NC Assessment Methodology

1. NC Assessment Methodology Kathy Stecker Cam McNutt DWQ Planning Section To protect and enhance North Carolina's surface water and groundwater resources for the citizens of North Carolina and future generations.

2. Regulatory Overview • Water Quality Standards • Uses + Criteria to protect uses • Numeric & narrative criteria • §303(d) CWA and 40 CFR 130.7 • “Water quality standards”

3. NC’s Assessment Methodology • Uses and criteria • Aquatic Life • Numeric + narrative criteria • Recreation • Numeric + narrative criteria • Shellfish Consumption • Narrative criteria • Fish Consumption • Narrative criteria • Water Supply • Numeric criteria

4. Data Coordination Benthic Macroinvertebrates Fish Community ESS Ambient Data Reservoir/Lake Data DWQ Planning Coalition Data Integrated Report 303(d) and 305(b) Shellfish Data State Agencies Assessment And AU Assignment Beach Mon Other DWQ Data Fish Consumption USGS/EPA/NRCS Others Universities Local Governments Utilities

5. Aquatic Life Assessment Biological Integrity (Narrative Criteria) Chemistry Data (Numeric Criteria) Benthos Fish Community Less than 10% Exceedance of Standards Excellent, Natural, Good, Good-Fair Bioclassifications Excellent, Good, Good-Fair Bioclassifications Supporting Impaired Poor, Fair or Severe Bioclassifications Poor, Fair or Bioclassifications Greater than 10% Exceedance of Standards

6. Biological Integrity “The ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced and indigenous community of organisms having species composition, diversity, population densities, and functional organization similar to that of reference conditions.” (15A NCAC 02B .0200)

7. Recreation Assessment Swimming Advisories (Narrative Criteria) Pathogen Indicators (Numeric Criteria) Fresh waters Estuarine/ocean waters Fecal Coliform Bacteria Enterrococci Geometric Mean less than 200 and Less than 61 advisory days Geometric Mean less than 35 Supporting Less than 20% above 400 Geometric Mean greater than 200 Impaired Greater than 61 advisory days Geometric Mean greater than 35 Or greater than 20% above 400

8. Water Supply Assessment Chemistry Data (Numeric Criteria) Less than 10% Exceedance of Standards Supporting Greater than 10% Exceedance of Standards Impaired WS Classified waters only

9. Shellfish Harvesting Assessment SA Classified waters only Growing Area Classification (Narrative Criteria) Approved for Shellfish Harvesting Supporting Not Approved for Shellfish Harvesting Impaired

10. Fish Consumption Assessment Fish Consumption Advisories (Narrative Criteria) No Fish Consumption Advisory Supporting Site Specific Consumption Advisory Statewide Mercury Consumption Advice Impaired

11. How is Impairment Determined? • It’s not just about Impairment 1 2 3 4 5 Integrated Report 305(b) Report NC Impaired Waters List 303(d) List

12. DO Data Available Dissolved OxygenAssessment Method- Aquatic Life DO<EL in >10% of N 3c N>9 Supporting 1 Class Sw Not Rated 3 Swamp Biocriteria Impaired Biology Swamp Like* BOD Source Not Rated 3 Not Rated 3 Receives Significant Swamp Drainage Not Rated 3 Not Rated 3 Not Rated 3 Drainage via Ditches Impaired 5 BOD Source Not Rated 3 Impaired 5 Not Rated 3

13. 2-Year 303(d) Cycle Internal Review Assessment Data Delivery Even Year Public Review Odd Year April 1 - Submit list Review Assessment Methods

14. 2-Year 303(d) Cycle 2012 List You are here Internal Review Assessment Data Delivery Even Year Public Review Odd Year April 1 - Submit list Review Assessment Methods

15. EPA’s Role • EPA must approve or disapprove list • EPA does not approve or disapprove assessment methodology, but • If they disagree with state decisions… • …they add waters

16. “De-Listing” • Start with previous approved list • Good cause (40 CFR 130.7) • Standards attained • TMDL or other enforceable strategy

17. Public Review & Comment • Public notice required • Typical comments • Recommend additional listings • Recommend de-listings • Requests for clarifications • Pollutant source information • Requests for further study

18. More Information • Assessment Methodology • 2010 Final 303(d) List • Responsiveness Summaries http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment

19. QUESTIONS? To protect and enhance North Carolina's surface water and groundwater resources for the citizens of North Carolina and future generations.

20. RESERVE

21. Regulatory Overview • §303(d) CWA & 40 CFR 130.7 • “any water quality standard” • 1991 EPA Policy • “independently sufficient evidence” of impairment • 2011 Anacostia River case(ANACOSTIA RIVERKEEPER v. JACKSON, US District Court, DC, July 25, 2011) • Waterbody impaired and listed if any water quality standard not met

22. NC’s Assessment Methodology • Same for approved 2008 and 2010 lists • Same as reported in basin plans • Extensive internal review • Negotiations w/EPA, EPA reviews

23. Other States’ Assessment Methodologies • Reflect their water quality standards • Examples • 10% • Statistical tests • Minimum number of samples • Assessment methodology in rule • “Credible data” laws • Volunteer monitoring

24. 2014 303(d) List • Data from 2008-2012 • AM review May-Sept. 2012 • EPA guidance Fall 2012

25. Mercury TMDL Background