever on the side of the optic shuttle; the yellow indicator lights should begin blinking to indicate data
transfer is in progress. 6.12 When the data transfer is complete, the green indicator light will come on. Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page: 5 of 7 6.13 Depress and
release the activation lever again to turn the optic shuttle off. 6.14 A red light should flash once. 6.15 Pull the level logger straight out of the optic shuttle adapter. 6.16 Immediately
replace the black cap by screwing it on in a clockwise motion. 6.17 Never touch the end of the level logger underneath the black cap. 6.18 Gently lower the level logger back into
the well using the attached steel cable; do not bounce it off the bottom – they are shock sensitive. 6.19 Replace the locking well cap by holding the well tube firmly with one hand
while screwing the cap in a clockwise motion. 6.20 Replace the lock in the cap and make sure it is secure. Note: Repeat for each well and the ambient-air logger located at each site
7.0 Soil Moisture Data Collection Note: Soil moisture probes can only be downloaded with the HOBO U-Shuttle (U-DT-1) 7.1 Connect the correct adaptor to the Optic Shuttle. 7.2
Connect the soil moisture data logger to the U-Shuttle using the 3.5mm TRS connector cable. 7.3 Turn on the U-Shuttle and wait for the LED screen to respond. 7.4 Use the <Next> button
to identify and readout the soil probes current measurements. 7.5 Continue using the <Next> button to scroll through all probes. 7.6 Select the option to download the probe data to
the U-Shuttle. 7.7 Turn off the optic shuttle. Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page: 6 of 7 8.0 Rain Gauge Data Collection 8.1 Connect the correct adaptor to the Optic
Shuttle. 8.2 Remove the top of the Rain gauge and clean any visible debris from the grating and the hole. 8.3 Gently remove the logger from its cradle inside the rain gauge and extend
the white cable enough to extend the logger outside the housing. 8.4 Wipe any moisture and debris from the logger. 8.5 Align the arrow on the optic shuttle adaptor with the raised
ridge on the logger. 8.6 Press together firmly to seat the connection. 8.7 Cover the area of the connection with your hand and shield from direct sunlight. 8.8 Depress and release
the activation lever on the side of the optic shuttle; the yellow indicator lights should begin blinking to indicate data transfer is in progress. 8.9 When the data transfer is complete,
the green indicator light will come on. 8.10 Depress and release the activation lever again to turn the optic shuttle off. 8.11 A red light should flash once. 9.0 Data Transfer
to Onset Hobo Pro Software Note: Onset Hobo software must be installed on your PC (WQ has 2 copies in-hand) 9.1 Start the HOBO software. 9.2 Connect micro USB to USB cable to the
PC and to the Optic Shuttle. 9.3 Depress the activation lever on the optic shuttle to begin data transfer process to the computer. 9.4 The Hobo software will recognize the optic shuttle.
9.5 Select the option to Readout the optic shuttle. 9.6 The optic shuttle files will be displayed in a list format. 9.7 Select the files individually or check the box for Select
All Files for offload. 9.8 Create a folder or browse to the desired folder to store the files once they are offloaded. 9.9 Offload the files and re-synch the computer clock with the
optic shuttle. Infiltration SOP Effective Date: 1/26/2015 Page: 7 of 7 9.10 Once offloaded files are verified to be in the desired location, delete the offloaded files from the optic
shuttle so that it will be ready for the next download sequence. 10.0 Opening HOBO Files and Transferring to Excel 10.1 In the Hobo software, select to open data files and navigate
to the desired file location. 10.2 Select and open a logger file (level, soil moisture, rain gauge). 10.3 For level logger files, make sure to activate the processing assistant tools
to compensate for atmospheric pressure utilizing the site-specific ambient-air logger file. 10.4 Name the new field created so that you can quickly identify it as the Corrected Depth
field. 10.5 Plot the data. 10.6 Select to export the table data as a .csv file. 10.7 Open the .csv file in Excel for data management and analysis. 10.8 Save the file as an Excel
file - .xlsx. Mitigation Bank Monitoring SOP; V. 1.1 Effective Date: 9/8/15 Page: 1 of 4 G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation Monitoring Procedures\Mitigation Monitoring
SOP (V1.1) STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Mitigation Bank Monitoring SOP Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency Water Quality Program Robert Billings
Project Manager Project Officer Joshua DeMaury Senior Environmental Specialist Habitat/Vegetation Specialist Caroline Burgett Environmental Analyst QA/QC Officer Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC Mitigation Bank Monitoring SOP; V. 1.1 Effective Date: 9/8/15 Page: 2 of 4 G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation Monitoring Procedures\Mitigation
Monitoring SOP (V1.1) Standard Operating Procedure Modification / Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document Approved Date
1.0 8/29/14 Kelly Thames Original Draft Version 2.0 January 2009 Caroline Burgett 5/16/15 1.1 9/8/15 David Caldwell Minor updates, formatting and staff role changes Version 2.0 January
2009 Caroline Burgett 9/30/15 Mitigation Bank Monitoring SOP; V. 1.1 Effective Date: 9/8/15 Page: 3 of 4 G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation Monitoring
Procedures\Mitigation Monitoring SOP (V1.1) 1.0 Background 1.1 On June 16, 2004 the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank was established. A mitigation bank
is a wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource area that has been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the purpose of providing compensation
for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources permitted under Section 404 or a similar state or local wetland regulation. (EPA, Compensatory Mitigation Fact Sheet (PDF)) 1.2 The City
of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank was established with the adoption of the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) which is located G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation
Monitoring Procedures\Banking Documents\ Final MBI.pdf. The MBI designates The City of Charlotte as the Sponsor of the bank. The Sponsor is responsible for all communications to the
multi-agency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT). In 2008, the MBRT was renamed the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 1.3 In June 2008, Mecklenburg County entered into an Interlocal
Agreement for the Umbrella Mitigation Bank with the City to ensure that County stream and wetland restoration projects submitted to the Umbrella Mitigation Bank qualify for said credits
in that they are planned, designed and constructed in a way that takes advantage of partnership opportunities between the two parties, provides cost effective solutions to water quality
impairment, maximizes mitigation opportunities, provides preservation of the restoration corridor in perpetuity and provides maintenance as necessary in perpetuity. The resolution
authorizing the agreement is located at: G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation Monitoring Procedures\Banking Documents\Resolution_LUESA_Clt Interlocal Agreement_Bank_11513.
2.0 Scope and Applicability 2.1 This SOP is applicable to the Mitigation Bank Monitoring procedures and methodologies for the documentation and analysis of Mecklenburg County Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) which are eligible for mitigation bank credits. 3.0 Summary of Method 3.1 This SOP will be used to reference the CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document
(Guidance Document) in which the procedures and methodologies for mitigation monitoring are explained in detail. These procedures and methodologies will be followed for all Mecklenburg
County CIP projects. 4.0 CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document 4.1 The CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document is located at G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation
Monitoring Procedures\CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance_2009. This document is a draft and this SOP should be updated with each new draft of the Guidance Document. This document
will be used to follow all procedures and methodologies related to mitigation bank monitoring. 4.2 As-Built Survey. The protocols and methodologies for as-built surveys are defined
in the Guidance Document. The as-built survey should occur immediately following completion of construction. Mitigation Bank Monitoring SOP; V. 1.1 Effective Date: 9/8/15 Page: 4
of 4 G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation Monitoring Procedures\Mitigation Monitoring SOP (V1.1) 4.3 Permanent Monument Installation. Permanent monuments are set for all
cross sections, vegetation plots, and other necessary monitoring points during the as-built survey. Monument installation follows the guidelines set forth in the Guidance Document.
4.4 Post-Construction Monitoring. The protocols and methodologies for post-construction monitoring (years 1 through 4) are defined in the Guidance Document. 5.0 Data Collection
5.1 Protocols. The sampling and standard operating procedures are defined for all geomorphic, vegetative, and photograph documentation in the Guidance Document. 5.2 Templates.
Data collection templates for cross sections, longitudinal profile, vegetation plots, and pebble counts are located at G:\Storm Water\CIP\Monitoring_Plans\Mitigation Monitoring Procedures\Data
Forms. 6.0 Equipment and Supplies 6.1 The following equipment is generally needed for Mitigation Monitoring: • Survey level and rod (laser, manual, or other standard survey level)
• Geographic position system unit (GPS) • 300 foot and 100 foot tapes • Rebar, pvc pipes, and flagging • Sand gage with centimeter ruler • Pin flags • Tree caliper • Field maps • Field
data sheets • Sharpie, pen • Hip waders, rubber boots • Field vehicle (ATV, all-wheel drive) if necessary 7.0 Reporting Methods 7.1 As-built survey report. The as-built survey report
should document the constructed conditions for comparison with its design. This will be the baseline documentation for which the subsequent years will be monitored for comparison.
7.2 Post-construction monitoring yearly reports. The post-construction monitoring yearly reports should document the success criteria for each year as well as compare the applicable
year to the as-built survey and each previous monitoring year. 7.3 All information to be included in the as-built and yearly reports is indicated in the Guidance Document. Phytoplankton
SOP; Rev. 4 Effective Date: 06/11/15 Page: 1 of 12 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Phytoplankton Sample Processing and Analysis Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services
Agency Water Quality Program Signature Date Prepared by: David H. Buetow Senior Environmental Specialist
Reviewed by: Anthony J. Roux Senior Environmental Specialist Bioassessment Program Lead Approved by: Rusty Rozzelle Water Quality
Program Manager Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Charlotte, NC 2 Standard Operating Procedure Modification
/ Review Log Version Eff. Date Author Summary of Changes Approved Date 1.0 10/8/12 David Buetow Original Draft 2.0 11/9/12 David Buetow Changes for Services Agreement with CMU
3.0 11/20/12 David Buetow Revisions following state inspection on Nov. 15, 2012 4.0 6/11/15 David Buetow Changed preservative from M3 to Lugol’s and included formula as Enclosure
C, deleted Phycotech counting cell Enclosure B and replaced with revised bench sheet, revised counting rules per suggestion by state and national experts, also revised biovolume calculation
and made other minor changes. Caroline Burgett 09/30/15 3 1.0 Purpose, Scope and Applicability 1.1 The purpose of this Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) is to outline the
Mecklenburg County Water and Land Resources, Water Quality Program’s (MCWQP) phytoplankton sample collection techniques and sample processing and analysis. 1.2 MCWQP collects,
processes and analyzes algal samples from varying depths in lakes, ponds and reservoirs to: • document problematic areas. • identify problematic taxa and their distribution. • help
investigate possible causes of fish kills. • help investigate taste and odor problems in drinking water supplies. 1.3 The primary focus of this SOP is on phytoplankton, the free-floating
algae in the water column. Aquatic plants, filamentous macroalgae, and periphyton (attached algae) are not addressed in this SOP. Analytical procedures outlined in this document require
expertise in microscopy and taxonomy. 1.4 Other guidance documents maintained by MCWQP are referenced and can be obtained by contacting the appropriate management unit or may be available
on the web as follows: Lake Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures-SWIM Phase 1 Part 2-CO ftp://ftp1.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/WaterQuality/Policies%20and%20Procedures/QAPP/
2.0 Summary of Method 2.1 Lake water samples are collected either by surface grab or more typically by using a Labline composite sampler or Van Dorn discrete sampler depending
on application and dispensed into bottles containing preservative. Preserved phytoplankton in the water samples are concentrated by allowing to settle for a period of time in the sample
bottles. The supernatant in the sample bottles is then drawn off and the remaining sample with phytoplankton is transferred to smaller vials where they are drawn down a second time
to a known volume. Subsamples of the concentrated sample are then mounted in a counting chamber and enumerated and identified to the lowest practical taxon. 3.0 Health and Safety
Warnings 3.1 It is recommended to wear gloves when sampling to protect you from possible contaminants in the water and also the potential spillage of preservatives from sample bottles.
3.2 Obey safety warnings related to boating safety which are detailed in Lake Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures-SWIM Phase 1 Part 2-CO. 4 4.0 Interferences 4.1 Rinse
the Labline or Van Dorn water bottle several times with ambient lake water between sites to avoid contamination with water from a previous site. Unclean equipment will definitely interfere
with the quality of the sample collected. 4.2 Take care not to overfill sample bottles especially those that have preservatives already added. Too much sample in a pre-preserved
container can dilute the effectiveness of the preservative. 4.3 Use clean or new pipettes or pipette tips when setting up counting chambers to avoid cross contamination. 5.0 Equipment
and Supplies 5.1 The following equipment is generally needed for phytoplankton sample collection of lake or pond water: • French square bottles (250 ml or larger) • Glass vials (4,
6 or 8 dram or similar) • Lugol’s preservative o Formula - See Enclosure C • Sample bottle self-adhesive labels • Labline or Van Dorn sampler with marked rope • Lake Log book • Sharpie,
pen • Gloves and hand sanitizer 5.2 The following equipment is needed for phytoplankton processing and analysis in the laboratory: • Aspirator or vacuum pump • Nannoplankton counting
chamber (Palmer-Maloney or similar) • Coverslips (50 x 22 mm,22 x 22 mm or similar) • Pipettes • Deionized water • Zeiss compound microscope with 10x, 20x, 40x and 100x objectives or
similar (phase contrast and ocular fitted with a Whipple grid • Bench sheets • Taxonomic keys 6.0 Lake Sample Collection 6.1 Follow Lake Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures-SWIM
Phase 1 Part 2CO for field collection of phytoplankton samples. Pour samples collected from 5 the LabLine or Van Dorn sampler into 250 ml French square bottles preloaded with 3 ml
of Lugol’s preservative. 7.0 Phytoplankton Sample Processing 7.1 Set the French square bottles with preserved phytoplankton samples on the lab counter top near the sink and let
settle for at least 48 hours. 7.2 Turn on the vacuum pump or if none is available attach the vacuum end of the aspirator hose to the side connector on the laboratory faucet and turn
on the water to create suction. 7.3 Remove the caps from the French square bottles and carefully aspirate the supernatant in each sample down close to the bottom of the sample bottle
without disturbing the settled material. 7.4 Replace the caps on the sample bottles and gently swirl the remaining sample to resuspend settled material. 7.5 Remove the caps and
carefully pour the sample into a labeled smaller vial. 7.6 Rinse the French square bottle at least one time with deionized water and pour this also into the smaller vial. 7.7 Allow
the subsample in the smaller vial to settle overnight. 7.8 Draw down the supernatant in the smaller vial to the desired final concentrated volume using the aspirator as in Step 7.3.
8.0 Counting Chamber Preparation 8.1 Place the Palmer-Maloney or similar counting chamber on a level surface. 8.2 Place one cover slip appropriate for the counting chamber used
(22 x 50 mm for Palmer-Maloney chamber or 22 x 22 mm for PhycoTech chamber) at about a 45° angle to the counting cell so that a portion of the main counting chamber is uncovered (Enclosures
A and B). 8.3 Thoroughly mix the concentrated phytoplankton sample by gently inverting the sample vial repeatedly for at least 30 seconds (or 20 times minimum) and immediately withdraw
a small amount of the sample with a clean pipette. 8.4 Carefully dispense the sample into the open portion of the Palmer-Maloney or similar counting chamber until the sample fills
the entire chamber (Enclosures A and B). 6 8.5 Rotate the cover slip around to where it is parallel with the counting chamber making sure that no air bubbles are trapped in the counting
chamber. 8.6 For the Palmer-Maloney chamber add a small amount of deionized water under the ends of the cover slip where they extend past the counting chamber to ensure that the sample
does not dry out while being analyzed. Take care not to overfill the ends of the mount so as to risk diluting the sample. 8.7 Let the counting cell sit for 10 to 15 minutes before
proceeding with analysis. 9.0 Phytoplankton Cell Counts 9.1 Place the nannoplankton counting cell on the stage of the compound microscope. 9.2 Using a lower power objective (6
or 10x) to focus the microscope on the plane of the counting cell where the algal cells are resting. 9.3 Switch the microscope objective to 20x then 40x to achieve the recommended
magnification (400x) and refocus. 9.4 Using the controls for x/y stage movement position the field of view at the edge of the counting chamber near the center (Enclosure A). 9.5
Count all live algal cells within the width of the Whipple grid in a transect straight across the chamber until reaching the other side. If a cell, colony or filament falls across
the top edge of the Whipple grid do not it in the count. If a cell, colony or filament falls across the bottom edge of the Whipple grid include it in the count. 9.6 Count individual
phytoplankton cells, cell colonies and filamentous algae as one unit and also count or estimate the number of cells in colonies, filamentous algae and diatom chains. 9.7 Identify
algal taxa to the lowest practicable taxon using appropriate taxonomic keys. 9.8 Count enough transects to reach a total count of at least 100 taxa units (cells, filaments or colonies).
9.9 Record taxa identifications and counts on the phytoplankton bench sheet (see Attachment) or enter directly into an EXCEL spreadsheet or similar. 9.10 If not already done so,
input count and identification data into a preset EXCEL spreadsheet to calculate density and biovolume. 10.0 Calculations 7 10.1 The conversion factor for phytoplankton densities
is based on a number of factors as shown below with example numbers. The width of the Whipple grid at various magnifications for each microscope must be determined using a stage micrometer
following the method outlined in Method 10200, E. Microscopes and Calibrations (APHA Standard Methods 1998). A. Original sample volume (ex. 230 ml) B. Concentrated sample volume
(ex. 5.0 ml) C. Width of the transect (0.250 mm at 400x) D. Length of the transect (17.9 mm) E. Area of the counting chamber (251.64 mm2) F. Volume of counting chamber (0.1 ml)
G. Number of transects (4 transects) 10.2 Calculate the conversion factor (CF) using the following formula. using the example numbers shown above this would be: 10.3
Multiply the conversion factor for each phytoplankton taxa to the raw unit count per sample to calculate units/ml. 10.4 For colonies, filaments and diatom chains calculate the average
number of cells per natural unit and multiply by the density. 10.5 Multiply the converted phytoplankton densities (single celled phytoplankton and total number of cells for colonies,
filaments and diatom chains) to the reference biovolume for each particular taxa to calculate biovolumes for the sample. 11.0 Quality Assurance 11.1 All phytoplankton will
be identified to the lowest taxon possible using current identification manuals. If questions occur, the identifications will be verified by consulting with regional taxonomic experts
such as those at Duke Energy or the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. CF= E ______ X 1 _______ X B __________ X 1 _________ C x D F A G CF= 251.64 mm2 X 1 X 5 ml
X 1 4.475mm2 0.1 ml 230 ml 4 transects CF= 56.232 X 10.0 X 0.022 X 0.250 = 3.056 8 11.2 All data is entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet and checked for accuracy. 12.0
Enclosures Enclosure A: Palmer-Maloney Counting Chamber operation Enclosure B: Phytoplankton Count Sheet Enclosure C: Lugol’s Solution Preparation 13.0 References American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22th Edition. American
Public Health Association. Washington, D. C. Bellinger, E. G., and D. C. Sigee. 2015. Freshwater Algae, Identification, Enumeration and Use as Bioindicators 2nd Edition. John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd. 275 pp. Carty, Susan. 2014. Freshwater Dinoflagellates of North America. Cornell University Press. 260 pp. Dillard, Gary E. 1991. Freshwater Algae of

the Southeastern United States. Part 4. Chlorophyceae: Zygnematales: Desmidiaceae (Section 2). J. Cramer, Stuttgart (Bibliotheca Phycologica, Band 89). Graham, L.E. and L.W. Wilcox.
2000. Algae. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ. 640 pp. John, David M., B. A. Whitton and A. J. Brook. 2011. The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles, 2nd Edition.
Cambridge University Press. 878 pp. NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental Services Branch. January 2003. Standard Operating Procedures for Algae
and Aquatic Plant Sampling and Analsysis. 76 pp. Palmer, C.M. 1977. Algae and Water Pollution. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, USEPA
EPA/600/9-77-036. Patrick, Ruth and Charles W. Reimer. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States, Vol. 1. Academy of Nat. Sci. of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa. 688 pp. Patrick,
Ruth and Charles W. Reimer. 1975. Diatoms of the United States. Volume II, Part 1. Monograph 13, Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. 213 pp. Prescott, G.W. 1954. How to Know the Freshwater
Algae. In: Pictured Key Nature Series, University of Montana Press, Montana. 293 pp. 9 Prescott, G.W. 1968. The Algae: A Review. Houghton Mifflin Co. Publishers. 436 pp. Prescott,
G.W. 1973. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area. Wm. C. Brown Co. Pub., Dubuque, Iowa. 997 pp. Wehr, J.D. and R.G. Sheath (eds.). 2003. Freshwater Algae of North America: Ecology
and Classification. Academic Press. San Diego, California. 918 pp. Whitford, L.A. and G.J. Schumacher. 1984. A Manual of Fresh-water Algae. Sparks Press, Rockingham, N.C. 337 pp.
10 11 Enclosure B 12 Enclosure C Lugol’s Solution Preparation A modified Lugol's solution (Vollenweider 1974) is used to preserve phytoplankton
and periphyton samples. The modification is glycerin which is added to the traditional Lugol’s solution to help prevent loss of flagella. The solulution should be prepared in a fume
hood. The preparer should wear gloves, goggles and a lab coat. The following amounts of chemicals are used to make about 1 L of the solution: __40 g Iodine __80 g Potassium Iodide
(KI) __80 mL Glacial Acetic Acid __800 mL Distilled Water __50 mL Glycerin __50 mL 95% Ethyl Alcohol (ETOH) To prepare the solution: __Pour 80 mL of Glacial Acetic Acid
into 800 mL of Distilled Water. __Add 80 g of KI. __Add 40g Iodine. __Add 50 mL Glycerin __Add 50 mL of 95% ETOH. __Mix thoroughly. Caution: Iodine will seep through plastic
containers and leave stains on shelves and floors. Lugol’s solution is photosensitive. It must be stored in an opaque container in a cool From: NC DENR Phytoplankton Procedure
Appendix III APPENDIX 4: CMSWS SUSI INDEX AND LUSI DOCUMENTATION Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stream Use-Support Index (SUSI) April 2007 (Updated October 2015) Table of Contents Section
1.0 Purpose .........................................................................................................1 Section 2.0 Background .......................................................
.......................................…1 2.1 Modified National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Index ..............................1 2.2 Advantages of the WQR System ...................................
..............................5 2.3 Disadvantages of the WQR System .............................................................5 Section 3.0 Stream Use Support Index ..............................
.............................................6 3.1 General Description .....................................................................................6 3.2 Sample Locations ....................
.....................................................................7 3.3 Sampling Methodology ................................................................................9 3.3.1
Fixed Interval Samples ................................................................................9 3.3.2 Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN) ......…9
3.3.3 Biological Samples ......................................................................................9 3.4 Sub-Indices .....................................................................
.............................9 3.4.1 Bacteria ........................................................................................................9 3.4.2 Metals ..................................
.......................................................................10 3.4.3 Macroinvertebrate/Habitat .........................................................................11
3.4.4 Physical Parameters ...................................................................................13 3.4.5 Nutrients ......................................................................
...............................14 3.4.6 Overall SUSI Score ....................................................................................15 Section 4.0 Reporting...............................
.....................................................................15 4.1 Rating Scale ...............................................................................................15
4.2 Maps ...........................................................................................................15 4.3 Website ...................................................................
...................................23 Section 5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................23 List of Tables Table
3-1: SUSI Sample Sites and Watersheds .............................................................8 Table 3-2: Fecal Coliform Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 ..........10
Table 3-3: State Standards for Selected Metals ...........................................................10 Table 3-4: Metals’ Score for MC49a during October 2006 ..................................
......11 Table 3-5: Metals’ Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006.......................11 Table 3-6: Macro invertebrate/Habitat Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006.................
...........................................................................................12 Table 3-7: State Standards for Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Temperature ......................
13 Table 3-8: Physical Parameter Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 ....13 Table 3-9: Critical Values for Total Phosphorus .........................................................14
Table 3-10: Nutrient Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 ....................14 Table 3-11: Overall SUSI Score for MC49a during October 2006 ...............................15
Table 4-1: SUSI Rating Scale......................................................................................15 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Second Order Fecal Coliform Polynomial
...................................................2 Figure 2-2: Water Quality Rating Map for January 2006 ...............................................4 Figure 2-3: Water Quality
Rating Score Associated With Verbal Description ..............4 Figure 3-1: Sample Sites for SUSI .................................................................................8
Figure 4-1: SUSI Index Map – March 2007 Test Run .................................................16 Figure 4-2: Overall SUSI Index Map and Supporting Sub Index Maps – July 2014 ...17
1 Section 1.0 Purpose The need for an index for communicating water quality conditions has been a long standing desire for water quality professionals and elected officials. Essentially,
water quality indices transform large quantities of water quality data into single numbers (or small sets of numbers) that can be reported in non-technical or quasi technical terms
to water quality managers, policy makers and the general public. Moreover, water quality index data can be easily graphed and presented in many forms, including maps and other graphical
aids. A water quality index also allows comparison of water quality in a body of water over space and time, which enables a water quality expert to establish trends and evaluate the
effectiveness of watershed management efforts. The simplification of large quantities of data into a water quality index can present certain problems. Simplification of data could
result in misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data. Additionally, many different sets of conditions could result in the identical index value with no real way to identify problem
parameters by just looking at index values. Water quality index values rely on physical, chemical, bacteriological and biological data taken at a given point. A pollution problem
may be missed at the site due to dilution or timing of sample collection, although modern automated monitoring equipment helps to alleviate this problem. Ultimately, water quality
indices must be carefully represented and interpreted based on the realization that they only present a snapshot of water quality conditions at a given point in space and time and have
limitations with regard to their use. Section 2.0 Background In the late 1980s the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection identified the need for communicating
water quality conditions to staff, elected officials and the general public. An exhaustive search of scientific literature yielded no clear guidance on communication of highly technical
water quality data. From the search, a laundry list of indices was discovered. Detailed evaluation of each index resulted in the selection of the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
index in combination with macroinvertebrate scores. The modified NSF index was implemented in 1988 and after several modifications, will be in use through June 2007. 2.1 Modified
National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Index The modified NSF index includes the following nine (9) parameters: temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, total phosphorus,
total nitrate, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total solids, pH and turbidity. The parameters were selected through the combined judgment of a panel of water quality experts residing
throughout the country. The panel members were asked to rate the relative importance of selected parameters to water quality and were invited to suggest any additional parameter not
on the initial list. The top nine (9) parameters that were independently variable and not correlated with other parameters were selected (note: turbidity and total phosphorus have
2 been shown to be dependent variables). The original NSF index was a weighted arithmetic mean of water quality values where the average of all scores is calculated. Through extensive
testing and validation of the NSF water quality index, it was found that a geometric mean of the weighted parameters more closely matched experts’ opinions. More recently modifications
have been made by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program to focus more attention on parameters of local concern. The modified NSF index
currently in use by the Water Quality Program uses curves for each of the parameters. The measured observation is plugged into a polynomial and a subsequent index score for the particular
parameter is calculated. The resultant modified NSF score ranges from 0 – 100. Figure 2-1 displays the second order polynomial used to convert fecal coliform concentrations to a modified
NSF index fecal coliform score (Note: curve modified by Water Quality Program in fall 2005): ( ) ( ) 100 792.145267.0 2 + −=−− conc concScoreFecalNSF Fecal Rating Curve 0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 colonies/100 ml NSF Fecal Score Figure 2-1: Second Order Fecal
Coliform Polynomial 3 Each of the nine (9) parameters in the modified NSF Index has a similar polynomial which associates parameter level (concentration) with an NSF score. After
calculation of each of the scores for each of the parameters a final index score for a particular site during a particular time is calculated via the following equation: The final
modified NSF score ranges from 0 – 100. This score is averaged with the macroinvertebrate score (normalized to a base 100 scale) to arrive at a Water Quality Rating (WQR) score. The
resultant WQR scores are then associated with watersheds and are utilized to produce the WQR Map. Averaging the modified NSF scores with macroinvertebrate scores was begun by the Mecklenburg
County Department of Environmental Protection in the early 1990s for the purpose of developing a WQR score that is more representative of local conditions by taking into consideration
stream biology. Historically, only data collected during baseflow (minimum of 72 hours without rain) were used to calculate the WQR Map. A total of 52 sample collection sites were
interspersed throughout Charlotte-Mecklenburg to facilitate calculation of the index. From 1988 – 1998 monthly baseflow samples were collected to support water quality index calculation.
From 1998 – present baseflow samples were collected quarterly for WQR calculations. Figure 2-2 shows a typical Water Quality Rating Map from July 2014. 9 3 DO
TSTurbTempTPNOBODpHFCWQI × ×××××××= 4 Very Poor Very Poor/ Poor No Data Poor Poor/Fair Fair Fair/Good Good Good/ Excellent Excellent 0 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 100 Figure 2-2: Water
Quality Rating Map for July 2014 Long Creek Litt le Sugar Creek McA lp ine Creek Irw in Creek McM ullen Creek Taggart Creek McDowe ll Creek Flat Branch Paw Creek Ma llard Creek Br
iar Creek Coffey Creek Ramah Creek C lear Creek Sugar Creek Back Creek Stewart Creek Steele Creek K ings Branch Toby Creek Gar Creek Campbe ll Creek Doby Creek Stoney Creek Gum Branch
C larks Creek Irvins Creek McKee Creek Torrence Creek Cane Creek S ix M ile Creek S Rocky R iver W Branch Goose Creek Gutter Branch W alker Branch Back Creek Tr ib Swan Branch Rocky
Branch Beaver Dam Creek Sard is Branch Rea Branch Reedy Creek Very Poor Very Poor/ Poor No Data Poor Poor/Fair Fair Fair/Good Good Good/ Excellent Excellent 0 15 25 35 45 55 65
75 85 100 Figure 2-2: Water Quality Rating Map for January 2006 Figure 2-3 shows the association of the WQR score to a verbal description and color on the WQR Map: Figure 2-3:
Water Quality Rating (WQR) Score Associated With Verbal Description 2.2 Advantages of the WQR System 5 Adoption of WQR system had several distinct advantages as follows: 1. Data
was analyzed consistently and presented to citizens and elected officials in a understandable and consistent manner 2. The index included data most relevant to the goals of Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Water Quality Program. These goals tended to focus on baseflow sources of pollution. 3. The index clearly identifies watersheds impacted by wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent,
which was a major concern in the 1980s and 1990s. 4. Improvements in baseflow water quality have been documented through the use of the WQR system. These improvements have been primarily
associated with reductions in fecal coliform concentration during baseflow and improvements in the quality of WWTP effluents. 5. The index is a very effective tool for presenting water
quality data to elected officials and the general public. It can be quickly and effectively communicated and is easily understood. 2.3 Disadvantages of the WQR System The WQR system
has several disadvantages as follows: 1. No storm water chemistry data is included in the WQR. As managers attempt to categorize storm water, the current methodology does not directly
respond to improvements or degradation of storm water chemistry. Storm water quality was not a local water quality concern until the mid 1990s when Charlotte was issued its Phase I
Storm Water Permit. 2. Several sources of general water quality data collected by the Water Quality Program are not included in the current index. These include the following data:
Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN), Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol (MHAP), storm water chemistry and metals. 3. The current index does not identify
or reflect any exceedance of water quality standards. 4. The WQR displays streams as having fair/good water quality that are known to be impaired (303(d) listed). This sends the wrong
message to citizens and elected officials. 5. The calculations were complex and the WQR system had a distinct “Black Box” quality. 6 For these reasons, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Water
Quality Program decided to develop a new water quality index based upon water quality standards and including all sources of general water quality data collected by the program. Section
3.0 Stream Use Support Index A team comprised of the following members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Water Quality Program was tasked with preparing recommendations on a new water quality
index: Jeff Price - Mecklenburg County David Buetow – Mecklenburg County Jeff Hieronymus – City of Charlotte Steve Jadlocki – City of Charlotte David Kroening - Mecklenburg County
Darrin Peine – City of Charlotte The team met monthly throughout 2006 and the first 4 months of 2007. They achieved consensus on a new water quality index system that they named
the Stream Use Support Index or SUSI for short. The basic goal of SUSI is to integrate all in-stream data types currently collected by Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The index was also required
to be reflective of parameters (particularly those with State standards) of local interest and be useable by staff, elected officials and citizens for the interpretation of water quality
data. 3.1 General Description The SUSI system was constructed around categories of parameters the team determined to be most important to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region. Moreover,
greater weight was given to parameters with water quality standards established by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The team established the following
five broad categories to include in the index: 1. Bacteria 2. Metals 3. Biological 4. Physical 5. Nutrients Additionally, the team wanted the index to reflect the current 303(d) listing
status. In other words, streams listed for a particular parameter should not show up in the index as having “good” or better water quality. The team also wanted the index to incorporate
the following three (3) time horizons: 1. Short Term – this includes the most recent month of data. The desire was to have the index comprised of approximately 40% of data from the
current month. 7 2. Middle Term – the desire of the team was to have approximately 40% of the data used in SUSI comprised of information collected over the previous 10 – 12 months.
An ancillary benefit of using longer term data is to attenuate short term spikes or lows. Furthermore, one of the goals of the index is to provide an indication of water quality trends,
which can be difficult when analyzing very noisy short term data. 3. Long Term – in order to include a longer term perspective (1 to 2 years) the team determined that approximately
20% of the data should encompass data collected over a longer time horizon. 3.2 Sample Locations When designing the sampling network for the SUSI system the following was taken into
consideration: 1. Obtaining maximum coverage with the minimum number of sites while ensuring that each major watershed has at least one (1) site. Locating sample sites at USGS gages
whenever possible. This provides a complete data set (flow and water quality) at each site. Sampling sites should be accessible and as safe as possible. 2. Sampling sites should coincide
with existing NC DENR sites (particularly TMDL compliance points). Figure 3-1 shows the sample sites selected for the SUSI network. Note that each major watershed has at least one
(1) sample site. The larger watersheds have two (2) or more sample sites. 8 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # MC4 MY8 MY7M C17 MC45 MC38 MC51 MC27 MY10 MY12 MY1B MC42
MY9A MY13 MC33 MC25 MC50 MC40A MY11B MC47A MC49A MC14A MC22A MC29A1 Figure 3-1: Sample Sites for SUSI Table 3-1 presents the sample collection sites and the watersheds covered for
the SUSI system. Table 3-1: SUSI Sample Sites and Watersheds Watershed MCWQP Site USGS Site DENR Site Notes Rocky River MY1B 0212393300 Clarke MY10 02124080 USGS at Clarke near
Harrisburg; consider moving site Mallard MY11B 0212414900 Back MY12 - USGS is evaluating Reedy MY13 - USGS is evaluating confluence of McKee/Reedy Clear MY8 0212466000 McKee MY7B
- USGS is evaluating Goose MY9 0212467595 USGS Gage is further downstream Six Mile MC51 - USGS is evaluating several sites in Six Mile, may be moved to Rea Road McAlpine MC45 02146750
Four Mile MC40A 02146670 9 Upper McAlpine MC38 02146600 114 McMullen MC42 02146700 Briar MC33 0214645022 Upper Little Sugar MC29A1 02146409 Little Sugar MC49A 02146750 115
DENR Site at SC 2964 Irwin MC22A 02146300 111 Sugar MC27 02146381 112 Coffey MC25 02146348 Steele MC47A - Paw MC17 0214295600 Long MC14A 0214291555 DENR Site at MC10 McDowell
MC4 0214266000 Gar MC50 0214266080 3.3 Sampling Methodology 3.3.1 Fixed Interval Samples Water chemistry grab samples will be collected once per month at a “fixed interval”
for SUSI calculations (Example: every second Wednesday in the month) at the locations shown in Figure 3-1 and listed in Table 3-1. This represents a change from the current “fixed
condition” (baseflow or stormflow) to a system of “fixed interval” irrespective of the flow condition. The team anticipates this type of sampling approach will allow for collection
of data over a wide range of conditions. 3.3.2 Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN) The SUSI system was designed to integrate CMANN data at each fixed interval
sample site. All of the data for the appropriate parameters will be evaluated for a given time period and utilized if it passes QA/QC checks. 3.3.3 Biological Samples Biological
samples, including macroinvertebrate samples and Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol (MHAP) evaluations, will be collected once per year at each fixed interval monitoring site shown
in Figure3-1. 3.4 Sub-Indices 3.4.1 Bacteria Justification: Fecal coliform bacteria is one of the highest priority pollutants in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Several watersheds are listed
on North Carolina’s 303(d) list as impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria. Its importance to the management of CharlotteMecklenburg streams resulted in its own sub-index within SUSI.
10 Description: The fecal coliform sub-index is based upon fecal coliform samples collected during monthly fixed interval sampling at the sites depicted in Figure3-1. The index
will compare the current month’s sample result along with the sample results from the previous eleven (11) months to determine the overall score. Each month’s fecal result will be
compared against the 400 cfu/100 ml portion of the State water quality standard and if the sample result is less than or equal to 400, the month is assigned a score of 8.33, if the
result is greater than 400, the month is assigned a score of 0. Table 3-2 is presented as an example calculation for sample site MC49a for the month of December 2006. Table 3-2:
Fecal Coliform Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 Month Month Number Fecal Result Monthly Score December 2006 1 140 8.33 November 2006 2 4000 0 October 2006 3 400 8.33 September
2006 4 440 0 August 2006 5 200 8.33 July 2006 6 230 8.33 June 2006 7 1000 0 May 2006 8 800 0 April 2006 9 6 8.33 March 2006 10 140 8.33 February 2006 11 56 8.33 January 2006 12 410
0 Score 58.31 3.4.2 Metals Justification: Information on metals’ levels in streams provides critical information regarding watershed health and development pressure. Description:
This sub-index will be based upon monthly sample results for copper, zinc, lead and chromium collected from the fixed interval sampling sites shown in Figure 3-1. Total metals may
be used against the dissolved metals standard, where field filtering has not been incorporated into sampling. The results from the current and eleven (11) previous months (similar
to the fecal coliform index) will be compared to the acute State standard for each parameter. This translates into each metal’s result contributing 25% to the overall sub-index, which
means that each result for each parameter will contribute 2.08 points. The standards are presented in Table 3-3 below. Table 3-3: State Standards for Selected Metals Parameter State
Standard Copper, Acute ppb 0.960 * e^{0.9422[ln hardness] -1.700} Zinc, Acute ppb 0.978 * e^{0.8473[ln hardness] + 0.884} 11 Lead, Acute ppb {1.46203 - [ln hardness] (0.145712)} *e^{1.273[ln
hardness]-1.460 Chromium VI, Acute ppb 16 ppb 1 Table 3-4 is presented as an example metals’ score for MC49a for the month of September 2015: Table 3-4: Metals’ Score for MC49a
during September 2015 Month Mo. # Hard ness Cu ppb Cu Standard Cu Score Zn ppb Zn Standard Zn Score Cr ppb Cr Standard Cr Score Pb ppb Pb Standard Pb Score Sep-15 1 98 4.1 13.2 2.08
22 115.2 2.08 5 16 2.08 0.5 63.2 2.08 Aug-15 2 41 3.5 5.8 2.08 10 55.1 2.08 10 16 2.08 0.5 24.2 2.08 Jul-15 3 120 4.5 16.0 2.08 20.5 136.8 2.08 5 16 2.08 0.5 78.7 2.08 Jun-15 4 89 5.8
12.0 2.08 26 106.2 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 56.9 2.08 May-15 5 100 4.3 13.4 2.08 23 117.2 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 64.6 2.08 Apr-15 6 60 33 8.3 0 110 76.0 0 18 16 0 24 36.9 2.08 Mar-15 7 120 3.8 16.0
2.08 25 136.8 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 78.7 2.08 Feb-15 8 60 4.9 8.3 2.08 19 76.0 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 36.9 2.08 Jan-15 9 85.5 4.1 11.6 2.08 16.5 102.6 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 54.4 2.08 Dec-14 10 110
3.4 14.7 2.08 20 127.0 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 71.6 2.08 Nov-14 11 110 5.1 14.7 2.08 26 127.0 2.08 2 16 2.08 1 71.6 2.08 Oct-14 12 100 5.2 13.4 2.08 33 117.2 2.08 5 16 2.08 5 64.6 2.08 October
Individual Metals’ Score (out of a possible 25.0) 22.92 22.92 22.92 25.0 Overall Score 93.76 1 Table 3-5 presents the overall metals’ sub-index calculation for MC49a for
the month of December 2006. Table 3-4: Metals’ Score for MC49a during October 2006 Month Mo. # Cu ppb Cu Score Zn ppb Zn Score Cr ppb Cr Score Pb ppb Pb Score Dec-06 1 3.3 2.08 27
2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Nov-06 2 8.3 0 32 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Oct-06 3 18 0 75 0 8 2.08 11 2.08 Sep-06 4 4 2.08 43 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Aug-06 5 3 2.08 20 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Jul-06 6 16 0 69
0 5 2.08 13 2.08 Jun-06 7 4 2.08 28 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 May-06 8 4 2.08 19 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Apr-06 9 17 0 64 0 7 2.08 13 2.08 Mar-06 10 4 2.08 19 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Feb-06 11 4 2.08
19 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 Jan-06 12 9 0 39 2.08 5 2.08 5 2.08 October Individual Metals’ Score (out of a possible 12.50) 14.6 18.7 25.0 25.0 Overall Score 83.2 Table 3-5 presents the
overall metals’ sub-index calculation for MC49a for the month of December 2006. Table 3-5: Metals’ Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 Sub-Index Parameter Sub-Index Score
Metals Sub Index (max 100 pts) 83.2 Score (out of possible 100) 83.2 3.4.3 Macro invertebrate/Habitat Justification: Marcroinvertebrate health is an excellent indicator of overall
watershed and stream function. Typically, watersheds with fully supporting macroinvertebrate populations exhibit good overall stream and watershed function. Conversely, degraded or
impaired macroinvertebrate populations indicate poor watershed or stream function. Macroinvertebrate habitat is also an important aspect of the stream ecosystem. Inclusion of habitat
scores in the index allows watershed managers to gain insight into specific watershed issues. For example, a watershed with good habitat and degraded macroinvertebrate populations
indicates a problem with water chemistry or physical parameters. Together, a representation of both macroinvertebrates and habit provides a relatively complete assessment of the health
of a stream (and watershed). Description: The macroinvertebrate/habitat sub-index will be based upon an annual macroinvertebrate and habitat score (habit scores are determined using
the Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol). Macroinvertebrate samples are collected once per year at the fixed interval monitoring sites shown in Figure 3-1. Habitat is also assessed

at the 2 fixed interval monitoring sites once per year. The macro invertebrate results are reported by the lab as two (2) values: an EPT Species Richness value and a North Carolina
Biotic Index value. The two values are averaged together and reported as a biotic index score. The Biotic Index Score is then converted to a SUSI Macro invertebrate Score using a
vlookup table in Excel, which is approximated by the following equation: The habitat results are reported by the lab as a value ranging from 0-200 (200 being the best). The habitat
results are also converted to a SUSI habitat score using a v=lookup table in Excel. The conversion is approximated by the following graph, Figure 3-2: Figure 3-2: Habitat Value
versus SUSI Habitat Score 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Habitat Value SUSI Habitat Score . Table 3-6 presents the macro invertebrate sub-index for
MC49a during October 2006. Table 3-6: Macro invertebrate/Habitat Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 Parameter Result Sub-Index Score Normalized Score Habitat (collected
07/06) 92 out of 200 62.4 out of 100 15.6 (out of possible 25) Macro invertebrate EPT Score = 1.6 NC BI Score = 2 Average = 1.8 65.8 out of 100 49.35 (out of possible 75) ( ) 689 .35785.49
+= xBioticIndeLnScoreSUSI 3 Macro invertebrate/Habitat SUSI Score 65.0 3.4.4 Physical Parameters Justification: Physical parameters are quick and relatively inexpensive measurements
of stream water quality. Namely, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature (each of which has a State water quality standard). Moreover, using physical parameters in SUSI provides
a very meaningful reporting strategy for data collected under the CMANN program. Description: The physical parameters sub-index will be based upon monthly CMANN scores collected at
the fixed interval monitoring sites shown in Figure 3-1. The physical parameters’ sub-index will utilize turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and pH results. All results
for each parameter will be compared against the State standard. For DO, if 10% or less of the results for a month are out of compliance with the standard, a score of 25 will be assigned.
If more than 10% of the results are out of compliance, a score of 0 will be assigned. For pH and temperature, if 1% or less of the results for a month are out of compliance with the
standard, a score of 25 will be assigned. If more than 1% of the results are out of compliance, a score of 0 will be assigned. For turbidity if 10% or less of the measurements are
out of compliance with the state standard a score of 25 will be assigned. If more than 10% of the results are out of compliance with the standard a score of 0 will be assigned. Table
3-7 presents the State standards for turbidity, DO, temperature and pH. Table 3-7: State Standards for Dissolved Oxygen, pH and Temperature Parameter State Standard Turbidity 50 N.T.U.
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/l daily average; 4.0 minimum pH 6.0 to 9.0 Temperature 32o Celsius Table 3-8 presents the physical parameter sub-index calculation for MC49a for the month of
December 2006. Table 3-8: Physical Parameter Sub-Index Score for MC49a during December 2006 Parameter Result Index Score Turbidity 747 out of 1905 measurements out of compliance
0 DO 5.0 Daily Average 100 % Compliance 25 4.0 Single Time Min 100% Compliance pH 2 out of 1905 measurements out of compliance (0.1%) 25 Temperature 100% Compliance 25 Score 75
4 3.4.5 Nutrients Justification: There are currently no North Carolina standards for nutrients in free flowing streams. However, total phosphorus and chlorophyll a TMDLs are currently
under preparation by South Carolina for reservoirs downstream of CharlotteMecklenburg. It is likely that Charlotte-Mecklenburg will receive an allocation for phosphorus within these
TMDLs. From a management perspective, the index needs to include all parameters for which TMDLs were approved or are under preparation. Description: Currently, there are no North
Carolina standards for total phosphorus (TP). To determine a suitable threshold for use in the SUSI system, the team utilized the US EPA Nutrient Criteria Guidance. This guidance
suggested that TP levels below 0.050 mg/l are essentially harmless to all water-bodies including streams and reservoirs. Moreover, the guidance indicated that free flowing streams
with TP levels at or below 0.10 mg/lt presented little or no risk to the aquatic ecosystem. From the results of this investigation, a SUSI rating system was prepared. It is presented
in Table 3-9. Table 3-9: Criteria Values for Total Phosphorus Criteria / Level Use-Support Rating SUSI Points <= 0.050 mg/l Fully Supporting 100 0.051 – 0.100 mg/l Partially Supporting
66.67 0.100 – 0.200 mg/l Impaired 33.33 > 0.200 mg/l Degraded 0 The nutrient sub-index calculation for MC49a during December, 2006 is presented in Table 3-10. Table 3-10. Nutrient
Sub-Index Score for MC49a during October 2006 Month Month Number TP ppm TP Score December 2006 1 2.1 0 November 2006 2 1.8 0 October 20 06 3 0.7 0 September 2006 4 2.3 0 August 2006
5 0.7 0 July 2006 6 0.8 0 June 2006 7 1.1 0 May 2006 8 1.1 0 April 2006 9 0.8 0 March 2006 10 1.1 0 February 2006 11 1.2 0 January 2006 12 0.5 0 Final SUSI Nutrient Score for December
0 5 2006 3.4.6 Overall SUSI Score Monthly, the overall SUSI Score for a monitoring site will be the aggregated score from each of the sub-indices. Table 3-11 shows the process for
aggregating each of the subindices into the larger overall SUSI Score. Table 3-11: Overall SUSI Score for MC49a during October 2006 Sub-Index Weight Sub-Index Score Score (base 20)
Bacteria 20% 58.31 11.662 Metals 20% 83.2 16.64 Macro invertebrate/Habitat 20% 65.0 13.0 Physical Parameters 20% 75 15.0 Nutrients 20% 0 0 Final SUSI Score for MC49a during October,
2006 56.3 Current WQR Score for MC49a during October 2006 43.5 Note: Current WQR Score shown for comparison purposes. Annually, an overall SUSI score will be calculated for the fiscal
year. The annual score Section 4.0 Reporting 4.1 Rating Scale The Rating Scale shown in Table 4-1 below will be used to assign adjectives for the overall SUSI score: Table 4-1:
SUSI Rating Scale Overall SUSI Score Assigned Adjective Map Color 90 – 100 Supporting Green 70 – 89 Partially Supporting Yellow 50 – 69 Impaired Orange 0 - 49 Degraded Red 4.2 Maps
One of the primary reporting tools for the SUSI system will be the visual representation of the SUSI index using maps of the watersheds in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Overall SUSI
score for each site will be assigned to the appropriate watershed (See Table 3-1 above). The watershed will then be colored using the Rating Scale shown in Table 4-1 above. Maps showing
each of the sub-indices may also be made and used to illustrate the SUSI scores by watershed. Figure 4-1 shows a typical SUSI Index map based on test run data for April 2006 to March
2007. Figure 4-2 shows the overall SUSI Index map and 6 the supporting sub index maps for October 2008. In addition, the overall macroinvertebrate/habitat sub index map for FY09
is shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-1: SUSI Index Map for March 2007 test run # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S MC4
MY8 MY9 MC17 MC45 MC38 MC51 MC27 MY10 MY12 MY1B MC42 MY13 MC33 MC25 MC50 MY7B MC40A MY11B MC47A MC49A MC14A MC22A MC29A1 SUSI 0307 Supporting Partially Supporting Impaired Degraded
No Data SUSI Index 7 Figure 4-2: Overall SUSI Index Map and Supporting Sub Index Maps 8 9 10 11 12 13 4.3 Website SUSI Maps and supporting information can be found at
the following website: http://charmeck.org/stormwater/ReportPollution/pages/streamusesupportindex.aspx This will enable citizens and elected officials to view the water quality conditions
within Charlotte-Mecklenburg using the internet. Section 5.0 Conclusion SUSI maintains the advantages and addresses the disadvantages of the old WQR. For example, SUSI like the
old WQR is a very effective tool for presenting water quality data to elected officials and the general public. It can be quickly and effectively communicated and is easily understood.
In addition, both SUSI and the WQR include data most relevant to the goals of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Water Quality Program. Some of the improvements brought about by SUSI include
the collection of data over a wider range of flow conditions through the use of fixed interval sampling. This is not provided by the WQR. In addition, unlike the WQR, SUSI focuses
on usability and compliance with standards. This is extremely important considering the new regulatory requirement through storm water permits to achieve compliance with TMDLs. South
Carolina TMDLs may impose requirements on Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte for the control of nutrients. This is taken into consideration in SUSI by making nutrients one
(1) of the five (5) sub-indices. Another important improvement brought about by SUSI is the incorporation of habitat into the benthic score, which comprises a sub-index of SUSI. The
WQR left out habitat data although habitat is an important component to consider when evaluating benthic macroinvertebrates. This is a big advantage of SUSI over the WQR. Another
advantage of SUSI is that it covers multiple time horizons, including short, middle and long term data. This allows for an effective evaluation of short term problems as well as middle
and long term trend analyses. Another advantage of SUSI is that it incorporates all the water quality data collected. The old WQR left out CMANN data, which is the best data produced
by our monitoring efforts according to an analysis performed by Dr. Jim Bowen of UNCC. Another important advantage of SUSI is that unlike the WQR there is not a “Black Box” component
to the analysis. The WQR was a complex analysis and was difficult to understand. SUSI on the other hand is much simpler. The fact that SUSI is broken down into five (5) sub-indices
is a final important advantage over the WQR. This allows SUSI to be broken down and analyzed on a smaller scale. SUSI is a significant improvement over the current WQR and it will
enable stream water quality to be much more effectively translated in a manner that is easily understood by the general public and elected officials. The field of water quality has
changed significantly over the past several years. SUSI captures all the major components of this change and will serve as an effective tool for evaluating water quality for many years
to come. Ambient Lake Monitoring Program Review 2009 SWIM Phase I Part 2-CO Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services, Water Quality Program July 2009
1 Table of Contents
Page No. Purpose…………………………………………………………………………….. .......... 3 Review Process ....................................................................................................................3
Lake Monitoring Program Goals…………………………………………………….. .......5 Monitoring Activities ...........................................................................................................5
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................6 Site Selection and Frequency ..................................
.............................................................6 General Considerations .....................................................................................................6
Entering Streams and Watershed Size ...........................................................................7 Size of Cove ...............................................................
....................................................8 Shape ...................................................................................................................10
Forebay Sampling ........................................................................................................12 CMU Water Intakes .....................................................
................................................12 Background Sites .........................................................................................................12 Lake
Norman. ................................................................................................................14 Mountain Island Lake. .................................................
..................................................18 Lake Wylie. ....................................................................................................................22
Sampling Frequency ..........................................................................................................25 Lab Analyses .........................................................
.............................................................25 Data Presentation ...............................................................................................................28
Program Measures ..........................................................................................................28 Reporting.........................................................
................................................................28 Rating Scale .................................................................................................................
28 Maps .............................................................................................................................29 Swimmable Indicator ...............................
....................................................................29 Fishable Indicator........................................................................................................
.29 Web Site .......................................................................................................................31 Follow Up Tracking .................................
....................................................................31 Process Forward ................................................................................................................
.31 References ..........................................................................................................................31 List of Tables Table 1. Proposed Net Changes
to Lake Monitoring Sites ........................................4 Table 2. Major Coves Bordering Mecklenburg County Ranked by Size ..................8 Table 3. Major Coves Bordering
Mecklenburg County Ranked by Various Factors11 Table 4. Lake Norman Site Comparisons ................................................................14 Table 5. Lake Norman, Cornelius
and Davidson Proposed Site Changes ...............15 Table 6. Mountain Island Lake Proposed Sampling Site Changes ..........................18 Table 7. Lake Wylie Proposed Sampling
Site Changes ...........................................22 Table 8. Lake Monitoring - Estimated Lab Costs FY 2008-2009 ............................... 26 Table 9. Lake Monitoring
- Estimated Lab Costs FY 2009-2010 ...........................27
2 List of Figures Figure 1. Median Annual Stream Flows to Major Coves............................................7 Figure 2. Major County Watersheds
Draining to Nearby Catawba Reservoirs ..........7 Figure 3. Coves and Arms, Ranked by Size… ............................................................9 Figure 4. Examples of Constrictions
in Coves ..........................................................10 Figure 5. Schematic of Inflows and Outflows in Upper Lake Wylie ........................13 Figure 6. New Sampling
Site in Lower Lake Norman ..............................................14 Figure 7. Proposed Sampling Sites in Lake Norman by Type with Selected Land Features ....................................
..................................................................16 Figure 8. MCWQP Lake Norman Sampling Sites Compared with DWQ Sites .......17 Figure 9. Box and Whisker Plots of
Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll a at sites in McDowell Creek Cove and Gar Creek Cove .............................................19 Figure 10. Proposed Sampling Sites in Mountain
Island Lake by Type with Selected Land Features .............................................................................................20 Figure 11. MCWQP Mountain Island Lake
Sampling Sites compared with DWQ Sites ............................................................................................................21 Figure 12 Proposed Sampling Sites
in Lake Norman by Type with Selected Land Features Coves and Arms, Ranked by Size… ...........................................23 …… Figure 13. MCWQP Lake Norman Sampling Sites Compared
with DWQ Sites .......25 Figure 14. Example map of new LUSI and Fishable/Swimmable Indicators using May 2009 data for Mountain Island Lake. .................................................30
3 PURPOSE
The three lakes that border the Mecklenburg
County on the west (Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie) are a vital resource for our region. Mecklenburg County alone has almost 200 miles of shoreline and many citizens
live directly on the lakes. All three lakes have public access and are heavily used by citizens from Mecklenburg and surrounding counties for recreational activities including boating,
fishing, and swimming. The lakes are also the drinking water supplies for the City of Charlotte and surrounding region. On average, 132 million gallons of water a day is withdrawn
from six intake structures on these three lakes bordering Mecklenburg County in order to provide drinking water to over 1,000,000 residents in three counties, including Mecklenburg,
Gaston and York. Two of these intakes provide drinking water for Charlotte-Mecklenburg at an average withdrawal rate of 100 million gallons of water a day. Protecting the quality
and usability of these lakes is essential for maintaining livable communities and is the highest priority for the Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (MCWQP). MCWQP has monitored
the three lakes on a continuous basis since the early 1980s. Data collected from all lake sites are used to screen for environmental problems using MCWQP Action and Watch levels for
various pollutants and also to rate the overall water quality at sampling locations in the lakes using a water quality index. Additional objectives are to describe seasonal trends
and address spatial variability in the data. The purpose of this document is to describe the process undertaken by MCWQP to assess the current Lake Monitoring Program and identify
changes necessary to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. REVIEW PROCESS Beginning in November 2008, meetings were held with several Water Quality Program staff to discuss the
effectiveness of the Lake Monitoring Program at fulfilling the above described goals, including David Caldwell, David Kroening and Jeff Price. Rusty Rozzelle participated in several
meetings and helped focus the efforts of the group. It was decided early on to revise the Lake Water Quality Index and construct it similar to Stream Use Support Index (SUSI). This
new lake index will be called the Lake Use Support Index (LUSI) and is described in Appendix A (LUSI 2009). It was further decided that the Lake Monitoring Program would continue to
follow the NC DWQ Ambient Monitoring and Lake Assessment protocols and guidelines (NC DWQ 2004). This will ensure that our program follows “customary and defensible” procedures when
conducting lake monitoring. These guidelines include: 1. Water chemistry samples are collected as a composite from the euphotic (upper lighted) zone using a composite (LabLine) sampler.
2. The euphotic zone is defined as twice the Secchi depth. 3. Physical-chemical properties of the entire water column are measured at 1 meter increments from the surface to near bottom
using a calibrated multiprobe. 4. Sampling efforts are focused on the growing season defined as May through September
4 The MCWQP Lake Monitoring Program will also continue to use the NC DWQ guidelines for the selection of
indicators as described in their QAPP: “The selection of indicators is primarily focused on those with NC water quality standards that can be costeffectively analyzed. Additional indicators
are also included that may not have specific standards associated with them but are useful for interpretation of other measurements. Others, such as specific conductance are of themselves
useful for identifying long-term trends.” Water Quality Program Staff have identified several changes to the Lake Monitoring Program to improve its effectiveness and efficiency
as described in the following Sections. All changes focus on ensuring that the Lake Monitoring Program goals are achieved as described in the next Section. A summary of the changes
is provided below. 1. Routine monitoring frequency changed to every other month as opposed to every month from May through September and every other month from October through April.
This change was made to establish an equally spaced time interval to routine monitoring activities to better assess general water quality conditions and identify trends. Lakes typically
experience poorer water quality conditions during the summer months, which is when the current monitoring program increases its monitoring activities thus negatively skewing the data.
Changing the monitoring frequency to every other month removes this seasonal bias in the data. 2. Reduce the total number of routine lake sampling sites from 29 to 28 as follows:
a. Lake Norman: combine three sites (LN3, LN6 and LN7) into one site in the Davidson Arm (LN9). b. Mt. Island Lake: drop MI7 at the Highway 16 Bridge and add a sampling site at the
main CMU Water Intake for the City of Charlotte (MI9) and move MI2B uplake to the sharp bend mid lake (MI8). c. Lake Wylie: Add a reference site between Paw Creek Cove and Browns Cove
that corresponds with DWQ sampling site (LW12) and move LW8 down lake from near I-85 to just uplake of Paw Creek Cove (LW11). 3. Reduce the total number of summer fecal sites from 19
to 17. Table 1. Proposed Net Changes in Lake Monitoring Sites Full Monitoring Fecal Lake Current Proposed Difference Current Proposed Difference Norman 7 5 -2 6 4 -2 Cornelius/Davidson
2 2 0 3 2 -1 Mt. Island 10 10 0 4 4 0 Wylie 10 11 1 6 7 1 Totals 29 28 -1 19 17 -2 4. Discontinue sampling for TSS, TS and alkalinity since they are not included in LUSI. 5. Discontinue
bottom sampling at forebay locations for every month except July. 6. Add additional metal parameters back into biannual metals sampling to evaluate potential water quality impacts associated
with deposition from the coal-fired power plants along the lakes. 7. Add sample sites for metals at ash basin discharge locations on Lake Wylie and Mountain Island Lake six times per
year. 5 LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM GOALS The
activities performed by MCWQP’s Lake Monitoring Program focus on fulfilling five goals, including: 1. Identifying general water quality conditions and tracking short and long-term trends
for the identification and elimination of pollution sources. 2. Assessing the overall effectiveness of program activities at maintaining or restoring water quality conditions. 3. Assessing
whether lakes are fulfilling their designated uses. 4. Supporting watershed management initiatives. 5. Communicating water quality conditions to elected officials and the general public.
MONITORING ACTIVITIES To achieve the five goals described in the Section above, MCWQP’s Lake Monitoring Program will include four different monitoring activities effective July 1,
2009, including: 1. Routine Monitoring: Performed every other month, year-round at 28 monitoring sites in the three lakes as described in the next Section. The purpose of this monitoring
is to fulfill all five of the goals listed above. Data collected from these monitoring activities will be used to generate LUSI (see Appendix A), which is incorporated into the Water
Quality Program Measures. 2. Bacteriological Monitoring: Performed every month from May through September at 17 monitoring sites as described in the next Section. The purpose of this
monitoring is to fulfill goal #3 above by assessing the suitability of the lakes for swimming. Data collected from this monitoring will be used to generate a “Swimmable Indicator”
that will be displayed in maps and other publications in addition to LUSI. 3. Fish Monitoring: Fish monitoring will be performed by NC DENR for all three lakes and by SC DNR for lower
Lake Wylie with assistance from MCWQP as necessary. The purpose of this monitoring is to fulfill goal #3 above by assessing the suitability of the fish in the lakes for human consumption.
Data collected from this monitoring will be used to generate a “Fishable Indicator” that will be displayed in maps and other publications in addition to LUSI and the Swimmable Indicator.
4. Pollution Abatement Monitoring: Performed during the off-months from May through September when Routine Monitoring is not being performed; however, monitoring may also be performed
at anytime throughout the year as deemed necessary. The purpose of this monitoring is to identify and eliminate pollution sources to fulfill goal #1 above. Site and parameter selection
will vary depending on need. Data generated from this monitoring will not be used to generate LUSI.
6 DATA ANALYSIS Data collected from the above describe monitoring activities will be thoroughly analyzed for the identification
of water quality problems and/or concerns. These analyses must be completed within 48 hours of receipt of the data and immediately reported to the Supervisor for the initiation of
the necessary follow up actions for identifying and eliminating pollution sources and restoring water quality conditions. At a minimum, the following analyses will be performed: 1.
LUSI: Data collected from Routine Monitoring activities will be incorporated into LUSI. This data will be displayed on maps and at a minimum shared with the Marine Commissions and
MCWQP staff. These maps and LUSI scores will be displayed on the storm water website. LUSI will also be used to calculate the lake program measure. 2. Action/Watch Report: Data
collected from Routine Monitoring, Bacteriological Monitoring and Pollution Abatement Monitoring will be analyzed for immediate pollution problems/concerns using the Action/Watch Report.
3. Trend Analysis: Data collected from Routine Monitoring and Bacteriological Monitoring will be analyzed for both short and long-term trends using a standard statistical package similar
to the statistical analysis performed for SUSI. This analysis should be capable of identifying subtle trends and include data that is not normally distributed or is censored (meaning
less than reporting limit observations). All analyses, including data, maps, reports, etc, will be maintained in a designated folder in the water quality xfer so they can be quickly
and easily accessed by all staff. In addition, a log will be maintained in this same xfer folder to record problems/concerns detected, follow up actions initiated and corrective actions

completed. SITE SELECTION AND FREQUENCY General Considerations The coves and arms of the lakes are receiving increased attention under the revised monitoring plan in order to focus
our efforts on those portions of the reservoirs that are more directly impacted by watersheds in Mecklenburg County. First, it is useful to define these terms. A “cove” is defined
by Webster as “a small, sheltered bay in the shoreline of a sea, river, or lake”. Webster’s definition of an arm pertaining to lakes is “anything branching out from a large mass: an
arm of the sea.” Since the portion of Lake Norman bordered by Mecklenburg County is a large, deep water mass it can be argued by these definitions that there are no coves in lower Lake
Norman but only arms. Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie, on the other hand, have much narrower main channels and sheltered bays that are more appropriately termed coves. Factors
to consider as to the importance of sampling a particular cove are: 1. Frequency of use by swimmers and boaters; 2. Influence of a Mecklenburg County watershed on water quality in the
cove; 3. Size of the watershed drained and whether a perennial stream is present;
7 4. Size of the cove; 5. Shape of the cove; and 6. Historical data. Entering Streams and Watershed Size There are five USGS gauged perennial
streams draining watersheds in Mecklenburg County that discharge within the borders of the county: McDowell Creek, Gar Creek, Long Creek, Paw Creek and Beaver Dam Creek. Of the
four major watersheds with coves, McDowell Creek has by far the greatest discharge on a mean annual basis (Figure 1). Other coves considered have minimal inflows from streams and
are affected predominantly by storm water discharges. Four major watersheds from Mecklenburg County drain to the reservoirs bordering the county (Figure 2). Most of the center city
watersheds of Charlotte also drain to the Catawba River but enter the river below Lake Wylie where they have a potential impact on reservoirs in South Carolina. Three of the four
major watersheds (McDowell Creek, Gar and Paw Creek) drain into coves in the reservoirs bordering Mecklenburg County. Long Creek, the fourth of the major watersheds, discharges directly
to the main stem of the Catawba River and therefore has no cove separate from the lake to locate a sampling site. Median Annual Stream Flows to Major Coves 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 McDowell
Creek Paw Creek Beaverdam Creek Gar Creek cfs Figure 1. Figure 2.
8 Size of Cove The size of the cove is an important factor in determining whether to sample. Smaller coves have less area for recreational use, have fewer
residents and in general have less of an impact on the overall water quality of the lakes. Since it would not be feasible to sample all the coves bordering Mecklenburg County it is
useful to first look at the larger sized coves in order to best utilize resources. Coves and arms in bordering reservoirs are ranked by size in Table 2 and in Figure 3. Table 2.
Major Coves Bordering Mecklenburg County Ranked by Size Current Perennial Stream Information Size Sampling Is One Median Annual Discharge Cove Name or Location Lake (acres)
Site No. Present? Name cfs Date Range Lake Norman Knox Creek Arm Norman 354 LN6 No NA NA NA Lake Davidson Norman 341 LD5 No NA NA NA Ramsey Creek Arm Norman 222 LN2 No NA
NA NA Hager Creek Arm Norman 162 None No NA NA NA Kings Point Marina Arm Norman 115 None No NA NA NA Lake Cornelius Norman 114 LC2 No NA NA NA Mt. Island Lake & Lake Wylie Gar
Creek Cove Mt. Island 221 MI2, MI6A Yes Gar Creek 1.57 2003-2008 Paw Creek Cove Wylie 207 LW4 Yes Paw Creek 8.9 1995-2008 Withers Wylie 117 LW10 Yes Neal Branch Unknown NA Snug Harbor
Wylie 97 PALC10 No NA NA NA Boyds Wylie 91 PALC1 Yes Studman Branch Unknown NA McDowell Creek Cove Mt. Island 80 MI3, MI3B Yes McDowell Creek 24.5 1997-2008 Nance Cove Mt. Island 70
MI5 No NA NA NA Browns Cove Wylie 63 BC2 Yes Beaverdam Creek 1.79 2003-2007 Neck Road Access Cove Mt. Island 40 None No NA NA NA McDowell Park Wylie 39 None Yes Porter Branch Unknown
NA Woody Point Road Wylie 31 None No NA NA NA
9 Coves and Arms Ranked by Size 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Lake Davidson Ramsey Creek Arm Lake Cornelius Gar Creek Paw Creek Withers Snug Harbor Boyds McDowell Creek Nance
Browns Neck Road Access McDowell Park Woody Point Road acres Coves Not Sampled Lake Norman Arms Mt Island Lake Lake Wylie Coves Due to the depth and size of parts of lower Lake
Norman these are referred to as arms and not coves and are ranked separately. Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson, while called “lakes” are actually arms of Lake Norman cut off by the
construction of the I-77 road bed. Coves on the Mecklenburg County side of the Mt. Island Lake and Lake Wylie are grouped together and ranked by size. Note that we currently do not
sample any cove less than 50 acres in size. This seems to be a useful criterion for continued monitoring. This would not prevent the monitoring of smaller coves as part of a special
study. All arms and coves greater than 50 acres are currently sampled for our regular lake monitoring program. Gar Creek Cove, the largest Mecklenburg County cove on Mt. Island Lake
and Lake Wylie currently has two sampling sites on it. Gar Creek Cove and Paw Creek cove are similar size (>200 acres) and both have perennial streams entering them as previously mentioned.
Withers Cove is the next largest at just over 100 acres. The remaining five coves currently sampled in decreasing size are Snug Harbor, Boyds, McDowell Creek, Nance and Browns Cove
and range in size from 97 to about 63 acres. Figure 3.
10 Shape Shape is an important determining factor as to how much the water quality in the cove is impacted by Mecklenburg County watersheds rather than the main
stem of the Catawba River. Coves that are constricted near the opening to the main stem are more susceptible to local impacts than coves that are more open to the main channel. The
length of the cove is a factor as well as very long coves would tend to limit exchange of water. Examples of this showing narrows in several Mecklenburg County coves are as follows:
In order to describe the shape of a cove taking into account any constrictions near the mouth a metric was calculated where the average width of the midsection of the cove was divided
by the width of the opening to the main lake. Where this metric is less than 1.0 the cove has a constricted opening and where it is greater than 1.0 the cove tends to open up to the
main lake. The top eleven coves in Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie are ranked using this metric along with cove size, watershed size, number of waterfront homes are ranked in Table
3. Points are also given for other factors considered important: 5 points each for an industrial facility, county park and location of DWQ sampling site and 10 points if the cove
had a perennial stream and was located less than about 2 miles uplake from a CMU water intake. Narrows Narrows Gar Creek Cove Paw Creek Cove Sampling Sites Mt. Island
Lake Lake Wylie Figure 4. Examples of constrictions in cove shape that can limit water flow into and out of the cove. Table 3. Major Coves bordering Mecklenburg County Ranked
by Various Factors - Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie only Cove Watershed Waterfront Homes Cove Opening Added Factors Cove Name or Location Overall Rank Current Sampling
Site No. Size (acres) Rank Size (acres) Rank Approx. No. Rank Constriction Factor Rank Uplake of Water Intake* Next to Park Industrial Facility DWQ Site Overall Score Gar Creek
Cove 1 MI2, MI6A 221 11 5310 9 72 10 0.35 11 10 5 56 McDowell Creek Cove 2 MI3, MI3B 80 6 18690 11 13 1 2.72 1 10 5 5 39 Withers 3 LW10 117 9 2910 8 61 8 0.72 8 5 38 Paw
Creek Cove 4 LW4 207 10 11600 10 42 5 1.53 5 30 Browns Cove 5 BC2 63 4 1750 7 54 7 0.49 10 28 Nance Cove 6 MI5 70 5 880 1 80 11 0.69 9 26 Boyds Cove 7 PALC1
91 7 1450 6 65 9 2.50 2 24 Snug Harbor Cove 8 PALC10 97 8 930 2 52 6 1.58 4 20 McDowell Park 9 None 39 2 1200 5 36 3 2.15 3 5 18 Woody Point Road 10 None 31 1
1010 4 42 4 1.15 7 16 Neck Road Access Cove 11 None 40 3 940 3 25 2 1.33 6 14 * Uplake within about 2 miles of a municipal water intake with a perennial stream.
12 Forebay Sampling All three
“lakes” bordering Mecklenburg County are reservoirs. The deepest part of a reservoir is found at the dam on the downstream end. This is called the forebay, which is where the water
quality impacts from all the influents and tributaries entering the reservoir as well as from natural internal processes are integrated within the reservoir. The forebays of each of
the reservoirs have been sampled by the MCWQP lake monitoring program since its beginning and it is critical to continue sampling them as an element of any reservoir monitoring program.
There are three lakes and therefore three forebay sites bordering the county that we need to sample. CMU Water Intakes One of the most important functions of reservoirs is to supply
drinking water to the surrounding communities. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities has two drinking water intakes in the nearby reservoirs. The main water intake is located in Mt. Island
Lake and the other is located in lower Lake Norman. These sites are important to sample in order to monitor the quality of the “raw” water that enters into our water intakes. Background
Sites Coves and arms of reservoirs are influenced by water quality in the main stem. Therefore, it is important to sample along the main stem of the reservoir in order to better interpret
the results we see in the coves. This is particularly important in Lake Wylie where the water quality changes along the main stem are due to many different inflows from tributaries.
The complexity of water quality in upper Lake Wylie is shown in Figure 5. Two major tributaries (Dutchmans Creek and Long Creek) and two permitted discharges (Clariant and Mt. Holly
WWTP) enter the narrow upper section of Lake Wylie within about a 2 mile distance. Paw Creek enters further down lake after which Allen Steam Station withdraws cooling water from the
main stem side of the lake and discharges heated waste water into the South Fork of the Catawba. Also, the Allen Steam Station ash basin discharge enters the main channel of Lake Wylie
in this area. Due to the complexity of this upper part of Lake Wylie it is proposed to 1) add a background site between the Allen Steam Station intake and Browns Cove and 2) move background
site LW8 down lake from near I-85 bridge to just uplake of Paw Creek Cove. Both of these sites are also sampled by NCDWQ during their basinwide lake sampling.
13 Mt. Holly WWTP Clariant East Clariant West
Mt. Island Dam and Hydro Belmont WWTP Allen Steam Station Schematic of inflows and outflows in upper Lake Wylie and proposed background sites. LW6B - existing LW12 - new background
site LW8 - move existing Figure 5. Ash basin Discharge
14 Lake Norman Water quality observed at MCWQP sampling sites in lower Lake Norman is generally fairly uniform. This is due to the long retention time (>200 days) and
small watersheds that drain into the lower lake where Mecklenburg County has a border. In particular, sites in the Davidson Creek, Reeds Creek and Knox Creek Cove part of the lake
are similar as shown from this nonparametric statistical comparison between sites (Table 4). Chlorophyll a, turbidity and total phosphorus showed no statistical differences between
sites although fecal coliform bacteria was significantly different between LN6 and LN7. It is proposed to combine these three sites into a new site (LN9) near the confluence of these
three arms of the lake as shown in Figure 6. It is also proposed to drop two summer fecal sites in Lake Norman and one in Lake Cornelius. Proposed changes to sampling sites in Lake
Norman are summarized in Table 5. Dropped sites are shown in gray and added sites are highlighted in yellow. Table 4. Lake Norman Site Comparisons
Davidson, Reeds and Knox Creek Arm Sites Test: Kruskall Wallis Test - p values Chlorophyll a Turbidity Sites LN6 LN7 Sites LN6 LN7 LN3 1.00 1.00 LN3 1.00 1.00 LN6 1.00 LN6
1.00 Total Phosphorus Fecal coliform bacteria Sites LN6 LN7 Sites LN6 LN7 LN3 1.00 1.00 LN3 0.08 1.00 LN6 0.81 LN6 0.01 # # # ## # # # # LN 4 LN 3 LN 2 LN 5 LN 1 LN
6 LN 7 LC 2 LD 5 Mecklenburg County # LN 9 Figure 6. New sampling site in Lower Lake Norman.
15 Table 5. Lake Norman, Cornelius and Davidson Sampling Sites - Proposed Changes to Program 2009 Current Sites Part of Water
Body Proposed Action Purpose Reason for Change Proposed Sites FY09-10 At/Near NCDWQ Site MCWQP Program Measure Lake Norman Full Sampling (LUSI) LN1 forebay Keep forebay, deepest
part of lake NA LN1 X LN2 arm Keep Measure WQ near Meck. Co. parks (2) NA LN2 X X LN4 main stem Keep Determine influence from Main Channel NA LN4 LN5 water intake Keep Measure
WQ near CMU Water Intake NA LN5 X LN6 arm Drop Measure WQ near large marina Combined into LN9 X LN3 arm Drop Measure WQ in Reeds Creek Arm Combined into LN9 LN7 arm Drop
Measure WQ in Davidson Creek Arm Combined into LN9 arm Add Measure WQ in Davidson/Reeds Creek Arm NA LN9 X Summer fecals BLY near shore Keep Boat launch, much public use
NA BLY RCP near shore Keep Park site, public use NA RCP SB near shore Keep Popular swimming, public use area NA SB NF50 near shore Keep Beach, boat slips NA NF50 LS1
near shore Drop Many boat slips, near lift station Little primary recreation PYC near shore Drop Many boat slips Little primary recreation Lakes Cornelius and Davidson
Full Sampling (LUSI) LC2 center of lake Keep Center site represents Lake Cornelius LC2 LD5 near shore Keep Represent Lake Davidson from dock LD5 Summer fecals YMCA
near shore Keep Summer camp, much primary recreation YMCA LD4F near shore Keep Near lift station and discharge from pond LD4F LC1F near shore Drop Fairly large cove in lake
Little primary recreation 16 Figure
7. Proposed sampling sites in Lake Norman by type with selected land features.
17 # S # S # S # S # S # S # S % % % % % % LN1 LN2 LN4 LN5 LN9 LC2 LD5 SB RCP BLY NF 50 LD4F YMCA DWQ sampling sites in Lake Norman Figure 8.
MCWQP Lake Norman sampling sites compared with DWQ sites.
18 Mountain Island Lake Mountain Island Lake contains some of the most critical sampling sites due to the CMU Water Intake located mid lake and several large coves
in developing watersheds in Mecklenburg County. Only minor changes are proposed for Mountain Island Lake sampling. It was decided to begin sampling directly in front of the CMU water
intake. MCWQP has historically sampled just uplake of the water intake at MI2B. By adding a site at the intake (MI8) the uplake site (MI2B) was now considered to be too close to the
water intake site so it is recommended to drop this site and add a site further uplake near the bend in the river (MI9). Dropping two regular monitoring sites and adding two sites
results in no net change in the number of sites sampled in Mountain Island Lake. The fecal sites in Mountain Island Lake remain the same as last year. One new site (RB1) will be added
to monitor metals near the RiverBend Steam Station ash basin discharge. Changes to the Mountain Island Lake monitoring program sites are shown in Table 6. Mountain Island Lake is the
only lake sampled where there are more than one sampling site for a cove. This currently occurs in McDowell Creek Cove and Gar Creek Cove. These two coves were the highest rated coves
in the cove analysis (Table 3). Also, nonparametric statistical tests show that MI3 and MI3B in McDowell Creek Cove as well as Table 6. Mountain Island Lake Sampling Sites - Proposed
Changes to Program 2009 Current Sites Part of Water Body Proposed Action Purpose Reason for change Proposed Sites FY09-10 At/Near NCDWQ Site MCWQP Program Measure Full Sampling (LUSI)
MI1 forebay Keep forebay, deepest part of lake NA MI1 X MI7 main stem Drop lower midlake site Similar to MI1 X MI2B main stem Drop measure WQ near CMU Water Intake Replaced by
MI8 X MI5 cove Keep Nance Cove site, county watershed NA MI5 X MI2 cove Keep Lower Gar Creek Cove, county watershed NA MI2 X MI6A cove Keep Upper Gar Creek Cove, county watershed
NA MI6A X MI3 cove Keep McDowell Creek Cove, county watershed NA MI3 X MI3B cove Keep Lower McDowell Creek Cove, county watershed NA MI3B X X MI3D main stem Keep Upstream of McDowell
Creek Cove NA MI3D X MI4 main stem Keep Headwaters of Mt. Island Lake NA MI4 main stem Add Downlake of McDowell Creek Cove Replaces MI2B MI8 X water intake Add CMU Water
Intake for the City of Charlotte Closer to Intake MI9 Summer fecals MF3 near shore Keep Boat launch, much public use MF3 MF12 near shore Keep Park site, public use MF12
MF12A near shore Keep Park site, public use MF12A MF5 near shore Keep Popular swimming, public use area MF5 Ash Basin Discharge Sampling near shore Add RiverBend
SS Ash Basin Discharge New site RB1 19
MI2 and MI6A in Gar Creek Cove are significantly different from each other in terms of total phosphorus and chlorophyll a (Figure 5). It is recommended to keep these sites. Total
Phosphorus Chlorophyll a 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 MI3 MI3B TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 95% CI Notched Outlier Boxplot 95% CI Mean Diamond Outliers >
3 IQR 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 MI2 MI6A TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS McDowell Creek Cove Sites Gar Creek Cove Sites 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 MI3 MI3B CHLOROPHYLL A
CHLOROPHYLL A 95% CI Notched Outlier Boxplot 95% CI Mean Diamond Outliers > 1.5 and < 3 IQR 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 MI2 MI6A CHLOROPHYLL A CHLOROPHYLL A McDowell Creek Cove Sites Gar
Creek Cove Sites Figure 9. Box and whisker plots of Total phosphorus and chlorophyll a at paired sites in McDowell Creek Cove and Gar Creek Cove showing significant
differences. 20 Figure 10. Proposed
sampling sites in Mountain Island Lake by type with selected land features.
21 # S # S # S # S # S # S # S# S # S # S % % % % MI 4 MI 3 MI 2 MI 5 MI 1 MI3B MI3D MI 8 MI 9 MI 6A MF 3 MF 5 MF 12 MF 12A Figure 11. MCWQP Mountain
Island Lake sampling sites compared with DWQ sites. DWQ sampling sites in Mt. Island Lake.
22 Table 7. Lake Wylie Sampling Sites - Proposed Changes to Program 2009 Current Sites Part of Water Body Proposed Action Purpose
Reason for Change Proposed Sites FY09-10 At/Near NCDWQ Site MCWQP Program Measure Full Sampling (LUSI) LW1 forebay Keep forebay, deepest part of lake LW1 X LW3 arm Keep Determine
influence of South Fork LW3 X LW225 main stem Keep Mid lake site LW225 X PALC1 cove Keep Palisades Watershed PALC1 X PALC10 cove Keep Palisades Watershed PALC10 X LW10
cove Keep Large cove drained by Meck Co. watershed LW10 X BC2 cove Keep Large cove drained by Berewyck Development BC2 X LW4 cove Keep Large cove drained by Meck Co. watershed
LW4 X LW8 main stem Drop (Move Downlake) Determine influence of Long Creek and Dutchmans Creek on Upper Lake Wylie Too riverine, Replaced by LW11 LW6B main stem Keep Headwaters
of Lake Wylie LW6B main stem Add Upper Lake Wylie WQ before confluence with Paw Creek DWQ site, Replaces LW8 LW11 X main stem Add Upper Lake Wylie WQ between Paw Creek Cove
and South Fork DWQ site, dynamic section of lake LW12 X Summer fecals WF39 Keep Summer camp, much primary recreation WF39 WF42 Keep Popular swimming place on lake WF42
WF67 Keep WWTP discharge WF67 WF72A Keep WWTP discharge WF72A WF72B Keep WWTP discharge WF72B WF73 Keep Mouth of Long Creek WF73 Reinstate Queens
Harbor WWTP WF51 Ash Basin Sampling Near shore Add Monitor Allen SS Ash Basin Discharge New AL1 20 Lake Wylie Lake Wylie is the largest lake that MCWQP samples in its
entirety and also has the most complex hydrology as previously shown in Figure 5. Five coves are currently sampled by MCWQP in Lake Wylie and the previous cove analysis does not show
that any significant coves are being missed in the lake. Due to the complexity of upper Lake Wylie it is proposed that we add an additional sampling site between Paw Creek Cove and
Browns Cove at DWQ site CTB 105B and move our site LW8 downlake from the I-85 Bridge to just uplake of Paw Creek Cove at DWQ site CTB 103. This will give us five cove sites, four
sites that correspond to DWQ sampling sites plus one site uplake of Dutchmans Creek (LW6B). One fecal site is proposed to be reinstated, WF51 at Queens Gate WWTP. One site will be
added to monitor the Allen Steam Station ash basin discharge (AL1). Changes to the monitoring program for Lake Wylie are summarized in Table 7. Sampling sites by type along with
selected land features are presented in Figure 12. MCWQP sampling sites compared with DWQ sites are presented in Figure 13.
23 Figure 12. Proposed sampling sites in Lake Wylie by type with selected
land features. 24 % % % % % % % # S # S #
S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S # S BC2 LW1 LW3 LW4 LW6B LW10 LW11 LW12 LW225 PALC1 PALC10 WF51 WF 67 WF 39 WF 42 WF 73 WF 72B WF 72A Figure 13. MCWQP Lake Wylie sampling sites compared
with DWQ sites. DWQ sampling sites in Lake Wylie.
25 SAMPLING FREQUENCY The following sampling frequency shall apply effective July 1, 2009: • Routine Monitoring – Every other month throughout the year beginning in July 2009.
• Bacteriological Monitoring – Every month from May through September. No Bacteriolgical Monitoring runs will be performed from October through April due to the lack of swimming activity
on the lakes; however, bacteria samples will be collected every other month during this period as part of Routine Monitoring. • Fish Monitoring – This monitoring will be performed
at the frequency determined by NC DENR. • Pollution Abatement Monitoring – This monitoring will be performed in June and August which are the off-months from May through September when
Routine Monitoring is not being performed; however, monitoring may also be performed at anytime throughout the year as deemed necessary. LAB ANALYSES The lab analyses to be performed
are listed in Table 8 along with the cost per analysis. Overall lab analysis costs are projected to be reduced in FY 09-10 due to: 1. the reduction of routine sampling frequency from
eight times per year to six; 2. a slight decrease in the number of sampling sites; 3. a reduction in the number of parameters analyzed; and 4. the elimination of metals sampling in
surface and bottom forebay sites from May through September (except for July).
26 Table 8. Lake Monitoring - Estimated Lab Costs FY 2008-2009 Surface Samples Cornelius Total Total Parameter No. Sampling
Total No. Davidson Bottom QC Number of Lab Lab Water Chemistry Samples Events Analyses Samples Samples Samples Samples Cost Cost Alkalinity 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $10.20 $2,754.00 NH3
27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $12.75 $3,442.50 NOX 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $25.00 $6,750.00 TKN 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $15.00 $4,050.00 Chlorophyll a 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $35.00 $9,450.00 Total
Phosphorus 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $20.00 $5,400.00 Total Residue (TS) 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $10.00 $2,700.00 Suspended Residue (TSS) 27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $10.00 $2,700.00 Turbidity
27 8 216 10 20 24 270 $10.00 $2,700.00 Mineral Metals Cu 27 1 27 10 40 15 92 $11.00 $1,012.00 Mn 27 1 27 10 40 15 92 $11.00 $1,012.00 Zn 27 1 27 10 40 15 92 $11.00 $1,012.00
Toxic Metals Cr 27 1 27 10 40 15 92 $11.00 $1,012.00 Pb 27 1 27 10 40 15 92 $11.00 $1,012.00 Hg 27 1 27 10 40 15 92 $15.00 $1,380.00 VOCs w MTBE (0.05 ppm) 22 1 22 2
24 $95.00 $2,280.00 Bacteriological Regular sites Fecal Coliform 28 8 224 10 24 258 $17.00 $4,386.00 Summer fecals Fecal Coliform 21 5 105 15 120
$17.00 $2,040.00 Total 476 92 2,457 177 420 3,384 $55,092.50
27 See Appendix A (LUSI document) for a detailed discussion of parameters analyzed for lake monitoring. Table 9. Lake Monitoring - Estimated Lab
Costs FY 2009-2010 Revised Sampling Schedule with Semi-annual Metals Surface Samples Prog Cornelius Sample Types Total Total Parameter Sampling Total #
Measure Davidson Ash Number Lab Lab Water Chemistry No. Events Anal. Metals Samples Bottom Basin QC Samples Cost Cost NH3 26 6 156 12 4 24 196 $14.00 $2,744.00 NOX 26
6 156 12 4 24 196 $25.00 $4,900.00 TKN 26 6 156 12 4 24 196 $15.00 $2,940.00 Chlorophyll a 26 6 156 12 4 24 196 $35.00 $6,860.00 Total Phosphorus 26 6 156 12 4 24
196 $20.00 $3,920.00 Turbidity 26 6 156 12 4 24 196 $10.00 $1,960.00 Mineral Metals Al 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Cu 26 2 52 24 4 4 12
4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Fe 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Mn 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Zn 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Toxic
Metals As 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Cd 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Cr 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Pb 26 2 52
24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Hg 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $15.00 $1,500.00 Ni 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00 Se 26 2 52 24 4 4 12 4 100 $11.00 $1,100.00

VOCs w MTBE @ 0.05 ppm 20 1 20 2 22 $110.00 $2,420.00 Bacteriological Regular sites Fecal Coliform 26 6 156
10 29 195 $17.00 $3,315.00 Summer fecals Fecal Coliform 15 5 75 10 85 $17.00 $1,445.00 IDDE fecals Fecal Coliform 18 3 54 10 64
$17.00 $1,088.00 Total 529 72 1,811 288 142 72 144 221 2,678 $44,104.00
28 DATA PRESENTATION Program Measures The “Water Quality Index” is one of the program measures for MCWQP. Currently, 70%
of the Water Quality Index is comprised of the Fusiliers’ LWQI and 30% is comprised of SUSI. Initially, data from 22 lake monitoring sites was used to calculate the Fusiliers’ LWQI
for the Water Quality Index. Fourteen (14) of these sites were located in the main channel or in coves in Gaston and York Counties and the water at these sites originated outside Mecklenburg
County’s jurisdiction; therefore, MCWQP’s efforts to restore water quality conditions in the lakes had no effect at these sites. To enhance our ability to effect improvements to the
program measure, the lake monitoring sites used to calculate Fusiliers’ LWQI were changed in FY2007 to include eight (8) cove sites inside Mecklenburg County’s jurisdiction. In FY2008,
three (3) cove sites in Lake Wylie were added bringing the total of program measure monitoring sites on the lakes to 11. It is proposed for FY2010 that the four (4) most impacted cove
sites out of these 11 be used to calculate the program measure for the lakes, including • McDowell Creek Cove on Mountain Island Lake at site # MI3, • Paw Creek Cove on Lake Wylie
at site # LW4, • Browns Cove on Lake Wylie at site # BC2, and • Wither Cove on Lake Wylie at site # LW10. It is further proposed that the new LUSI method be applied to these four (4)
sites to calculate the program measure for the lakes instead of Fusiliers’ LWQI. If we were to use all 11 sites or go back to the original 22 sites, the baseline for the lake program
measure would be at 95 or greater thus allowing minimal room for improvement. This is because LUSI is based on N.C. water quality standards and over 95% of our lake data is well within
these standards; therefore, to show improvement we must use data from the coves with the poorest water quality conditions. Reporting Rating Scale The Rating Scale for LUSI shown
in the table below will be used to assign adjectives for the overall LUSI score. It is very similar to the rating scale that was developed for SUSI. The only difference is that the
Supporting category has been broken down into two subcategories: Supporting and Supporting +. LUSI Rating Scale Overall LUSI Score Assigned Adjective Map Color > 95 Supporting + Blue
90 - 95 Supporting Green 70 – 90 Partially Supporting Yellow 50 – 70 Impaired Orange < 50 Degraded Red
29 Maps As was done with Fusiliers LWQI values, one of the primary reporting tools for the LUSI system will be the presentation
of the color coded LUSI index scores represented on individual lake maps. These maps will also include a color coded indicator of both the Swimmable and Fishable Indicators. Figure
14 shown below provides an example of the map that will be used for reporting LUSI and the indicators. LUSI maps for each lake will be presented to their respective marine commission
at their regular monthly meetings by a representative of the Catawba Group when data is available. These are the Lake Norman Marine Commission, the Mountain Island Lake Marine Commission
and the Lake Wylie Marine Commission. Efforts will also be made during FY10 to expand our reporting of LUSI and the Swimmable and Fishable Indicators in order to better inform the
general public and elected officials of lake water quality conditions. . Swimmable Indicator Swimmable Indicators will be presented for each sampling period represented by measured
fecal coliform levels at sampling sites. Fecal coliform data from regular sampling sites will be presented every other month and additional “summer fecal” sites will be monitored during
summer months (May through September) when more primary recreation on the lakes is expected. Categories for Swimmable Indicators are as follows: Supporting +: <100 col./100 ml Supporting:
100 to 200 col./ml Partially Supporting: 200 to 400 col./ml Impaired: 400 to 1000 col./ml Degraded: > 1000 col./ml Fishable Indicator A Fishable Indicator for each site will
be presented on the LUSI map based on NC Division of Public Health fish consumption data for mercury contamination. Categories for the Fishable Indicator are as follows: Level 1:
No advisories Level 2: One species advisory for sensitive individuals Level 3: Multiple species advisories for sensitive individuals Level 4: Multiple species advisories for
all persons 30 Figure 14. Example map
of new LUSI and Fishable/Swimmable Indicators using May 2009 data for Mountain Island Lake.
31 Website Color coded maps with LUSI results will be placed on the Water Quality website (http://maps.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/website/swim/)
as is done with SUSI maps. This will make the lake data accessible to the public and elected officials on the internet. Follow Up Tracking Exceedances of state water quality standards
will be immediately reported to the Catawba Group supervisor for follow up. Any investigations and data generated from follow ups will be tracked in EDMS. PROCESS FORWARD The above
described modifications to the Lake Monitoring Program will go into effect at the beginning of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2009. The desired outcomes from these changes include:
1. Improved assessment of general water quality conditions with the implementation of LUSI. 2. Improved short and long-term trend analyses with the routine application of a standardized
statistical package. 3. Increased identification of water quality problems and/or concerns through improved data analysis. 4. Improved follow up on water quality problems and/or concerns
through the initiation of Pollution Abatement Monitoring. 5. Improved communication of data to the public through the use of enhanced reporting tools. On July 1, 2010, the above described
Lake Monitoring Program modifications will be evaluated to determine if these desired outcomes have been achieved as well as the goals described at the beginning of this document.
Additional program modifications will be implemented and documented until all desired outcomes and goals have been fulfilled. REFERENCES Fusilier, W. E. 1982. An opinion derived
nine parameter unweighted multiplicative lake water quality index: the LWQI. PhD Dissertation. Univ.of Mich. Ann Arbor, MI. 75 pp. Lake Use Support Index (LUSI) 2009. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services Prepared by: David Buetow Sr. Environmental Hygienist July 2009 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Lake Use Support Index (LUSI) June 2009 Appendix
A Table of Contents Section 1.0 Purpose ........................................................................................................... Section 2.0 Background .........................
.......................................................................… 2.1 Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index (LWQI) ................................................. 2.2 Advantages
of Fusiliers LWQI ...................................................................... 2.3 Disadvantages of Fusiliers LWQI ..................................................................
Section 3.0 Lake Use Support Index 3.1 General Description ...................................................................................... 3.2 Sample
Locations ........................................................................................... 3.3 Sampling Methodology .......................................................................
........... 3.4 Sub-Indices .................................................................................................... 3.4.1 Bacteria ......................................................
.................................................... 3.4.2 Turbidity ........................................................................................................ 3.4.3 North
Carolina Trophic State Index (NCTSI) ............................................... 3.4.4 Physical Parameters .......................................................................................
3.4.5 Metals ............................................................................................................. 3.4.6 Overall LUSI Score...................................................
..................................... Section 4.0 Comparison of LUSI and Fusiliers LWQI ..................................................... Section 5.0 Conclusion ..................................
................................................................... Section 6.0 References ......................................................................................................
List of Tables Table 3-1: LUSI Sampling Sites...................................................................................... Table 3-2: NC Water Quality Standard and Watch Levels
for Fecal Coliform .............. Table 3-3: Fecal Coliform Sub-Index Score for LW4 during 2007 ................................ Table 3-4: NC Water Quality Standard and Watch Levels
for Turbidity ....................... Table 3-5: Turbidity Score for LW4 during 2007 ........................................................... Table 3-6: LUSI Subindex Scoring for
NC Trophic State Index .................................... Table 3-7: NCTSI Sub-Index Score for LW4 during 2007 ............................................. Table 3-8: State Standards
for Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Temperature ......................... Table 3-9: Physical Parameter Sub-Index Score for LW4 during 2007........................... Table 3-10: NC Water
Quality Standards for Metals ........................................................ Table 3-11: Semiannual Metals’ Subindex Scores for LW4 during 2005 ........................ Table
3-12: Overall SUSI Score for LW4 during 2007 (with 2005 metals) ..................... List of Figures Figure 2-1: Calculation Sheet for Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index .........................
... Figure 2-2: Mt. Island Lake Water Quality Rating Map for January 2006 ...................... Figure 3-1: LUSI Sampling Sites………………………………………………………. Figure 4-1: Comparison of LUSI
and Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index……………. Section 1.0 Purpose Water quality monitoring programs often generate a large amount of technical data that is not easy to interpret and
can be very confusing to the general public as well as managers and decision makers. Hence, there has long been a need for condensing this data into a form that is simple and easy
to understand for communicating water quality conditions to the public, managers and elected officials. This is usually accomplished by the use of a water quality index. Essentially,
a water quality index transforms large quantities of water quality data into single unitless numbers that can be reported in relation to a quality rating scale. Water quality index
data can be presented in many forms, including graphs and maps with color coded rating scales that can easily be interpreted. Water quality indices also are useful in comparing water
quality between different sites and over time to look for trends and evaluate the effectiveness of watershed management efforts. Water quality indices are not without their drawbacks,
however. The simplification of the data generally leads to the loss of some information. When the index does signal water quality problems it is not often evident what the underlying
cause is without mining down into the data. As with any monitoring program the water quality index is generated from samples collected at a given point and time and, as such, may miss
episodic pollution problems. Nonetheless, water quality indices are a useful tool in communicating with the public as long as they are carefully presented and their limitations are
taken into consideration. Section 2.0 Background In the late 1980s the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) identified the need for communicating water
quality conditions to managers, elected officials and the general public. A search of scientific literature at the time showed no national consensus on a water quality index that could
be used for either lakes or streams. However, it was found that a good deal of work had been done in the 1970s and early 1980s on developing water quality indices and several were
available. Two indices were chosen to be used by MCDEP: the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF 1970) index for streams and Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index (1982) for lakes. Both
indices were similar in structure and, in fact, Fusiliers Lake Index was modeled after the NSF index but designed for lakes. Fusiliers LWQI was implemented by MCWQP in 1988 and has
been used in its original form since then. Fusiliers LWQI will be in use by the MCWQP through June 2009. 2.1 Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index
(LWQI) is an unweighted multiplicative index using the following nine (9) parameters: temperature, dissolved oxygen (percent saturation), chlorophyll a, Secchi disk depth, NO3-N, total
alkalinity, pH, specific conductivity and total phosphorus. It is very similar in structure to the NSF Index developed by Brown et al. (1970) and improved by Deininger (1979). The
NSF Index, however, was designed for use in rivers and streams and not standing water bodies. Since the NSF Index was not directly applicable to lakes and reservoirs, Dr. Wallace
Fusilier decided to develop such an index as part of his Ph.D. work. The Fusiliers LWQI, like the NSF Index, was based on a survey of the opinions of a panel of water quality professionals
across the country. The panel was first asked to choose the most important parameters for lakes and second to suggest a quality rating curve for the parameters. Parameters used in
the index were those most often selected by the panelists. Rating curves were based on the combined judgement of the panelists and rated water quality for each parameter on a scale
from 1 to 100 corresponding to Very Poor to Excellent. Like the NSF index Fusiliers is a geometric mean of the nine parameters which makes it more sensitive to low values of a single
parameter. Unlike the NSF index, it was decided not to weigh any of the parameters more than others so Fusiliers is an unweighted multiplicative index. The following figure shows
the sheet used to hand calculate Fusiliers LWQI from water quality data. Figure 2-1: Calculation sheet for Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index Very Poor Very Poor/ Poor No Data
Poor Poor/Fair Fair Fair/Good Good Good/ Excellent Excellent 0 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 100 Since 1988, Fusiliers LWQI has been used to rate water quality conditions on a color coded
scale from Very Poor to Excellent which was then represented on a graph as shown in this example from Mt. Island Lake. Figure 2-2: Water Quality Rating Scale and Map of Mountain
Island Lake for January 2006 2.2 Advantages of Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index Advantages of Fusilier LWQI are as follows. 1. LWQI was developed specifically for lakes and
reservoirs and was more suitable for lake monitoring than the NSF Index. 2. The index is simple and has served as a good communication tool for presenting water quality information
to our elected officials and the general public. 3. The index reflects current conditions at the time of sample collection so could directly be compared with results from the same
month a year ago. 4. The rating tables used in the index allow for a wider graded scale than a pass/fail type index. Disadvantages of Fusiliers index 2.3 Disadvantages of Fusiliers
Lake Water Quality Index Fusiliers LWQI has several disadvantages as follows: 1. The LWQI was developed primarily for northern temperate lakes and as a result some of the rating tables
are not well suited for southeastern reservoirs. 2. The index does not include fecal coliform bacteria, an important human health (“swimmable”) parameter. 3. The quality rating tables
are not directly related to state standards. 4. It is impossible to achieve a rating of 100 with our detection limits for certain parameters. 5. Subindices are not easily calculated
with the index. For these reasons, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Water Quality Program decided to review the lake water quality index currently in use and decide whether it would be better
to come up with a new index for the lake monitoring program. Section 3.0 Lake Use Support Index A team comprised of the following members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Water
Quality Program was convened in November 2008 to review the current lake Water Quality Index and suggest ways to modify it or replace it with a new index: David Buetow, David Caldwell,
Jeff Price, David Kroening and Rusty Rozzelle. Objectives for a new lake water quality index were brain-stormed during one Lake Program Review group meeting and are as follows. L
La ak ke e I In nd de ex x O Ob bj je ec ct ti iv ve es s ( (1 12 2-1 18 8-0 08 8) ) 1 1. . A Ac cc cu ur ra at te el ly y a as ss se es ss s s sh ho or rt t a an nd d l lo
on ng g t te er rm m w wa at te er r q qu ua al li it ty y c co on nd di it ti io on ns s f fo or r i id de en nt ti if fi ic ca at ti io on n a an nd d e el li im mi in na
at ti io on n o of f p po ol ll lu ut ti io on n s so ou ur rc ce es s. . 2 2. . A As ss se es ss s u us sa ab bi il li it ty y t th hr ro ou ug gh h t th he e u us se e o
of f t th he e w wa at te er r q qu ua al li it ty y s st ta an nd da ar rd ds s ( (s sw wi im mm ma ab bl le e, , f fi is sh ha ab bl le e) ). . 3 3. . S Sy yn nt th he es
si iz ze e a al ll l w wa at te er r q qu ua al li it ty y d da at ta a c co ol ll le ec ct te ed d o on n t th he e l la ak ke es s. . 4 4. . C Ca ap pa ab bl le e o of
f b be ei in ng g u us se ed d a as s a a W Wa at te er r Q Qu ua al li it ty y P Pr ro og gr ra am m m me ea as su ur re e. . 5 5. . A Ac cc cu ur ra at te el ly y a as
ss se es ss s t th he e e ef ff fe ec ct ti iv ve en ne es ss s o of f p pr ro og gr ra am m a ac ct ti iv vi it ti ie es s. . 6 6. . C Ca ap pa ab bl le e o of f b be ei in
ng g u us se ed d t to o e ef ff fe ec ct ti iv ve el ly y c co on nv ve ey y w wa at te er r q qu ua al li it ty y c co on nd di it ti io on ns s i in n a an n e ea as sy
y t to o u un nd de er rs st ta an nd d f fo or rm ma at t. . 7 7. . C Ca ap pa ab bl le e o of f d de em mo on ns st tr ra at ti in ng g s sl li ig gh ht t c ch ha an ng ge
es s i in n w wa at te er r q qu ua al li it ty y c co on nd di it ti io on ns s. . 8 8. . C Ca ap pa ab bl le e o of f a ac ch hi ie ev vi in ng g a a s sc co or re e o
of f 8 85 5 b by y 2 20 01 15 5. . 9 9. . R Re el le ev va an nt t a an nd d u us se ef fu ul l t to o o ou ur r c cu us st to om me er rs s. . 1 10 0. . A As s s si im
mp pl le e a as s p po os ss si ib bl le e b bu ut t n no o s si im mp pl le er r. . 1 11 1. . V Va al lu ue es s p pr ro od du uc ce ed d c co on ns si is st te en nt t w
wi it th h r re ea al li it ty y. . 1 12 2. . S Se en ns si it ti iv ve e t to o c ch ha an ng ge es s i in n w wa at te er r q qu ua al li it ty y c co on nd di it ti io on
ns s. . Two options were considered: 1) revising Fusiliers LWQI or 2) developing a new index like SUSI (Stream Use Support Index). In meetings with WQP staff in late 2008, it was
quickly decided to change to a SUSI style index similar to what has been developed for Mecklenburg County streams but modified for parameters specific for lakes. The lake index of
this type would naturally be called LUSI (Lake Use Support Index). SUSI was developed by a joint County - City team in 2007. This style index for streams used state standards rather
than continuous rating scales. The index was also required to be reflective of parameters (particularly those with State standards) of local interest and be useable by staff, elected
officials and citizens for the interpretation of water quality data. SUSI has been used by MCWQP since July 2007 and forms the basis of LUSI in structure and function. 3.1 General
Description The LUSI system, as with SUSI, is constructed around categories of parameters the team determined to be most important to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region. Moreover, greater
consideration was given to parameters with water quality standards established by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. One key element used by LUSI
that has been very successful in SUSI is the use of subindices. Subindices are very useful in pinpointing specific water quality problems. Subindices for LUSI are proposed as follows:
1. Human Health - fecal coliform bacteria 2. Sediment - turbidity 3. Eutrophication - NCTSI 4. Fish Habitat - field data (temperature, D. O. and pH) 5. Metals With the exception of
NCTSI, scoring for LUSI will be calculated based on whether North Carolina water quality standards are met. These parameters and associated standards will be described in the next
section. 3.2 Sample Locations The sites currently sampled for lake monitoring were reviewed and adjusted for LUSI where necessary. Lake site selections and justifications are found
in another document (Lake Program Review 2009). In general the following was taken into consideration: 1. Priority for sampling sites was given to coves most directly affected by
runoff from watersheds in Mecklenburg County. 2. Priority for sampling sites was also given to proximity to one of the two CMU water intakes in order to protect the water quality of
drinking water supplies. 3. The most upstream and most downstream (forebay) sites should be sampled to assess what is coming in and going out of the reservoir. 4. Background sites
were added where significant changes in water quality were expected along the length of the reservoir due to inflows. 5. Sampling sites should coincide with existing NC DENR sites
whenever possible. Figure 3-1: Sampling Sites for LUSI Table 3-1. LUSI Sampling Sites and Descriptions Site ID Program Measure DENR Site
Description Lake Norman LN1 CTB082BB Near Cowans Ford Dam LN2 Ramsey Creek Arm LN4 Main Channel LN5 CMU Water Intake LN9 Nr CTB082Q Davidson Creek/Reeds Creek Arm
Lake Cornelius and Davidson LC2 Center of Lake LD5 Off ViewLake St. Mountain Island Lake MI1 CTB087A Near Mountain Island Dam MI2 CTB086C Gar Creek Cove MI3 X McDowell
Creek Cove MI3B CTB086A Middle McDowell Creek Cove MI3D CTB083B Uplake of McDowell Creek Cove MI4 Headwaters, below Cowans Ford Dam MI5 Shuffletown Boat Landing MI6A Upper
Gar Creek Cove MI8 Downlake of McDowell Creek Cove MI9 City of Charlotte Water Intake Lake Wylie LW1 Nr CTB198D Near Lake Wylie Dam LW3 CTB174 South Fork of the Catawba
LW4 X Paw Creek Cove LW6B Headwaters, Upstream of Dutchman’s Creek LW10 X Withers Cove LW11 CTB103 Upper Lake above Paw Creek Cove LW12 CTB105B Upper Lake between above
South Fork BC2 X Browns Cove, Middle PALC1 Boyds Cove PALC10 Snug Harbor Cove LW225 CTB178 Buster Boyd Bridge 3.3 Sampling Frequency 3.3.1 Routine Lake Monitoring Routine
lake samples for LUSI will be collected every other month during the year (July, September, November, January, March and May). Sampling will be done on a regular interval during the
first half of the month. For safety reasons lake sampling will not be done in the rain or when temperatures are below freezing. Also, lake sampling will not be done under high wind
conditions, especially on Lake Norman. Lake sampling may be postponed immediately after a large rain event at the discretion of the boat captain and Catawba Group supervisor if it
is deemed not to be representative of ambient conditions. 3.3.2 Fecal Coliform Sampling (Human Health) Most primary contact recreation (swimming, water skiing, etc.) takes place
during the warmer months. The period between Memorial Day (late May) and Labor Day (early September) is usually the peak time for recreational lake use in general. CharlotteMecklenburg
Police officer Terry Everhart estimated the span of time that people used Lake Wylie for swimming and other primary recreation from April through September (personal communication).
Therefore, additional fecal coliform sampling will be conducted monthly from May through September at sites that include known areas for primary recreation. These “summer fecal” samples
will be collected during routine monitoring in May, July and September and on special Pollution Abatement Monitoring (PAM) runs in June and August. 3.3.3 Metals Toxic and mineral
metals will be sampled twice per year (January and July) for the metals parameters shown in Section 3.4.5. Parameters include both mineral metals (aluminum, copper, iron, manganese
and zinc) and toxic metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and selenium). Sampling twice a year will provide one sample during the unstratified period (January)
and one during the stratified (July). As a result, metals will be sampled on a regular interval and not weighted to any particular season. The exception to this is that the four Program
Measure sites (MI3, LW4, BC2 and LW10) will be sampled six times per year. Note that where more than one standard exists we will use the more stringent standard for index purposes.
3.3.4 Field sampling Secchi Depth Secchi depths will be measured at each regular monitoring site. This depth measurement is used to calculate the depth of the euphotic zone defined
as twice the Secchi depth (DWQ 2004). Physical-chemical Measurements Depth profiles from near surface (0.2 m) to the bottom will be collected at every regular sampling site in
accordance with the DWQ Lake monitoring QAPP (DWQ 2004). At this time only data collected from near surface (0.2 m) will be used in LUSI but data from the euphotic zone may also be
used. The remainder of the depth profile data will be used for special projects. Parameters collected for YSI depth profiles include: temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific
conductivity, chlorophyll a and turbidity. CMANN data will be used where available to calculate LUSI. This is currently available at two fixed sites (McDowell Creek Cove and Paw Creek
Cove) and one mobile site (Withers Cove). Note that these are all Program Measure sites. 3.4 Sub-Indices 3.4.1 Human Health - Bacteria Justification: The protection of human health
is the top priority for MCWQP. Fecal coliform bacteria are used by the state of North Carolina to determine whether waters are safe for primary human contact (swimming). Therefore,
as with SUSI, its importance to the management of lakes and reservoirs resulted in its own sub-index within LUSI. Table 3-2. State Standard and Watch Level for Fecal Coliform bacteria
Description: The fecal coliform sub-index is based upon fecal coliform samples collected from surface grab samples during the six months of the year sampled at regular monitoring
sites. The index will compare the current month’s sample result along with the sample results from the previous five months to determine the overall score. The fecal coliform sample
results for each month result will be compared against the 200 and 400 cfu/100 ml portions of the State water quality standard as well as the MCWQP Watch Level of 100 cfu/100 ml. If

the sample result is less than or equal to 100, the month is assigned a score of 16.67. If the result is greater than 100 but less than 200, the month is assigned a score of 11.11.
If the result is greater than 200 but less than 400, the month is assigned a score of 5.56. If the result is greater or equal to 400 cfu/100 ml the month is assigned a score of 0.
Table 3-3 is presented as an example calculation for sample site LW4 for the month of November 2007. North Carolina Water Quality Standard plus Watch Level Parameter Lab Analysis
Watch Level Standard Units Fecal Coliform 100 200* cfu/100 ml * Geometric mean of 5 samples collected within a 30 day period. Table 3-3: Fecal Coliform Sub-Index Scores for
LW4 during 2007 LUSI Scores Month No. Date Fecal Result Monthly Overall 1 Jan-07 150 11.11 2 Mar-07 2 16.67 3 May-07 11 16.67 4 07/17/07 26 16.67 5 09/18/07 7 16.67 6 11/14/07
4 16.67 94.5 3.4.2 Sediment - Turbidity Justification: Much effort in the MCWQP is put into preventing sediment from entering our streams. Our lakes are the receiving waters for
sediment pollution from Mecklenburg County watersheds where it can have an impact on ecological health. Turbidity is an optical measurement of the amount of suspended material in the
water. It is relatively inexpensive to analyze and has a state standard. The North Carolina state standard for turbidity in lakes (25 ntu) is different (lower) than the standard for
streams (50 ntu). Table 3-4: State Standard and Watch Level for Turbidity Description: The turbidity sub-index will be based on routine lake sample results for turbidity collected
in a composite sample in the euphotic zone at all regular sampling sites. The results from the current and five previous months (similar to the fecal coliform index) will be compared
to the State standard and Watch level. As a result each month’s turbidity result contributing 16.67 to the overall sub-index when the standard is being met, 8.33 when the result is
between the Watch Level and standard and 0 when the standard is exceeded. As with Physical/chemical data, CMANN turibidity data will be used where available to calculate the LUSI Turbidity
sub-index. North Carolina Water Quality Standard plus Watch Level Parameter Lab Analysis Watch Level Standard (Lakes) Units Turbidity 15 25 NTU Table 3-5. Example turbidity
scores for LW4 during 2007. Month Date Turbidity LUSI Scores No. (ntu) Monthly Overall 1 1/11/07 27 0 2 3/29/07 8.8 16.67 3 5/15/07 6.9 16.67 4 7/17/07 7.5 16.67 5 9/18/07
11 16.67 6 11/14/07 9 16.67 83.4 3.4.3 Trophic State Index One major difference between lake and stream sampling is that lake sampling is designed to address eutrophication (nutrient
enrichment) issues in reservoirs. Justification: One major water quality issue in lakes and reservoirs not typically observed in streams is the problem of eutrophication (nutrient
enrichment). This was accounted for in Fusilier’s LWQI with chlorophyll a, Secchi depth and two primary nutrients (total phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite) as four of the 9 parameters
in the index. Indices that rate the status of eutrophication in lakes are called Trophic State Indices. Description: North Carolina DWQ has developed its own trophic state index
called the North Carolina Trophic State Index (NCTSI). Since this index was designed for use in this state it was decided to incorporate the NCTSI into LUSI as a sub-index. The NCTSI
uses five parameters (chlorophyll a, Secchi depth, total phosphorus, TKN and NH3) to calculate the index values. Chlorophyll a and the nutrients are collected from euphotic zone composite
samples defined as twice the Secchi. These values are then used to group the sites sampled into five categories: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic1, eutrophic 2 and hypereutrophic.
In order to use these results in LUSI it was necessary to score categories on a 100 point scale. The following table shows the NCTSI values, trophic state category and LUSI score.
Table 3-6. LUSI Subindex Scoring for NC Trophic State Index NCTSI Trophic state LUSI Points LUSI Monthly Score (pts/6) < -2.0 Oligotrophic 100 16.67 -2.0 to 0 Mesotrophic 85
14.17 0 to 2.0 Eutrophic 1 55 9.17 2.0 to 5.0 Eutrophic 2 25 4.17 > 5.0 Hypereutrophic 0 0 Using data from the eight sampling runs in Lake Wylie for 2007, the NCTSI was calculated
with data from LW4 (Paw Creek Cove) and scored for the LUSI Eutrophication sub-index. Table 3-7. NCTSI Sub-Index Scores for LW4 during 2007 Parameters Trophic TKN NH3 TP Chl
a Secchi NCTSI Class- LUSI Scores Date Site (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ug/l) (meters) Score ification Monthly Overall 1/11/07 LW4 0.32 0.1 0.042 3 0.6 -0.4966 mesotrophic 14.2
3/29/07 LW4 0.35 0.1 0.027 4 1.1 -1.1684 mesotrophic 14.2 5/15/07 LW4 0.5 0.1 0.029 18 1.2 0.8509 eutrophic 9.17 7/17/07 LW4 0.42 0.1 0.043 30 1.0 1.5509
eutrophic 9.17 9/18/07 LW4 0.34 0.1 0.064 18 1.0 1.1082 eutrophic 9.17 11/14/07 LW4 0.4 0.1 0.066 21 1.0 1.6359 eutrophic 9.17 65.1 3.4.4 Physical-Chemical Parameters
Justification: Field measurements of physical-chemical parameters are a simple and inexpensive way to measure lake water quality. They are a quick way to measure the water quality
throughout the water column since water quality may differ greatly from the surface to the near bottom. Where available, data from continuous monitoring (CMANN) sites located in lake
coves (currently MI3, LW4 and LW10) will be used in LUSI. All other lake monitoring sites will use physical-chemical parameters collected manually with calibrated multiprobes during
routine lake runs to calculate LUSI. Description: The physical-chemical parameters sub-index will be based on scores collected from near surface readings at the regular lake monitoring
sites. The physical parameters’ sub-index will utilize temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH results. All results for each parameter will be compared against the State standard.
Table 3-8 presents the State standards for temperature, DO and pH. Specific conductance will also be measured at all sites even though there is no state standard following DWQ ambient
monitoring protocols (DWQ 2004). Table 3-8: State Standards for Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved gases, pH and Temperature The following is an example of LUSI scores from near surface
(0.2 m) YSI multiprobe readings collected at LW4 (Paw Creek Cove) during 2007. North Carolina Water Quality Standards plus Watch Levels Parameter Watch Level Standards Units Comments
Field Measurements Temperature 32 deg C for lower piedmont Dissolved Oxygen 5 mg/l pH 6.0 - 9.0 S.U. Table 3-9: Physical Parameter Sub-Index Score for LW4 during 2007
Month Temp. LUSI Score Dissolved Oxygen LUSI Score pH LUCI Score LUSI Overall Field No. Date C Monthly mg/l Monthly S. U. Monthly Subindex 1 1/11/07 11.3 16.67 9.84 16.67 7.1 12.5
16.67 2 3/29/07 19.0 16.67 10.25 16.67 7.0 12.5 16.67 3 5/15/07 23.4 16.67 9.31 16.67 7.93 12.5 16.67 5 7/17/07 29.2 16.67 9.02 16.67 7.73 12.5 16.67 7 9/18/07 25.8 16.67 8.71 16.67
7.24 12.5 16.67 8 11/14/07 17.1 16.67 11.15 16.67 8.59 12.5 16.67 Annual LUSI Score 100 100 100 100 Where CMANN data is used in LUSI the percentage of values of temperature, dissolved
oxygen and pH that exceed the state standard will be calculated for each two month period. If the percentage of values exceeding the state standard exceeds 10% that parameter fails
for the time period and gets 0 points. If the percentage of the parameters failing the state standard is less than 10% the parameter gets full points. The exception to this rule is
when the annual Program Measure is calculated. In this case, CMANN data for the entire year is used to determine whether the percentage of values exceeding the state standard exceeds
10%. 3.4.5 Metals Justification: Information on selected toxic and mineral metal concentrations in lakes provides critical information regarding ecological health of the receiving
waters from Mecklenburg County watersheds. Description: This sub-index will be based upon semiannual sample results for the mineral metals (copper, iron, manganese and zinc) and
toxic metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and selenium) from regular lake sampling sites. The results from the current and previous semiannual sample will be compared
to the State standard for each parameter. This translates into each semiannual metal’s result contributing 50% to the overall sub-index, which means that each result for each of the
10 rated metals parameters will contribute 5 points. The standards are presented in Table 3-10 below. Table 3-10: State Water Quality Standards for Metals. The following
shows semiannual metals results from LW4 (Paw Creek Cove) for 2005. Data from 2005 was chosen for the metals example as it was a year where there were more complete metals data sampled
at least twice per year. Note that two of the metals proposed to be sampled, aluminum and mercury, are unrated. There is no state standard for aluminum and we are not able to attain
the state standard for mercury (0.012 ug/l) with our current methods. Table 3-11. Semiannual Metals’ Score for LW4 during 2005 Annual Parameter NC Reporting LW4
LUSI LW4 LUSI LUSI (Units = ug/l) Standard Limit 1/6/05 Score 8/11/05 Score Score Mineral Metals COPPER 7 2 2.3 5.0 3.3 5.0 IRON 1000 50 400 5.0 1000 0 MANGANESE
200 10 35 5.0 67 5.0 ZINC 50 10 <10 5.0 <10 5.0 Toxic Metals ARSENIC 10 5 <5 5.0 <5 5.0 CADMIUM 2 1 5.0 5.0 North Carolina Water Quality Standards for Metals Parameter
Standards Freshwater Aquatic Life Water Supply Human Health ug/l (unless noted) ug/l (unless noted) ug/l (unless noted) Mineral Metals Aluminum Copper 7 Iron 1.0 mg/L
Manganese 200 Zinc 50 Toxic Metals Arsenic 50 10 10 Cadmium 2 Chromium 50 Lead 25 Mercury 0.012* Nickel 88 25 Selenium 5 * This level is unattainable by current
sampling and laboratory methods (MDL 0.2 ug/L) CHROMIUM 50 5 <5 5.0 <5 5.0 LEAD 25 5 <5 5.0 <5 5.0 NICKEL 25 5 <5 5.0 <5 5.0 SELENIUM 5 5 5.0 5.0 Unrated Metals
ALUMINUM NONE 20 MERCURY, TOTAL 0.012 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 LUSI Scores 50.0 45.0 95.0 3.4.6 Overall LUSI Score The overall LUSI Score for a monitoring site
will be the aggregated score from each of the sub-indices. Like SUSI each subindex in LUSI will contribute equally to the overall score. Table 3-12 shows the process for aggregating
each of the sub-indices into the larger overall LUSI Score. Note that since LUSI averages data back one year from the most recent sampling date the overall LUSI score is like a trailing
average. As a result it does not necessarily represent the water quality conditions on the sampling date in the same way as Fusiliers. However, for both LUSI and SUSI it was a way
of incorporating more data into the index and perhaps giving a better overall representation of water quality conditions at that site. Table 3-12: Overall LUSI Score for LW4 during
2007 (metals from 2005 are used for comparison purposes) compared with Fusiliers LWQI for year. LUSI Sub-Index Weight Sub-Index Score Bacteria 20% 94.5 Turbidity 20% 83.4 NCTSI 20%
65.1 Physical Parameters 20% 100.0 Metals (2005) 20% 95.0 LUSI Score for LW4 2007 (Metals 2005) 87.6 Fusiliers LWQI for LW4 for 2007 70.6 Figure 4-1. Comparison of LUSI with
Fusiliers Lake Water Quality Index. Section 4.0 Comparison of LUSI with Fusiliers LWQI LUSI values were calculated back about four years at monitoring sites where data was available
and compared with Fusiliers LWQI over the same time period. LUSI generally rates water quality conditions higher overall than Fusiliers LWQI as shown in Figure 4-1.
LAKE NORMAN 50 60 70 80 90 100 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Fusiliers (LN) LUSI (LN)
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE 50 60 70 80 90 100 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 LAKE WYLIE 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Section 5.0 Conclusion LUSI appears to meet the requirements of the
lake index objectives determined by the MCWQP team reviewing the lake program. Specifically, LUSI looks to be an effective tool for communicating water quality data to managers, elected
officials and the general public. It includes the data that are most relevant to the goals of the Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program. In particular, it includes fecal coliform
bacteria, a human health parameter for primary recreation, which was something that was lacking from Fusiliers LWQI. As a result it addresses the CWA goals of “fishable, swimmable”
to a greater extent than Fusiliers. Since LUSI is based on the same design structure as SUSI it now makes the two water quality indices used in MCWQP more compatible and understandable.
The use of subindices like SUSI, especially, aids in the interpretation of water quality rather than the one number generated by Fusiliers LWQI. Basing LUSI on state standards, of
course, gives both indices a solid foundation which is less subjective. Overall, LUSI is a useful improvement over the current Fusiliers LWQI and an enhancement to the MCWQP.
While there are limitations to the use of any index and no index is perfect, LUSI is a good combination of parameters of most importance to the Water Quality Program and will enable
lake water quality to be more effectively communicated to managers, elected officials and the general public. Section 6.0 References DWQ 2004. Ambient Monitoring QAPP. Fusilier,
W. E. 1982. An opinion derived nine parameter unweighted multiplicative lake water quality index: the LWQI. PhD Dissertation. Univ.of Mich. Ann Arbor, MI. 75 pp. Lake Program
Review 2009. Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program. 30 pp. NCDEM (North Carolina Division of Environmental Management). 1982. North Carolina Clean Lakes Classification Survey
1982. NCDEM Report No. 83-03. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Raleigh, NC. Stream Use Support Index (SUSI). 2007. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services.
18 pp. APPENDIX 5: CMSWS PROGRAM INDICATORS DOCUMENTATION FY16 Water Quality Program Measures Includes: • Description of the Water Quality Program
Measures for FY16. • Description of how the targets for the Program Measures were established. • Strategy for satisfactorily fulfilling Program Measures. • Description of how Program
Measures will be calculated & reported. Our Goal: Achieve a score of “Exemplary” in the fulfillment of our Water Quality Program Measures. McKee Creek at I-485 in Charlotte
FY2014 Water Quality Program Measures August 2014 i Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction .............................................................................
................................... 1 Section 2 Program Measure Summary ...................................................................................... 2 Section 3 Program Measure
Descriptions .................................................................................. 4 3.1 Corporate Program Measure ......................................................................
................ 4 3.1.1 Stream Miles Suitable for Human Contact ................................................................ 4 3.2 Internal Program Measures .....................................
................................................... 7 3.2.1 Maintain Customer Service Rating ............................................................................ 7 3.2.2 Citizen
Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days ....................................................... 9 3.2.3 Number of Days Notices of Violation are Open ..................................................
.... 10 3.2.4 Meet Deadlines ........................................................................................................ 12 3.2.5 Safety Training.........................................
................................................................ 14 3.2.6 Number of Groups Participating in Volunteer Activities ........................................ 15 3.3 Track
Only Program Measures ................................................................................ 16 3.3.1 Lake Trophic State Index for Coves ...................................................
..................... 17 3.3.2 Reduce TSS Load in McDowell Creek .................................................................... 19 Section 4 Program Measure Compliance Strategies
................................................................ 24 4.1 Stream Miles Suitable and Fecal Coliform Levels .................................................. 24 4.2 Lake
Trophic State Index ......................................................................................... 24 4.3 TSS Load in McDowell Creek ......................................................
........................... 26 4.4 Customer Service ..................................................................................................... 26 4.5 Citizen Requests for
Service .................................................................................... 26 4.6 Notices of Violation .............................................................................
.................... 28 4.7 Volunteers ................................................................................................................ 28 4.8 Deadlines...............................
................................................................................... 29 4.9 Safety Training.............................................................................................
............ 30 Section 5 Program Measure Reporting .................................................................................... 31 Figures: Figure 1: % of Stream Miles Suitable
for Human Contact ....................................................... 6 Figure 2: Customer Service Ratings .......................................................................................
... 8 Figure 3: % Citizen Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days ................................................. 10 Figure 4: Number of Days Notices of Violation Open...............................
............................. 12 Figure 5: % of Deadlines Met ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6: Number of
Groups Participating in Volunteer Activities ........................................ 16 Figure 7: Lake Trophic State Index ..........................................................................
............... 18 Figure 8: TSS Loads in McDowell Creek ............................................................................... 20 Figure 9: Number of Days Citizen Requests
for Service Open ............................................... 22 Tables Table 1: Safety Training Required by Job Title .........................................................................
.. 14 FY2014 Water Quality Program Measures August 2014 ii Appendices: Appendix 1: Lake Monitoring Sites Used for Trophic State Index .....................................
......... 32 Appendix 2: Stream Monitoring Sites Used for Miles Suitable ................................................... 33 1 Section 1 Introduction The Mecklenburg County
Board of Commissioners has adopted the “Managing for Results” (M4R) philosophy and approach to set goals, establish strategies, align programs and services, budget for results and measure/evaluate
services. This includes the use of the Community & Corporate Scorecard as the County’s strategic planning and performance management tool. This Scorecard includes “Program Measures”
within the Growth Management and Environment Focus Area that are used to assess the effectiveness of County programs at achieving desired results. In FY2016, the Water Quality Program
has one such “Corporate” Program Measure that will be reported to the County Manager’s Office. In addition, the Water Quality Program has six (6) additional Program Measures that are
used to evaluate program effectiveness and are reported up to LUESA management. These are referred to as Internal Program Measures. Both the Corporate and Internal Program Measures
have a target that indicates Successful program performance. A second target indicates Exemplary performance and a third is considered a Threshold for Poor performance. These seven
(7) Program Measures are incorporated into staff’s annual performance reviews and account for 40% of their overall score. There are also five (5) Program Measures that are tracked
but not reported or counted in annual performance reviews. These are referred to as Track Only Program Measures. Only a Successful target is established for these Tracked Program
Measures. Section 3 contains a detailed description of the Corporate, Internal and Tracked Only Program Measures, including the methodology that will be used to calculate attainment
of the assigned targets. Section 4 includes the strategies that the Water Quality Program will implement to achieve the Exemplary target assigned to each Program Measure. Section
5 of this document describes how Program Measures will be reported. Section 6 contains the Appendices. All Water Quality Program staff will work cooperatively toward our goal of achieving
the Exemplary Program Measure target. Achieving this goal is extremely important for a number of reasons some of which are listed below. • Poor performance by a Program could result
in a reduction in funding to that Program. • Program Measures account for 40% of the scores for annual performance reviews that determine pay increases. • Water Quality Program Measures
are designed to measure our ability at achieving our overall goal of “Clean Water” for our community as well as our success at providing good customer service. The overall success
and value of the Water Quality Program is in large part determined by its success at fulfilling Program Measures. Quarterly Program Measure status reports will be posted in the following
folder: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Program Measures\15-16 Program Measures. A discussion of the success of efforts to achieve Program Measures will be a standing agenda item during the first monthly
staff meetings for each quarter. Your assistance in achieving an “Exemplary” score for all of our Program Measures is extremely important and most appreciated. Rusty Rozzelle Water
Quality Program Manager 2 Section 2 Program Measure Summary The following is a summary of the Program Measures that will be used during FY16 to assess the effectiveness of the
Water Quality Program at achieving the desired results for Mecklenburg County. These Program Measures fall into three (3) categories as defined in Section 1, including Corporate, Internal
and Track Only Program Measures. Corporate Program Measure reported to the County Manager’s Office and used to evaluate employee performance: 1. Stream Miles Suitable for Human Contact:
Increase stream miles suitable for human contact to >78.2% for Successful and >89.9% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 62.5%. Internal Program Measure reported
up to LUESA Management and used to evaluate employee performance: 2. Customer Service Rating (an employee must receive a minimum of 2 customer service survey responses for this Program
Measured to be counted): Maintain an average Water Quality Program customer service rating based on survey results at >94% for Successful and >98.5% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold
not to go below is 80%. 3. Citizen Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days (an employee must close a minimum of 5 service requests for this Program Measure to be counted): Close >82.5%
of citizen requests for service within 30 days for Successful and >95.53% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 69.48%. 4. Number of Days Notices of Violation are
Open (an employee must close a minimum of 3 notices of violation for this Program Measure to be counted): Average number of days notices of violation are open at <42.17 days for Successful
and <33.73 days for Exemplary. The Threshold not to go above is 50.60 days. 5. Deadlines Met (an employee must have a minimum of 5 deadlines for this Program Measure to be counted):
Meet >96% of Work Plan deadlines for Successful and 100% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 80%. 6. Safety Training: Employees must complete 100% of assigned
training for Exemplary. For Supervisors and the Manager, 100% of employees (not including current fiscal year new hires) must complete 100% of assigned training for Exemplary. There
is no successful score. 7. Number of Volunteers Participating in Activities: Number of volunteers participating in activities at >2,948 for Successful and >3,538 for Exemplary. The
minimum Threshold not to go below is 2,358. Track Only Program Measures that are not reported outside the Water Quality Program and are not used to evaluate employee performance:
3 8. Lake Trophic State Index: Improve trophic state index conditions in four (4) coves in Mecklenburg County to <-0.92. 9. TSS Load in McDowell Creek: Decrease the TSS load in
McDowell Creek to <0.349 tons/acre/year. 10. NOVs Issued On Time: Issue NOVs within 2 business days following the detection of a violation. 11. Follow Up Inspections Conducted On
Time: Conduct follow up investigations on or before the specified compliance date in the NOV. 4 Section 3 Program Measure Descriptions The following is a detailed description
of the Program Measures that will be used during FY16 to assess the effectiveness of the Water Quality Program at achieving the desired results for Mecklenburg County. The Program
Measures are grouped into the three (3) categories that described how they are applied. 3.1 Corporate Program Measure During FY16, the Water Quality Program has one (1) Corporate
Program Measure, which is distinguished by the fact that it is reported to the County Manager’s Office for assessment of the effectiveness of programs within the Growth Management and
Environment Focus Area at achieving desired outcomes. This Corporate Program Measure is also included in the annual reviews for all of the staff within the Water Quality Program.
A description of this Corporate Program Measure is provided in Section 3.1.1. 3.1.1 Stream Miles Suitable for Human Contact For FY16, the targets are to increase stream miles suitable
for human contact to >78.2% for Successful and >89.9% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 62.5%. This Water Quality Program Measure is assigned to staff in the
four (4) Sections, including the supervisors. It is representative of one of the primary goals of the Water Quality Program, which is for the surface waters of Mecklenburg County to
be suitable for human contact. This is in accordance with the “Creek Use Policy” set by the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners on October 15, 1996, which states, “It
is the intent of the Commission that all Mecklenburg waters shall be suitable for prolonged human contact…” The most effective measure of attainment of this goal is the level of fecal
coliform bacteria in our surface waters. The basis for determining suitability for prolonged human contact is the following State standard (15A NCAC 02B .0211(3)(e)): “Fecal coliforms
shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml (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.” Mecklenburg County does not routinely collect five consecutive samples during a 30 day period; therefore, <400 colonies/100 ml for a single

sampling event is used as the indicator of suitable for prolonged human contact for streams. The following criteria apply to the calculation of the Program Measure: • Attainment of
the Program Measure will be assessed quarterly using data collected during monthly fixed interval monitoring performed during base flow conditions (a minimum of 72 hours with <0.1 inch
of rainfall) at 32 designated stream monitoring sites representing approximately 304 stream miles (see Appendix 2). Only base flow data will be used because as stated above exceedances
are expected during rainfall events. Fixed interval monitoring is performed the second Wednesday of every month regardless of weather conditions except when it is determined to be
unsafe for sampling. Typically, base flow conditions are encountered during at least one (1) of the three (3) fixed interval sampling 5 events during the quarter. If multiple
base flow sampling events occur and the majority of these events indicate nonattainment, then the site will be considered nonattainment for the quarter and vice-versa. In the event
of a tie, the site will be considered attainment. If base flow is not encountered during any of the three (3) routine fixed interval runs during the quarter, then a fourth monitoring
run will be performed during base flow for collection of fecal coliform data to determine attainment of the Program Measure. • If follow-up samples are collected in response to an elevated
bacteria level in an attempt to identify and eliminate a possible pollution problem and if the last sample collected reveals a bacteria count less than or equal to the above stated
level, then this site will be counted toward goal attainment. However, if this follow-up sample indicates continued exceedance of the above stated level, then the site will be considered
nonattainment of the goal. • The number of miles represented by a stream monitoring site is the number of miles upstream to the next monitoring site or the termination of the FEMA regulated
stream (640 acre drainage area), whichever comes first. • To obtain the quarterly value, the total number of miles associated with stream monitoring sites found to be in attainment
of the standard will be added together and divided into the total number of miles monitored (304) to obtain the percent of stream miles suitable for human contact for the quarter. •
The four (4) quarterly numbers will be averaged to obtain the annual number. The targets for this Program Measure are described below (see Figure 1): • Successful – Straight line progression
based on data collected by Mecklenburg County from FY98 through FY16 and projected through 2020. The linear trend line equation is y = 2.5609x + 29.505. • Exemplary = 15% above Successful
• Threshold = 20% below Successful 6 Figure 1: % of Stream Miles Suitable for Human Contact Fiscal Years Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY98 25.1 36.9 32.1 25.7 FY99 38.7
39.8 34.6 27.7 FY00 56.3 42.8 37.2 29.8 FY01 45.8 45.7 39.7 31.8 FY02 61.6 48.7 42.3 33.8 FY03 33.3 51.6 44.9 35.9 FY04 27.2 54.5 47.4 37.9 FY05 31.1 57.5 50.0 40.0 FY06 50.5 60.4 52.6
42.0 FY07 33.3 63.4 55.1 44.1 FY08 69.8 66.3 57.7 46.1 FY09 61.6 69.3 60.2 48.2 FY10 66.6 72.2 62.8 50.2 FY11 81.1 75.2 65.4 52.3 FY12 64.4 78.1 67.9 54.3 FY13 72.01 81.1 70.5 56.4
FY14 82.9 84.0 73.0 58.4 FY15 76.1 86.9 75.6 60.5 7 Fiscal Years Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY16 89.9 78.2 62.5 FY17 92.8 80.7 64.6 FY18 95.8 83.3 66.6 FY19
98.7 85.8 68.7 FY20 100.0 88.4 70.7 3.2 Internal Program Measures During FY16, the Water Quality Program has six (6) Internal Program Measures that are reported to LUESA Management
but not to the County Manager’s Office. These Internal Program Measures are also included in the annual reviews for all staff within the Water Quality Program along with the Corporate
Program Measure. Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.6 describe these Program Measures. 3.2.1 Maintain Customer Service Rating For FY16, the targets are to maintain an average Water Quality
Program customer service rating based on survey results at >92% for Successful and >96.5% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 80%. An employee must receive a minimum
of 2 customer service survey responses for this Program Measured to be included as a component of their annual review. This Program Measure is assigned to staff in the four (4) Sections,
including the supervisors. The results will be reported to Dave Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure:
• Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed quarterly using data collected from Customer Service Survey responses to closed citizen requests for service. The Program Measure
is represented by customer responses to four (4) statements in the survey aimed at evaluating Quality, Timeliness, Communication, and Courtesy/Respect. Four (4) different responses
are provided for each statement, including Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The Program Measure score is based on the percentage of the responses that indicate
either Strongly Agree or Agree. • Survey responses will be summarized and provided to Supervisors and the Program Manager. • Supervisors will consult with staff responsible for the
completion of citizen requests for service that resulted in unfavorable customer service survey responses and the reason for the unsatisfactory response will be determined. After consulting
with staff, the Supervisor will contact the citizen generating the survey response and discuss the nature of their dissatisfaction. The Supervisor will document on the survey summary
form the reason for the unsatisfactory response and will provide the form to the Program Manager who will evaluate the situation and work with the Supervisor to implement the necessary
corrective actions if any are warranted. If it is determined by the Program Manager that the unsatisfactory response to the survey did not result from any action on the part of Water
Quality Program staff, then the survey results will be deleted from the Program Measure reporting. Documentation of this action will be placed on the survey summary form for future
reference as necessary. 8 • Survey results will be used by the Supervisor in the completion of ARDs for responsible staff. • To obtain the quarterly value, the total number of survey
responses received that indicate either Strongly Agree or Agree will be added together and divided into the total number of responses received to obtain the percent of responses that
agree with the survey statements regarding good customer service. • The Program Measure is a cumulative calculation for the entire fiscal year. The targets for this Program Measure
are set and are not planned to change prior to FY20 (see Figure 2). These same targets have been used since FY08. Figure 2: Customer Service Ratings Fiscal Years Actuals Exemplary
Successful Threshold FY06 98.00% 91.00% 90.00% 80.00% FY07 96.50% 92.00% 90.00% 80.00% FY08 96.00% 96.50% 92.00% 80.00% FY09 94.00% 96.50% 92.00% 80.00% FY10 94.70% 96.50% 92.00% 80.00%
FY11 97.97% 96.50% 92.00% 80.00% FY12 97.89% 96.50% 92.00% 80.00% FY13 100.00% 96.50% 92.00% 80.00% 9 Fiscal Years Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY14 100.00% 96.50% 92.00%
80.00% FY15 100.00% 98.50% 94.00% 80.00% FY16 98.50% 94.00% 80.00% 3.2.2 Citizen Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days For FY16, the targets are >82.5% of citizen requests for service
closed within 30 days for Successful and >95.53% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 69.48%. An employee must close a minimum of five (5) service requests for
this Program Measured to be included as a component of their annual review. This Program Measure is assigned to staff in the four (4) Sections, including the supervisors. The results
will be reported to Dave Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: • Attainment of the Program Measure will
be assessed monthly using data collected from Cityworks Server regarding the percentage of citizen requests for service closed within 30 days from the date of receipt. • All citizen
requests for service will be used in this calculation. In previous years, only service requests received from citizens and businesses were used to calculate this Program Measure and
those received from governmental agencies were excluded. This was discontinued in FY16 and all service requests will be included in this measure. • Only closed citizen requests for
service will be used to calculate this Program Measure. • If a citizen request for service results in enforcement action, then that citizen request for service will be removed from
the calculation of the Program Measure. Enforcement actions invariably involve a great deal of administrative time that will negatively impact this Program Measure; therefore, it was
decided to remove these citizen requests for service from the calculation beginning in FY10. • If the closure of a citizen request for service is substantially delayed due to economic
hardship and this is adequately verified by staff, then that citizen request for service will be removed from the calculation of the Program Measure. • To obtain the quarterly value,
the total number of citizen requests for service closed in 30 days or less from the date received is divided into the total number received to obtain the percentage, which is cumulative
between July 1 and June 30 of each fiscal year. • The Program Measure is a cumulative calculation for the entire fiscal year. The method used to calculate the targets for this Program
Measure is described below (see Figure 3). This is a change from the calculation method used in previous fiscal years. In FY15, Dave Canaan adjusted the target by 5%. This adjustment
will continue into FY16. • Successful – Three (3) year average percentage of citizen requests for service closed in 30 days or less decreased by 5%. • Exemplary – 10% increase in the
Successful percentage. • Threshold – 20% decrease in the Successful percentage. 10 Figure 3: % Citizen Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days Fiscal Years Actuals Exemplary Successful
Threshold FY05 33.25% FY06 43.14% 42.00% 35.00% 25.00% FY07 65.72% 43.70% 36.70% 28.00% FY08 67.50% 72.00% 62.00% 31.00% FY09 68.90% 72.00% 62.00% 31.00% FY10 66.42% 72.00% 62.00%
31.00% FY11 74.18% 80.00% 66.00% 33.00% FY12 84.42% 82.25% 68.54% 54.84% FY13 85.56% 86.74% 72.28% 57.83% FY14 86.26% 91.07% 75.90% 60.72% FY15 91.46% 93.95% 81.14% 68.33% FY16 96.53%
83.37% 70.21% 3.2.3 Number of Days Notices of Violation are Open For FY16, the targets are notices of violation open <42.17 days for Successful and <33.73 days for Exemplary. The
Threshold not to go above is 50.60 days. This Water Quality Program 11 Measure is assigned to staff in the four (4) Sections, including the supervisors. The results will be reported
to Dave Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: • Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed monthly
using data collected from Cityworks Server regarding the average number of days NOVs service are open. • Only closed NOVs will be used to calculate this Program Measure. • If a NOV
results in enforcement action, then that NOV will be removed from the calculation of the Program Measure. Enforcement actions invariably involve a great deal of administrative time
that will negatively impact this Program Measure; therefore, it was decided to remove these citizen requests for service from the calculation beginning in FY10. • If compliance with
a NOV is substantially delayed due to economic hardship and this is adequately verified by staff, then that NOV will be removed from the calculation of the Program Measure. • To obtain
the quarterly value, the total number of NOVs issued is divided into the total number days these NOVs were open to obtain the percentage, which is cumulative between July 1 and June
30 of each fiscal year. • The Program Measure is a cumulative calculation for the entire fiscal year. The method used to calculate the targets for this Program Measure is described
below (see Figure 4). This is a change from the calculation method used in previous fiscal years. During FY11, the Successful target was based on the average number of days NOVs were
open for FY10 with a 50% decrease in this average representing the Exemplary target and a 25% increase representing the Threshold. The method described below for FY16 is believed to
be more effective. • Successful – Three (3) year average number of days NOVs were open. • Exemplary – 20% decrease in the Successful number. • Threshold – 20% increase in the Successful
number. 12 Figure 4: Number of Days Notices of Violation Open Fiscal Years Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY07 37.46 FY08 98.54 FY09 151.51 FY10 160.84
80.00 161.00 200.00 FY11 218.64 80.00 161.00 200.00 FY12 27.88 106.72 133.40 160.08 FY13 33.37 105.19 131.48 157.78 FY14 65.64 94.76 118.45 142.14 FY15 27.49 33.84 42.30 50.76 FY16
33.73 42.17 50.60 3.2.4 Meet Deadlines For FY16, the target is to meet >96% of Work Plan deadlines for Successful and 100% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below
is 80%. This Program Measures is assigned to all Water Quality Program staff, including the staff that report directly to the Program Manager. The results will be reported to Dave
Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: 13 • Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed quarterly
using data collected from the Work Plan Management Database (WPMD). • If staff is unable to meet a deadline, they are to notify their Supervisor at least two (2) weeks in advance and
provide a reason/justification for missing the deadline. If the Supervisor determines that sufficient justification exists for extending the deadline, a new deadline will be set.
If this second deadline is met, then the Work Plan activity will be considered as having met the deadline; however, if this second deadline is missed, the activity will be considered
as having missed the deadline. Also, if the Supervisor determines that there is not sufficient justification for extending a deadline or if two (2) weeks’ notice is not provided to
the Supervisor by staff that a deadline will not be met, the deadline is considered missed although a new deadline may be set. • The Program Measure is a cumulative calculation for
the entire fiscal year. The targets for this Program Measure are set and are not planned to change prior to FY20 (see Figure 5). Figure 5: % of Deadlines Met Fiscal Years Actuals
Threshold Successful Exemplary FY06 98.00% 90.00% 92.00% 93.00% FY07 94.70% 89.00% 90.00% 92.00% 14 Fiscal Years Actuals Threshold Successful Exemplary FY08 94.00% 80.00% 94.00%
100.00% FY09 100.00% 80.00% 94.00% 98.00% FY10 94.00% 80.00% 94.00% 98.00% FY11 99.30% 80.00% 94.00% 98.00% FY12 99.88% 80.00% 94.00% 98.00% FY13 98.17% 80.00% 94.00% 98.00% FY14 100.00%
98.00% 94.00% 80.00% FY15 99.84% 100.00% 96.00% 80.00% FY16 100.00% 96.00% 80.00% 3.2.5 Safety Training Fulfilling specific safety training requirements was added as a LUESA Program
Measure beginning in FY16. For FY16, the target is for staff to complete >80% of assigned training for Successful and 100% for Exemplary. For Supervisors and the Manager, >80% of
assigned employees must complete >80% of assigned training for Successful and >95% of assigned employees must complete >80% of training for Exemplary. A Threshold value was not established.
Employees hired after July 1, 2013 are excluded from this Program Measure. This Program Measures is assigned to all Water Quality Program staff, including the staff that report directly
to the Program Manager. The results will be reported to Dave Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: •
Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed quarterly using data collected from “MeckEdu.” • John McCullough, the Water Quality Program Training Officer, is responsible for tracking
this Program Measure and reporting all data. • The Program Measure is a cumulative calculation for the entire fiscal year. The training staff are required to complete depends on their
job title and the particular hazards they may encounter in the performance of their assigned duties. Provided below is a summary of this training by position. Table 1: Safety Training
Required by Job Title Training Required Training Month Water Quality Staff (“” indicates training is required) Insp. Env. Specialist Sr. Env. Specialist Project Manager Sup. Man.(1)
Stream Walk Safety October     PPE Correct Use November     HAZWOPER 8 Hour Refresher December     Basic Safety Training - Part 1 January       Basic Safety
Training - Part 2 February       Bloodborne Pathogens March     15 Training Required Training Month Water Quality Staff (“” indicates training is required) Insp. Env.
Specialist Sr. Env. Specialist Project Manager Sup. Man.(1) Boat Safety(2) May     (1) Man. refers to the following staff considered as part of the Management Team: Program Manager,
Environmental Analyst, and IT Project Manager. (2) Only required for the staff of the Monitoring Section. 3.2.6 Number of Groups Participating in Volunteer Activities For FY16, the
targets are >2,948 volunteers participating in volunteer activities for Successful and >3,538 for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 2,358. This Water Quality Program
Measure has changed from the number of groups participating in volunteer events in FY15 to the number of volunteers participating in FY16. It was determined that the number of volunteers
was a better reflection of the program’s effectiveness. The results for this Program Measure will be reported to Dave Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria
apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: • Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed quarterly using data collected from the volunteer database maintained in EDMS.
• The number of volunteers participating in volunteer activities is cumulative throughout the fiscal year and does not carry over into the next fiscal year. • Although the storm drains
marked and number of stream clean ups is no longer a Water Quality Program Measure, these numbers will be compiled and reported to Dave Canaan annually. The targets for this Program
Measure are calculated as follows (see Figure 6). • Successful - Average number of volunteers participating in volunteer activities over the past 3 years. • Exemplary - 20% increase
from Successful. • Threshold – 20% decrease from Successful. 16 Figure 6: Number of Groups Participating in Volunteer Activities Fiscal Years # Volunteers Exemplary Successful
Threshold FY06 1,680 FY07 1,681 FY08 2,123 FY09 2,331 FY10 2,693 FY11 3,177 FY12 2,548 FY13 2,519 FY14 3,479 FY15 2,846 FY16
3,538 2,948 2,358 3.3 Track Only Program Measures During FY16, the Water Quality Program has four (4) Track Only Program Measures that are not reported outside of the Water Quality
Program and are not used to evaluate staff performance. These Program Measures are used by the supervisors and manager of the Water Quality Program to track specific activities for
the development of future Program Measures or to assess the Program’s overall effectiveness at achieving certain targets. These Track Only Program Measures only have a Successful target.
Sections 3.3.1 through 3.2.5 describe these Program Measures. 17 3.3.1 Lake Trophic State Index for Coves The trophic state indicates the degree of eutrophication of a reservoir.
Eutrophication is the process of physical, chemical and biological changes associated with nutrient, organic matter and silt enrichment that cause declining water quality conditions.
The following terms are used to describe eutrophication: • Oligotrophic – Characterized by a low accumulation of dissolved nutrients, supporting a sparse growth of algae and other
organisms, and having a high oxygen content owing to the low organic content. • Mesotrophic – Having a moderate amount of dissolved nutrients and supporting moderate plant growth. •
Eutrophic – Having waters rich in mineral and organic nutrients that promote a proliferation of plant life, especially algae, which reduces the dissolved oxygen content and threatens
general water quality conditions as well as stresses fish and other aquatic life. The N.C. Division of Water Quality has been utilizing the N.C. Trophic State Index (NCTSI) since 1981
to assess the trophic condition of our lakes. The NCTSI is based on total phosphorus, total organic nitrogen, secchi depth, and chlorophyll a. The NCTSI classifications are as follows:
• < -2.0 = Oligotrophic • -2.0 to 0.0 = Mesotrophic • to 5.0 = Eutrophic The best water quality conditions are typically represented by a NCTSI score at the border between mesotrophic
and oligotrophic conditions (-2.0). This condition has sufficient nutrient levels to support aquatic life but not too high as to jeopardize general water quality conditions. Elevated
nutrient levels and eutrophic conditions are the biggest threat to water quality in Mecklenburg County lakes, particularly the coves. This is also a threat that we have proven somewhat
successful at controlling in the past. In addition, we have a lot of data relating to trophic conditions that is very helpful at establishing trends. For these reasons, the NCTSI
as measured in four coves on the Catawba River will serve as our Cooperate Program Measure for the lakes. These coves were selected because the watersheds that drain to them have been
targeted for specific management efforts to restore water quality conditions. The Program Measure will enable us to assess the effectiveness of these management efforts. The coves
are as follows (see Appendix 1): • McDowell Creek Cove on Mountain Island Lake (MI3) • Paw Creek on Lake Wylie (LW4) • Browns Cove on Lake Wylie (BC2) • Withers Cove on Lake Wylie (LW10)
The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: • Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed using lake monitoring data collected for total phosphorus,
total organic nitrogen, secchi depth, and chlorophyll a at the above monitoring sites. 18 • Data will be collected every other month throughout the year except the data collected
during January of every year will be excluded from the Program Measure calculation because of the low trophic values associated with the cold weather that significantly skew the data.
Data collected during the following months will be used to calculate the NCTSI score for each of the four (4) monitoring sites: July, September, November, March, and May. • The monthly
scores for each of the four (4) monitoring sites will be averaged together to obtain a single NCTSI score for the month. • Quarterly, Midyear and Annual scores will be calculated by
averaging the monthly scores for the time period. Quarterly scores will not be averaged to obtain the Mid Year and Annual scores because some quarters contain more months than others;
therefore, they have a different weight. The targets for this Program Measure are described below (see Figure 7): • Successful – Straight line progression based on data collected by
Mecklenburg County from FY98 through FY11 and projected through 2020. The linear trend line equation is y = -0.1483x + 1.8998. Figure 7: Lake Trophic State Index Fiscal Year Actuals
Exemplary Successful Threshold FY98 1.09 1.26 1.75 3.22 FY99 1.72 1.11 1.60 3.07 FY00 1.28 0.97 1.45 2.92 FY01 1.89 0.82 1.31 2.77 FY02 1.68 0.67 1.16 2.63 FY03 0.45 0.52 1.01 2.48
19 Fiscal Year Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY04 1.37 0.37 0.86 2.33 FY05 0.85 0.22 0.71 2.18 FY06 -0.31 0.08 0.57 2.03 FY07 0.65 -0.07 0.42 1.88 FY08 0.97 -0.22 0.27
1.74 FY09 0.48 -0.37 0.12 1.59 FY10 -0.71 -0.52 -0.03 1.44 FY11 -0.39 -0.67 -0.18 1.29 FY12 -0.42 -0.81 -0.32 1.14 FY13 -0.91 -0.96 -0.47 0.99 FY14 -0.21 -1.11 -0.62 0.85 FY15 -1.00
-1.26 -0.77 0.70 FY16 -0.92 FY17 -1.56 -1.07 0.40 FY18 -1.70 -1.21 0.25 FY19 -1.85 -1.36 0.10 FY20 -2.00 -1.51 -0.04 3.3.2 Reduce TSS Load in McDowell Creek For FY16,
the targets are to decrease the TSS load in McDowell Creek to <0.374 tons/acre/year for Successful and <0.337 tons/acre/year for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go above is
0.449 tons/acre/year. This Water Quality Program Measure is assigned to the staff of the Catawba Section and David Kroening. The results will be reported to Dave Canaan and not the
County Manager’s Office. The long term Successful target as stated in the McDowell Creek Watershed Management Plan is to maintain a total suspended solids (TSS) load in McDowell Creek
at or below 0.3 tons/acre/year by FY20. Based on data and information collected by the State, this is the TSS load at which streams in the Piedmont of N.C. are fully supporting of
a diverse biological community, which is our ultimate water quality goal for this stream. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure: • The average quarterly
turbidity measurement at the CMANN site located at MC4 will be converted to a TSS concentration using the following relationship: Sediment concentration (mg/lt) = 0.7639 x Turbidity
measurement (NTU). • If any turbidity measurements are missing or otherwise compromised, a turbidity value will be assigned based upon USGS flow measurements from the gauge located
at MC4 (in CFS) via the following relationship: Turbidity (NTU) = 2E-06 (flow)3 – 0.003 (low)2 + 2.3743(flow) – 3.0569 • The TSS concentrations from #1 (above) will be multiplied by
the USGS instantaneous flow at the gauging station (cfs) to arrive at an instantaneous load. All instantaneous loads for the period of interest will be added to obtain an overall load.
• To obtain the quarterly value, the overall load will be divided by the area of watershed (16,932 acres at MC4) to obtain the area based loading value. • The Program Measure is a cumulative
calculation for the entire fiscal year. 20 The method used to calculate the targets for this Program Measure is described below (see Figure 8). Note that in FY12 the Program Measure
targets were adjusted from the previous years in order to be consistent with other Program Measures where a 10% improvement to Successful is Exemplary and 20% worse than Successful
is the Threshold. • Successful – Straight line progression from the TSS load measured for the year prior to the implementation of the McDowell Creek Watershed Management Plan (FY06)
at 0.473 tons/acre/year and projected through 2020 to achieve a TSS load of 0.3 tons/acre/year. The linear trend line equation is y = -0.0124x + 0.4854. • Exemplary – 10% decrease
in the Successful load. • Threshold – 20% increase in the Successful load. Figure 8: TSS Loads in McDowell Creek Dates Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY06 0.473 FY07
0.430 0.448 0.461 0.544 FY08 0.194 0.436 0.448 0.544 FY09 0.410 0.424 0.436 0.544 FY10 0.483 0.411 0.424 0.544 FY11 0.122 0.399 0.411 0.544 FY12 0.110 0.359 0.399 0.479 FY13 0.059
0.348 0.387 0.464 FY16 0.337 0.374 0.449 FY16 0.326 0.362 0.434 FY16 0.314 0.349 0.419 FY17 0.303 0.337 0.404 FY18 0.292 0.325 0.390 FY19 0.281 0.312 0.375 21 Dates
Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY20 0.270 0.300 0.360 3.3.3 Number of Days Citizen Requests for Service are Open For FY16, the targets are citizen requests for service open
<47.09 days for Successful and <37.68 days for Exemplary. The Threshold not to go above is 56.51 days. This Water Quality Program Measure is assigned to staff in the three (3) Sections,
including the supervisors. The results will be reported to Dave Canaan and not the County Manager’s Office. The following criteria apply to the calculation of this Program Measure:
• Attainment of the Program Measure will be assessed monthly using data collected from Cityworks Server regarding the average number of days citizen requests for service are open beginning

from the date the citizen request for service is received by the Program. • Only citizen requests for service received from citizens and businesses will be used in this calculation.
Citizen requests for service received from governmental agencies will not be included. • Only closed citizen requests for service will be used to calculate this Program Measure. •
If a citizen request for service results in enforcement action, then that citizen request for service will be removed from the calculation of the Program Measure. Enforcement actions
invariably involve a great deal of administrative time that will negatively impact this Program Measure; therefore, it was decided to remove these citizen requests for service from
the calculation beginning in FY10. • If the closure of a citizen request for service is substantially delayed due to economic hardship and this is adequately verified by staff, then
that citizen request for service will be removed from the calculation of the Program Measure. • To obtain the quarterly value, the total number of citizen requests for service received
is divided into the total number of days these citizen requests for service were open to obtain the percentage, which is cumulative between July 1 and June 30 of each fiscal year. •
The Program Measure is a cumulative calculation for the entire fiscal year. The method used to calculate the targets for this Water Quality Program Measure is described below (see
Figure 9). This is a change from the calculation method used in previous fiscal years. During FY11, the Successful target was based on the average number of days citizen requests for
service were open during FY10 with a 50% decrease in this average representing the Exemplary target and a 50% increase representing the Threshold. The method described below for FY16
is believed to be more effective. • Successful – Five year average number of days citizen requests for service were open. • Exemplary – 20% decrease in the Successful number. • Threshold
– 20% increase in the Successful number. 22 Figure 9: Number of Days Citizen Requests for Service Open Dates Actuals Exemplary Successful Threshold FY07 39.27 FY08 49.85
FY09 51.14 FY10 92.4 46.0 92.0 139.0 FY11 46.0 46.0 92.0 139.0 FY12 23.86 44.58 55.73 66.88 FY13 22.08 42.12 52.65 63.18 FY16 37.68 47.09 56.51 3.3.4 NOVs Issued On Time
Issue NOVs within 2 business days following the detection of a violation. 3.3.5 Follow Up Inspections Conducted On Time Conduct follow up investigations on or before the specified
compliance date in the NOV. 23 24 Section 4 Program Measure Compliance Strategies The following strategies will be implemented by Water Quality Program staff to achieve the
goal of Exemplary performance for the 12 Program Measures. 4.1 Stream Miles Suitable and Fecal Coliform Levels Stream Miles Suitable for Human Contact (entire Program): Increase
stream miles suitable for human contact to >73.0% for Successful and >84.0% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 58.4%. 1. Jeff Price will report “Action Level”
exceedances (1000 colonies/100 ml.) to Supervisors who will initiate follow up actions to identify and eliminate pollution sources. 2. Jeff Price will report “Watch Level” exceedance
(400 colonies/100 ml.) to Supervisors who will initiate follow up actions to identify and eliminate pollution sources as they deem necessary. 3. Jeff Price will identify trends and
develop corrective action recommendations for reporting during the 2nd monthly Supervisors’ Meeting during the quarter. Following discussion, specific actions will be agreed upon and
incorporated into the Corrective Actions Table located on the LAN as follows: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Program Measures\1314 Program Measures\Corrective Action Table. Supervisors will implement
these corrective actions and record findings in the table. These findings will be discussed at subsequent Supervisors’ Meetings and refined as necessary until the water quality problems
are eliminated. 4. John McCulloch will coordinate with CMU to reduce infiltration, seepage, and sanitary sewer leaks and overflows. This coordination will be initiated through routine
communications with CMU field, supervisory, and management staff regarding problem areas (public and private systems) and exchanging this information between agencies so that preventative
actions can be implemented. 5. Richard Farmer will investigate the initiation of septic system surveys in the Clear Creek watershed. 4.2 Lake Trophic State Index Lake Trophic State
Index (Catawba Section Only): Improve trophic state index conditions in four (4) coves in Mecklenburg County to <-0.62 for Successful and <-1.11 for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold
not to go above is 0.85. 1. Jeff Price will report “Action Level” exceedances for total phosphorus (0.04 ppm), total organic nitrogen (0.65 ppm), and chlorophyll a (40 ppb) to David
Caldwell who will initiate follow up actions to identify and eliminate pollution sources. 25 2. Jeff Price will report “Watch Level” exceedance for total phosphorus (0.02 ppm),
total organic nitrogen (0.4 ppm), and chlorophyll a (12 ppb) to David Caldwell who will initiate follow up actions to identify and eliminate pollution sources as deemed necessary. 3.
Secchi depth is measured in the field. Staff collecting these measurements will notify David Caldwell immediately via cell phone of any exceedances of “Watch” (2 meters) or “Action”
(1 meter) Levels. David will subsequently ensure that the necessary follow up actions are initiated to identify and eliminate pollution sources. 4. David Buetow will identify trends
and develop corrective action recommendations for reporting during the 2nd monthly Supervisors’ Meeting during the quarter. Following discussion, specific actions will be agreed upon
and incorporated into the Corrective Actions Table located on the LAN as follows: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Program Measures\1314 Program Measures\Corrective Action Table. David Caldwell will
implement these corrective actions and record findings in the table. These findings will be discussed at subsequent Supervisors’ Meetings and refined as necessary until the water quality
problems are eliminated. 5. David Caldwell will ensure the implementation of the following actions for the coves. McDowell Creek Cove: 1. Continue implementation of the watershed management
plan and update as necessary. 2. Continue high priority erosion control inspection program. 3. Continue on-going performance evaluation of Huntersville LID ordinance. 4. Continue to
evaluate progress and identify potential problems by using monitoring programs such as the lake and stream monitoring programs, CMANN, and bioassessment programs. 5. Complete an inventory
of all storm water outfalls within the cove. This will not only provide some excellent information for future use, but could also potentially identify point source pollution sources
within the cove. Paw Creek Cove: 1. Collect bathymetry data for Paw Creek Cove. The collection of this data would be the first step in determining the flow relationship between the
cove and the watershed. This would help determine if the nutrients in the cove come from the lake itself or if they originate from the watershed. 2. Complete an inventory of all storm
water outfalls within the cove. This will not only provide some excellent information for future use, but could also potentially identify point source pollution sources within the
cove. Brown’s Cove 1. Complete an assessment of stream channels within the watershed to determine if instream channel erosion is a significant sediment source within the watershed.
Based upon the results of this study, develop a plan for stream restoration. 2. Continue to work with Charlotte Land Development to identify future land development projects within
the watershed such as the Tanger Mall and implement actions to prevent future sedimentation impacts. 3. Complete an inventory of all storm water outfalls within the cove. This will
not only provide some excellent information for future use, but could also potentially identify point source pollution sources within the cove. 26 Wither’s Cove: 1. Collect bathymetry
data for Wither’s Cove. The collection of this data would be the first step in determining the flow relationship between the cove and the watershed. This would help determine if the
nutrients in the cove come from the lake itself or if they originate from the watershed. 2. Complete an inventory of all storm water outfalls within the cove. This will not only provide
some excellent information for future use, but could also potentially identify point source pollution sources within the cove. 4.3 TSS Load in McDowell Creek TSS Load in McDowell
Creek (Catawba Section Only): Decrease the TSS load in McDowell Creek to <0.374 tons/acre/year for Successful and <0.337 tons/acre/year for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to
go above is 0.449 tons/acre/year. 1. David Caldwell will receive notifications via CMANN regarding elevated turbidity levels in McDowell Creek and initiate the necessary follow up
actions as deemed necessary. 2. David Kroening will continue implementation of the McDowell Creek Watershed Management Plan working closely with David Caldwell and the staff of the
Catawba Section. 3. Enhanced erosion control measures will be implemented at construction sites in the McDowell Creek watershed. 4. Increased inspections will occur at construction
projects in the McDowell Creek watershed. 4.4 Customer Service Customer Service Rating (all Sections): Maintain an average Water Quality Program customer service rating based on
survey results at >92% for Successful and >96.5% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 80%. 1. David Caldwell will provide customer service training quarterly during
Water Quality Staff Meetings. 2. Supervisors will follow up on all customer service surveys returned that indicate an unsatisfactory response and will initiate the necessary follow
up actions to correct any problems. 4.5 Citizen Requests for Service Citizen Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days (all Sections): Close >75.90 of citizen requests for service within
30 days for Successful and >91.07% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 60.72%. Number of Days Citizen Requests for Service are Open (all Sections): Average number
of days citizen requests for service are open at <47.09 days for Successful and <37.68 days for Exemplary. The Threshold not to go above is 56.51 days. 27 1. It is the written
policy of the Water Quality Program to respond immediately to citizen requests for service indicating a health/safety threat (see “Citizen request for service Response Procedures” located
on the LAN as follows: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Policies & Procedures\Field Inspections). This type of citizen requests for service represents the Program’s most important activity. It must
always be assigned the highest priority. Frequent, immediate updates to the Supervisor regarding the investigation of a health/safety threat are a necessity. Examples of possible
health/safety threats include: • Sewage or other pollutant discharge to a known swimming area; • Sewage or other pollutant discharge to a playground or other areas where people could
easily come in contact with pollutants; and • Discharge of pollutant near a drinking water intake. 2. Responses to citizen requests for service involving possible spills, illegal discharges
and/or water quality violations have the second highest priority for the Program. These types of requests are also to be responded to immediately, since they may also fall into the
above health/safety threat category. Examples of these types of requests include: • Large sewage spill; • Numerous dead fish in creek; • Fuel spill; • Someone currently in the act
of violating a water quality regulation; and • Request from Fire or Police to respond. 3. Requests for assistance or information that are determined not to pose a possible threat to
health/safety do not require an immediate response. These requests should be responded to as soon as possible, but never any later than 2 working days from the date of the request.
Examples of these types of requests are: • Silt fence down • Disturbance has occurred in a stream buffer • Someone has routinely dumped oil on ground 4. Staff should not be negatively
impacted by the effect of the poor economy on achieving compliance. This is particularly true in the Erosion Control Program where developers and banks are sometimes limited in the
funds they have to complete repairs. Therefore, upon receipt of verification from staff that the closure of a citizen request for service is being delayed due to economic factors,
the Program Manager will remove the citizen request for service from the scoring of this Program Measure. 5. Staff should not be negatively impacted when a citizen request for service
goes to enforcement. Therefore, upon receipt of notification from staff that a case is going to enforcement, the Program Manager will remove the citizen request for service from the
scoring of this Program Measure. 6. A monthly report will be provided to staff of all citizen requests for service that have remained open for more than 30 days. Supervisors will work
with staff to ensure the prompt closer of these outstanding citizen requests for service. The objective of this effort is to ensure that staff is taking every action necessary to close
citizen requests for service as quickly as possible and to provide assistance as needed to resolve “problem” citizen requests for service. 7. A monthly report will be provided to
staff of the percentage of citizen requests for service closed within 30 days for each staff person and for each Section and the Program. 28 8. Supervisors will hold staff accountable
in their annual reviews for the quick and efficient closure of citizen requests for service. 4.6 Notices of Violation Notices of Violation Closed in 48 Days (all Sections): Close
>61.70% of notices of violation within 48 days for Successful and >74.04% for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 49.36%. Number of Days Notices of Violation are Open
(all Sections): Average number of days notices of violation are open at <118.45 days for Successful and <94.76 days for Exemplary. The Threshold not to go above is 142.14 days. 1.
It is the written policy of the Water Quality Program to issue notices of violation within 24 hours of detection of a violation and to conduct follow up inspections to determine compliance
by the specified deadline (see Section 5 of IDDE Manual located on the LAN as follows: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Policies & Procedures\3.Field Inspections). 2. Staff should not be negatively impacted
by the effect of the poor economy on achieving compliance. This is particularly true in the Erosion Control Program where developers and banks are sometimes limited in the funds they
have to complete repairs. Therefore, upon receipt of verification from staff that compliance with a NOV is being delayed due to economic factors, the Program Manager will remove the
citizen request for service from the scoring of this Program Measure. 3. Staff should not be negatively impacted when a notice of violation goes to enforcement. Therefore, upon receipt
of notification from staff that a case is going to enforcement, the Program Manager will remove the notice of violation from the scoring of this Program Measure. 4. A monthly report
will be provided to staff of all notices of violation that have remained open for more than 48 days. The report will be provided to Supervisors who will work with staff to ensure the
prompt closer of these outstanding notices of violation. The objective of this effort is to ensure that staff is taking every action necessary to close notices of violation as quickly
as possible and to provide assistance as needed to resolve problems with achieving compliance. 5. A monthly report will be provided to staff of the percentage of notices of violation
closed within 48 days for each staff person and for each Section and the Program. 6. Supervisors will be hold staff accountable in their annual reviews for the quick and efficient
closure of notices of violation. 4.7 Volunteers Number of Groups Participating in Volunteer Activities (Erin Oliverio): Number of groups participating in volunteer activities at
>128 for Successful and >153 for Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 102. 1. Erin Oliverio and Deania Russo will seek out new volunteer groups willing to do large
scale projects, such as Boy Scouts, schools, companies, etc. 29 2. Erin Oliverio and Deania Russo will conduct the daily operations of the volunteer programs in an effective an
efficient manner, expediting requests from volunteers and providing exemplary customer service. 3. Erin Oliverio and Deania Russo will continue an effective volunteer recognition program.
4. Erin Oliverio and Deania Russo will maintain the volunteer database and GIS map detailing the number of stream miles/segments adopted/cleaned and their locations, storm drains marked
and their locations, volunteer groups participating, number of volunteer hours, number of pounds of trash removed, number/type of pollution problems found, etc. 5. Erin Oliverio and
Deania Russo will coordinate with Supervisors to ensure that all water quality problems reported as a result of volunteer activities are investigated and resolved. Report back to the
volunteers regarding the resolution of the problem. Follow up with volunteer groups to collect program materials and field data sheets. Assist volunteer groups by conducting necessary
follow-ups to reported problems. 6. Erin Oliverio and Deania Russo will continue to promote volunteer programs in the media. 4.8 Deadlines Meet deadlines (entire Program): >94%
of Work Plan deadlines met is considered Successful and 98% Exemplary. The minimum Threshold not to go below is 80%. The methodology for the calculation of this Program Measure is
unchanged from FY11. 1. It is the written policy of the Water Quality Program that staff meet their assigned deadlines in the Water Quality Work Plan. If staff is unable to meet
a deadline, they are to notify their Supervisor at least two (2) weeks in advance and provide a reason/ justification for missing the deadline. If the Supervisor determines that sufficient
justification exists for extending the deadline, a new deadline will be set. If this second deadline is met, then the Work Plan activity will be considered as having met the deadline;
however, if this second deadline is missed, the activity will be considered as having missed the deadline. Also, if the Supervisor determines that there is not sufficient justification
for extending a deadline or if two (2) weeks’ notice is not provided to the Supervisor by staff that a deadline will not be met, the deadline is considered as missed although a new
deadline may be set. 2. On a daily basis, Supervisors will evaluate the status of deadlines by consulting with the Work Plan Management Database (WPMD) and work with staff as necessary
to ensure that all deadlines are met. If a deadline is missed, a reason/justification should be provided in the comment section of WPMD. 3. At each monthly Supervisors’ meeting,
the Program Manager will review with the WPMD and the Supervisors will report on the status of all deadlines not met, including the reasons for not meeting the deadlines and the establishment
of new deadlines and any additional staff resources. The measure of success is the percentage of assigned Work Plan deadlines met by June 30, 2011. 4. Supervisors will document the
percentage of deadlines met by their individual staff and use this in the development of ARDs. 5. Supervisors will hold staff accountable in their annual reviews for meeting deadlines.
30 4.9 Safety Training Safety Training (entire Program): Employees must complete >80% of assigned training for Successful and complete 100% of training for Exemplary. For Supervisors
and the Manager, >80% of assigned employees must complete >80% of assigned training for Successful and >95% of assigned employees must complete >80% of training for Exemplary, excluding
all employees hired after July 1, 2013. 1. Safety training topics have been assigned for each month during the fiscal year as indicated in Table 1. Staff are to complete their assigned
training by the last work day of each month. John McCulloch will send an email to all staff at the beginning of each month indicating the training required for that month. 2. The first
week of each month, John will access MeckEdu and print out a report of staff that have completed their required training. John will update the Program Measure Tracking spreadsheet,
print it out, and post it on the bulletin board in the Water Quality area. Supervisors will take note of their staff that have not completed the required training and will encourage
them to do so. 3. During the Safety portion of quarterly staff meetings, John will provide an overview of required training topics for the quarter and will emphasis to staff that all
required training must be completed. 31 Section 5 Program Measure Reporting By the 10th day of the first month of each new quarter, the staff indicated below will calculate
their assigned Program Measure scores and forward to the Program Manager via email. The Program Manager will incorporate these scores into the spreadsheet entitled “Program Measure
Tracking Table FY16” located on the LAN as follows: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Program Measures\12-13 Program Measures. The Program Manager will review all Program Measure scores during the staff
meeting held during the first month of each new quarter. It is the responsibility of the staff assigned below to calculate all Program Measure scores in accordance with the methodology
contained in Section 3 of this document and to maintain all supporting data for a minimum of five (5) years. This data must be immediately made available upon request for auditing.
Jeff Price: • Stream Miles Suitable for Human Contact • % Compliance with Fecal Standard in Little Sugar and Sugar Creeks • % Compliance with Fecal Standard in Clear Creek David
Buetow: • Trophic State Index David Kroening: • TSS Load in McDowell Creek Deania Russo: • Customer Service Rating Silvio Conte: • Citizen Requests for Service Closed in 30 Days
• Number of Days Citizen requests for service are Open • Notices of Violation Closed in 48 Days • Number of Days Notices of Violation are Open Erin Oliverio: • Number of groups participating
in volunteer activities John McCulloch: • Safety Corey Priddy • Erosion Control Supervisors and Program Manager: • % deadlines met 32 Appendix 1: Lake Monitoring Sites Used
for Trophic State Index The four (4) cove monitoring sites illustrated below (MI3, LW4, BC2, and LW10) are used to calculate the trophic state index. Lake Norman Mountain Island
Lake Lake Wylie MI3 LW10 LW4 BC Withers Cove Browns Cove Paw Creek Cove McDowell Cove 33 Appendix 2: Stream Monitoring Sites Used for Miles Suitable The number of miles represented
by a stream monitoring site is the number of miles upstream to the next monitoring site or the termination of the FEMA regulated stream (640 acre drainage area), whichever comes first.
34 # Site ID Stream Location 1 MC14A Long Creek Pine Island Dr. 2 MC17 Paw Creek Wilkinson Blvd. 3 MC22A Irwin Creek Irwin Creek WWTP. 4 MC25 Coffey Creek Hwy 49 5 MC27 Sugar
Creek Hwy 51. 6 MC29A1 Little Sugar Creek Carolina Medical Center Dr. 7 MC30A Edwards Branch Sheffield Dr. 8 MC33 Briar Creek Colony Rd. 9 MC38 McAlpine Creek Sardis Rd. 10 MC40A Four
Mile Creek Elm Lane. 11 MC42 McMullen Creek Sharonview Rd. 12 MC45 McAlpine Creek McAlpine Creek WWTP. 13 MC45B McAlpine Creek Harrisburg Rd. in SC 14 MC47A Steele Creek Carowinds Blvd.
15 MC49A Little Sugar Creek Hwy 51. 16 MC51 Six Mile Creek Marvin Rd. 17 MC66 Beaverdam Creek Windy Gap Rd. 18 MY7B McKee Creek Reedy Creek Rd. 19 MY11B Mallard Creek Pavilion Blvd.
20 MY12B Back Creek Wentwater St. 21 MY13 Reedy Creek Reedy Creek Rd. 22 MY13A Reedy Creek Plaza Road Ext. 23 MY9 Goose Creek Stevens Mill Rd. 24 MY8 Clear Creek Ferguson Rd. 25 MY10
Clark's Creeks Harris Rd. 26 MY1B W. Rocky River River Ford Rd. 27 MC4 McDowell Creek Beatties Ford Rd. 28 MC50 Gar Creek Beatties Ford Rd. 29 MY14 Duck Creek Tara Oaks Dr. 30 MC36
Irvin’s Creek Trib Sam Newell Rd (S. 74) 31 MC40C Four Mile Creek Trade St. (Pleasant Plains) 32 MC2 McDowell Creek Sam Furr Rd. APPENDIX 6: NCDENR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS / CMSWS
ACTION-WATCH LEVELS Surface Water Quality Standards Report Action Watch Threshold Levels Parameter Watch Low Watch High Action Low Action High Fecal Coliform 400
3000 Turbidity 25 50 DO 5 4 pH 6.5 8.5 6 9 Temperature 28 32 Copper, Total 3.5 7 Chromium, Total 25 50 Lead, Total 12.5 25 Zinc, Total 25 50 Sp Conductivity
250 550 Total Phosphorous 0.05 0.10 APPENDIX 7: EMPLOYEE TRAINING FORM 1 In-House Training Documentation Procedures October 1, 2015 Purpose: It is important to properly
document in-house training that is conducted for compliance with Phase I or Phase II Storm Water Permit requirements or any training required in the Work Plan. Documentation is also
necessary for in-house Safety and Customer Service training required by LUESA management. The below procedures must be followed to ensure proper document of this training. Procedures:
1. Complete the top portion of the attached form, which is available in the following file: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\KSA\In-House Training\Training Documentation Form. 2. Bring the Training
Documentation Form to the training session and ensure that everyone in attendance places their initials beside their name. 3. Attach to this form all the materials distributed during
the training session. 4. Scan the completed form and attach to the Activity Report in Cityworks associated with your assigned Program Element along with all attachments to the form.
5. Document the following in the Activity Report: • Describe the assigned task exactly as worded in the Work Plan. • Indicate who completed the assigned task. • Describe what work was
performed to fulfill the assignment as well as labor. • Explain in detail how the work was performed (techniques or methods used). • Provide specific dates and times when work was performed.
• Indicate any particular locations/areas where the work was completed if applicable. • Indicate persons or groups contacted as part of completion of assigned work. • Elaborate on any
specific outcomes resulting from the completion of the assigned task. 6. If the in-house training is not conducted to satisfy a Work Plan Program Element but is instead being done as
required by LUESA management for Safety or Customer Service training, follow steps 1, 2 and 3 above. 7. For Safety and Customer Service Training, do not scan the document and attach
to a Activity Report but instead maintain a hard copy of the completed document in the file that you develop for the training sessions. 8. From time to time training will need to
be documented that is not discussed above. Please consult with the Program Manager regarding how this is to be documented and filed. 700 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Fax:
704.336.4391 To report pollution, call: 704.336.5500 To report drainage problems, call: 311 http://stormwater.charmeck.org Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program Staff Training
Completed Training Topic: Date of Training: Time of Training: Total Number of Training Hours: Presenters: Number of Staff Attending Training: Attach
to this form all training materials distributed. Number of pages attached: Provided below is a list of Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program staff. All staff in attendance
at the training have placed their initials by their name. Staff Name Initials Staff Name Initials Jon Beller Alex Hattaway Robert Billings Preston Hines Chad Broadway Dylan Kirk
David Buetow Justin Klein Caroline Burgett Phil Lung David Caldwell John McCulloch Silvio Conte Matthew Phillips Andrew DeCristofaro Tony Roux Joshua DeMaury Rusty Rozzelle

Olivia Edwards Deania Russo Ron Eubanks Isabel Sepkowitz Richard Farmer Ryan Spidel Dave Ferguson Ken Friday Erin Hall Charlie Hansen
CMSWS Attachments/BiologicDataSubmittalTemplate2018_CharMeck.xlsx
8/17/2012
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
3050103
8
6.2436363636363641
153
29
6.81

7/26/2013
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
3050103
8
6.7733333333333325
113
34
7.26

7/3/2014
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
3050103
9
6.2094339622641499
186
34
6.78

8/27/2015
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
3050103
7
6.75
78
20
7.27

8/4/2016
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
3050103
8
6.1062499999999993
418
35
6.91

8/30/2012
35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
3050103
6
5.8857142857142861
38
25
7.34

8/22/2013
35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
3050103
5
6.4382352941176473
129
21
7.17

7/29/2014
35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
3050103
3
6.6750000000000007
56
25
7.53

8/7/2015
35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
3050103
3
7.1800000000000015
5
15
7.75

8/23/2016
35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
3050103
2
7.7727272727272725
87
17
7.93

8/23/2012
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
9
6.5148936170212766
246
38
7.09

7/16/2013
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
6
6.4056603773584904
203
29
6.56

8/5/2014
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
7
6.3510638297872344
188
25
6.91

9/16/2015
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
9
5.8040816326530615
249
29
6.84

8/12/2016
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
8
5.7765624999999998
360
34
6.57

8/31/2012
35.08502
-80.882180000000005
3050103
8
6.1508474576271182
241
29
6.87

8/22/2013
35.08502
-80.882180000000005
3050103
9
6.0015384615384617
352
34
6.71

8/15/2014
35.08502
-80.882180000000005
3050103
8
6.2333333333333334
239
33
6.97

8/7/2015
35.08502
-80.882180000000005
3050103
9
5.910000000000001
213
37
7.11

8/23/2016
35.08502
-80.882180000000005
3050103
9
6.1313725490196074
328
36
6.94

8/3/2012
35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
3040105
4
5.6941176470588246
33
34
7.48

8/14/2013
35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
3040105
2
6.3923076923076918
23
34
7.63

8/7/2014
35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
3040105
8
5.8695652173913047
44
32
7.14

10/14/2015
35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
3040105
4
6.213636363636363
65
37
7.09

8/24/2016
35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
3040105
2
5.5272727272727273
30
32
7.32

9/17/2012
35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
3040105
8
6.746666666666667
74
42
6.99

8/16/2013
35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
3040105
11
5.8108695652173914
215
52
6.52

8/27/2014
35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
3040105
11
6.0239130434782613
85
59
6.59

9/1/2015
35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
3040105
10
5.8288135593220334
98
37
6.23

8/31/2016
35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
3040105
9
5.7461538461538462
45
36
7.08

325
9/22/2016
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
30

311
5/26/2016
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
3050103
38

313
5/26/2016
35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
3050103
26

15
5/14/2015
35.08502
-80.882180000000005
3050103
40

7
10/2/2013
35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
3040105
36

6
10/1/2013
35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
3040105
46

94
9/21/2012
35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
3050103
40

SiteID
AUNum
CC Num
Date
Waterbody
Location
Latitude
Longitude
County
Basin
Subbasin
Huc_8Digit
Sample Type
Level 4 Ecoregion
Study
EPT_S
EPT_BI
EPT_N
Tot_S
BI
Bioclass
Full Scale
45b
Fair
use your site ID DWR may change this
DWR will confirm locations
use your sample identifier
required
notes
StationID
Lat
Long
8DigitHUC
IBI Score
MC22A
MC27
MC38
MC49A
MY11B
MY9
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
McAlpine Creek
Little Sugar Creek
Mallard Creek
Goose Creek
MECKLENBURG
UNION
Catawba
Yadkin
11-137-1
11-137
11-137-9
11-137-8
13-17-5
13-17-18
Poor
MC38
MC22A
MC27
MC49A
MY11B
MY9
Good-Fair
IRWIN CRK AT IRWIN CRK WWTP NR CHARLOTTE
MCALPINE CRK AT SR 3356 SARDIS RD NR CHARLOTTE
LITTLE SUGAR CRK AT NC 51 AT PINEVILLE
SUGAR CRK AT NC 51 AT PINEVILLE
GOOSE CRK AT SR 1524 NR MINT HILL
MALLARD CRK AT PAVILLION RD NR HARRISBURG

CMSWS Attachments/DataSubmittalTemplate2018_CharMeck.xlsx
35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
82079
60
0
5
50
1
2.08
2.5
4.0999999999999996
11.25
20
29.2
100
60
8.3333333333333301E-2
0.27095825812546098

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
400
58
0
0
9
6.5
7.0869999999999997
7.3
7.5
7.8075000000000001
8.1170000000000009
8.2260000000000009
8.6199999999999992
58
0
0

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
31616
62
0
400
25
66.8
182.5
435
1400
3510
4400
29000
62

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
400
58
0
0
6
6.5
7.0869999999999997
7.3
7.5
7.8075000000000001
8.1170000000000009
8.2260000000000009
8.6199999999999992
58
0
0

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
1090
18
18
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15.5
18
0
0

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
1049
18
17
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.53
1.5
18
0
0

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
1040
18
13
0
2
2
2
2
2.4249999999999998
2.75
2.9
6.75
18
0
0

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
300
53
0
0
4
5.65
7.6619999999999999
9.2100000000000009
10.84
12.25
12.68
12.968
15.11
53
0
0

35.198009999999996
-80.904529999999994
10
59
0
0
32
2.76
7.9219999999999997
11.055
18.55
25.25
25.657
25.98
28.6
59
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
82079
60
0
6
50
1.4
2.4900000000000002
4.2
6.05
16.5
26.15
44.000000000000099
220
60
0.1
0.43716587073712598

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
31616
61
0
400
56
140
230
400
1600
5000
6600
21000
61

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
10
60
0
0
32
2.34
7.8579999999999997
11.547499999999999
17.559999999999999
23.737500000000001
25.003
25.402999999999999
31.49
60
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
1049
18
17
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.54500000000000004
1.75
18
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
1040
18
1
0
2
2.1850000000000001
2.625
3.0750000000000002
3.6625000000000001
4.0125000000000002
4.24
5.25
18
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
1090
18
9
0
10
10
10
10.25
12.375
13.225
13.65
14
18
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
400
59
0
0
9
6.47
7.0540000000000003
7.2
7.37
7.53
7.5659999999999998
7.6479999999999997
7.98
59
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
400
59
0
0
6
6.47
7.0540000000000003
7.2
7.37
7.53
7.5659999999999998
7.6479999999999997
7.98
59
0
0

35.090670000000003
-80.899619999999999
300
56
0
0
4
6.37
7
7.5674999999999999
8.76
10.404999999999999
10.89
11.645
13.73
56
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
31616
61
0
400
31
170
310
450
1100
2800
4400
34000
61

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
400
61
0
0
9
6.4
6.8
7.05
7.18
7.28
7.3
7.37
8.11
61
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
300
59
0
0
4
4
5.88
6.6
7.75
10
11.066000000000001
11.96
14.8
59
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
400
61
0
0
6
6.4
6.8
7.05
7.18
7.28
7.3
7.37
8.11
61
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
82079
60
0
4
50
1.55
4.7699999999999996
5.6749999999999998
10.4
23.25
28.15
50
110
60
6.6666666666666693E-2
0.137398569419658

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
1090
18
18
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
18
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
1040
18
14
0
2
2
2
2
2
2.4075000000000002
2.6
5.2
18
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
1049
18
18
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
18
0
0

35.137250000000002
-80.768169999999998
10
61
0
0
32
0.19
5.6
9.58
15.3
21.7
23
24
25.5
61
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
82079
59
0
5
50
3.2
4.1399999999999997
5.25
6.9
13.5
21.3
25.4
140
59
8.4745762711864403E-2
0.28480889250976599

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
400
59
0
0
9
6.7
6.9
7
7.12
7.28
7.3630000000000004
7.3920000000000003
7.74
59
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
31616
59
0
400
53
140
187.5
320
710
1190
2400
10000
59

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
400
59
0
0
6
6.7
6.9
7
7.12
7.28
7.3630000000000004
7.3920000000000003
7.74
59
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
10
59
0
0
32
8.3000000000000007
11.66
15.33
20.2
24.35
25.36
25.54
26.7
59
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
1090
17
2
0
10
10.6
11
16.5
20
20.6
21.2
22.5
17
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
300
59
0
0
4
5.99
6.3
6.75
7.5
8.6150000000000002
9.3000000000000007
9.4939999999999998
10.8
59
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
1049
17
17
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3
17
0
0

35.04101
-80.891620000000003
1040
17
0
0
2.25
2.5499999999999998
2.6
2.8
3.15
3.79
4.21
5.0999999999999996
17
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
400
59
0
0
6
6.57
7.05
7.17
7.31
7.42
7.4720000000000004
7.5119999999999996
7.93
59
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
82079
60
0
5
50
1
2.19
2.9750000000000001
4.25
12
15.65
32.200000000000003
230
60
8.3333333333333301E-2
0.27095825812546098

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
31616
61
0
400
160
275
360
590
1450
3000
5600
40000
61

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
1049
18
18
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3
18
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
300
56
0
0
4
6.33
6.7050000000000001
7.2450000000000001
8.4849999999999994
9.8049999999999997
10.4625
11.03
12.75
56
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
10
60
0
0
32
5.43
9.9440000000000008
13.07
18.309999999999999
24.545000000000002
25.653500000000001
26.204000000000001
27.9
60
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
1040
18
0
0
2.4
2.7650000000000001
3.2
3.375
3.7749999999999999
3.9125000000000001
4.0650000000000004
4.4000000000000004
18
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
400
59
0
0
9
6.57
7.05
7.17
7.31
7.42
7.4720000000000004
7.5119999999999996
7.93
59
0
0

35.08502
-80.882180000000005
1090
18
3
0
10
10.7
14
16.25
20.5
21.45
22.15
22.5
18
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
10
60
0
0
32
0.22
6.1849999999999996
9.2850000000000001
16.25
21.802499999999998
23.2195
23.5
25.82
60
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
1090
18
17
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.15
12.5
18
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
1049
18
18
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1000000000000001
18
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
82079
60
0
11
50
2.4
3.59
4.9749999999999996
9.1999999999999993
25.75
61.125
80.5
400
60
0.18333333333333299
0.96579087692126697

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
31616
61
0
400
70
180
260
440
860
3400
5400
34000
61

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
1040
18
14
0
2
2
2
2
2.3125
2.6575000000000002
3
4.4000000000000004
18
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
300
58
0
0
4
6.37
7.3410000000000002
7.8150000000000004
9.5950000000000006
11.164999999999999
11.939500000000001
12.35
14
58
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
400
57
0
0
9
6.93
7.2
7.29
7.39
7.47
7.52
7.548
8.1199999999999992
57
0
0

35.332320000000003
-80.715729999999994
400
57
0
0
6
6.93
7.2
7.29
7.39
7.47
7.52
7.548
8.1199999999999992
57
0
0

35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
10
59
0
0
32
0.43
5.4379999999999997
8.58
16.399999999999999
20.69
21.800999999999998
22.65
24.76
59
0
0

35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
300
54
0
0
4
6.94
7.6929999999999996
8.1950000000000003
8.8650000000000002
11.074999999999999
12.191000000000001
12.98
16.559999999999999
54
0
0

35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
400
57
0
0
9
6.49
6.9059999999999997
7.01
7.16
7.34
7.4180000000000001
7.5839999999999996
8.6199999999999992
57
0
0

35.130899999999997
-80.631050000000002
400
57
0
0
6
6.49
6.9059999999999997
7.01
7.16
7.34
7.4180000000000001
7.5839999999999996
8.6199999999999992
57
0
0

7/8/2015
2

7/8/2015
2

8/12/2015
3.3

8/12/2015
3.2

9/9/2015
2

9/9/2015
2

10/14/2015
2

10/14/2015
2

11/10/2015
4.5

11/10/2015
9

12/9/2015
2

12/9/2015
2

1/13/2016
2.9

1/13/2016
2.6

2/10/2016
3

2/10/2016
2

3/9/2016
2

3/9/2016
2

4/13/2016
2

4/13/2016
2

5/11/2016
2

5/11/2016
2

6/8/2016
2

6/8/2016
2

7/12/2016
2.7

7/12/2016
2.8

8/9/2016
2.2000000000000002

8/9/2016
2.2000000000000002

9/13/2016
2

9/13/2016
2

10/11/2016
2

10/11/2016
2

11/8/2016
2

12/13/2016
2

12/13/2016
2

1/18/2012
11.37

2/15/2012
15.11

3/21/2012
12.21

4/18/2012
10.84

5/16/2012
8.59

6/20/2012
9.73

8/15/2012
9.86

9/19/2012
9.67

10/17/2012
10.93

11/20/2012
11.26

12/19/2012
11.83

2/20/2013
13.08

3/21/2013
12.65

4/17/2013
12.63

5/15/2013
11.79

6/19/2013
8.39

7/10/2013
7.71

8/14/2013
5.65

9/11/2013
7.34

10/9/2013
9.2100000000000009

11/13/2013
12.26

1/8/2014
14.09

2/20/2014
10.63

3/12/2014
10.45

4/9/2014
10.81

5/14/2014
10.75

6/11/2014
7.31

9/10/2014
8.35

10/8/2014
12.36

11/12/2014
12.03

12/10/2014
13.06

1/14/2015
12.26

2/11/2015
12.24

3/11/2015
12.25

4/8/2015
7.65

5/13/2015
9.5299999999999994

6/10/2015
8.69

9/9/2015
9.1

10/14/2015
9.26

11/10/2015
9.4

12/9/2015
12.8

1/13/2016
12.8

2/10/2016
14.7

3/9/2016
13.01

4/13/2016
11.3

5/11/2016
10.96

6/8/2016
9.0500000000000007

7/12/2016
7.18

8/9/2016
7.43

9/13/2016
9.5

10/11/2016
9.3000000000000007

11/8/2016
11

12/13/2016
11.1

1/4/2012
120

1/18/2012
2500

2/15/2012
50

3/21/2012
320

4/18/2012
1000

5/16/2012
10000

6/20/2012
230

7/18/2012
2200

8/15/2012
440

9/19/2012
3600

10/17/2012
280

11/20/2012
250

12/19/2012
120

1/16/2013
4400

2/20/2013
220

3/21/2013
44

3/28/2013
110

4/17/2013
31

5/15/2013
160

5/15/2013
200

6/17/2013
2700

6/19/2013
1000

7/10/2013
740

8/14/2013
4400

9/11/2013
6400

9/13/2013
3600

9/20/2013
430

9/30/2013
270

10/9/2013
1100

11/13/2013
560

11/21/2013
69

12/11/2013
440

1/8/2014
230

2/20/2014
310

3/12/2014
150

4/9/2014
820

5/14/2014
470

5/14/2014
270

6/11/2014
11000

7/9/2014
2200

8/13/2014
1500

9/10/2014
880

9/22/2014
500

9/29/2014
920

10/8/2014
180

11/12/2014
31

12/10/2014
62

1/14/2015
440

2/11/2015
290

3/11/2015
120

4/8/2015
4100

5/13/2015
580

5/13/2015
580

6/10/2015
430

6/17/2015
210

7/8/2015
340

8/12/2015
29000

9/9/2015
430

9/17/2015
220

10/14/2015
8500

11/10/2015
3000

11/16/2015
110

12/9/2015
190

1/13/2016
120

2/10/2016
41

2/10/2016
19

3/9/2016
25

4/13/2016
460

5/11/2016
480

5/16/2016
290

6/8/2016
450

7/12/2016
5500

8/9/2016
2500

8/25/2016
420

8/31/2016
490

9/8/2016
510

9/12/2016
420

9/13/2016
210

10/11/2016
700

11/8/2016
140

12/13/2016
120

12/22/2016
110

1/18/2012
41

2/15/2012
85

3/21/2012
76

4/18/2012
66

5/16/2012
37

6/20/2012
57

7/18/2012
51

8/15/2012
54

9/19/2012
46

10/17/2012
66

11/20/2012
69

12/19/2012
61

1/16/2013
72

2/20/2013
67

3/21/2013
88

4/17/2013
78

5/15/2013
81

5/15/2013
85

6/19/2013
59

7/10/2013
75

8/14/2013
73

9/11/2013
54

10/9/2013
56

11/13/2013
70

12/11/2013
58

1/8/2014
78

2/20/2014
89

3/12/2014
130

4/9/2014
98

5/14/2014
100

5/14/2014
100

6/11/2014
67

7/9/2014
85

8/13/2014
80

9/10/2014
78

10/8/2014
85

11/12/2014
89

12/10/2014
87

1/14/2015
81

2/11/2015
78

3/11/2015
96

4/8/2015
51

5/13/2015
100

5/13/2015
97

6/10/2015
77

7/8/2015
73

8/12/2015
36

9/9/2015
69

10/14/2015
90

11/10/2015
60

12/9/2015
100

1/13/2016
100

2/10/2016
110

2/10/2016
120

3/9/2016
93

4/13/2016
69

5/11/2016
81

6/8/2016
64

7/12/2016
51

8/9/2016
78

9/13/2016
54

10/11/2016
73

11/8/2016
71

12/13/2016
73

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.7

8/12/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
2.5

12/9/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

1/18/2012
7.26

2/15/2012
8.4499999999999993

3/21/2012
8.17

4/18/2012
7.84

5/16/2012
7.49

6/20/2012
8.39

8/15/2012
8.15

9/19/2012
7.51

10/17/2012
7.59

11/20/2012
7.66

12/19/2012
7.71

1/16/2013
7.57

2/20/2013
7.58

3/21/2013
7.61

4/17/2013
8.6

5/15/2013
8.09

6/19/2013
7.86

7/10/2013
7.6

8/14/2013
7.32

9/11/2013
7.45

10/9/2013
7.5

11/13/2013
7.46

1/8/2014
7.3

2/20/2014
6.74

3/12/2014
7.26

4/9/2014
7.28

5/14/2014
7.99

6/11/2014
7.17

7/9/2014
7.92

8/13/2014
7.35

9/10/2014
7.59

10/8/2014
8.6199999999999992

11/12/2014
7.71

12/10/2014
7.53

1/14/2015
7.16

2/11/2015
7.06

3/11/2015
7.65

4/8/2015
7.02

5/13/2015
7.44

6/10/2015
7.39

7/8/2015
8.31

8/12/2015
7.08

9/9/2015
7.9

10/14/2015
7.4

11/10/2015
6.5

12/9/2015
7.4

1/13/2016
7.4

2/10/2016
7.3

3/9/2016
8.48

4/13/2016
7.3

5/11/2016
8.19

6/8/2016
7.49

7/12/2016
7.25

8/9/2016
7.09

9/13/2016
7.7

10/11/2016
7.05

11/8/2016
7.3

12/13/2016
7.5

1/18/2012
10.67

2/15/2012
8.5

3/21/2012
21.08

4/18/2012
14.83

5/16/2012
18.989999999999998

6/20/2012
26.5

7/18/2012
28.6

8/15/2012
25.79

9/19/2012
22.27

10/17/2012
16.22

11/20/2012
11.4

12/19/2012
10.71

1/16/2013
10.6

2/20/2013
7.61

3/21/2013
10.56

4/17/2013
22.14

5/15/2013
18.739999999999998

6/19/2013
25.59

7/10/2013
26.9

8/14/2013
24.82

9/11/2013
25.82

10/9/2013
18.55

11/13/2013
8.3699999999999992

1/8/2014
2.76

2/20/2014
12.75

3/12/2014
13.61

4/9/2014
14.34

5/14/2014
25.36

6/11/2014
24.3

7/9/2014
26.3

8/13/2014
25.5

9/10/2014
22.33

10/8/2014
20.18

11/12/2014
13.71

12/10/2014
8.1199999999999992

1/14/2015
6.01

2/11/2015
7.5

3/11/2015
14.75

4/8/2015
18.010000000000002

5/13/2015
22.1

6/10/2015
25.2

7/8/2015
27.4

8/12/2015
22.3

9/9/2015
25.9

10/14/2015
18.600000000000001

11/10/2015
14.6

12/9/2015
8

1/13/2016
6.6

2/10/2016
3

3/9/2016
16.63

4/13/2016
14.2

5/11/2016
21.8

6/8/2016
25.3

7/12/2016
27.3

8/9/2016
25.3

9/13/2016
25.6

10/11/2016
16.600000000000001

11/8/2016
12.9

12/13/2016
8.6

1/18/2012
80

2/15/2012
2.2000000000000002

3/21/2012
2.5

4/18/2012
2.2999999999999998

5/16/2012
54

6/20/2012
3

7/18/2012
9.1999999999999993

8/15/2012
2.2000000000000002

9/19/2012
28

10/17/2012
10

11/20/2012
4

12/19/2012
2.2000000000000002

1/16/2013
11

2/20/2013
20

3/21/2013
19

4/17/2013
2.1

5/15/2013
2.2999999999999998

5/15/2013
2.2000000000000002

6/19/2013
12

7/10/2013
5.2

8/14/2013
2.6

9/11/2013
1.9

10/9/2013
2.4

11/13/2013
3.5

12/11/2013
16

1/8/2014
7.4

2/20/2014
40

3/12/2014
7.6

4/9/2014
11

5/14/2014
3.3

5/14/2014
3.3

6/11/2014
9.6999999999999993

7/9/2014
3.5

8/13/2014
6.6

9/10/2014
4.3

10/8/2014
1.8

11/12/2014
1.6

12/10/2014
2.7

1/14/2015
12

2/11/2015
12

3/11/2015
2.9

4/8/2015
100

5/13/2015
2.9

5/13/2015
2.6

6/10/2015
4.4000000000000004

7/8/2015
1.6

8/12/2015
95

9/9/2015
20

10/14/2015
2.2000000000000002

11/10/2015
60

12/9/2015
2.5

1/13/2016
4.2

2/10/2016
3.4

2/10/2016
3.2

3/9/2016
2.6

4/13/2016
3.6

5/11/2016
3

6/8/2016
4.2

7/12/2016
27

8/9/2016
4.0999999999999996

9/13/2016
1.4

10/11/2016
7.2

11/8/2016
1

12/13/2016
4.0999999999999996

7/8/2015
10

7/8/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

9/9/2015
10

9/9/2015
10

10/14/2015
10

10/14/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

11/10/2015
21

12/9/2015
10

12/9/2015
10

1/13/2016
10

1/13/2016
10

2/10/2016
10

2/10/2016
10

3/9/2016
10

3/9/2016
10

4/13/2016
10

4/13/2016
10

5/11/2016
10

5/11/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

7/8/2015
4.3

7/8/2015
4

8/12/2015
4.5

8/12/2015
4.4000000000000004

9/9/2015
5.2

9/9/2015
5.3

10/14/2015
3.8

10/14/2015
4

11/10/2015
3.4

11/10/2015
3.4

12/9/2015
2.6

12/9/2015
2.6

1/13/2016
2.2000000000000002

1/13/2016
2.2000000000000002

2/10/2016
2

2/10/2016
2

3/9/2016
2.2000000000000002

3/9/2016
2.1

4/13/2016
3.2

4/13/2016
3.4

5/11/2016
3.3

5/11/2016
3.2

6/8/2016
3.4

6/8/2016
3.4

7/12/2016
2.7

7/12/2016
2.7

8/9/2016
3.8

8/9/2016
3.7

9/13/2016
2.9

9/13/2016
2.9

10/11/2016
2.8

10/11/2016
2.9

11/8/2016
2.9

11/8/2016
2.9

12/13/2016
2.2999999999999998

12/13/2016
2.2999999999999998

1/18/2012
9.9499999999999993

2/15/2012
12.31

3/21/2012
8.76

4/18/2012
8.26

5/16/2012
8.14

6/20/2012
7.5

8/15/2012
7.26

9/19/2012
7.85

10/17/2012
8.81

11/20/2012
9.7899999999999991

12/19/2012
10.64

2/20/2013
10.1

3/21/2013
11.76

4/17/2013
9.41

5/15/2013
8.26

6/19/2013
7.19

7/10/2013
6.9

8/14/2013
6.46

9/11/2013
8.18

10/9/2013
8.2200000000000006

11/13/2013
10.86

12/11/2013
10.48

1/8/2014
13.73

2/20/2014
9.5399999999999991

3/12/2014
9.23

4/9/2014
10.35

5/14/2014
7.59

6/11/2014
6.37

9/10/2014
7.22

10/8/2014
8.94

11/12/2014
9.92

12/10/2014
10.9

1/14/2015
11.98

2/11/2015
10.86

3/11/2015
9.2200000000000006

4/8/2015
6.53

5/13/2015
7.28

6/10/2015
7.1

7/8/2015
6.75

8/12/2015
7.1

9/9/2015
7.65

10/14/2015
8.76

11/10/2015
9.74

12/9/2015
11.53

1/13/2016
13.28

2/10/2016
12.15

3/9/2016
11.07

4/13/2016
8.58

5/11/2016
7.78

6/8/2016
7.66

7/12/2016
6.74

8/9/2016
7.5

9/13/2016
8.0500000000000007

10/11/2016
8.59

11/8/2016
10.38

12/13/2016
10.54

1/4/2012
88

1/18/2012
1900

2/13/2012
99

2/15/2012
180

3/12/2012
100

3/21/2012
250

3/21/2012
180

4/18/2012
280

5/2/2012
180

5/8/2012
440

5/16/2012
7900

5/21/2012
390

6/18/2012
280

6/20/2012
470

7/18/2012
940

7/31/2012
260

8/15/2012
710

8/27/2012
430

9/19/2012
5500

9/24/2012
220

10/17/2012
480

10/24/2012
260

11/8/2012
170

11/20/2012
140

12/19/2012
400

1/9/2013
170

1/16/2013
900

2/6/2013
120

2/20/2013
810

2/20/2013
610

3/11/2013
86

3/21/2013
250

3/28/2013
140

4/10/2013
120

4/17/2013
140

5/15/2013
380

5/16/2013
190

6/17/2013
580

6/19/2013
4400

7/10/2013
470

7/31/2013
970

8/12/2013
840

8/14/2013
1600

8/27/2013
430

8/30/2013
400

9/9/2013
230

9/11/2013
340

10/3/2013
980

10/9/2013
2500

10/16/2013
300

11/12/2013
320

11/13/2013
250

12/3/2013
150

12/11/2013
1400

1/8/2014
92

1/21/2014
9200

1/23/2014
6000

1/27/2014
6000

2/20/2014
6100

2/20/2014
6500

2/26/2014
300

3/12/2014
250

4/3/2014
230

4/9/2014
960

5/7/2014
200

5/14/2014
340

6/11/2014
2000

6/19/2014
380

7/9/2014
2700

7/14/2014
560

8/13/2014
5000

9/10/2014
760

9/22/2014
460

9/29/2014
580

10/8/2014
280

11/12/2014
300

12/10/2014
230

1/14/2015
200

2/11/2015
310

2/11/2015
220

3/11/2015
56

4/8/2015
6600

5/13/2015
640

6/10/2015
150

6/17/2015
320

7/8/2015
400

8/12/2015
21000

9/9/2015
12000

9/17/2015
200

10/14/2015
220

11/10/2015
9800

11/16/2015
260

12/9/2015
930

1/13/2016
180

2/10/2016
190

2/10/2016
230

3/9/2016
110

4/13/2016
580

5/11/2016
240

6/8/2016
290

7/12/2016
7200

8/9/2016
690

8/25/2016
440

8/31/2016
210

9/13/2016
400

10/11/2016
11000

11/8/2016
180

11/8/2016
220

12/13/2016
120

12/22/2016
81

1/18/2012
36

2/15/2012
89

3/21/2012
89

3/21/2012
89

4/18/2012
104

5/16/2012
35

6/20/2012
92

7/18/2012
57

8/15/2012
86

9/19/2012
40

10/17/2012
94

11/20/2012
92

12/19/2012
77

1/16/2013
82

2/20/2013
81

2/20/2013
73

3/21/2013
91

4/17/2013
95

5/15/2013
100

6/19/2013
61

7/10/2013
83

8/14/2013
110

9/11/2013
88

10/9/2013
77

11/13/2013
127

12/11/2013
71

1/8/2014
120

2/20/2014
65

2/20/2014
67

3/12/2014
120

4/9/2014
90

5/14/2014
100

6/11/2014
110

7/9/2014
150

8/13/2014
67

9/10/2014
100

10/8/2014
120

11/12/2014
120

12/10/2014
120

1/14/2015
82

2/11/2015
67

2/11/2015
71

3/11/2015
120

4/8/2015
73

5/13/2015
110

6/10/2015
92

7/8/2015
100

8/12/2015
55

9/9/2015
84

10/14/2015
100

11/10/2015
47

12/9/2015
120

1/13/2016
110

2/10/2016
130

2/10/2016
140

3/9/2016
110

4/13/2016
83

5/11/2016
88

6/8/2016
110

7/12/2016
57

8/9/2016
68

9/13/2016
99

10/11/2016
88

11/8/2016
100

11/8/2016
110

12/13/2016
93

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.6

10/14/2015
0.7

11/10/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
3

7/12/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

1/18/2012
7.07

2/15/2012
7.69

3/21/2012
7.52

4/18/2012
7.53

5/16/2012
7.2

6/20/2012
7.58

8/15/2012
7.47

9/19/2012
7.13

10/17/2012
7.31

11/20/2012
7.5

12/19/2012
7.56

1/16/2013
7.54

2/20/2013
7.37

3/21/2013
7.32

4/17/2013
7.54

5/15/2013
7.41

6/19/2013
7.69

7/10/2013
7.47

8/14/2013
7.23

9/11/2013
7.53

10/9/2013
7.35

11/13/2013
7.23

12/11/2013
7.47

1/8/2014
7.29

2/20/2014
6.47

3/12/2014
7.08

4/9/2014
7.18

5/14/2014
7.35

6/11/2014
7.16

7/9/2014
7.48

8/13/2014
7.2

9/10/2014
7.48

10/8/2014
7.64

11/12/2014
7.28

12/10/2014
7.37

1/14/2015
7.12

2/11/2015
7.06

3/11/2015
7.33

4/8/2015
6.99

5/13/2015
7.28

6/10/2015
7.21

7/8/2015
7.9

8/12/2015
7.03

9/9/2015
7.56

10/14/2015
7.52

11/10/2015
6.77

12/9/2015
7.43

1/13/2016
7.98

2/10/2016
7.58

3/9/2016
7.68

4/13/2016
7.53

5/11/2016
7.51

6/8/2016
7.52

7/12/2016
7.16

8/9/2016
7.3

9/13/2016
7.7

10/11/2016
6.89

11/8/2016
6.98

12/13/2016
7.42

1/18/2012
11.18

2/15/2012
7.9

3/21/2012
20.399999999999999

4/18/2012
16.190000000000001

5/16/2012
17.7

6/20/2012
25.36

7/18/2012
26.9

8/15/2012
24.93

9/19/2012
21.97

10/17/2012
15.93

11/20/2012
11.82

12/19/2012
10.99

1/16/2013
11.79

2/20/2013
7.18

3/21/2013
9.65

4/17/2013
20.64

5/15/2013
17.829999999999998

6/19/2013
24.06

7/10/2013
25.79

8/14/2013
25.24

9/11/2013
25.02

10/9/2013
18.53

11/13/2013
9.31

12/11/2013
8.3000000000000007

1/8/2014
2.69

2/20/2014
11.67

3/12/2014
13.64

4/9/2014
14.42

5/14/2014
23.63

6/11/2014
24.9

7/9/2014
26.07

8/13/2014
24.6

9/10/2014
22.45

10/8/2014
19.260000000000002

11/12/2014
13.58

12/10/2014
8.42

1/14/2015
5.58

2/11/2015
7.48

3/11/2015
14.38

4/8/2015
17.420000000000002

5/13/2015
21.7

6/10/2015
24.2

7/8/2015
31.49

8/12/2015
23.3

9/9/2015
25

10/14/2015
18

11/10/2015
12.7

12/9/2015
10.35

1/13/2016
2.34

2/10/2016
5.4

3/9/2016
14.7

4/13/2016
15.58

5/11/2016
21.87

6/8/2016
22.74

7/12/2016
26.3

8/9/2016
26.8

9/13/2016
23.6

10/11/2016
16.68

11/8/2016
12.93

12/13/2016
8.5

1/18/2012
140

2/15/2012
4.9000000000000004

3/21/2012
6.5

3/21/2012
6.6

4/18/2012
4.4000000000000004

5/16/2012
150

6/20/2012
2.5

7/18/2012
12

8/15/2012
6

9/19/2012
40

10/17/2012
2.8

11/20/2012
2.2999999999999998

12/19/2012
5.9

1/16/2013
7.6

2/20/2013
19

2/20/2013
19

3/21/2013
5.7

4/17/2013
3.5

5/15/2013
4.5999999999999996

6/19/2013
21

7/10/2013
8.5

8/14/2013
2.2999999999999998

9/11/2013
1.8

10/9/2013
2.4

11/13/2013
2.6

12/11/2013
18

1/8/2014
13

2/20/2014
80

2/20/2014
80

3/12/2014
10

4/9/2014
26

5/14/2014
5.4

6/11/2014
11

7/9/2014
4.3

8/13/2014
27

9/10/2014
3.6

10/8/2014
2.1

11/12/2014
2.5

12/10/2014
3.9

1/14/2015
21

2/11/2015
25

2/11/2015
27

3/11/2015
6.4

4/8/2015
220

5/13/2015
4.9000000000000004

6/10/2015
6.5

7/8/2015
6.1

8/12/2015
170

9/9/2015
5.7

10/14/2015
5.8

11/10/2015
140

12/9/2015
4.8

1/13/2016
7.1

2/10/2016
7

2/10/2016
7.2

3/9/2016
4.5999999999999996

4/13/2016
7.4

5/11/2016
4.5999999999999996

6/8/2016
6

7/12/2016
40

8/9/2016
9.9

9/13/2016
3.3

10/11/2016
16

11/8/2016
1.4

11/8/2016
1.4

12/13/2016
3.9

7/8/2015
14

7/8/2015
14

8/12/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

9/9/2015
12

9/9/2015
13

10/14/2015
13

10/14/2015
14

11/10/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

12/9/2015
14

12/9/2015
14

1/13/2016
11

1/13/2016
11

2/10/2016
11

2/10/2016
10

3/9/2016
12

3/9/2016
12

4/13/2016
10

4/13/2016
11

5/11/2016
13

5/11/2016
13

6/8/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

7/8/2015
4.3

7/8/2015
4.5

8/12/2015
3.5

8/12/2015
3.5

9/9/2015
4.0999999999999996

9/9/2015
4.0999999999999996

10/14/2015
3.5

10/14/2015
3.6

11/10/2015
4.0999999999999996

11/10/2015
4

12/9/2015
2.4

12/9/2015
2.5

1/13/2016
2.9

1/13/2016
3.3

2/10/2016
2.4

2/10/2016
2.4

3/9/2016
2.9

3/9/2016
2.9

4/13/2016
3.7

4/13/2016
3.9

5/11/2016
3.2

5/11/2016
3.4

6/8/2016
3.6

6/8/2016
3.8

7/12/2016
3.3

7/12/2016
3.3

8/9/2016
3.3

8/9/2016
3.2

9/13/2016
3.2

9/13/2016
3.2

10/11/2016
3.5

10/11/2016
3.4

11/8/2016
3.7

11/8/2016
3.9

12/13/2016
3.2

12/13/2016
3.2

1/18/2012
9.8000000000000007

2/15/2012
10.41

3/21/2012
6.98

4/18/2012
7.09

5/16/2012
7.51

6/20/2012
7.75

8/15/2012
6.81

9/19/2012
7.5

10/17/2012
7.79

11/20/2012
8.9700000000000006

12/19/2012
9.09

2/20/2013
10.97

3/21/2013
11.2

4/17/2013
8.75

5/15/2013
8.23

6/19/2013
7.22

7/10/2013
6.4

8/14/2013
7.23

9/11/2013
7.95

10/9/2013
7.69

11/13/2013
10.08

12/11/2013
9.7200000000000006

1/8/2014
12.75

2/20/2014
9.89

3/12/2014
8.86

4/9/2014
9.17

5/14/2014
7.65

6/11/2014
6.38

9/10/2014
6.87

10/8/2014
8.65

11/12/2014
8.61

12/10/2014
10.48

1/14/2015
11.51

2/11/2015
10.66

3/11/2015
8.75

4/8/2015
8.9499999999999993

5/13/2015
7.26

6/10/2015
6.55

7/8/2015
6.43

8/12/2015
6.61

9/9/2015
7.04

10/14/2015
8.4499999999999993

11/10/2015
9.82

12/9/2015
11.09

1/13/2016
11.9

2/10/2016
11.78

3/9/2016
10.41

4/13/2016
8.3699999999999992

5/11/2016
7.55

6/8/2016
7.25

7/12/2016
6.33

8/9/2016
6.8

9/13/2016
7.26

10/11/2016
8.52

11/8/2016
9.1999999999999993

12/13/2016
9.4700000000000006

1/4/2012
420

1/18/2012
4000

1/31/2012
200

2/13/2012
840

2/15/2012
660

2/15/2012
520

2/29/2012
300

3/12/2012
260

3/21/2012
270

4/18/2012
10000

5/2/2012
410

5/8/2012
430

5/16/2012
690

5/21/2012
260

6/18/2012
480

6/20/2012
430

6/28/2012
420

7/18/2012
690

7/31/2012
700

8/15/2012
760

8/27/2012
520

9/19/2012
3600

9/24/2012
360

10/17/2012
370

10/24/2012
330

11/8/2012
230

11/20/2012
400

12/19/2012
300

1/9/2013
270

1/16/2013
1000

1/16/2013
1000

2/6/2013
250

2/20/2013
740

3/11/2013
140

3/21/2013
160

3/28/2013
170

4/10/2013
140

4/17/2013
220

5/15/2013
440

5/16/2013
420

6/17/2013
580

6/19/2013
1800

6/28/2013
1300

6/28/2013
1400

7/10/2013
370

7/31/2013
760

8/12/2013
660

8/14/2013
1100

8/27/2013
460

8/30/2013
520

9/9/2013
310

9/11/2013
540

10/3/2013
410

10/9/2013
540

10/16/2013
520

10/24/2013
450

10/30/2013
180

11/12/2013
190

11/13/2013
260

12/3/2013
160

12/11/2013
780

1/8/2014
1600

1/8/2014
1300

1/21/2014
100

2/20/2014
750

2/26/2014
230

3/12/2014
230

4/3/2014
210

4/9/2014
1400

5/7/2014
350

5/14/2014
370

6/11/2014
2200

6/19/2014
300

7/9/2014
12000

7/14/2014
510

8/13/2014
13000

9/10/2014
420

9/22/2014
420

9/29/2014
380

10/8/2014
300

11/12/2014
290

12/10/2014
3000

1/9/2015
1000

1/14/2015
120

1/14/2015
430

2/11/2015
430

3/11/2015
350

4/8/2015
13000

5/13/2015
720

6/10/2015
540

6/17/2015
860

6/24/2015
150

7/8/2015
460

8/12/2015
40000

9/9/2015
1400

9/17/2015
340

10/14/2015
360

11/10/2015
4900

11/10/2015
6300

11/16/2015
230

12/9/2015
210

1/13/2016
380

2/10/2016
300

3/9/2016
360

4/13/2016
600

5/11/2016
560

5/16/2016
490

6/8/2016
640

6/10/2016
520

6/14/2016
630

7/12/2016
8800

8/9/2016
2400

8/25/2016
520

8/31/2016
660

9/8/2016
1100

9/12/2016
580

9/13/2016
2200

9/13/2016
2300

10/11/2016
2100

11/8/2016
290

12/13/2016
300

12/22/2016
620

1/18/2012
35

2/15/2012
99

2/15/2012
90

3/21/2012
86

4/18/2012
53

5/16/2012
50

6/20/2012
72

7/18/2012
62

8/15/2012
75

9/19/2012
47

10/17/2012
68

11/20/2012
75

12/19/2012
73

1/16/2013
67

1/16/2013
67

2/20/2013
74

3/21/2013
80

4/17/2013
89

5/15/2013
97

6/19/2013
61

7/10/2013
85

8/14/2013
99

9/11/2013
99

10/9/2013
85

11/13/2013
90

12/11/2013
64

1/8/2014
96

1/8/2014
91

2/20/2014
70

3/12/2014
99

4/9/2014
80

5/14/2014
90

6/11/2014
93

7/9/2014
120

8/13/2014
60

9/10/2014
94

10/8/2014
100

11/12/2014
110

12/10/2014
110

1/14/2015
80

1/14/2015
91

2/11/2015
60

3/11/2015
120

4/8/2015
60

5/13/2015
100

6/10/2015
89

7/8/2015
120

8/12/2015
41

9/9/2015
98

10/14/2015
84

11/10/2015
44

11/10/2015
48

12/9/2015
110

1/13/2016
100

2/10/2016
110

3/9/2016
120

4/13/2016
82

5/11/2016
98

6/8/2016
99

7/12/2016
65

8/9/2016
83

9/13/2016
120

9/13/2016
120

10/11/2016
95

11/8/2016
130

12/13/2016
120

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
3

6/8/2016
3

7/12/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

1/18/2012
7.16

2/15/2012
7.26

3/21/2012
7.5

4/18/2012
7.45

5/16/2012
7.2

6/20/2012
7.51

8/15/2012
7.37

9/19/2012
7.22

10/17/2012
7.23

11/20/2012
7.31

12/19/2012
7.42

1/16/2013
7.31

2/20/2013
7.39

3/21/2013
7.42

4/17/2013
7.43

5/15/2013
7.35

6/19/2013
7.61

7/10/2013
7.34

8/14/2013
7.12

9/11/2013
7.52

10/9/2013
7.31

11/13/2013
7.25

12/11/2013
7.41

1/8/2014
7.01

2/20/2014
6.57

3/12/2014
6.93

4/9/2014
7.06

5/14/2014
7.29

6/11/2014
7.16

7/9/2014
7.35

8/13/2014
7.25

9/10/2014
7.41

10/8/2014
7.5

11/12/2014
7.18

12/10/2014
7.28

1/14/2015
7.14

2/11/2015
6.96

3/11/2015
7.25

4/8/2015
7.12

5/13/2015
7.24

6/10/2015
7.14

7/8/2015
7.36

8/12/2015
6.89

9/9/2015
7.65

10/14/2015
7.44

11/10/2015
6.69

12/9/2015
7.36

1/13/2016
7.93

2/10/2016
7.39

3/9/2016
7.62

4/13/2016
7.36

5/11/2016
7.43

6/8/2016
7.46

7/12/2016
7.19

8/9/2016
7.2

9/13/2016
7.58

10/11/2016
7.1

11/8/2016
7.15

12/13/2016
7.38

1/18/2012
11.67

2/15/2012
11.41

3/21/2012
20.9

4/18/2012
16.12

5/16/2012
21.11

6/20/2012
26.78

7/18/2012
27.9

8/15/2012
26.24

9/19/2012
22.36

10/17/2012
18.12

11/20/2012
13.94

12/19/2012
13.71

1/16/2013
13.12

2/20/2013
9.26

3/21/2013
11.99

4/17/2013
22.4

5/15/2013
18.670000000000002

6/19/2013
25.34

7/10/2013
26.65

8/14/2013
25.61

9/11/2013
26.35

10/9/2013
19.690000000000001

11/13/2013
11.5

12/11/2013
10.02

1/8/2014
5.43

2/20/2014
13.16

3/12/2014
14.81

4/9/2014
15.2

5/14/2014
24.46

6/11/2014
24.8

7/9/2014
26.54

8/13/2014
25.6

9/10/2014
23.45

10/8/2014
21.15

11/12/2014
16.13

12/10/2014
10.83

1/14/2015
6.31

2/11/2015
8.76

3/11/2015
15.05

4/8/2015
17.89

5/13/2015
21.7

6/10/2015
24.8

7/8/2015
25.94

8/12/2015
22.3

9/9/2015
25

10/14/2015
18.5

11/10/2015
12.92

12/9/2015
11.48

1/13/2016
5.93

2/10/2016
6.6

3/9/2016
14.9

4/13/2016
15.51

5/11/2016
21.72

6/8/2016
21.96

7/12/2016
25.9

8/9/2016
26.2

9/13/2016
24.2

10/11/2016
17.420000000000002

11/8/2016
15.52

12/13/2016
11.8

1/18/2012
70

2/15/2012
3.3

2/15/2012
3.3

3/21/2012
3.7

4/18/2012
25

5/16/2012
7.7

6/20/2012
3.6

7/18/2012
4.3

8/15/2012
4.0999999999999996

9/19/2012
12

10/17/2012
3

11/20/2012
1

12/19/2012
55

1/16/2013
5.4

1/16/2013
5.6

2/20/2013
12

3/21/2013
13

4/17/2013
2.6

5/15/2013
2.8

6/19/2013
10

7/10/2013
3.5

8/14/2013
2.4

9/11/2013
2.2000000000000002

10/9/2013
2.5

11/13/2013
2.9

12/11/2013
8.8000000000000007

1/8/2014
14

1/8/2014
14

2/20/2014
34

3/12/2014
4.2

4/9/2014
14

5/14/2014
3.8

6/11/2014
5

7/9/2014
6

8/13/2014
8.8000000000000007

9/10/2014
3.2

10/8/2014
2

11/12/2014
2.1

12/10/2014
1.7

1/14/2015
13

1/14/2015
13

2/11/2015
13

3/11/2015
3.4

4/8/2015
230

5/13/2015
2.5

6/10/2015
4.0999999999999996

7/8/2015
3.9

8/12/2015
160

9/9/2015
1.6

10/14/2015
3.5

11/10/2015
120

11/10/2015
120

12/9/2015
3

1/13/2016
4.8

2/10/2016
4.5

3/9/2016
2.8

4/13/2016
3.4

5/11/2016
2.9

6/8/2016
4.8

7/12/2016
27

8/9/2016
32

9/13/2016
4.5

9/13/2016
4.5

10/11/2016
7.5

11/8/2016
1.5

12/13/2016
5.2

7/8/2015
21

7/8/2015
20

8/12/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

9/9/2015
22

9/9/2015
22

10/14/2015
22

10/14/2015
23

11/10/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

12/9/2015
10

12/9/2015
18

1/13/2016
16

1/13/2016
16

2/10/2016
15

2/10/2016
15

3/9/2016
23

3/9/2016
22

4/13/2016
16

4/13/2016
17

5/11/2016
16

5/11/2016
17

6/8/2016
13

6/8/2016
15

7/12/2016
28

7/12/2016
13

8/9/2016
11

8/9/2016
11

9/13/2016
15

9/13/2016
15

10/11/2016
13

10/11/2016
12

11/8/2016
19

11/8/2016
20

12/13/2016
20

12/13/2016
22

7/8/2015
2

7/8/2015
2

8/12/2015
2.7

8/12/2015
2.5

9/9/2015
2

9/9/2015
2

10/14/2015
2

10/14/2015
2

11/10/2015
5.0999999999999996

11/10/2015
5.3

12/9/2015
2

12/9/2015
2

1/13/2016
2

1/13/2016
2

2/10/2016
2

2/10/2016
2

3/9/2016
2

3/9/2016
2

4/13/2016
2

4/13/2016
2

5/11/2016
2

5/11/2016
2

6/8/2016
2

6/8/2016
2

7/12/2016
2.6

7/12/2016
2.6

8/9/2016
2

8/9/2016
2

9/13/2016
2

9/13/2016
2

10/11/2016
2.4

10/11/2016
2.1

11/8/2016
2

11/8/2016
2

12/13/2016
2

12/13/2016
2

1/18/2012
9

2/15/2012
11.8

3/21/2012
7.6

4/18/2012
7

5/16/2012
7.7

6/20/2012
6.24

7/18/2012
6.8

8/15/2012
5.7

9/19/2012
7.2

10/17/2012
6.6

11/20/2012
7.49

12/19/2012
9.8000000000000007

1/16/2013
9

2/20/2013
13.3

3/21/2013
11

4/17/2013
7.5

5/15/2013
8.1

6/19/2013
6.8

7/10/2013
6.2

8/14/2013
5.8

9/11/2013
4

10/9/2013
6

11/13/2013
8.14

11/20/2013
7.4

12/11/2013
10.3

1/8/2014
13.2

2/20/2014
10.199999999999999

3/12/2014
9.5

4/9/2014
10.6

5/14/2014
6.9

6/11/2014
6.8

7/9/2014
5.8

8/13/2014
6.6

9/10/2014
4.8

10/8/2014
6.2

11/12/2014
6.84

12/10/2014
10.6

1/14/2015
12.8

2/11/2015
11.9

3/11/2015
9.3000000000000007

4/8/2015
8.1999999999999993

5/13/2015
6.12

6/10/2015
5.9

9/9/2015
5.6

10/14/2015
8.3699999999999992

11/10/2015
9.4

12/9/2015
12.2

1/13/2016
13

2/10/2016
14.8

3/9/2016
11.22

4/13/2016
8.5

5/11/2016
8.6

6/8/2016
7.75

7/12/2016
6.49

8/9/2016
7.23

9/13/2016
6.3

10/11/2016
9.2899999999999991

11/8/2016
8.9

12/13/2016
10.8

1/4/2012
160

1/18/2012
4400

2/15/2012
150

3/21/2012
310

4/18/2012
24000

5/16/2012
560

6/20/2012
180

7/18/2012
2000

8/15/2012
370

9/19/2012
2600

10/17/2012
350

11/20/2012
130

11/20/2012
120

12/19/2012
530

1/16/2013
1600

2/20/2013
920

3/21/2013
430

3/28/2013
220

4/17/2013
450

5/15/2013
330

6/17/2013
400

6/19/2013
6200

7/10/2013
1100

8/14/2013
11000

9/11/2013
270

10/9/2013
400

11/13/2013
380

11/20/2013
72

12/11/2013
1200

12/11/2013
1800

1/8/2014
640

2/20/2014
1900

3/12/2014
350

4/9/2014
880

5/14/2014
1000

5/22/2014
800

6/11/2014
680

7/9/2014
660

7/15/2014
310

8/13/2014
3200

9/10/2014
660

9/22/2014
810

9/29/2014
380

10/8/2014
220

11/12/2014
66

11/12/2014
81

12/10/2014
31

1/14/2015
500

2/11/2015
600

3/11/2015
210

4/8/2015
7000

5/13/2015
250

6/10/2015
800

6/17/2015
860

6/24/2015
200

7/8/2015
200

8/12/2015
34000

9/9/2015
120

9/17/2015
540

10/14/2015
400

11/10/2015
3000

11/10/2015
3100

11/16/2015
500

12/9/2015
400

1/13/2016
440

2/10/2016
150

3/9/2016
170

4/13/2016
440

5/11/2016
330

6/8/2016
600

7/12/2016
9200

8/9/2016
2800

8/25/2016
1000

8/31/2016
710

9/8/2016
510

9/12/2016
310

9/13/2016
330

10/11/2016
740

10/17/2016
300

11/8/2016
190

11/8/2016
290

12/13/2016
420

12/22/2016
290

1/18/2012
28

2/15/2012
82

3/21/2012
65

4/18/2012
41

5/16/2012
42

6/20/2012
51

7/18/2012
41

8/15/2012
60

9/19/2012
32

10/17/2012
62

11/20/2012
68

11/20/2012
72

12/19/2012
52

1/16/2013
85

2/20/2013
48

3/21/2013
61

4/17/2013
77

5/15/2013
78

6/19/2013
59

7/10/2013
54

8/14/2013
39

9/11/2013
79

10/9/2013
65

11/13/2013
88

12/11/2013
53

12/11/2013
53

1/8/2014
62

2/20/2014
54

3/12/2014
90

4/9/2014
63

5/14/2014
75

6/11/2014
70

7/9/2014
74

8/13/2014
49

9/10/2014
70

10/8/2014
90

11/12/2014
93

11/12/2014
99

12/10/2014
63

1/14/2015
69

2/11/2015
61

3/11/2015
76

4/8/2015
44

5/13/2015
100

6/10/2015
56

7/8/2015
75

8/12/2015
28

9/9/2015
88

10/14/2015
51

11/10/2015
38

11/10/2015
38

12/9/2015
95

1/13/2016
78

2/10/2016
100

3/9/2016
73

4/13/2016
82

5/11/2016
80

6/8/2016
55

7/12/2016
30

8/9/2016
36

9/13/2016
76

10/11/2016
61

11/8/2016
80

11/8/2016
79

12/13/2016
72

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

1/18/2012
7.1

2/15/2012
7.2

3/21/2012
7.2

4/18/2012
7

5/16/2012
7.2

6/20/2012
7.4

7/18/2012
7.18

8/15/2012
7.3

9/19/2012
7.1

10/17/2012
7.1

11/20/2012
7.05

12/19/2012
7.2

1/16/2013
7.2

2/20/2013
7.1

3/21/2013
7.5

4/17/2013
7.2

5/15/2013
7.1

6/19/2013
6.8

7/10/2013
6.8

8/14/2013
7

9/11/2013
7.1

10/9/2013
6.8

11/13/2013
8.11

11/20/2013
7.3

12/11/2013
7.1

1/8/2014
7.24

2/20/2014
7

3/12/2014
7.2

4/9/2014
7.2

5/14/2014
7.3

6/11/2014
7.3

7/9/2014
7.2

8/13/2014
7.2

9/10/2014
7.1

10/8/2014
7.1

11/12/2014
6.83

12/10/2014
6.9

1/14/2015
6.9

2/11/2015
6.6

3/11/2015
7.2

4/8/2015
6.6

5/13/2015
7.37

6/10/2015
7.1

7/8/2015
7.1

8/12/2015
6.74

9/9/2015
7.3

10/14/2015
7.13

11/10/2015
6.4

12/9/2015
7.3

1/13/2016
7.2

2/10/2016
7.3

3/9/2016
7.82

4/13/2016
7.28

5/11/2016
7.68

6/8/2016
7.34

7/12/2016
7.11

8/9/2016
6.98

9/13/2016
7.2

10/11/2016
7.08

11/8/2016
7

12/13/2016
7.4

1/18/2012
9.5

2/15/2012
6

3/21/2012
18.600000000000001

4/18/2012
17.100000000000001

5/16/2012
19.899999999999999

6/20/2012
23.08

7/18/2012
24.5

8/15/2012
24.3

9/19/2012
20.5

10/17/2012
14.3

11/20/2012
9.58

12/19/2012
7.4

1/16/2013
9.6999999999999993

2/20/2013
4.2

3/21/2013
7.5

4/17/2013
17.2

5/15/2013
15.3

6/19/2013
22.2

7/10/2013
24

8/14/2013
24

9/11/2013
22.7

10/9/2013
15

11/13/2013
6.24

11/20/2013
10

12/11/2013
5.3

1/8/2014
0.19

2/20/2014
10.1

3/12/2014
12.9

4/9/2014
10.8

5/14/2014
19.5

6/11/2014
21.2

7/9/2014
24.2

8/13/2014
23

9/10/2014
21.2

10/8/2014
17.2

11/12/2014
10.4

12/10/2014
5.7

1/14/2015
2.6

2/11/2015
5.6

3/11/2015
11

4/8/2015
17.010000000000002

5/13/2015
20.13

6/10/2015
22.7

7/8/2015
25.5

8/12/2015
20.5

9/9/2015
24.2

10/14/2015
16.100000000000001

11/10/2015
13.6

12/9/2015
5.6

1/13/2016
4.4000000000000004

2/10/2016
1.1000000000000001

3/9/2016
14.22

4/13/2016
11.8

5/11/2016
19.8

6/8/2016
21.7

7/12/2016
24.6

8/9/2016
22.5

9/13/2016
22.8

10/11/2016
14.6

11/8/2016
10.6

12/13/2016
6.2

1/18/2012
85

2/15/2012
5.4

3/21/2012
5.3

4/18/2012
50

5/16/2012
11

6/20/2012
24

7/18/2012
24

8/15/2012
15

9/19/2012
17

10/17/2012
6.4

11/20/2012
5.3

11/20/2012
4.9000000000000004

12/19/2012
7.4

1/16/2013
6.8

2/20/2013
13

3/21/2013
14

4/17/2013
5.2

5/15/2013
5.6

6/19/2013
14

7/10/2013
13

8/14/2013
26

9/11/2013
4.8

10/9/2013
9.3000000000000007

11/13/2013
5.0999999999999996

11/20/2013
5.5

12/11/2013
13

12/11/2013
13

1/8/2014
18

2/20/2014
50

3/12/2014
13

4/9/2014
22

5/14/2014
7.3

6/11/2014
8.4

7/9/2014
40

8/13/2014
23

9/10/2014
16

10/8/2014
5.7

11/12/2014
3.6

11/12/2014
4

12/10/2014
7

1/14/2015
27

2/11/2015
29

3/11/2015
20

4/8/2015
110

5/13/2015
8.8000000000000007

6/10/2015
28

7/8/2015
9.1999999999999993

8/12/2015
95

9/9/2015
9.8000000000000007

10/14/2015
6.5

11/10/2015
50

11/10/2015
50

12/9/2015
5.4

1/13/2016
7.3

2/10/2016
6.2

3/9/2016
2.9

4/13/2016
3.6

5/11/2016
4.8

6/8/2016
7.8

7/12/2016
70

8/9/2016
26

9/13/2016
4.3

10/11/2016
23

10/17/2016
4.0999999999999996

11/8/2016
1.5

11/8/2016
1.6

12/13/2016
4.5

7/8/2015
10

7/8/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

9/9/2015
10

9/9/2015
10

10/14/2015
10

10/14/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

12/9/2015
10

12/9/2015
10

1/13/2016
10

1/13/2016
10

2/10/2016
10

2/10/2016
10

3/9/2016
10

3/9/2016
10

4/13/2016
10

4/13/2016
10

5/11/2016
10

5/11/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

7/8/2015
3.2

7/8/2015
3.1

8/12/2015
2.2999999999999998

8/12/2015
2.2000000000000002

9/9/2015
3

9/9/2015
3

10/14/2015
2.5

10/14/2015
2.8

12/9/2015
2.7

12/9/2015
2.6

1/13/2016
2.7

1/13/2016
2.5

2/10/2016
2.5

2/10/2016
2.6

3/9/2016
2.6

3/9/2016
2.6

4/13/2016
2.6

4/13/2016
2.5

5/11/2016
2.8

5/11/2016
2.9

6/8/2016
3

6/8/2016
3.2

7/12/2016
2.6

7/12/2016
2.5

8/9/2016
2.8

8/9/2016
2.8

9/13/2016
4.2

9/13/2016
4.0999999999999996

10/11/2016
3.2

10/11/2016
3.3

11/8/2016
4.3

11/8/2016
4.3

12/13/2016
5.0999999999999996

12/13/2016
5.0999999999999996

1/18/2012
8.4

2/15/2012
9.1999999999999993

3/21/2012
7.4

4/18/2012
6.4

5/16/2012
7.1

6/20/2012
6.3

7/18/2012
6.3

8/15/2012
6.1

9/19/2012
6.7

10/17/2012
6.8

11/20/2012
7.53

12/19/2012
8.3000000000000007

1/16/2013
8.1999999999999993

2/20/2013
10.5

3/21/2013
9.3000000000000007

4/17/2013
7.6

5/15/2013
7.3

6/19/2013
6.3

7/10/2013
6.2

8/14/2013
6.1

9/11/2013
6.4

10/9/2013
7.2

11/13/2013
7.03

12/11/2013
8.8000000000000007

1/8/2014
10.78

2/20/2014
9.3000000000000007

3/12/2014
8.4

4/9/2014
9.4

5/14/2014
6.9

6/11/2014
7.5

7/9/2014
6.6

8/13/2014
6.5

9/10/2014
6.6

10/8/2014
6.9

11/12/2014
8.1999999999999993

12/10/2014
8.6999999999999993

1/14/2015
10.8

2/11/2015
10

3/11/2015
9.1999999999999993

4/8/2015
7.3

5/13/2015
7.58

6/10/2015
7.6

7/8/2015
6.88

8/12/2015
6.57

9/9/2015
7.25

10/14/2015
7.95

12/9/2015
9.5500000000000007

1/13/2016
9.48

2/10/2016
10.050000000000001

3/9/2016
9.02

4/13/2016
8.5299999999999994

5/11/2016
7.03

6/8/2016
7.18

7/12/2016
5.99

8/9/2016
6.6

9/13/2016
7.16

10/11/2016
7.61

11/8/2016
7.83

12/13/2016
8.1300000000000008

1/4/2012
44

1/18/2012
3800

2/15/2012
72

2/15/2012
110

3/21/2012
120

4/18/2012
10000

5/16/2012
190

6/20/2012
680

7/18/2012
750

8/15/2012
340

9/19/2012
810

10/17/2012
290

11/20/2012
220

12/19/2012
170

1/16/2013
260

2/20/2013
420

3/21/2013
220

3/21/2013
150

3/28/2013
110

4/17/2013
220

5/15/2013
140

6/17/2013
430

6/19/2013
1100

7/10/2013
460

8/14/2013
5300

9/11/2013
340

10/9/2013
520

11/13/2013
260

12/11/2013
440

1/8/2014
150

2/20/2014
1000

3/12/2014
120

3/12/2014
170

4/9/2014
1400

5/14/2014
440

5/22/2014
240

6/11/2014
400

7/9/2014
320

8/13/2014
740

9/10/2014
300

9/22/2014
270

10/8/2014
210

11/12/2014
160

12/10/2014
110

1/14/2015
420

2/11/2015
370

3/11/2015
62

3/11/2015
44

4/8/2015
2400

5/13/2015
150

6/10/2015
220

7/8/2015
280

8/12/2015
3900

9/9/2015
290

10/14/2015
250

12/9/2015
120

1/13/2016
140

1/13/2016
190

2/10/2016
140

3/9/2016
200

4/13/2016
290

5/11/2016
820

6/8/2016
2400

7/12/2016
3700

8/9/2016
440

9/13/2016
2100

10/11/2016
600

11/8/2016
370

12/13/2016
140

1/18/2012
52

2/15/2012
165

2/15/2012
166

3/21/2012
123

4/18/2012
97

5/16/2012
116

6/20/2012
138

7/18/2012
120

8/15/2012
144

9/19/2012
91

10/17/2012
143

11/20/2012
150

12/19/2012
140

1/16/2013
150

2/20/2013
120

3/21/2013
130

3/21/2013
130

4/17/2013
140

5/15/2013
150

6/19/2013
130

7/10/2013
120

8/14/2013
130

9/11/2013
170

10/9/2013
160

11/13/2013
167

12/11/2013
130

1/8/2014
130

2/20/2014
70

3/12/2014
140

3/12/2014
140

4/9/2014
100

5/14/2014
140

6/11/2014
160

7/9/2014
180

8/13/2014
130

9/10/2014
160

10/8/2014
150

11/12/2014
100

12/10/2014
160

1/14/2015
110

2/11/2015
100

3/11/2015
150

3/11/2015
170

4/8/2015
91

5/13/2015
170

6/10/2015
140

7/8/2015
170

8/12/2015
99

9/9/2015
190

10/14/2015
120

12/9/2015
130

1/13/2016
130

1/13/2016
140

2/10/2016
160

3/9/2016
150

4/13/2016
130

5/11/2016
140

6/8/2016
120

7/12/2016
86

8/9/2016
120

9/13/2016
140

10/11/2016
110

11/8/2016
150

12/13/2016
130

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
3

6/8/2016
3

7/12/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

1/18/2012
7

2/15/2012
7.2

3/21/2012
7

4/18/2012
7.2

5/16/2012
7

6/20/2012
7.26

7/18/2012
6.99

8/15/2012
7.2

9/19/2012
7.1

10/17/2012
7.1

11/20/2012
7.09

12/19/2012
7.2

1/16/2013
7

2/20/2013
7

3/21/2013
7.2

4/17/2013
7.3

5/15/2013
7

6/19/2013
6.9

7/10/2013
6.9

8/14/2013
7

9/11/2013
7.2

10/9/2013
7.1

11/13/2013
7.35

12/11/2013
7.1

1/8/2014
7.11

2/20/2014
6.9

3/12/2014
7

4/9/2014
7.1

5/14/2014
7.2

6/11/2014
7.1

7/9/2014
7.3

8/13/2014
7.2

9/10/2014
7.2

10/8/2014
7.1

11/12/2014
6.8

12/10/2014
7.1

1/14/2015
6.7

2/11/2015
6.7

3/11/2015
7.1

4/8/2015
6.9

5/13/2015
7.35

6/10/2015
7.2

7/8/2015
7.39

8/12/2015
7.12

9/9/2015
7.36

10/14/2015
7.4

12/9/2015
7.37

1/13/2016
7.74

2/10/2016
7.3

3/9/2016
7.56

4/13/2016
7.57

5/11/2016
7.37

6/8/2016
7.53

7/12/2016
7.14

8/9/2016
7

9/13/2016
7.67

10/11/2016
7.12

11/8/2016
7.21

12/13/2016
7.22

1/18/2012
11

2/15/2012
14.3

3/21/2012
20.5

4/18/2012
19.3

5/16/2012
22.3

6/20/2012
25

7/18/2012
26.7

8/15/2012
26.7

9/19/2012
23.7

10/17/2012
21.2

11/20/2012
18.420000000000002

12/19/2012
15.4

1/16/2013
15.7

2/20/2013
11.1

3/21/2013
13.3

4/17/2013
19.8

5/15/2013
19.5

6/19/2013
23.9

7/10/2013
25

8/14/2013
25.5

9/11/2013
25.3

10/9/2013
20.100000000000001

11/13/2013
16.940000000000001

12/11/2013
13.3

1/8/2014
9.35

2/20/2014
12.2

3/12/2014
15.5

4/9/2014
14

5/14/2014
20.6

6/11/2014
22.6

7/9/2014
25.5

8/13/2014
25.3

9/10/2014
24.8

10/8/2014
23.2

11/12/2014
19.5

12/10/2014
14.4

1/14/2015
8.3000000000000007

2/11/2015
11.8

3/11/2015
14

4/8/2015
18

5/13/2015
21.57

6/10/2015
24

7/8/2015
26.29

8/12/2015
24.7

9/9/2015
26.1

10/14/2015
21

12/9/2015
15.26

1/13/2016
10.54

2/10/2016
10.9

3/9/2016
16.3

4/13/2016
17.37

5/11/2016
22.07

6/8/2016
22.67

7/12/2016
25.5

8/9/2016
26.7

9/13/2016
25.7

10/11/2016
21.17

11/8/2016
20.2

12/13/2016
16.399999999999999

1/18/2012
140

2/15/2012
5.9

2/15/2012
6.3

3/21/2012
5.7

4/18/2012
23

5/16/2012
12

6/20/2012
5.6

7/18/2012
21

8/15/2012
7.2

9/19/2012
17

10/17/2012
5.2

11/20/2012
5.9

12/19/2012
6.4

1/16/2013
6.2

2/20/2013
10

3/21/2013
10

3/21/2013
12

4/17/2013
5.3

5/15/2013
5.3

6/19/2013
11

7/10/2013
14

8/14/2013
16

9/11/2013
5

10/9/2013
4.2

11/13/2013
3.2

12/11/2013
9.1

1/8/2014
13

2/20/2014
90

3/12/2014
15

3/12/2014
13

4/9/2014
27

5/14/2014
6.9

6/11/2014
5.4

7/9/2014
5.2

8/13/2014
9.1

9/10/2014
5.2

10/8/2014
3.7

11/12/2014
3.3

12/10/2014
4.5999999999999996

1/14/2015
25

2/11/2015
22

3/11/2015
5.7

3/11/2015
6.5

4/8/2015
60

5/13/2015
5.7

6/10/2015
12

7/8/2015
3.3

8/12/2015
90

9/9/2015
3.9

10/14/2015
9.3000000000000007

12/9/2015
6.5

1/13/2016
8.6999999999999993

1/13/2016
9.1

2/10/2016
7.5

3/9/2016
5

4/13/2016
5.4

5/11/2016
6.4

6/8/2016
13

7/12/2016
110

8/9/2016
9.9

9/13/2016
4.4000000000000004

10/11/2016
18

11/8/2016
3.7

12/13/2016
4.8

7/8/2015
19

7/8/2015
21

8/12/2015
10

8/12/2015
10

9/9/2015
22

9/9/2015
23

10/14/2015
17

10/14/2015
17

12/9/2015
20

12/9/2015
23

1/13/2016
17

1/13/2016
17

2/10/2016
17

2/10/2016
16

3/9/2016
21

3/9/2016
21

4/13/2016
13

4/13/2016
14

5/11/2016
16

5/11/2016
16

6/8/2016
11

6/8/2016
11

7/12/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

8/9/2016
11

8/9/2016
11

9/13/2016
15

9/13/2016
14

10/11/2016
11

10/11/2016
11

11/8/2016
18

11/8/2016
19

12/13/2016
19

12/13/2016
21

7/8/2015
2

7/8/2015
2

8/12/2015
2.2000000000000002

8/12/2015
6.6

9/9/2015
2

9/9/2015
2

10/14/2015
3.3

10/14/2015
2.4

11/10/2015
3.3

11/10/2015
3.4

12/9/2015
2

12/9/2015
2

1/13/2016
2

1/13/2016
2

2/10/2016
2

2/10/2016
2

3/9/2016
2

3/9/2016
2

4/13/2016
2

4/13/2016
2

5/11/2016
2

5/11/2016
2

6/8/2016
2

6/8/2016
2

7/12/2016
2

7/12/2016
2

8/9/2016
2.2999999999999998

8/9/2016
2.5

9/13/2016
2

9/13/2016
2

10/11/2016
2.1

10/11/2016
2

11/8/2016
2

11/8/2016
2

12/13/2016
2

12/13/2016
3

1/18/2012
11.2

2/15/2012
12.5

3/21/2012
9.14

4/18/2012
8.18

5/16/2012
8.17

6/20/2012
8.2100000000000009

8/15/2012
7.41

9/19/2012
7.69

10/17/2012
9.5399999999999991

11/20/2012
10.65

12/19/2012
11.43

1/16/2013
10.6

2/20/2013
12.32

3/21/2013
12.17

4/17/2013
9.74

5/15/2013
9.52

6/19/2013
7.66

7/10/2013
6.59

8/14/2013
7.19

9/11/2013
7.55

10/9/2013
7.78

11/13/2013
10.47

12/11/2013
11.68

1/8/2014
13.96

2/20/2014
12.44

3/12/2014
7.92

4/9/2014
10.11

5/14/2014
8.1199999999999992

6/11/2014
6.37

7/9/2014
7.42

8/13/2014
8.0399999999999991

9/10/2014
8.33

10/8/2014
8.64

11/12/2014
10.93

12/10/2014
12.42

1/14/2015
14

2/11/2015
12

3/11/2015
11

4/8/2015
9.93

5/13/2015
8.9

6/10/2015
7.65

7/8/2015
8.31

8/12/2015
9.65

9/9/2015
9.6999999999999993

10/14/2015
9.4

11/10/2015
10.1

12/9/2015
11.5

1/13/2016
11.89

2/10/2016
13.61

3/9/2016
11.42

5/11/2016
7.55

6/8/2016
7.35

7/12/2016
7.32

8/9/2016
6.91

9/13/2016
7.11

10/11/2016
9.91

11/8/2016
10.23

12/13/2016
11.06

1/4/2012
460

1/18/2012
2500

2/15/2012
570

2/29/2012
410

3/21/2012
150

3/21/2012
230

4/18/2012
7800

5/16/2012
5400

6/20/2012
630

7/18/2012
310

8/15/2012
740

9/19/2012
34000

10/17/2012
1000

11/20/2012
310

12/19/2012
380

1/16/2013
860

2/20/2013
440

2/20/2013
620

3/21/2013
170

3/28/2013
210

4/17/2013
300

5/15/2013
440

6/17/2013
500

6/19/2013
3400

7/10/2013
13000

8/14/2013
900

9/11/2013
560

9/16/2013
570

9/25/2013
460

9/30/2013
450

10/9/2013
620

11/13/2013
200

12/11/2013
1400

1/8/2014
190

2/20/2014
560

3/12/2014
200

3/12/2014
150

4/9/2014
640

5/14/2014
540

5/21/2014
480

6/11/2014
12000

7/9/2014
620

7/15/2014
1500

8/13/2014
4800

9/10/2014
360

9/22/2014
540

9/29/2014
1100

10/8/2014
510

10/23/2014
490

11/12/2014
430

12/10/2014
180

1/14/2015
180

2/11/2015
310

3/11/2015
70

4/8/2015
4000

4/8/2015
4600

5/13/2015
94

6/10/2015
200

6/17/2015
300

6/26/2015
280

7/8/2015
200

8/12/2015
12000

9/9/2015
340

9/17/2015
12000

10/14/2015
380

11/10/2015
3300

11/16/2015
230

12/9/2015
110

1/13/2016
410

1/13/2016
300

2/10/2016
540

3/8/2016
160

3/9/2016
180

4/13/2016
370

5/11/2016
210

6/8/2016
350

6/10/2016
340

7/12/2016
760

8/9/2016
10000

8/25/2016
460

9/1/2016
540

9/8/2016
430

9/12/2016
440

9/13/2016
360

10/11/2016
820

11/8/2016
260

12/13/2016
390

12/22/2016
230

1/18/2012
36

2/15/2012
80

3/21/2012
74

3/21/2012
73

4/18/2012
82

5/16/2012
28

6/20/2012
71

7/18/2012
70

8/15/2012
58

9/19/2012
32

10/17/2012
92

11/20/2012
100

12/19/2012
80

1/16/2013
71

2/20/2013
71

2/20/2013
71

3/21/2013
71

4/17/2013
80

5/15/2013
82

6/19/2013
54

7/10/2013
58

8/14/2013
79

9/11/2013
84

10/9/2013
66

11/13/2013
110

12/11/2013
63

1/8/2014
67

2/20/2014
60

3/12/2014
68

3/12/2014
81

4/9/2014
65

5/14/2014
120

6/11/2014
51

7/9/2014
78

8/13/2014
53

9/10/2014
120

10/8/2014
190

11/12/2014
140

12/10/2014
91

1/14/2015
85

2/11/2015
62

3/11/2015
90

4/8/2015
51

4/8/2015
54

5/13/2015
100

6/10/2015
74

7/8/2015
78

8/12/2015
46

9/9/2015
110

10/14/2015
95

11/10/2015
38

12/9/2015
110

1/13/2016
72

1/13/2016
75

2/10/2016
88

3/9/2016
71

4/13/2016
68

5/11/2016
96

6/8/2016
58

7/12/2016
100

8/9/2016
38

9/13/2016
77

10/11/2016
54

11/8/2016
98

12/13/2016
76

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

7/8/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
0.5

8/12/2015
1.7

9/9/2015
0.5

9/9/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

10/14/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

11/10/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

12/9/2015
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

1/13/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

2/10/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

3/9/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

4/13/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

5/11/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

6/8/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

7/12/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

8/9/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

9/13/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

10/11/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

11/8/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

12/13/2016
0.5

1/18/2012
7.2

2/15/2012
7.5

3/21/2012
7.47

4/18/2012
7.3

5/16/2012
7.36

6/20/2012
7.47

8/15/2012
7.25

9/19/2012
7.33

10/17/2012
7.38

11/20/2012
7.37

12/19/2012
7.4

1/16/2013
7.52

2/20/2013
7.34

3/21/2013
7.42

4/17/2013
7.47

5/15/2013
7.44

6/19/2013
7.24

7/10/2013
7.3

8/14/2013
7.32

9/11/2013
7.29

10/9/2013
7.43

11/13/2013
7.42

12/11/2013
7.21

1/8/2014
7.38

2/20/2014
7.24

3/12/2014
7.23

4/9/2014
7.43

5/14/2014
7.39

6/11/2014
7.03

7/9/2014
7.32

8/13/2014
7.13

9/10/2014
7.15

10/8/2014
7.39

12/10/2014
6.93

1/14/2015
7.2

2/11/2015
7.5

3/11/2015
7.2

4/8/2015
7.54

5/13/2015
7.46

6/10/2015
7.42

7/8/2015
7.76

8/12/2015
7.56

9/9/2015
7.5

10/14/2015
7.6

11/10/2015
7.2

12/9/2015
7.3

1/13/2016
7.47

2/10/2016
7.54

3/9/2016
7.77

4/13/2016
7.52

5/11/2016
8.1199999999999992

6/8/2016
7.4

7/12/2016
7.59

8/9/2016
6.94

9/13/2016
7.42

11/8/2016
7.37

12/13/2016
7.46

1/18/2012
9.4

2/15/2012
7.3

3/21/2012
18.899999999999999

4/18/2012
16.78

5/16/2012
19.440000000000001

6/20/2012
22.4

7/18/2012
25.82

8/15/2012
23.33

9/19/2012
19.5

10/17/2012
13.11

11/20/2012
8.74

12/19/2012
8.42

1/16/2013
10.24

2/20/2013
5.69

3/21/2013
8.94

4/17/2013
17.59

5/15/2013
14.83

6/19/2013
21.62

7/10/2013
22.52

8/14/2013
22.02

9/11/2013
20.81

10/9/2013
15.72

11/13/2013
6.21

12/11/2013
5.96

1/8/2014
0.22

2/20/2014
9.58

3/12/2014
12.96

4/9/2014
13.05

5/14/2014
21.03

6/11/2014
23.04

7/9/2014
24.5

8/13/2014
22.9

9/10/2014
21.73

10/8/2014
18.97

11/12/2014
11.86

12/10/2014
7.1

1/14/2015
5.56

2/11/2015
6.5

3/11/2015
14.2

4/8/2015
17.2

5/13/2015
21.06

6/10/2015
23.5

7/8/2015
25.52

8/12/2015
23.5

9/9/2015
23.5

10/14/2015
16.8

11/10/2015
13.8

12/9/2015
8.6

1/13/2016
4.41

2/10/2016
3.47

3/9/2016
13.96

4/13/2016
14.04

5/11/2016
20.350000000000001

6/8/2016
21.14

7/12/2016
24.68

8/9/2016
25.51

9/13/2016
23.2

10/11/2016
14.93

11/8/2016
11.01

12/13/2016
7

1/18/2012
100

2/15/2012
4.5999999999999996

3/21/2012
5

3/21/2012
16

4/18/2012
9.1999999999999993

5/16/2012
210

6/20/2012
6.2

7/18/2012
8.8000000000000007

8/15/2012
15

9/19/2012
90

10/17/2012
5.2

11/20/2012
4.9000000000000004

12/19/2012
5.2

1/16/2013
14

2/20/2013
16

2/20/2013
15

3/21/2013
21

4/17/2013
3.2

5/15/2013
5

6/19/2013
25

7/10/2013
17

8/14/2013
3

9/11/2013
4

10/9/2013
5.0999999999999996

11/13/2013
3.8

12/11/2013
55

1/8/2014
22

2/20/2014
70

3/12/2014
18

3/12/2014
18

4/9/2014
39

5/14/2014
8.5

6/11/2014
50

7/9/2014
4

8/13/2014
80

9/10/2014
15

10/8/2014
4

11/12/2014
6.3

12/10/2014
4.2

1/14/2015
34

2/11/2015
28

3/11/2015
9.1999999999999993

4/8/2015
70

4/8/2015
65

5/13/2015
3.2

6/10/2015
6.9

7/8/2015
3.6

8/12/2015
400

9/9/2015
3.3

10/14/2015
12

11/10/2015
85

12/9/2015
5.7

1/13/2016
19

1/13/2016
22

2/10/2016
5.7

3/9/2016
4.4000000000000004

4/13/2016
7.3

5/11/2016
5.8

6/8/2016
21

7/12/2016
12

8/9/2016
100

9/13/2016
2.4

10/11/2016
60

11/8/2016
3.5

12/13/2016
9.1

7/8/2015
10

7/8/2015
11

8/12/2015
12

8/12/2015
13

9/9/2015
10

9/9/2015
10

10/14/2015
10

10/14/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

11/10/2015
10

12/9/2015
10

12/9/2015
10

1/13/2016
10

1/13/2016
10

2/10/2016
10

2/10/2016
10

3/9/2016
10

3/9/2016
10

4/13/2016
10

4/13/2016
10

5/11/2016
10

5/11/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

6/8/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

7/12/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

8/9/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

9/13/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

10/11/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

11/8/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

12/13/2016
10

1/18/2012
11

2/15/2012
14.8

3/21/2012
9.41

4/18/2012
8.8000000000000007

5/16/2012
8.17

6/20/2012
7.7

8/15/2012
7.02

9/19/2012
7.31

10/17/2012
7.66

11/20/2012
8.43

12/19/2012
7.71

1/16/2013
9.85

2/20/2013
13.94

3/21/2013
12.18

4/17/2013
8.66

5/15/2013
9.17

6/19/2013
7.65

7/10/2013
7.69

8/14/2013
6.94

9/11/2013
7.96

10/9/2013
8.5500000000000007

11/13/2013
10.28

12/11/2013
11.6

1/8/2014
14.06

2/20/2014
12.07

3/12/2014
8.32

4/9/2014
10.67

5/14/2014
8.3000000000000007

6/11/2014
8.33

7/9/2014
8.0399999999999991

8/13/2014
8.4499999999999993

9/10/2014
7.91

10/8/2014
9.11

11/12/2014
10.48

12/10/2014
8.7899999999999991

1/14/2015
13.1

2/11/2015
12.4

3/11/2015
11.1

4/8/2015
10.130000000000001

5/13/2015
8.66

6/10/2015
9.51

7/8/2015
8.56

11/10/2015
9.06

12/9/2015
12.08

1/13/2016
12.7

2/10/2016
16.559999999999999

3/9/2016
14.09

5/11/2016
8.76

6/8/2016
8.93

7/12/2016
8.27

8/9/2016
7.79

9/13/2016
8

10/11/2016
10.19

12/13/2016
12.16

1/4/2012
210

1/18/2012
3500

2/15/2012
320

3/21/2012
180

4/18/2012
460

5/16/2012
560

6/20/2012
560

7/18/2012
1100

8/15/2012
3600

8/15/2012
3400

8/28/2012
260

9/19/2012
1000

10/17/2012
400

11/20/2012
340

12/19/2012
430

1/16/2013
290

2/20/2013
520

3/21/2013
250

3/28/2013
260

4/17/2013
450

5/15/2013
500

6/17/2013
310

6/19/2013
340

7/10/2013
480

8/14/2013
1500

8/14/2013
1700

9/11/2013
410

9/16/2013
400

10/9/2013
380

11/13/2013
280

12/11/2013
1600

1/8/2014
260

2/20/2014
440

3/12/2014
170

4/9/2014
720

5/14/2014
230

6/11/2014
230

7/9/2014
350

8/13/2014
400

9/10/2014
390

9/10/2014
240

9/22/2014
320

10/8/2014
210

11/12/2014
220

12/10/2014
180

1/14/2015
860

2/11/2015
620

3/11/2015
31

4/8/2015
4700

5/13/2015
230

6/10/2015
430

6/17/2015
210

7/8/2015
800

8/12/2015
1100

9/9/2015
680

9/17/2015
680

10/14/2015
260

11/10/2015
2200

11/16/2015
560

12/9/2015
520

1/13/2016
800

1/20/2016
310

2/10/2016
960

3/3/2016
200

3/9/2016
180

4/13/2016
480

5/11/2016
640

5/16/2016
640

6/8/2016
520

6/10/2016
600

7/12/2016
6400

8/9/2016
1500

8/25/2016
110

9/13/2016
350

10/11/2016
400

11/8/2016
370

12/12/2016
250

12/13/2016
250

12/22/2016
170

1/18/2012
26

2/15/2012
53

3/21/2012
53

4/18/2012
49

5/16/2012
38

6/20/2012
47

7/18/2012
26

8/15/2012
30

8/15/2012
40

9/19/2012
25

10/17/2012
52

11/20/2012
35

12/19/2012
48

1/16/2013
48

2/20/2013
52

3/21/2013
43

4/17/2013
54

5/15/2013
52

6/19/2013
38

7/10/2013
48

8/14/2013
33

8/14/2013
34

9/11/2013
49

10/9/2013
53

11/13/2013
54

12/11/2013
50

1/8/2014
51

2/20/2014
30

3/12/2014
40

4/9/2014
44

5/14/2014
55

6/11/2014
52

7/9/2014
51

8/13/2014
45

9/10/2014
48

9/10/2014
51

10/8/2014
45

11/12/2014
60

12/10/2014
55

1/14/2015
40

2/11/2015
39

3/11/2015
50

4/8/2015
48

5/13/2015
61

6/10/2015
49

7/8/2015
57

8/12/2015
39

9/9/2015
44

10/14/2015
48

11/10/2015
27

12/9/2015
46

1/13/2016
41

2/10/2016
51

3/9/2016
58

4/13/2016
52

5/11/2016
48

6/8/2016
53

7/12/2016
20

8/9/2016
36

9/13/2016
52

10/11/2016
36

11/8/2016
53

12/13/2016
46

1/18/2012
7.15

2/15/2012
7.8

3/21/2012
7.37

4/18/2012
7.37

5/16/2012
7.22

6/20/2012
7.7

8/15/2012
7.33

9/19/2012
6.91

10/17/2012
7.25

11/20/2012
6.94

12/19/2012
7

1/16/2013
7.34

2/20/2013
7.07

3/21/2013
6.98

4/17/2013
7.19

5/15/2013
7.11

6/19/2013
7.14

7/10/2013
7.12

8/14/2013
6.91

9/11/2013
6.9

10/9/2013
6.93

11/13/2013
7.23

12/11/2013
6.49

1/8/2014
7.16

2/20/2014
7.05

3/12/2014
7.13

4/9/2014
7.4

5/14/2014
7.13

6/11/2014
7.11

7/9/2014
7.24

8/13/2014
7.09

9/10/2014
6.76

10/8/2014
7.16

12/10/2014
6.7

1/14/2015
6.8

2/11/2015
7.4

3/11/2015
7.4

4/8/2015
7.23

5/13/2015
7.67

6/10/2015
7.43

7/8/2015
7.18

8/12/2015
7.14

9/9/2015
7.33

10/14/2015
7.12

11/10/2015
6.77

12/9/2015
7.18

1/13/2016
7.62

2/10/2016
7.88

3/9/2016
8.6199999999999992

4/13/2016
7.22

5/11/2016
7.48

6/8/2016
7.01

7/12/2016
6.93

8/9/2016
7

9/13/2016
7.21

10/11/2016
7.01

12/13/2016
7.56

1/18/2012
9.1999999999999993

2/15/2012
6.25

3/21/2012
16.89

4/18/2012
16.5

5/16/2012
18.899999999999999

6/20/2012
21.6

7/18/2012
24.76

8/15/2012
22.41

9/19/2012
19.61

10/17/2012
12.07

11/20/2012
8.58

12/19/2012
8.5500000000000007

1/16/2013
10.8

2/20/2013
4.5

3/21/2013
6.99

4/17/2013
16.399999999999999

5/15/2013
13.49

6/19/2013
21.3

7/10/2013
21.43

8/14/2013
22.77

9/11/2013
19.59

10/9/2013
15.1

11/13/2013
5.51

12/11/2013
5.09

1/8/2014
0.43

2/20/2014
8.58

3/12/2014
12.55

4/9/2014
12.29

5/14/2014
19.739999999999998

6/11/2014
21.47

7/9/2014
23.05

8/13/2014
21.52

9/10/2014
20.32

10/8/2014
16.88

11/12/2014
10.87

12/10/2014
6.5

1/14/2015
5.15

2/11/2015
6.1

3/11/2015
12.9

4/8/2015
16.600000000000001

5/13/2015
18.649999999999999

6/10/2015
21.06

7/8/2015
23.98

8/12/2015
22.62

9/9/2015
22.8

10/14/2015
16.5

11/10/2015
13.95

12/9/2015
8.4499999999999993

1/13/2016
4.96

2/10/2016
3.72

3/9/2016
13.05

4/13/2016
13.89

5/11/2016
19.39

6/8/2016
17.18

7/12/2016
20.11

8/9/2016
23.63

9/13/2016
22.27

10/11/2016
13.17

12/13/2016
6.4

1/18/2012
85

2/15/2012
3

3/21/2012
3.7

4/18/2012
9

5/16/2012
13

6/20/2012
6.7

7/18/2012
23

8/15/2012
4.3

8/15/2012
7.1

9/19/2012
27

10/17/2012
5.5

11/20/2012
2.7

12/19/2012
3.6

1/16/2013
3.7

2/20/2013
8

3/21/2013
7.8

4/17/2013
2.4

5/15/2013
3.6

6/19/2013
6.3

7/10/2013
6.2

8/14/2013
16

8/14/2013
16

9/11/2013
2.1

10/9/2013
1.9

11/13/2013
1.8

12/11/2013
6.2

1/8/2014
17

2/20/2014
60

3/12/2014
17

4/9/2014
22

5/14/2014
3.4

6/11/2014
4.5

7/9/2014
3

8/13/2014
2.4

9/10/2014
1.7

9/10/2014
1.5

10/8/2014
1.6

11/12/2014
0.74

12/10/2014
2.8

1/14/2015
39

2/11/2015
29

3/11/2015
6.3

4/8/2015
50

5/13/2015
4.0999999999999996

6/10/2015
6.3

7/8/2015
2.6

8/12/2015
70

9/9/2015
3

10/14/2015
4.5999999999999996

11/10/2015
55

12/9/2015
7.5

1/13/2016
12

2/10/2016
8.9

3/9/2016
2.7

4/13/2016
3

5/11/2016
7.3

6/8/2016
7

7/12/2016
95

8/9/2016
21

9/13/2016
1.7

10/11/2016
15

11/8/2016
0.9

12/13/2016
2.7

AGENCY
station
LOCATION
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
STREAM CLASS
methodcode
displayname
samplegroup
CountOfresult
SumOfNDs
SumOfexceedences1
EL
ELNum
MinVal
10th
25th
50th
75th
85th
90th
MaxVal
N_Rows
%Exceedance
90%Confidence?
Confidence
C
Field
D.O. (mg/L)
<4
pH (SU)
<6
>9
Other
Metals (ug/L)
>50
Copper, dissolved (Cu)
Lead, dissolved (Pb)
Zinc, dissolved (Zn)
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)
Turbidity (NTU)
No
Yes
Fecal coliform
>400
>32
Required should be available in QAPP
Other names are acceptable but these are preferred
use with displayname
N required
non-detects required
exceedances of EL
required will be confirmed by DWR
optional
optional but will help in determining the EL
EL required will be confirmed by DWR. EL is evalution level or the standard for that parameter in that waterbody.
required in decimal degrees
required discription of location
required DWR may assign a different number during the submittal process
required name of agency
Station
date
result
notes
data qualifiers
C8896500
<
MC22A
Water was cloudy-no odor
>72 hrs no rain, but treat as stormflow
Slightly Turbid
Baseflow sample for Miles Suitable
>
*Lab qualified due to error in positive control
DO did not Check In
Temperature (C)
C9050000
MC27
Black sediment
C9210000
MC49A
PRISM
C9370000
MC38
Turbid- Heather Sorensen and Jeff Mitchel follwed up previous day, construction site dewatering.
Very slight turbidity.
Impacted
Turbid
C9680000
MC45B
Q7550000
MY11B
good height, no flow
very turbid
No flow
Low flow
Water cloudy, steady rain
turbid
no flow
slightly grey color
Very muddy
Not as clear as other creeks.
Turbid, storm impacted
S/I
Fecal coliform: Due to sample leakage, only 10 mL sample dilution analyzed.
Q8360000
MY9
Beaver dam gone
ok
low flow
suds on surface
CharMeck Site Code
CMSWS
IRWIN CRK AT IRWIN CRK WWTP NR CHARLOTTE
NA
Hardness dependent
Hardness Dependent
Water Temperature (C)
SUGAR CRK AT NC 51 AT PINEVILLE
MCALPINE CRK AT SR 3356 SARDIS RD NR CHARLOTTE
MCALPINE CRK AT SC SR 29-64 NR CAMP COX SC
FW
LITTLE SUGAR CRK AT NC 51 AT PINEVILLE
MALLARD CRK AT PAVILLION RD NR HARRISBURG
GOOSE CRK AT SR 1524 NR MINT HILL

Durham Attachments/02086849.2010 water Year summary from 2010.pdfSite: 02086849, WY: 2010
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 2010 02086849 ELLERBE CREEK NEAR GORMAN, NC Neuse Basin Upper Neuse Subbasin LOCATION.--Lat 36°0333, long
78°4958 referenced to North American Datum of 1927, Durham County, NC, Hydrologic Unit 03020201, on right bank 60 ft upstream of bridge on Secondary Road 1636, 1.6 mi northwest of
Gorman, and 3 mi upstream of mouth. DRAINAGE AREA.--21.9 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1982 to April 1989, October 1991 to September 1995, January 2006 to current
year. GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 252.81 ft above North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Satellite telemetry at streamgage. REMARKS.--Records poor. Water was diverted
from Flat River for Durham municipal water supply, and was returned as treated effluent upstream of station. Maximum gage height for period of record affected by backwater from Falls
Lake. Minimum discharge for period of record and current water year due to regulation. Water-Data Report 2010 02086849 ELLERBE CREEK NEAR GORMAN, NC—Continued — 2 — DISCHARGE, CUBIC
FEET PER SECOND WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010 DAILY MEAN VALUES [e, estimated] Day Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1 15 145 31 29 e29 30 29 16 70 16 22 14
2 14 30 398 25 e25 26 28 16 33 15 15 14 3 14 21 743 23 367 45 27 17 28 14 15 13 4 13 17 e103 21 e90 29 24 17 23 14 14 13 5 14 17 e91 21 e97 23 24 17 20 14 42 12 6 14 15 e86 20 e793
22 23 17 19 19 52 13 7 14 15 e61 19 e158 22 23 20 23 16 16 13 8 14 15 e53 22 e39 22 22 17 18 16 14 13 9 13 15 669 20 e46 21 29 16 20 33 14 13 10 14 24 e133 19 e54 22 22 16 18 18 10
13 11 14 1,030 e73 20 e48 26 20 16 17 18 14 12 12 17 472 e56 18 e44 49 21 16 23 18 16 14 13 25 250 e72 16 e45 181 21 15 66 32 14 14 14 17 54 e94 15 e34 71 20 15 32 129 14 13 15 23 35
e67 18 e25 39 19 15 19 16 13 13 16 18 27 e54 19 e28 32 21 42 136 17 13 13 17 16 26 43 410 e27 29 19 671 61 49 13 13 18 16 32 35 121 e32 27 18 485 22 81 13 13 19 17 85 463 43 e25 25
19 59 18 39 45 13 20 16 49 e84 32 e30 24 18 43 17 20 112 13 21 17 29 e53 66 e23 26 51 24 17 22 18 13 22 15 24 e44 234 e32 25 26 101 16 16 16 14 23 16 382 e36 50 e29 21 18 336 42 15
148 15 24 39 89 29 36 e31 18 17 132 21 14 24 14 25 23 47 402 694 e30 19 33 49 17 14 29 13 26 17 36 239 e128 33 24 20 32 17 32 18 19 27 17 39 e48 e44 31 21 17 27 17 26 16 194 28 85 27
e39 e35 30 18 16 27 16 23 15 58 29 22 24 e38 e33 --- 209 16 669 13 15 14 107 30 19 27 31 e32 --- 44 14 45 15 31 14 646 31 20 --- 38 e31 --- 33 --- 29 --- 15 14 --- Total 608 3,098 4,406
2,314 2,275 1,223 675 3,017 874 817 807 1,355 Mean 19.6 103 142 74.6 81.2 39.5 22.5 97.3 29.1 26.4 26.0 45.2 Max 85 1,030 743 694 793 209 51 671 136 129 148 646 Min 13 15 29 15 23 18
14 15 13 14 10 12 Cfsm 0.90 4.72 6.49 3.41 3.71 1.80 1.03 4.44 1.33 1.20 1.19 2.06 In. 1.03 5.26 7.48 3.93 3.86 2.08 1.15 5.12 1.48 1.39 1.37 2.30 STATISTICS OF MONTHLY MEAN DATA FOR
WATER YEARS 1983 - 2010 a, BY WATER YEAR (WY) Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Mean 21.9 49.6 43.8 46.9 61.6 74.6 43.0 36.2 30.4 24.9 29.6 29.3 Max 40.6 196 142 90.9
141 147 81.2 97.3 91.7 53.3 79.5 143 (WY) (1995) (1986) (2010) (1987) (1985) (1993) (1984) (2010) (1995) (1995) (1986) (2008) Min 11.4 13.1 14.9 16.4 24.1 16.7 11.8 15.8 10.2 13.5 14.3
9.93 (WY) (1983) (2008) (1995) (2008) (2009) (1988) (1985) (1987) (1993) (1983) (1983) (1986) Water-Data Report 2010 02086849 ELLERBE CREEK NEAR GORMAN, NC—Continued — 3 — SUMMARY
STATISTICS Calendar Year 2009 Water Year 2010 Water Years 1983 - 2010 a Annual total 18,824 21,469 Annual mean 51.6 58.8 41.6 Highest annual mean 60.6 1984 Lowest
annual mean 20.2 1988 Highest daily mean 1,030 Nov 11 1,030 Nov 11 1,700 Sep 6, 2008 Lowest daily mean 11 Sep 5 10 Aug 10 1.5 Oct 1, 1995 Annual seven-day minimum
12 Sep 10 13 Sep 5 4.8 Jun 11, 1983 Maximum peak flow 2,360 Dec 3 Not Determined Maximum peak stage 11.20 Dec 3 b12.13 Sep 6, 2008 Instantaneous low flow b2.1
Aug 10 b1.0 Jan 4, 1995 Annual runoff (cfsm) 2.35 2.69 1.90 Annual runoff (inches) 31.98 36.47 25.79 10 percent exceeds 85 99 75 50 percent exceeds
21 23 17 90 percent exceeds 14 14 9.9 a See Period of Record. b See Remarks O N D 2009 J F M A M J J A S 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000 MEAN DISCHARGE,
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 2010 Water-Data Report 2010 02086849 ELLERBE CREEK NEAR GORMAN, NC—Continued — 4 — WATER-QUALITY RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--Water years 1983-87, 1989-95,
2006-10. PERIOD OF DAILY RECORD.-- SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE: October 1982 to September 1985. WATER TEMPERATURE: October 1982 to September 1985. INSTRUMENTATION.--Water-quality monitor from
October 1982 to September 1985. REMARKS.--Station operated to define water quality as part of a regional surface-water quality assessment. Samples for October 1994 and April 1995 were
collected by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. A GC/FID scan for trace organic compounds was performed on these samples by the U.S. Geological
Survey Water Quality Lab. Results may be obtained from the North Carolina Water Science Center, Raleigh, NC. EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF DAILY RECORD.-- SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE: Maximum recorded,
858 microsiemens, January 30, 1985; minimum recorded, 24 microsiemens, May 20, 1983. WATER TEMPERATURE: Maximum recorded, 33.5°C, June 21, 1985; minimum recorded, 0.0°C, January 21,
22, 1985. WATER-QUALITY DATA WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010 Part 1 of 5 [%, percent; ANC, acid neutralizing capacity; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus;
SiO2, silicon dioxide; ft³/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; °C, degrees Celsius; µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; µg/L, micrograms
per liter; --, no data; E, estimated] Date Sample start time Medium name Sample type Barometric pressure, mm Hg (00025) Color, water, filtered, platinum cobalt units (00080) Discharge,
instanta neous, ft³/s (00061) Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, mg/L (00300) Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, % saturation (00301) pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units
(00400) 11-11-2009 1100 Surface water Regular 756 150 1,410 9.1 89 6.5 09-27-2010 0345 Surface water Composite (time) 752 75 319 -- -- 7.1 WATER-QUALITY DATA WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2009
TO SEPTEMBER 2010 Part 2 of 5 [%, percent; ANC, acid neutralizing capacity; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; SiO2, silicon dioxide; ft³/s, cubic feet per second;
mg/L, milligrams per liter; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; °C, degrees Celsius; µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; µg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; E, estimated] Date Specific
conduc tance, water, unfiltered, µS/cm at 25 °C (00095) Tempera ture, water, °C (00010) Dissolved solids dried at 180 °C, water, filtered, mg/L (70300) Hardness, water, mg/L as CaCO3
(00900) Calcium, water, filtered, mg/L (00915) Magne sium, water, filtered, mg/L (00925) Potassium, water, filtered, mg/L (00935) Sodium, water, filtered, mg/L (00930) ANC, water, unfiltered,
inflectionpoint, incremental titration method, field, mg/L as CaCO3 (00419) 11-11-2009 75 13.7 -- 21.3 6.09 1.49 3.02 5.63 19.5 09-27-2010 109 -- 66 19.1 5.42 1.34 3.46 11.0 21 Water-Data
Report 2010 02086849 ELLERBE CREEK NEAR GORMAN, NC—Continued — 5 — WATER-QUALITY DATA WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010 Part 3 of 5 [%, percent; ANC, acid neutralizing capacity;
CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; SiO2, silicon dioxide; ft³/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; °C, degrees Celsius;

µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; µg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; E, estimated] Date Bi carbonate, water, unfiltered, inflectionpoint, incremental titration method, field,
mg/L (00450) Chloride, water, filtered, mg/L (00940) Fluoride, water, filtered, mg/L (00950) Silica, water, filtered, mg/L as SiO2 (00955) Sulfate, water, filtered, mg/L (00945) Ammonia
plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, mg/L as N (00625) Ammonia, water, filtered, mg/L as N (00608) Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, mg/L as N (00631) Nitrite, water, filtered,
mg/L as N (00613) 11-11-2009 23.8 4.78 E .06 5.04 6.72 1.4 .115 .388 .009 09-27-2010 26 8.41 .21 3.83 9.78 .97 E .014 .384 .009 WATER-QUALITY DATA WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER
2010 Part 4 of 5 [%, percent; ANC, acid neutralizing capacity; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; SiO2, silicon dioxide; ft³/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams
per liter; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; °C, degrees Celsius; µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; µg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; E, estimated] Date Orthophos phate, water,
filtered, mg/L as P (00671) Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, mg/L as P (00665) Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01105) Cadmium, water, unfiltered, µg/L (01027) Chromium,
water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01034) Cobalt, water, unfiltered, recoverabl e, microgram s per liter (01037) Copper, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01042) Iron, water,
unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01045) Lead, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01051) 11-11-2009 .088 .410 3,860 .49 16.2 4.8 16.7 5,020 24.5 09-27-2010 .081 .314 2,410 .13 4.8
2.8 10.5 2,820 12.3 WATER-QUALITY DATA WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010 Part 5 of 5 [%, percent; ANC, acid neutralizing capacity; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P,
phosphorus; SiO2, silicon dioxide; ft³/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; °C, degrees Celsius; µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter;
µg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; E, estimated] Date Manganes e, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01055) Mercury, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (71900) Molybdenu
m, water, unfiltered, recoverabl e, microgram s per liter (01062) Nickel, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01067) Silver, water, unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01077) Zinc, water,
unfiltered, recover able, µg/L (01092) Arsenic, water, unfiltered, µg/L (01002) Selenium, water, unfiltered, µg/L (01147) Organic carbon, water, unfiltered, mg/L (00680) Suspended sediment
concen tration, mg/L (80154) 11-11-2009 330 .037 .2 7.3 .17 77.1 2.3 .19 18.1 589 09-27-2010 220 .022 .6 4.6 .08 48.4 1.4 .14 11.9 221
Durham Attachments/2017 Eno River Final Fish Survey Reportsmall.pdf
Eno River Watershed Implementation Plan Fish Studies August 2017 Eno River & Ellerbe Creek Fish Survey Report Durham, North Carolina PREPARED FOR: City of Durham Stormwater
and GIS Services Division Public Works Department 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor Durham, NC 27701 Eno River and Ellerbe Creek Fish Survey Report- Final Durham, North Carolina
City of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services Division Public Works Department 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor Durham, NC 27701 August 2017 AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report- Draft
Acknowledgements The Three Oaks Team received assistance from many individuals while completing the Fish Studies Report for AECOM, including the following: City of Durham Team: Sandra
Wilbur, Project Manager, Public Works – Stormwater and GIS Division Lance Fontaine, Assistant Project Manager, Public Works – Stormwater and GIS Division Michelle Woolfolk, Task Manager,
Public Works – Stormwater and GIS Division Jonathan Baker, Public Works – Stormwater and GIS Division Megan Walsh, Public Works – Stormwater and GIS Division AECOM Team: Sujit Ekka,Project
Manager Brian Jacobson, Deputy Project Manager Nancy Daly Three Oaks Team: Tom Dickinson, Project Manager Kate Sevick John Roberts Chris Sheats Nathan Howell Nancy Scott Evan Morgan
Lizzy Stokes-Cawley Mary Frazer Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................
............................................................... 1 2.0 NCIBI Study Sites ...............................................................................................................
........ 1 3.0 NCIBI Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 NCIBI Survey Results .....................
............................................................................................. 3 4.1 Eno River at Cole Mill Road .......................................................................
.............................. 3 4.2 Eno River at US 501/Roxboro Road ........................................................................................ 3 4.3 Ellerbe Creek at
Midland Terrace ............................................................................................ 7 4.4 Ellerbe Creek at Glenn Road .......................................................
............................................ 7 5.0 Qualitative Survey Sites ..............................................................................................................
9 6.0 Qualitative Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ 10 7.0 Qualitative Survey Results ..............................
.......................................................................... 10 7.1 Eno River at Sterling Drive .........................................................................................
............ 10 7.2 Eno River at Guess Road ...................................................................................................... 11 7.3 Ellerbe Creek at Midland Terrace
.......................................................................................... 11 8.0 Discussion and Conclusions..........................................................................
............................ 13 8.1 NCIBI Sites ............................................................................................................................ 13 8.2 Qualitative
Sites ..................................................................................................................... 15 9.0 References ........................................................
........................................................................ 16 Appendices Appendix A: Figure Appendix B: Field Habitat Data Sheets Appendix C: Select Fish Photographs
Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report i Figures Figure 1. ........................................................................................................................
..................... A-1 Tables Table 1. Revised scores and classes for evaluating the fish community of a wadable stream in the Neuse, Cape Fear, Roanoke, and Tar River Basins using
NCIBI (Table 7 from NCDENR 2013) ........... 2 Table 2. Tolerance ratings, adult trophic status, and abundance of all species found at three Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017) and two
Ellerbe Creek sites (2017) (continued) ................................................ 4 Table 3. NCIBI metric value and corresponding score (in parentheses) from Eno River Sites (2003*
and 2017) and Ellerbe Creek sites (1995**, 2005**, 2015**, and 2017) (continued) ..................................... 7 Table 4. Water Chemistry data collected from three Eno River
Sites (2003* and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites (1995**, 2005**, 2015**, and 2017) ..................................................................................... 8 Table 5.
Habitat assessment scores from three Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites (2014** and 2017) ..................................................................................
............................. 9 Table 6. Species count from Qualitative Survey Sites (continued) ....................................................... 12 Table 7. Listed* Fish Species
Observed During 2017 Sampling Efforts. .............................................. 14 Table 8. Tolerance rating percentages and Trophic Classes distribution from Qualitative Survey
Sites. ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Three Oaks Engineering
| AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report ii Executive Summary Freshwater fish surveys were conducted at select locations in the Eno River and Ellerbe Creek as part of the Eno Watershed Improvement
Plan (WIP) in Durham County. Both quantitative and qualitative surveys were conducted. Quantitative surveys followed the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) procedure.
The results of these and other studies within the project area were used to determine fish community status and habitat quality. The efforts documented high quality fish communities
in the Eno River and conversely stressed fish communities in Ellerbe Creek, conditions which were consistent with previous efforts. These studies can be repeated for future monitoring
of the Eno River and Ellerbe Creek watersheds. Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 1 1.0 Introduction Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) was tasked under
City contract with AECOM to conduct freshwater fish surveys at select locations in the Eno River and Ellerbe Creek of the Upper Neuse River Watershed (HUC 03020201) as part of the Eno
Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP). Both quantitative and qualitative surveys were conducted. Quantitative surveys followed the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) procedure.
Qualitative surveys were designed to efficiently document fish communities at multiple locations as a supplement to the NCIBI efforts. The results of these and other studies within
the project area were used to determine fish community status and habitat quality. 2.0 NCIBI Study Sites On April 18-20, 2017, and May 22, 2017, Three Oaks staff conducted quantitative
fish community assessments at pre-selected sites in the Eno River and Ellerbe Creek. Two sites were surveyed in the Eno River: 1) upstream of Cole Mill Road (SR 1404) and 2) downstream
of US 501/Roxboro Road; and two sites in Ellerbe Creek: 1) upstream of Glenn Road (SR 1636) and 2) downstream of Midland Terrace (SR 1709) (Figure 1). The Eno River US 501/Roxboro
Road site was previously surveyed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in September and October 2003 (McRae and Waters, 2004). The fish community at the Midland
Terrace site has been continually monitored by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) using NCIBI methods in 1995, 2005, and 2015. The fish community at the Glenn Road
site was monitored by DWR in 1995. The two Eno River sites were selected to represent typical wadable, lotic habitats within Durham County. Each site consisted of a sequence of riffle,
run, and pool habitats with a variety of substrate types. The Cole Mill Road site lies within the Eno River State Park with mature forest dominating the surrounding land use. The US
501/Roxboro Road site lies approximately 0.53 river miles (RM) downstream of the dam at West Point of the Eno City Park with residential development dominating the surrounding land
use. The two Ellerbe Creek sites were selected based on their location within the lower portion of the watershed, accessibility, and to represent typical wadable lotic habitats within
the watershed. The Glenn Road Site lies approximately 1.70 RM upstream of Falls Lake within a portion of land owned and managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and consists of mature forest. The Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 2 Midland Terrace Site lies approximately 3.6 RM upstream of the Glenn Road Site and consists
of a large wetland complex and forest surrounded by industrial and residential land uses. Much of the channel has been modified, relocated, and straightened both upstream and downstream
of the Midland Terrace Site. 3.0 NCIBI Methodology The fish community assessments followed the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) procedure outlined in Standard Operating
Procedures Biological Monitoring Stream Fish Community Assessment (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), now the NC Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), 2013). The North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) developed the NCIBI rating system specific to wadable streams in low elevation mountain and piedmont ecoregions.
The NCIBI evaluates 12 metrics (parameters) pertaining to species richness and composition, species pollution indicator status (Tolerant, Intermediate, Intolerant), trophic composition,
abundance, condition, and reproductive function. Each metric value is converted into a score of 1, 3, or 5, with 5 representing conditions expected for a relatively undisturbed reference
stream in the specific river basin or ecoregion (NCDENR, 2013). The NCIBI is scored by summing the values for all metrics. The NCIBI score is correlated to Integrity Class for a river
basin (Table 1). The NCIBI score range translates to biodiversity ratings of Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor. Currently, Excellent, Good, or Good-Fair ratings indicate that
the stream is Fully Supporting its Aquatic Life Use Support classification. A Fair or Poor rating is Not Supporting its Life Use Support stream classification and the water quality
standard is not being met. Table 1. Revised scores and classes for evaluating the fish community of a wadable stream in the Neuse, Cape Fear, Roanoke, and Tar River Basins using
NCIBI (Table 7 from NCDENR 2013) NCIBI Score Integrity Class 54, 56, 58, or 60 Excellent 46, 48, 50, or 52 Good 40, 42, or 44 Good/Fair 34, 36, or 38 Fair < 32 Poor A 600-foot study
reach was selected and surveyed at each study site. Starting at the downstream limit of the survey reach, three surveyors for the Eno sites and two surveyors for the Ellerbe sites,
each wearing a Smith-Root LR 24 backpack electrofisher, traveled upstream collecting fish; each was accompanied by at least one surveyor with a net. Each reach was then sampled traveling
downstream for a depletion pass of the same reach; electro-shocking was started at the upstream limit to drive fish into seines and dipnets. All fish collected were identified to species
and measured with total length recorded in millimeters. Fish with deformities, lesions, tumors or other visual appearance of disease Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey
Report 3 were noted. Length and condition data has been entered into a spreadsheet and provided as a separate database. Metrics pertaining to species represented by multiple age groups
and percentage of diseased fish presented in Table 3 provide detail on these data by site. Water quality measurements were made at each site before beginning fish surveys using a
multiparameter meter (YSI Professional Plus, Yellow Spring, OH, USA). Measured parameters included temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH. The habitat assessment
method developed by NCDWR was used to evaluate the physical structure of the stream and surrounding area. Parameters are numerically rated based on current stream conditions and include
land use, stream width and depth, bank structure and stability, instream habitat, substrate, habitat, and riparian zone attributes. A total of 12 parameters are individually allotted
scores with a possible maximum score of 100. 4.0 NCIBI Survey Results 4.1 Eno River at Cole Mill Road Electro-shock time totaled 4,988 seconds (approximately 83 minutes) for this
site. Twenty-four species were recorded with Roanoke Darter, Redbreast Sunfish, and Pinewoods Shiner comprising the most abundant species collected (Table 2). The site was classified
as “Excellent” with a NCIBI score of 54 (Table 3). Ten of 12 metrics recorded the maximum score of 5 with lesser scores attributed to low number of sucker species and percent of omnivorous
(primarily catfish/sucker) individuals. Recorded water quality parameters were within expected ranges of a typical Piedmont stream (Table 4). The habitat assessment scored 90 out
of 100 total points and is rated as Excellent with most parameters receiving maximum or near maximum scores (Table 5). Lower scores were recorded for less frequent riffles, minor evidence
of bank erosion, and slight breaks for light penetration in the tree canopy parameters. 4.2 Eno River at US 501/Roxboro Road Electro-shock time totaled 6,152 seconds (approximately
103 minutes) for this site. Twenty-eight species were recorded with Spottail Shiner, Roanoke Darter, and Redbreast Sunfish being the most abundant species collected (Table 2). The
site was classified as “Excellent” with a NCIBI score of 58 (Table 3). The maximum score was recorded for 11 of 12 metrics with a lesser score attributed to the lower percentage of
insectivorous individuals. Recorded water quality parameters were within expected ranges of a typical Piedmont stream (Table 4). The habitat scored 82 out of 100 total points with
roughly half of the parameters receiving maximum scores (Table 5). Less than maximum scores were attributed to substrate embeddedness, partial tree canopy, and riparian zone width
parameters. Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 4 Table 2. Tolerance ratings, adult trophic status, and abundance of all species found at three Eno River Sites
(2003* and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites (2017) (continued) Eno River Ellerbe Creek Species Name Common Name Tolerance Rating Adult Trophic Status Few's Ford (2003)* US 501
(2003)* Cole Mill Road (2017) US 501 (2017) Midland Terrace (1995)** Midland Terrace (2005)** Midland Terrace (2015)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (1995)** Glenn Road (2017)
Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass Intermediate Piscivore 13 11 19 25 Ameiurus brunneus Snail Bullhead Intermediate Insectivore 1 2 1 Ameiurus catus White Catfish Tolerant
Omnivore 1 4 Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Tolerant Omnivore 3 5 2 2 2 15 1 10 Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Tolerant Omnivore 1 1 32 Ameiurus platycephalus
Flat Bullhead Tolerant Insectivore 1 Anguilla rostrata American Eel Intermediate Piscivore 2 Cyprinella analostana Satinfin Shiner Tolerant Insectivore 65 17
105 14 20 13 28 Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Tolerant Omnivore 2 1 11 Erymizon oblongus Creek Chubsucker Intermediate Omnivore 2 3 4 Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter
Intermediate Insectivore 84 55 8 10 Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter Intermediate Insectivore 9 6 4 3 Etheostoma vitrium Glassy Darter Intermediate Insectivore 3 1
Fundulus rathbuni Speckled Killifish Intermediate Insectivore 4 1 Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Mosquitofish Tolerant Insectivore 1 8 3 52 1 16 Hypentelium nigricans
Northern Hogsucker Intermediate Insectivore 4 7 8 12 Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Intermediate Omnivore 2 Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey
Report 5 Table 2. Tolerance ratings, adult trophic status, and abundance of all species found at three Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites (2017) (continued)
Eno River Ellerbe Creek Species Name Common Name Tolerance Rating Adult Trophic Status Few's Ford (2003)* US 501 (2003)* Cole Mill Road (2017) US 501 (2017) Midland Terrace (1995)**
Midland Terrace (2005)** Midland Terrace (2015)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (1995)** Glenn Road (2017) Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Tolerant Insectivore 153 146 120 97
221 6 59 43 49 27 Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Tolerant Insectivore 2 1 12 24 10 46 19 26 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Intermediate Insectivore 1 2 2 9 Lepomis gulosus
Warmouth Intermediate Insectivore 3 1 7 4 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Intermediate Insectivore 33 20 8 39 4 3 22 Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Intermediate Insectivore
3 2 2 3 Luxilus albeolus White Shiner Intermediate Insectivore 63 17 74 56 2 Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods Shiner Intolerant Insectivore 7 4 77 17 2 Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth Bass Intermediate Piscivore 3 1 7 1 1 1 Morone americana White Perch Intermediate Piscivore 20 47 Morone chrysops White Bass Intermediate Piscivore
9 Moxostoma collapsum Notchlip Redhorse Intermediate Insectivore 1 Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead Redhorse Intermediate Insectivore 5 Nocomis leptocephalus
Bluehead Chub Intermediate Omnivore 54 41 33 40 Nocomis raneyi Bull Chub Intermediate Omnivore 23 57 20 22 Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Tolerant Omnivore 1
Notropis amoenus Comely Shiner Intermediate Insectivore 1 Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner Intermediate Omnivore 99 2 185 4 15 Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM
Fish Studies Survey Report 6 Table 2. Tolerance ratings, adult trophic status, and abundance of all species found at three Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites
(2017) (continued) Eno River Ellerbe Creek Species Name Common Name Tolerance Rating Adult Trophic Status Few's Ford (2003)* US 501 (2003)* Cole Mill Road (2017) US 501 (2017)
Midland Terrace (1995)** Midland Terrace (2005)** Midland Terrace (2015)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (1995)** Glenn Road (2017) Notropis procne Swallowtail Shiner Intermediate
Insectivore 6 61 10 7 269 46 518 66 13 5 Noturus insignis Margined Madtom Intermediate Insectivore 28 15 19 9 Perca flavenscens Yellow Perch Intermediate Piscivore 1
2 Percina nevisense Chainback Darter Intolerant Insectivore 27 7 8 1 Percina roanoka Roanoke Darter Intolerant Insectivore 126 104 190 114 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black
Crappie Intermediate Piscivore 1 Scartomyzon cervinus Black Jumprock Intermediate Insectivore 15 64 28 * - 2003 data from McRae and Waters, 2004 ** - Fish community
sample data from DWR database accessed May 30, 2017 Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 7 4.3 Ellerbe Creek at Midland Terrace Electro-shock time totaled 3,234
seconds (approximately 54 minutes) for this site. Seven species were recorded with Swallowtail Shiner, Eastern Mosquitofish, Green Sunfish, and Redbreast Sunfish being the most abundant
species collected (Table 2). The site was classified as “Poor” with a NCIBI score of 22 (Table 3). The maximum score was recorded for 2 of 12 metrics. Lack of species abundance for
darters and suckers, intolerant species, and high percentages of pollution tolerant, insectivorous, and diseased individuals resulted in lower metric scores. Recorded water quality
parameters were within expected ranges of a typical Piedmont stream except for a high specific conductance (Table 4). The habitat scored 41 out of 100 total points with most parameters
receiving less than average scores (Table 5). Lower scoring parameters were attributed to homogeneous sand dominated substrate, low habitat variety, significant bank erosion, and breaks
for light penetration in the tree canopy. 4.4 Ellerbe Creek at Glenn Road Electro-shock time totaled 4,100 seconds (approximately 68 minutes) for this site. Seventeen species were
recorded with White Perch, Brown Bullhead, Satinfin Shiner, Redbreast Sunfish, and Green Sunfish being the most abundant species collected (Table 2). The site was classified as “Fair”
with a NCIBI score of 36 (Table 3). The maximum score was recorded for 5 of 12 metrics. Lack of darters and suckers, intolerant species, and high percentages of pollution tolerant,
insectivorous, and piscivorous individuals resulted in lower metric scores. Additionally, this site had the highest percentage of diseased or otherwise injured fish at 3.7%. Recorded
water quality parameters were within expected ranges of a typical Piedmont stream except for a high specific conductance (Table 4). The habitat scored 63 out of 100 total points with
roughly half of the parameters receiving high scores (Table 5). Lower scoring parameters were attributed to sand dominated substrate, infrequent pools and riffles, minor evidence of
bank erosion, and for slight breaks in light penetration in the tree canopy. Table 3. NCIBI metric value and corresponding score (in parentheses) from Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017)
and Ellerbe Creek sites (1995**, 2005**, 2015**, and 2017) (continued) Eno River Ellerbe Creek NCIBI Metric Few's Ford (2003) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2003)* Cole Mill Road (2017) US 501/
Roxboro Rd (2017) Midland Terrace (1995)** Midland Terrace (2005)** Midland Terrace (2015)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (1995)** Glenn Road (2017) Number of species 23 (5) 24
(5) 24 (5) 28 (5) 7 (1) 9 (1) 7 (1) 7 (1) 13 (3) 17 (5) Number of fish 664 (5) 746 (5) 696 (5) 688 (5) 622 (5) 81 (1) 601(5) 243 (5) 111 (1) 270 (5) Number of darter species 4 (5)
4 (5) 5 (5) 5 (5) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) Number of sunfish species 6 (5) 5 (5) 6 (5) 5 (5) 3 (3) 4 (5) 1 (1) 2 (1) 4 (5) 6 (5) Number of sucker species 3 (5) 1 (3) 2
(3) 3 (5) 0 (1) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (3) Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 8 Table 3. NCIBI metric value and corresponding score (in parentheses) from
Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017) and Ellerbe Creek sites (1995**, 2005**, 2015**, and 2017) (continued) Eno River Ellerbe Creek NCIBI Metric Few's Ford (2003) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2003)*
Cole Mill Road (2017) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2017) Midland Terrace (1995)** Midland Terrace (2005)** Midland Terrace (2015)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (1995)** Glenn Road (2017)
Number of intolerant species 3 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) % tolerant individuals 23.0 (5) 29.0 (5) 20.0 (5) 17.0 (5) 56 (1) 33 (5) 13 (5) 73 (1) 76
(1) 57.0 (1) % omnivores and herbivores 12.0 (5) 27.0 (5) 9.0 (1) 34.0 (5) 0 (1) 6 (1) 1 (1) 7 (1) 5 (1) 28.0 (5) % insectivores 86.0 (5) 69.0 (5) 88.0 (5) 62.0 (3) 100 (1) 94 (1)
99 (1) 93 (1) 92 (1) 51.0 (3) % piscivores 2.7 (5) 4.3 (5) 3.74 (5) 3.92 (5) 0.16 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0.00 (1) 2.70 (5) 21.11 (1) % diseased 0.2 (5) 0 (5) 0.29 (5) 0.44 (5) 0 (5) 0 (5)
0 (5) 2.05 (3) 0 (5) 3.70 (1) % species with multiple age groups 70.0 (5) 65.0 (5) 83.0 (5) 75.0 (5) 57 (5) 44 (3) 71 (5) 86.0 (5) 38 (3) 89.0 (5) Total NCIBI Score 60 58 54 58 26
28 32 22 28 36 NCIBI rating Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair * - 2003 data from McRae and Waters, 2004 ** - Fish community sample data from DWR
database accessed May 30, 2017 Table 4. Water Chemistry data collected from three Eno River Sites (2003* and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites (1995**, 2005**, 2015**, and 2017) Eno
River Ellerbe Creek Few's Ford (2003) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2003)* Cole Mill Road (2017) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2017) Midland Terrace (1995)** Midland Terrace (2005)** Midland Terrace
(2015)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (1995)** Glenn Road (2017) Temperature (°C) 18 17 21.3 20.1 15.0 14.8 13.1 20.6 15 19 Specific conductance 94 95 120.5 125.3 218 167 269
377.6 218 458.2 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 9.2 8 8.8 9.0 9.1 5.6 13.1 9.3 9.1 8.9 pH 7.4 6.7 7.0 7.1 6.9 6.7 6.8 7. 8 6.9 7.1 * - 2003 data from McRae and Waters, 2004 ** - Fish community
sample data from DWR database accessed May 30, 2017 Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 9 Table 5. Habitat assessment scores from three Eno River Sites (2003*
and 2017) and two Ellerbe Creek sites (2014** and 2017) Eno River Ellerbe Creek Habitat characteristics Maximum Score Few's Ford (2003) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2003)* Cole Mill Road
(2017) US 501/ Roxboro Rd (2017) Midland Terrace (2014)** Midland Terrace (2017) Glenn Road (2017) Channel modification 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 4 Instream habitat 20 18 18 20 16 6 11 16 Bottom
substrate 15 12 10 15 8 2 3 3 Pool variety 10 10 10 10 10 6 4 4 Riffle habitats 16 10 10 12 16 0 3 3 Bank stability and vegetation a Left bank 7 6 5 Right

bank 7 6 5 Bank Erosion b 7 3 6 4 3 6 Bank Vegetation b 7 7 7 5 3 7 Light penetration 10 8 8 8 7 7 2 10 Riparian vegetation zone width Left bank 5 5 3 5 3
5 4 5 Right bank 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 Total Habitat Score 100 85 79 90 82 41 39 63 * - 2003 data from McRae and Waters, 2004 ** - Fish community sample data from DWR database
accessed May 30, 2017 a – Category used in previous IBI version b – Category used in current IBI version (ver.5) 5.0 Qualitative Survey Sites Three Oaks staff conducted qualitative
fish surveys at two sites in the Eno River on May 9, 2017, and one site in Ellerbe Creek on May 22, 2017 (Figure 1). These sites were selected based on habitat quality and site access.
The two sites on the Eno River are located between the two Eno River sites surveyed using the IBI protocol. The Eno River at Sterling Drive Site is located approximately 1.9 RM downstream
of the Cole Mill Road NCIBI Site. The site at the Eno River Association is in West Point of the Eno Park approximately 1.6 RM downstream of the Sterling Road site and approximately
2.0 RM upstream of the US 501/Roxboro Road NCIBI Site. Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 10 The Ellerbe Creek at Midland Terrace Site is located approximately
3.8 RM upstream of the Glenn Road NCIBI Site and was selected based on habitat and access. The riparian area is wooded with an extensive wetland on the northwest side of the creek.
6.0 Qualitative Survey Methodology At each survey site, appropriate habitat was surveyed for a total of approximately 1,000 electroshocking seconds (approximately 17 minutes) to use
as baseline effort for comparison between qualitative sites. Starting at the downstream limit of each survey site, three surveyors for the Eno sites and two surveyors for the Ellerbe
site, each wearing a backpack electro-shocking unit, traveled upstream collecting fish; each was accompanied by at least one surveyor with a net. Where appropriate, sites were also
sampled downstream using electro-shocking to drive fish into seines placed in riffle and run habitats. All fish collected during this time frame were identified and counted. Electroshocking
continued until all habitat types had been covered within the available time. Fish caught during this additional period were also identified and counted resulting in two species lists:
a 1,000 second list and a total time list (Table 6). The total time list includes the 1,000 second baseline and additional effort. 7.0 Qualitative Survey Results 7.1 Eno River at Sterling
Drive Electro-shock time totaled 3,632 seconds (approximately 60 minutes) for this site. A total of 20 species were recorded with Roanoke Darter, Redbreast Sunfish, and White Shiner
comprising the most abundant species (Table 6). Select photographs of fish collected can be found in Appendix C. Instream habitat was considered excellent quality and included a sequence
of riffle, run, and pool, with substrate consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock. Streambanks appeared stable with little evidence of bank erosion (Photo
1). Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 11 Photo 1. Eno River at Sterling Drive 7.2 Eno River at Guess Road Electro-shock time totaled 3,537 seconds (approximately
59 minutes) for this site. Nineteen species were recorded with Redbreast Sunfish, Black Jumprock, and Roanoke Darter comprising the most abundant species collected (Table 6). Instream
habitat was high quality and included a sequence of riffle, run, and pool. Instream habitat was dominated by sand, gravel, and cobble. Erosion of the clay streambanks was evident (Photo
2). Photo 2. Eno River at Guess Road 7.3 Ellerbe Creek at Midland Terrace Electro-shock time totaled 3,234 seconds (approximately 54 minutes) for this site. Seven species were
recorded with Swallowtail Shiner, Eastern Mosquitofish, Green Sunfish, and Redbreast Sunfish comprising the most abundant species collected (Table 6). Instream habitat was relatively
poor and low in variety; the reach consisted primarily of a shallow, unconsolidated sand run. Significant erosion of the clay streambanks was evident (Photo 3). Three Oaks Engineering
| AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 12 Photo 3. Ellerbe Creek at Midland Terrace Table 6. Species count from Qualitative Survey Sites (continued) Eno River Sterling Drive Site
Eno River Guess Road Site Ellerbe Creek Midland Terrace Site Scientific Name Common Name Tolerance Trophic Status # Fish/1000 seconds (total # Fish) # Fish/1000 seconds (total # Fish)
# Fish/1000 seconds (total # Fish) Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass Intermediate Piscivore 2 (6) 5 (11) Ameiurus brunneus Snail Bullhead Intermediate Insectivore 1 (2) Ameiurus
natalis Yellow Bullhead Tolerant Omnivore (1) 1 (15) Ameiurus platycephalus Flat Bullhead Tolerant Insectivore ~ (2) 1 (1) Cyprinella analostana Satinfin Shiner Tolerant Insectivore
1 (20) Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Tolerant Omnivore 1 (1) Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter Intermediate Insectivore 4 (10) 2 (6) Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter Intermediate
Insectivore ~ (1) ~ (2) Etheostoma vitrium Glassy Darter Intermediate Insectivore ~ (2) Fundulus rathbuni Speckled Kilifish Intermediate Insectivore ~ (1) Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern Mosquitofish Tolerant Insectivore 19 (52) Hypentelium nigricans Northern hogsucker Intermediate Insectivore ~ (3) 1 (2) Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Tolerant Insectivore
9 (61) 11 (34) 12 (41) Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Tolerant Insectivore ~ (1) 1 (2) 12 (46) Lepomis machochirus Bluegill Intermediate Insectivore 5 (15) 1 (7) Lepomis microlophus
Redear Sunfish Intermediate Insectivore 1 (1) Luxilus albeolus White Shiner Intermediate Insectivore 27 (47) 9 (26) Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report
13 Table 6. Species count from Qualitative Survey Sites (continued) Eno River Sterling Drive Site Eno River Guess Road Site Ellerbe Creek Midland Terrace Site Scientific Name Common
Name Tolerance Trophic Status # Fish/1000 seconds (total # Fish) # Fish/1000 seconds (total # Fish) # Fish/1000 seconds (total # Fish) Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner Intolerant
Insectivore 6 (7) 1 (3) Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Intermediate Piscivore 1 (1) Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead Chub Intermediate Omnivore 6 (29) 4 (12) Nocomis raineyi
Bull Chub Intermediate Omnivore 4 (15) 6 (7) Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner Intermediate Omnivore 1 (11) Notropis procne Swallowtail Shiner Intermediate Insectivore 7 (18)
~ (8) 14 (68) Noturus insignis Margined Madtom Intermediate Insectivore 4 (10) 1 (4) Percina nevisense Chainback Darter Intolerant Insectivore ~ (1) Percina roanoka Roanoke Darter
Intolerant Insectivore 38 (67) 10 (31) Scartomyzon cervinus Black Jumprock Intermediate Insectivore 8 (17) 14 (32) ~ - No fish were caught during the initial 1000 seconds of shocking
but were caught subsequently 8.0 Discussion and Conclusions These efforts provide current fish community and habitat data for the Eno River and Ellerbe Creek in Durham County. These
data document high quality fish communities in the Eno River and conversely stressed fish communities in Ellerbe Creek, conditions which are consistent with previous efforts. Additionally,
the methodologies presented here can be repeated for future monitoring of the Eno River and Ellerbe Creek watersheds. 8.1 NCIBI Sites During the 2017 efforts, the US 501/Roxboro Road
site obtained the highest NCIBI score of 58 (Excellent) with the Cole Mill Road site scoring a 54 (Excellent). The Ellerbe Creek sites scored low, with the Glenn Road site receiving
a score of 36 (Fair) and the Midland Terrace Site a 22 (Poor). The Cole Mill Road site recorded the largest total fish counts (n=696) with greatest species richness occurring at the
US 501/Roxboro site (n=28). The Eno Cole Mill Road and US 501/Roxboro Road sites Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 14 had 21 species in common. The Ellerbe
Creek Midland Terrace site recorded the lowest overall fish counts (n=243) and species richness (n=7). The higher species richness (n=17) and lentic adapted White Bass and Black Crappie
captured at the Glenn Road site suggests the fish community may be influenced by Falls Lake and is less representative of a typical reach in Ellerbe Creek. The abundance (n=56 combined)
of White Bass and White Perch observed at the Ellerbe Creek Glenn Road site may be of interest to anglers, as these species are sought after during their spawning runs from occupied
reservoirs into connected lotic systems. Table 7 highlights the listed species observed during the 2017 efforts and their respective status as detailed in the NC Natural Heritage Program
rare animal list (2016). These four species require clean, lotic stream habitat with good water quality and were consistently located at Eno River sampling sites in 2017. Glassy Darter
was notably absent from the 2003 WRC sampling sites in the Eno. Additionally, Roanoke Bass was captured in greater abundance during the 2017 sampling; 25 individuals were located at
the US 501 site compared with 11 in 2003. Conversely, 55 Fantail Darter were captured at US 501 in 2003 versus the 10 tallied in 2017. Table 7. Listed* Fish Species Observed During
2017 Sampling Efforts. Scientific Name Common Name NC Status US Status NC Rank Global Rank Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass SR FSC S2 G3 Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter W5 ~
S3 G5 Etheostoma vitreum Glassy Darter W5 S3 G4G5 Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods Shiner W2 S3 G3G4 * - 2016 NC Natural Heritage Rare Animal List Water quality varied slightly between
the Eno sites and was typical of a Piedmont stream during the spring season. The Ellerbe Creek sites recorded significantly higher specific conductance than the Eno sites, indicating
the presence of additional water constituents. Similar stream habitat and characteristics exist between the Cole Mill Road and US 501/Roxboro Road sites and can be classified as Excellent.
Degraded instream conditions were noted at the Glenn Road and Midland Terrace sites with consistently homogenous sandy substrate, evidence of streambank erosion, and infrequent or
absent pool and riffle habitats. These conditions were likely influenced by the geographic location of the Ellerbe Creek sites within the Triassic Basin. Total fish collected was slightly
lower at the US 501 Eno site in 2017 than 2003; however, greater species richness was observed in 2017 than 2003 (Table 3). Two additional sucker species were collected in 2017 at
US 501, including an actively spawning group of Shorthead Redhorse. Percent tolerant individuals decreased from 29 to 17 from 2003 to 2017. The number of intolerant species were identical
for all Eno River sites sampled in 2003 and 2017. At both Eno sites sampled in 2017, low numbers of diseased fish and the high percentage of species with multiple age classes support
the high scores at these sites. The previous NCDWR monitoring efforts at the Midland Terrace site in 1995, 2005, and 2015 documented low scores (26, 28, and 32, respectively) for a
consistent rating of Poor (Table 3). The most abundant species collected during these efforts were pollution tolerant; darters and sucker species were consistently absent. The Midland
Terrace site was one of the few sites with consistent fish data across time; for this reason, the site was sampled as part of this effort using NCIBI methods. As in previous years,
the site received a Poor rating (22). The Glenn Road site, also sampled in 1995 and receiving a Poor rating (28), was rated as Fair (36) during these efforts. Three Oaks Engineering
| AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 15 8.2 Qualitative Sites Qualitative efforts in the Eno captured similar species richness (n=21 Sterling Dr., n=19 Guess Rd.), with species representing
each trophic category. The Eno Sterling Drive site produced a total fish count of 323 individuals with Roanoke Darter, Redbreast Sunfish, and White shiner comprising the highest individual
totals. The Eno Guess Road sites recorded a total fish count of 193 with Redbreast Sunfish, Black Jumprock, and Roanoke Darter comprising the majority of individuals. Darters, sunfish
and suckers were present at all Eno sites. The Ellerbe Midland Terrace qualitative survey recorded 243 individuals. The Swallowtail Shiner, Eastern Mosquitofish, Redbreast Sunfish,
and Green Sunfish comprised the highest individual totals. Darters and sucker species as well as intolerant individuals were absent. Table 8 compiles the percentages of tolerant
and intolerant species as well as the trophic percentages of the totals observed at qualitative sites. Notably, the Ellerbe Creek site is dominated by tolerant species with an absence
of piscivorous fish, conditions that suggest poor stream quality. Table 8. Tolerance rating percentages and Trophic Classes distribution from Qualitative Survey Sites. Eno River Sterling
Drive Site Eno River Guess Road Site Ellerbe Creek Midland Terrace Site 1000 seconds Total seconds 1000 seconds Total seconds 1000 seconds Total seconds Tolerant Species (%) 36 23
16 18 78 72 Intolerant Species (%) 7 20 19 19 ~ ~ Insectivore (%) 89 81 78 84 97 93 Omnivore (%) 9 17 15 10 3 7 Piscivore (%) 2 2 7 6 ~ ~ Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies
Survey Report 16 9.0 References McRae, Brian J and C. T. Waters. 2004. Evaluation of Fish Community and Habitats of the Eno River, North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, Federal Aid Fish Restoration Project, F-23, Raleigh. Menhinick, E.F., 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227
pp. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2013. Standard Operating Procedure Biological Monitoring Stream Fish Community Assessment Program. Available
online at http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=125626&name=D LFE-78577.pdf North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2016. List of Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. Rhode, F. C., R.G. Arndt, D.L. Lindquist and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater
Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Fish Studies Survey Report 17 Figures Appendix
A Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Aquatic Vegetation Survey Report- Draft A-18 Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Aquatic Vegetation Survey Report- Draft A-19 Field Habitat Data Sheets
Appendix B Three Oaks Engineering | AECOM Eno River Watershed Implementation Plan – Fish Studies Survey Report D-1 Select Fish Photographs Appendix C Bluegill Sunfish and Data
Recording Swallowtail Shiner Satinfin Shiner White Perch (left) and White Bass (right) Pinewoods Shiners White Shiner
SELC Attachments/Attachments to 2018 draft 303(d) comments.pdf
Attachment A APPENDIX C - NC 2016 303(d) List Decision Document The EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Use of a Nonparametric Procedure for Delisting   7KH(3$KDVGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKH1RUWK&D
UROLQD¶V/LVWLQJ0HWKRGRORJ\XVHGIRUPRVWQXPHULF ZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGVLVQRWEHLQJXVHGFRUUHFWO\IRUGHOLVWLQJGHFLVLRQV7KHVWDWHXVHVD QRQSDUDPHWULFK\SRWKHVLVWHVWLQJDSSURDFKEDVHGRQW
KHELQRPLDOGLVWULEXWLRQWRDVVHVV FRQYHQWLRQDOSROOXWDQWVDQGQXWULHQWV
FKORURSK\OO-a
)URPWKH
G
/LVWLQJ 0HWKRGRORJ\³7KHELQRPLDOPHWKRGDOORZVDTXDQWLILDEOHOHYHORIVWDWLVWLFDOFRQILGHQFH

 IRUOLVWLQJGHFLVLRQVZKLFKSURYLGHVDSUREDELOLW\RIOLVWLQJDQDVVHVVPHQWXQLWZKHQLW VKRXOGQRWEHOLVWHG´7KH0HWKRGRORJ\GRHVQRWDGGUHVVUHPRYDORIZDWHUVIURPWKH
G
RU SURYLGHIRUVWDWLVWLFDOFRQILGHQFHWRSURWHFWDJDLQVWGHOLVWLQJDZDWHUERG\ZKHQLWVKRXOGQRWEH GHOLVWHG  ,QLWV
G
OLVWWKHVWDWHVXEPLWWHGD³-XVWLILFDWLRQIRU&KDQJHVWRWKH/LVWLQJ 0HWKRG´WKDWLQGLFDWHGWKLVDSSURDFKLVVLPLODUWRWKHRQHRXWOLQHGLQA Nonparametric Procedure for Listing
and Delisting Impaired Waters Based on Criterion Exceedances +RZHYHUWKHVWDWH¶VDSSURDFKLVGLVVLPLODUWRWKHUHIHUHQFHGProcedure LQWKDW1RUWK&DUROLQD GRHVQRWGLIIHUHQWLDWHEHWZHHQOLVWLQJ
DQGGHOLVWLQJ7KLVLVDFULWLFDORPLVVLRQIURP1RUWK &DUROLQD¶VPHWKRGRORJ\DV³>W@KHSUREOHPRIGHFLGLQJE\DVWDWLVWLFDOSURFHGXUHZKHWKHURUQRW WRGHOLVWDERG\RIZDWHUWKDWKDVDOUHDG\EHHQ
GHVLJQDWHGDVµLPSDLUHG¶LVQRWWKHVDPHWKLQJDV GHFLGLQJWROLVWDQLPSDLUHGZDWHU´
6HFWLRQ'HOLVWLQJ3URFHGXUHRIWKH/LQHWDOSDSHU
  :LWKWKHLQWURGXFWLRQRIWKHELQRPLDODSSURDFKWKHVWDWHKDVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRUHFRJQL]HDQG PDQDJHXQFHUWDLQWLHV7KH(3$DJUHHVWKDWWKHELQRPLDODSSURDFKFDQKHOSPDQDJHXQFHUWDLQWLHV
LQPDNLQJDVVHVVPHQWGHFLVLRQVDQGDV1RUWK&DUROLQD¶V/LVWLQJ0HWKRGRORJ\VD\VWKDW³WKH GHJUHHRIXQFHUWDLQW\GHSHQGVRQWKHVDPSOHVL]H´7KHXQFHUWDLQWLHVDOVRGHSHQGRQWKHGHFLVLRQ
UXOHV
RUQXOOK\SRWKHVHV
FKRVHQ  7KHQXOOK\SRWKHVLV³LVZKDWLVDVVXPHGWREHWUXHDERXWWKHV\VWHPXQGHUVWXG\SULRUWRGDWD FROOHFWLRQXQWLOLQGLFDWHGRWKHUZLVH´7KH6WDWH¶V/LVWLQJ0HWKRGRORJ\³SURYLGHVD
SUREDELOLW\RIOLVWLQJDQDVVHVVPHQWXQLWZKHQLWVKRXOGQRWEHOLVWHG´LQRWKHUZRUGVD³IDOVH´ OLVWLQJ:KHQSLFNLQJWKHGHFLVLRQUXOHVDQGVWDWLVWLFDOPHWKRGVLQXVHVXSSRUWDVVHVVPHQWIRU
OLVWLQJRQHFDQDWWHPSWWRPLQLPL]HWKHFKDQFHVRIPDNLQJHLWKHURIWKHWZRIROORZLQJHUURUV  &RQFOXGLQJWKHVHJPHQWLVLPSDLUHGZKHQLWLVQRW
D³IDOVH´OLVWLQJ
DQG 'HFLGLQJQRWWRGHFODUHDVHJPHQWLPSDLUHGZKHQLWLVLPSDLUHG 1 /LQ3L-(UK'XDQH0HHWHUDQG;X-)HQJ1LXA
Nonparametric Procedure for Listing and Delisting Impaired Waters Based on Criterion Exceedances7HFKQLFDO5HSRUW'HSDUWPHQW RI6WDWLVWLFV)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\7DOODKDVVHH)/
2 +HOVHO'5DQG50+LUVFKStatistical Methods in Water Resources,7HFKQLTXHVRI :DWHU5HVRXUFHV,QYHVWLJDWLRQV%RRNFKDSWHU$86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\6HHSDJH
 ,QVWDWLVWLFDOK\SRWKHVLVWHVWLQJHUURUVDUHWKHLQFRUUHFWUHMHFWLRQRIDWUXHQXOOK\SRWKHVLV
D7\SH ,HUURUDVGHVFULEHGLQDERYH
DQGLQFRUUHFWIDLOXUHWRUHMHFWDIDOVHQXOOK\SRWKHVLV
D7\SH,, HUURULQDERYH
  ,IWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVLVLVWKDWWKHZDWHUERG\LVQRWLPSDLUHGD7\SH,HUURULVGHWHFWLQJDQ LPSDLUPHQWWKDWLVQRWSUHVHQW
³IDOVH´OLVWLQJ
ZKLOHD7\SH,,HUURULVIDLOLQJWRGHWHFWDQ LPSDLUPHQWWKDWLVSUHVHQW$FFRUGLQJWRWKH6WDWH¶V/LVWLQJ0HWKRGRORJ\WKH³QXOO K\SRWKHVLVLVWKDWWKHRYHUDOOH[FHHGDQFHSUREDELOLW\LVOHV
VWKDQRUHTXDOWRWKHH[FHHGDQFH DOORZDQFH´7KDWLVWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVHVLVWKDWWKHZDWHUERG\LVQRWLPSDLUHG  2QFHDZDWHUERG\LV
G
OLVWHGKRZHYHUWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVLVVKRXOGEHUHYHUVHGWREH FRQVLVWHQWZLWKDGHOLVWLQJGHFLVLRQ,IWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVLVLVWKDWWKHZDWHUERG\LVLPSDLUHGWKHQ WKH7\SH,HUURULVFRQFOXGLQJD
ZDWHUERG\PHHWVVWDQGDUGVZKHQLWLVQRWZKLOHWKH7\SH,,HUURU LVIDLOLQJWRGHOLVWZKHQLWVKRXOGEH,QWKDWLQVWDQFHWKHHUURUVOLVWHGDERYHZRXOGEHVZDSSHG  'HFLGLQJQRWWRGHFODUH
DVHJPHQWLPSDLUHGZKHQLWLVLQIDFWLPSDLUHG
D³IDOVH´ GHOLVWLQJ
DQG &RQFOXGLQJWKHVHJPHQWLVLPSDLUHGZKHQLQIDFWLWLVQRW (UURUUDWHVDQGVDPSOHVL]HDUHPDWKHPDWLFDOO\OLQNHG7KHUHLVOHVVFKDQFHRIPDNLQJHLWKHUW\SH RIHUURUDVWKHDPRXQWRIPRQ
LWRULQJGDWDLQFUHDVHV$V/LQHWDOGHVFULEH³«WKHVDPHVDPSOH VL]HFRXOGEHXVHGIRUOLVWLQJDQGGHOLVWLQJDWWKHH[SHQVHRIDOHVVHUFRQILGHQFHOHYHOIRU GHOLVWLQJ$VDOUHDG\GHPRQVWUDWHG
ZHPD\XVHQ VDPSOHVIRUERWKOLVWLQJDQGGHOLVWLQJ :LWKWKUHHH[FHHGDQFHVWKHZDWHUERG\UHDFKLVOLVWHGDVLPSDLUHGZLWKFRQILGHQFH« ZKLOHZLWKQRH[FHHGDQFHREVHUYHGRXWRIWKH
WHQVDPSOHPHDVXUHPHQWVWKHZDWHUERG\LV UHPRYHGIURPWKHLPSDLUHGZDWHUOLVWZLWKRQO\FRQILGHQFH«+RZHYHUDQ\VWDWLVWLFDO FRQFOXVLRQWKDWKDVDFRQILGHQFHOHYHORIOHVVWKDQLVFRQV
LGHUHGQRWDFFHSWDEOHE\PRVW VWDWLVWLFVSUDFWLWLRQHUV´  )RUDVVHVVPHQWVPDGHEDVHGRQDELQRPLDOGLVWULEXWLRQPHWKRGWKHSURFHGXUHIRUGHOLVWLQJ UHTXLUHVVWURQJHUHYLGHQFHDQGDODUJHUVDPSOH
VL]HWKDQIRUOLVWLQJLIWKHVDPHOHYHORI FRQILGHQFHLVUHTXLUHG%\XVLQJWKHVDPHSURFHGXUHIRUGHOLVWLQJDVOLVWLQJWKHVWDWHKDVVHOHFWHG DORZHUFRQILGHQFHOHYHOIRUGHOLVWLQJGHFLVLRQV7
KHIROORZLQJWDEOHEDVHGRQVWDWLVWLFDOPHWKRGV LQWKH/LQHWDOSDSHUUHIHUHQFHGDERYHGHPRQVWUDWHVWKDWIRUDGHOLVWLQJPHWKRGRI H[FHHGDQFHZKHUHDFRQILGHQFHOHYHOLVGHVLUHGDPLQL
PXPRIVDPSOHVZLWKQR H[FHHGDQFHVREVHUYHGLVUHTXLUHG  Sample size # of Exceedances For a DELISTING decision, the level of confidence would be:   65%   79%   88% 
 89% 22 0 90%   91% )RUFRPSDULVRQXVLQJWKHVDPHVWDWLVWLFDOIRUPXODWKHIROORZLQJWDEOHSUHVHQWVH[DPSOHV VDPSOHVHWVL]HIURPVRPHRIWKHVWDWH
VGHOLVWHGZDWHUV7KHUHVXOWLQJFRQILGHQFHOHYHOVVKRZ KRZFHUWDLQRQHFDQEHWKDWWKHVHZDWHUERGLHVDUHWUXO\QRWLPSDLUHG Sample size # of Exceedances For a DELISTING decision,
the level of confidence would be:   26%   6%   13%   6%   OLVWEDVHGRQIDLOXUHWRGHPRQVWUDWHJRRGFDXVHWRGHOLVW7KHVHZDWHUVDUHOLVWHGEHORZDQG GLVFXVVHGLQ6HFWLRQ,,,$
E6HFWLRQ,,,$F    3 Delisting "level of confidence" was calculated using the Excel BINOM.DIST function: 1[BINOM.DIST(#exceedanc
es, #samples, 10% exceedance rate, TRUE)] 4 $ODEDPD¶V:DWHU4XDOLW\$VVHVVPHQWDQG/LVWLQJ0HWKRGRORJ\-DQXDU\$ODEDPD 'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO0DQDJHPHQW KWWSDGHPDODEDPDJRYSURJUDPV
ZDWHUZTXDOLW\:$0SGI Water Quality Limited Segments Added by the EPA to the NC 2016 303(d) List Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause to Delist  7KLVWDEOHFRPSDUHVVDPSOHVL]HDQGQXPE
HURIH[FHHGDQFHVWKDW1RUWK&DUROLQDXVHGWRGHOLVW ZLWK$ODEDPD¶VDOORZDEOHH[FHHGDQFHV
7KH(3$KDVFRQFOXGHGWKDW$ODEDPD¶VDSSURDFKLVDQ DFFHSWDEOHPHWKRGIRUGHPRQVWUDWLQJJRRGFDXVHIRUGHOLVWLQJ
 AU# AU Name Parameter of Interest Sample size # of Exceedances used to delist Maximum # exceedances allowable for delisting with 90% confidence 

-DFRE)RUN S+   1$VDPSOHVL]H WRRVPDOO


E <$'.,15,9(5
LQFOXGLQJXSSHUSRUWLRQRI +LJK5RFN/DNH
&KORURSK\OOa   1$VDPSOHVL]H WRRVPDOO


D <$'.,15,9(5
LQFOXGLQJXSSHUSRUWLRQRI +LJK5RFN/DNH
7XUELGLW\   1$VDPSOHVL]H WRRVPDOO


E <$'.,15,9(5
LQFOXGLQJXSSHUSRUWLRQRI +LJK5RFN/DNH
&KORURSK\OOa   1$VDPSOHVL]H WRRVPDOO


D <$'.,15,9(5
LQFOXGLQJXSSHUSRUWLRQRI +LJK5RFN/DNH
&KORURSK\OOa   1$VDPSOHVL]H WRRVPDOO


G :$&&$0$:5,9(5 S+  URSK\OOa    

3DVTXRWDQN5LYHU S+    

E 0LOOV5LYHU S+   1$VDPSOHVL]H WRRVPDOO