LEGISLATIVE
RESEARCH COMMISSION
COASTAL WATER QUALITY
REPORT TO THE
1987 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF NORTH CAROLINA
A LIMITED NUMBER OF COPIES OF THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE
FOR DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY.
ROOM 2126, 2226
STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611
TELEPHONE: (919) 733-7778
OR
ROOM 500
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611
TELEPHONE: (919) 733-9390
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal 1
Legislative Research Commission Membership List 2
Preface 3
Committee Proceedings 5
Issues and Findings 13
Recommendations 19
Appendices
A. Authorizing Legislation A-1
B. Coastal Water Quality Study Committee
Membership and Staff B-1
C. Speakers at Committee Meetings C-1
D. Water Classification Proposals D-1
E. Recommendations on Coastal Water Quality
Issues Submitted for Committee Consideration
by Ken Kirkman E-1
F. Recommendations on Coastal Water Quality
Issues Submitted for Committee Consideration
by the Department of Natural Resources and
Communi ty Development F-1
G. Recommendations on Coastal Water Quality
Issues Submitted for Committee Consideration
by the North Carolina Coastal Federation G-1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION
STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
RALEIGH 27611
December 12, 1986
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE 1987 GENERAL ASSEMBLY;
The Legislative Research Commission submits to you for your
consideration its report on coastal water quality. This report
was prepared by the Legislative Research Commission's Committee
on Coastal Water Quality pursuant to Chapter 1014 of the 1985
Session Laws (Regular Session, 1986).
Respectfully submitted.
J. \n . (Monk) Harrington
Listen B. Ramsey r
Cochairmen
Legislative Research Commission
_ 1
1985-87
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
House Speaker Listen B. Ramsey, Senate President Pro Tempore
Cochairman J. J. Harrington, Cochairman
Representative Chris S, Barker, Jr. Senator Henson Barnes
Representative John Church Senator A. D. Guy
Representative Bruce Ethridge Senator Ollie Harris
Representative Aaron Fussell Senator Lura Tally
Representative Barney P. Woodard Senator Robert Warren
- 2 -
TREFACE
The Legislative Research Commission, established by Article
6B oi: Chapter 120 of the General Statutes, is a general purpose
study group. The Commission is cochaired by the Speaker of the
House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and has ten
additional members, five appointed from each house of the General
Assembly. Among the Commission's duties is that of making or
causing to be made, upon the direction of the Genera] Assembly or
either house thereof, "such studies of and investigations into
governmental agencies and institutions and matters of public
policy as will aid the General Assembly in performing its duties
in the most efficient and effective manner" (G.S. 120-30.17(1)).
At the direction of the 1985 General Assembly, the Legisla-
tive Research Commission has undertaken studies of numerous
subjects. These studies were grouped into ten broad categories
and each member of the Commission was given responsibility for
one category of study. The co-chairmen of the Legislative
Research Commission, under the authority of General Statute
120-30. lG(b) and (c) , appointed comjtiittees consisting of members
of the General Assembly and the public to conduct the studies.
Co-chairmen, one from each house of the General Assembly, were
designated for each conmiittee.
The study on coastal water quality was authorised by Section
152 of Chapter 1014 of the 1985 Session Laws (Regular Session,
- 3 -
19C6) . That act states that the Commission may perform a
comprehensive study and re-evaluation of coastal water quality
classifications and may also evaluate existing and proposed rules
of any State agency regarding coastal water quality. The
relevant portion of Chapter 1014 is included in Appendix A.
The Legislative Research Commission grouped this study in
its environment area under the direction ot Representative Bruce
Ethridge. The Committee was chaired by Representative Margaret
Stamey and Senator Marc Basnight . The full membership is listed
in Appendix B of this report. A copy of this report is filed in
the Legislative Library. A Committee notebook containing the
Committee minutes and all information presented to the Committee
is also filed in the Legislative Library.
- 4 -
COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
The Coastal Water Quality Study was authorized by the 1985
General Assembly during the 1986 Regular Session. Despite the
brief time allotted for the study, the Committee worked diligently
to gain a solid understanding of the complex issues involved in
water quality protection. Speakers from State and federal
agencies addressed the Committee on legal and scientific
principles adopted to safeguard water quality. Additional
information was provided comparing approaches adopted by other
states when addressing similar issues. The Committee also
provided a forum for members of the public to indicate their
concerns about the State's water quality.
A brief discussion of each committee meeting follows.
The Committee's first meeting focused on the State's current
water classification system and water quality standards.
Representatives from the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development and the Department of Human Resources
outlined the system of coastal water classifications and explained
the standards adopted to protect those classifications. The role
played by various agencies in protecting water quality was also
acknowledged .
Paul Wilms, Director of Environmental Management, directed
the Committee's attention to eight major issues to consider in
studying coastal water quality and briefly discussed each. The
eight issues identified by Mr. Wilms were:
( 1 ) Storm water ,
- 5 -
(2) Use classification,
( 3 ) Marinas ,
(4) Eutrophication,
(5) Agricultural runoff and drainage,
( 6 ) Peat mining,
(7) Fisheries decline, and
(8) Upstream pollution.
He also indicated that additional research is needed in three
areas: water classifications, storm water control requirements,
and runof f -gr oundwa te r interactions, particularly the recharge
rate of ground waters.
In an explanation of the State water classification system,
Mr. Wilms discussed the effect of water quality on the suitability
of shellfish to be harvested as a food crop. The discussion
clarified that shellfish are particularly sensitive to pollution
and will absorb it. If a mollusk is eaten before it purges itself
of the pollution, it can cause illness in a human being. For this
reason, shellfish waters are a focal point in the development of
water classifications and water quality standards. Further
discussion of this topic indicated several issues related to the
identification of shellfish grounds. Many disagree as to the
appropriate criteria for determining whether a significant
shellfish resource exists in waters. Even if a shellfish resource
does exist, some marine authorities feel that a distinction
between commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting is
appropriate .
Documentation on the various reasons for closures of
shellfish grounds was also provided to the Committee.
6 -
Dr. William Hogarth, Director of the Marine Fisheries
Division, focused his discussion with the Committee on the
importance of the fishing industry in North Carolina and the
effect pollution has on that industry. He indicated that the
fishing industry in North Carolina generates approximately two
billion dollars for the State. He reiterated that storm water
runoff does affect shellfish and that coastal land clearing and
drainage are major contributors to runoff.
David Owens, Director of the Coastal Management Division,
identified the problems caused by marinas as a major area of
concern to his division. He indicated that additional study is
needed to isolate the problems caused by marinas and to develop
solutions to those problems. He also indicated that there is
disagreement as to the appropriate definition of "marina".
Robert Benton, Supervisor, Shellfish Sanitation Division of the
Department of Human Resources, discussed the role of that division
in protecting water quality. The Shellfish Sanitation Branch
adopts rules for the sanitary control of shellfish, classifies
shellfish growing areas, inspects plants, samples areas, and
checks for fecal coliform which is an indicator of possible sewage
contamination. He also discussed water quality problems caused by
sanitation and drainage problems.
The Committee conducted the last part of the meeting as a
forum for members of the public to indicate specific concerns
about coastal water quality. Those addressing the Committee
represented a wide variety of interests and backgrounds and called
attention again to the complexity of the problems facing the
Committee. A list of the speakers is included in the appendices
7
of this report.
At its second meeting, the Committee focused on federal
regulations affecting water quality classifications and standards,
the "Critical Area Management Plan" recently adopted by the state
of Maryland to address water pollution problems in the Chesapeake
Bay, further explanation of the details of North Carolina's water
classification system, and two proposals to adopt new water
quality classifications and standards for North Carolina.
Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency
(Region IV) outlined the federal laws and regulations that apply
to water quality protection. The primary goal of the Clean Water
Act is to assure that water quality provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the waters. The Act includes minimum
treatment requirements to which all source points must adhere.
The water quality section of the Act was explained in detail
to the Committee.
The term "water quality standards" refers to the use of
waters and the criteria developed to protect that designated use
of the waters. Frequently, water quality standards reflect the
goal of a body of water and are not really a description of the
body's current water quality.
The antidegradat ion policy is also part of the water quality
standards. This policy protects the quality of waters classified
at a certain level by prohibiting uses of the water that would
lower the quality below the standards that define the water's
present classification. States are required under the federal
regulations to adopt ant id egradat ion policies and to identify
methods for implementing the policy.
Another aspect of the classification process mandated by
federal law is that state water classifications and water quality
standards must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
(E.P.A.). Once E.P.A. approval is received, state standards
become the accepted federal standards for that state and are
enforceable at both state and federal levels. If the state
standards are not approved by E.P.A. , then E.P.A. will promulgate
water quality standards as needed for a state.
A second point to this process is that once state standards
receive E.P.A. approval, any revision of the standards must also
receive E.P.A. approval. Federal regulations require public
notice and public hearings prior to revisions of water
classifications or standards.
Although revisions to water classifications and standards
that would lower the existing classifications or standards are
generally prohibited by E.P.A., there are six criteria under which
E.P.A. will allow waters to be classified at a lower use. Those
criteria follow:
(1) A naturally occurring pollutant or condition prevents
the attainment of a designated use;
(2) Natural, ephimeral, intermittent flow conditions
prevent the attainment of the use;
(3) Human conditions or sources of pollutant prevent
the attainment of the use and correcting these
conditions or sources would cause more damage to
the environment;
(4) Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic
- 9
modifications preclude the attainment of the use;
(5) Physical conditions related to the natural features
of the water body preclude the use; or
(6) Widespreaad economic and social impacts would result
from cleaning up an existing source of pollution.
However, a state may not remove a designated use from a body of
water if the use can be attained by implementing cost effective
and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source
control .
Responding to questions from the Committee members, speakers
advised the Committee that storm water runoff is a threat to water
uses and that states are required to develop policies to deal with
nonpoint sources.
After lunch, the Committee heard a detailed presentation on
the Critical Area Program in Maryland. The plan has the following
goals: to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, upgrade sewage treatment
plants, remove nutrients from the water, construct hatcheries,
plant shelves, develop storm water management and sediment control
plans, expand forest management, and identify watersheds
that should receive priority for best management practices on
farmlands. The program was developed at the state level, but is
applied on a local level. To accomplish the goals enumerated
above, the program mandates low density development and requires
buffers to protect particularly sensitive areas.
During the last part of the meeting, Representatives from the
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development provided
information requested by Committee members at the first meeting
and Committee discussion followed. Senator Marc Basnight proposed
- 10
several ideas for the Committee's consideration: a
reclassification use attainability study, urban runoff study,
mapping of shellfish resources, shellfish enhancement program,
fish hatchery facilities, and stricter controls on septic tank
use .
Mr. Ken Kirk ma n presented two proposals to adopt new water
classifications and water quality standards. One proposal was
prepared by Mr. Kirkman; the other by Ken Stewart, a member of the
North Carolina Alliance for Balanced Coastal Management. Copies
of both proposals appear in Appendix D. The proposals were
discussed. Over the objection of some members, the Committee
voted to endorse the concept of adopting new water classifications
and agreed that the Committee suggest to staff what the several
characteristics of those classifications should be. However, no
specific details were adopted by the Committee.
At the third meeting, the Committee heard comments from five
more speakers and devoted the remaining time to discussion of the
issues .
Remarks addressed to the Committee included further
explanation of conflicts that arise with multiple uses of water,
new designs for building materials to eliminate storm water
runoff, and highway designs being considered by the Department of
Transportation to comply with State storm water regulations.
Recommendations for the Committee's consideration were
presented by the Coastal Federation, the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, and Mr. Ken Kirkman. Copies
of all three sets of proposals appear in Appendices E, F, and G.
After consideration of all the proposals and some discussion, a
- 11
majority of the Committee voted to adopt in concept those
recommendations proposed by Mr. Kirkman. Two members expressed
reservations about the proposals and voted against the Committee's
motion .
A final recommendation presented by Mr. Kirkman to the
Committee was also adopted by a majority of the Committee and is
included in the discussion of the Committee's recommendations
which appears in the "Findings and Recommendations" portion of
this report.
At its fourth and final meeting, the Committee reviewed and
approved this report to the Legislative Research Commission.
12 -
ISSUES AND FINDINGS
The Committee's study of coastal water quality covered a
broad range of issues. Because these issues are interrelated, it
is often difficult to define clearly when consideration of one
issue ends and consideration of a new issue begins. This
difficulty reflects the complexity of the problems addressed by
the Coastal Water Quality Study Committee.
During its study the Committee sifted through complicated
legal discussions, techincal scientific explanations, and
conflicting water use philosophies to determine the appropriate
focus for the Committee's attention. Four main areas of concern
evolved: the appropriate classification of coastal waters and
water quality standards, problems created by storm water runoff
and effective methods of addressing those problems, Statewide
water quality problems that affect coastal waters, and the
enhancement of coastal resources.
The Committee's consideration of the above areas and related
issues follows.
Water quality classifications and standards
The current classification of State coastal waters was
developed and assigned to waters between 1956 and 1963. There are
eight classifications. Four of these classifications are assigned
to nonsaline waters and four of these classifications are assigned
to saline waters. The Committee focused its discussions on the
classifications listed below which are for saline waters:
13 -
Outstanding resource waters: a new category not yet
assigned to any waters;
Class SA: suitable for commercial shellfishing and all
other tidal salt water uses;
Class SB: suitable for swimming and primary recreation
and all class SC uses; and
Class SC: suitable for secondary recreation and fish
propagation.
The Committee heard extensive discussion about whether the
current classification system should be revised. Most people
agreed that modification of the current classification system is
appropriate. The disagreement expressed on this issue pertained
to the degree of modification that is needed and the best method
to develop and assign water classifications and water quality
standards .
To develop a new water classification system for State
coastal waters, requires three main tasks.
(1) A classification series must be developed;
(2) Standards must be established for each
classification to safeguard that classification;
and
(3) Appropriate classifications must be assigned to
segments of marine waters.
14
Generally, classifications reflect the best use that can be
made of a body or segment of water. Because the best use that can
be made of different segments of water varies, classification
schemes have several categories to balance the need for
conflicting usages. Thus, to develop an appropriate classification
series for the State it is necessary to identify the "best use" of
each body or segment of water and to include sufficient categories
in the classification series to differentiate between the
identified uses.
Determinations of the best use of waters (and the assignment
of appropriate classification to those waters) should be based on
use attainability studies and inventories of State shellfish
resources. An additional matter to consider in identifying the
best use of waters is an appropriate definition of the term
"existing shellfish use". As mentioned earlier in this report,
shellfish grounds are a focal point in developing classification
schemes because of their sensitivity to pollution. Thus, a clear
defintion of "existing shellfish use" is essential.
Standards serve as guidelines to to protect the
classifications. The standards indicate physical, chemical, or
biological properties that may threaten the contemplated best use
of the waters. Often, they set the maximum amount of a
potentially harmful property that can be discharged into a body of
water, and not affect the best use of the water. Under federal
regulations, states must also include an antidegradation policy as
part of their water quality standards.
15
Generally it was agreed that the technical aspects of
standards should be developed by those who had the requisite
scientific and technical knowledge. However, two concerns were
addressed with regard to the antidegradation part of the
standards. The terms "existing shellfish use" and "marinas"
should be defined. The reasons for defining the term "existing
shellfish use" have been discussed above. The reason for adopting
a clear definition of "marinas" is also related to shellfish
grounds. A marina is viewed as a potential pollutant if shellfish
waters are located in close proximity to the marina. This is due
in part, to the type of waste that may be discharged into the
water if the boats docked at the marina and the marina itself have
inadequate pollution controls. If an appropriate buffer cannot be
maintained around the marina, the Shellfish Sanitation Branch may
close nearby shellfish grounds based on public health policies.
However, some boats and marinas are equipped with proper pollution
control devices and the threat of pollution posed by these marinas
is limited. The current definition makes no allowance for this
type of distinction among marinas. A more accurate definition
should be considered to make this distinction.
Shellfish grounds are closed by the Secretary of the
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development who acts
upon the recommendation of the Shellfish Sanitation Unit
(Sanitation Branch, Environmental Health Section, Division of
Health Services, Department of Human Resources), which is charged
with monitoring the suitability of shellfish for harvest by
recreational and commercial fishermen. Recommendations by the
16
Shellfish Sanitation Unit for the closure of shellfish grounds are
based on public health policies adopted by the Department of Human
Resources, which are based on guidelines approved by the federal
Food and Drug Administration and the Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Conference. The development of procedures and
guidelines for the closure of shellfish grounds by appropriate
State agencies is needed.
Appropriate assignment of classifications to coastal waters
is essential to the success of a new classification system in
North Carolina. Data from the use attainability study and the
mapping of shellfish resources mentioned earlier will assist in
the proper assignment of classifications to waters.
Storm water standards
Numerous comments and materials on storm water and its effect
on water quality were directed to the Committee. Current
storm water regulations in North Carolina and other states were
studied and storm water management alternatives considered by the
Committee .
The Committee noted that appropriate storm water standards
should be tied to each water classification. (See recommendation
#11 for further clarification.)
Statewide water quality issues
The Committee noted that many water quality problems exist
Statewide. However, many of these problems are addressed by rules
and standards that apply only in the coastal counties. The
- 17
Committee emphasized that the quality of coastal waters is
affected by pollution that originates upstream in waters across
the State as well as pollution originating in coastal counties.
The Committee also indicated that to address water pollution
problems adequately, the same water quality protection standards
should be applied throughout a river basin.
Coastal resource enhancement
The Committee recognized that North Carolina's coastal
resources are irreplacable and deserve both protection and
enhancement. The fishing industry generates approximately two
billion dollars for the State. Additional revenue is produced by
the industries of tourism and development. However, the success
of all of these industries is tied to the natural beauty and the
natural resources of the State. Special efforts should be made to
assure the protection of natural resources and to maintain a
healthy economy.
18
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information, comments, and materials presented
during its meetings, the Committee adopts in concept the following
recommendations .
(1) Direct the Environmental Management Commission to adopt a new
coastal water quality classification system with an adequate
number of categories to differentiate clearly the true "best
and existing uses" of State coastal waters;
(2) Require that all coastal waters be inventoried specifically
for shellfish and for other resource values as required for
reclassification;
(3) Authorize funding for the Division of Environmental
Management to conduct use attainability studies and apply the
new classification system;
(4) Authorize funding for the Division of Marine Fisheries to
conduct an inventory of shellfish and other resource values
of the coastal waters;
(5) Define the term "existing use" for regulatory purposes so
that State agencies can determine if a project violates
antidegradation standards;
(6) Direct that the statutory means for shellfish closures be
examined and require that the appropriate agencies develop
and adopt procedures and guidelines for shellfish area
closures;
19
(7) Authorize funding for the Division of Environmental
Management for a new environmental laboratory with state of
the art water quality testing procedures;
(8) Direct that the standards and procedures currently in use to
protect water quality be evaluated and develop improved tests
and standards as appropriate;
(9) Designate one agency to have the responsibility for coastal
water quality protection;
(10) Authorize additional funding for basin-wide water quality
studies to identify pollution sources and develop appropriate
tools to address them;
(11) Evaluate storm water management alternatives and require that
regulations apply consistently throughout the drainage basin.
Appropriate storm water rules should be applied to each of
the water quality classifications when developed as provided
in Recommendation #1;
(12) Require expeditious permit processing in CAMA and DEM;
(13) Establish mitigation as an acceptable regulatory tool to
offset environmental losses and enhance coastal resources;
(14) Authorize funding for a fish hatchery to enhance fin fish and
shellfish production;
(15) Authorize additional funding for the Division of Marine
Fisheries for the Shellfish Relocation Program;
(16) Authorize additional funding for fisheries research;
(17) Define the term "marinas" for regulatory purposes with a
differentiation between types of marinas;
20
(18) Establish a regulatory and cost-share program to address
water quality cleanup of existing pollution sources with
special emphasis on areas adjacent to shellfish resources;
(19) Zoning or land use planning is an appropriate tool for land
management and may be considered as a management tool for
coastal areas;
(20) Recommend that numerical standards for the Chowan River be
adopted.
(21) Direct that the vertical separation in existing regulations
be studied and appropriate regulations to protect the water
table be considered.
(22) Authorize additional funding to continue this Study Committee
for an additional year;
(23) Recommend that this Committee continue to monitor any action
taken on the above recommendations for the twelve-month
period.
21
APPENDIX A
GfN«Al ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
l^«5 SfSSlON (REGULAR SESSION, 198A)
RATIFIED BILL
CUAPTEB 1014
HOOSE BILL 2055
AM ACT TO HOOIFY THE CUBfiENT OPEBATIOMS AND CAPITAL IHPBOVEHEMTS
APPBOPBI ATIONS FOB MOBTU CABOLINA STATE GOVEBNHENT FOB TBE
1986-87 FISCAL YEAfi, TO AFPfiOPBIATE FUMDS FOB LOCAL NEEDS, AND
10 a&KE OTBEB CHANGES IN THE BOOGET OPEBATION OF TBE STATE.
The General Assenbly of North Carolioa enacts:
PABT I.- APPBOPfilATIONS FOB THE HAIIMDfl ABOONT NECESSABY
Section 1. The appropriations nade in this act, except
the appropriations in Sections 8 through 18 of this act, are for
■ axiaus aoounts necessary to provide the services and accooplish
the purposes described in the budget. Savings shall be effected
where the total aaounts appropriated are not required to perforn
these services and accoaplish these purposes and, except as
allowed by the Executive Budget Act or this act, the savings
shall revert to the appropriate fund at the end of each fiscal
year.
PABT II. CUBBENT OPEBATIONS/GBNEBAL FOND
Sec. 2. The items and amounts appropriated from the
General Fund for the 1986-87 fiscal year in the 1986-87 column of
the schedule in Section 2 of Chapter 479 of the 1985 Session Laws
are repealed, and appropriations from the General Fund for the
maintenance of the State departments, institutions, and agencies
and for other purposes as enumerated are nade for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1987, according to the following schedule:
Current Cper at ions-Gen era! Fund 1986-87
General Assenbly I 14,535,233
Judicial Department 129,816,24^
Department of The Governor 8,725,535
Office of State Budget and Management
fieserve for Grant-in- Aids 1,697,213
Lieutenant Governor's Office 473,834
Department of Secretary of State 1,848,166
Department of State Auditor 11,370,292
Department of State Treasurer 6,455,304
Department of Public Education 2,032,862,775
Department of Justice 37,630,760
Department of Agriculture 30,615,220
A-1
Departaent of labor
Departaeot of Insurance
DepartDeot of AdBinistratioD
Department of Iransportation
01. Public Transportation
02. Aeronautics
03. Aid to fiailroads
lotal Department of Iranspoctation
Departaent of Natural Resources and
COBBunity Development
Departaent of Hasan Resources
01. Alcoholic fiebabilitation
Center- Black Mountain
02. Alcoholic Rehabilitation
Center-Butner
03. Alcoholic Hehabilitation
Center-Greenville
04. N. C. Special Care Center
05. Black Mountain Center
06. DHE- Administration and
Support Proqram
07. School£ for the Ceaf
08. Governor Morehead School
09. Division of Health Services
10. Social Services
11. Medical Assistance
12. Social Services-State Aid
to Non-State Agencies
13. Division of Services for
the Blind
14. Division of dental Health and
Mental fietardation Services
r***"
5,616,103
9,257,802
39,689,329
1,645,000
3,516,571
1,100,000
6,261,571
56,258,159
2,719,270
2,327,619
2,003, 180
3, 146,283
3,775
23,489,971
13, 168, 122
3,847,330
71,323, 104
77,734,525
220,871,223
4,129,646
5,390,994
114, 152,288
House Bill 2055
A-2
council of qovernmont is allocated an aniouut up to fifty-five
thousand dollars ($55,000) with the actual anount calculated as
provided iu subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The funds shall bo allocated as follows: A share
of the maximum fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) shall be
allocated to each county and smaller city based on the 1980
Federal Census population of that county (less the population of
any larger city within that county) or smaller city, divided by
the sum of the total population of the region (less the
population of larger cities within that region) and the total
population of the region living in smaller cities. Population
totals shall be according to the 1980 Federal Census, except to
account for cities incorporated since the return of that census,
and in such case, the most recent annual estimate of the Office
of State Budget and Management shall be used.. Those funds shall
be paid to the regional council of government to which that
county or city belongs upon receipt by the Office of a resolution
of the governing board of the county or city requesting release
of the funds. If any city or county does not so request payment
of funds by June 30, 1987, that share of the allocation shall
revert to the General Fund, .
(c) A council of governments may use funds appropriated
by this section only to assist local governments in grant
applications, economic development, community developnent,
support of local industrial development activities, and other
activities as deemed appropriate by the member governments.
(d) Funds appropriated by this section may not be used
for payment of dues or assessments by the member governments, and
may not supplant funds appropriated by the member governnents.
(e) As used in this section "larger City" means an
incorporated city with a population of 50,000 or over. "Smaller
City" means any other incorporated city.
COASTAL WaTEB QUALITY STUDY
Sec. 152. The Legislative Research Coomission may
perform a comprehensive study and reevaluaticn of coastal water
quality classifications. The Commission may also evaluate
existing and proposed rules of the Environmental Management
Commission, Coastal Besources Commission, the Marine Fisheries
Commission, and any other State agency regarding coastal water
quality. The Commission may report its findings and any
recommended legislation to the 1987 General flssombly.
BEMOVE BESTRICTION ON WILDLIFE BESOUBCES COMMISSION'S OSE OF
SALES Ikl FUNDS
Sec. 153. The second sentence of Section 88(c) of
Chapter 1116 of the 1983 Session Laws, Regular Session 198*4, is
repealed.
PABT XII. AGRICULTURE
BHOILEfi BBBEDEii RESEARCH PROG GAM/TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Sec. 151. Pursuant to G. S. ia6-30, there is transferred
from the Department of Agriculture timber sales capital
improvement account to the Department of Agriculture for the
1986-87 fiscal year the sum of one hundred seventy-five thousand
dollars ($175,000). These funds shall be used to complete the
broiler btoedor rosearch prograo at the Piedmont Research
Station.
House Eill 2055
A-3
APPENDIX B
LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
COASTAL WATER QUALITY
Senator Karc Basnight
Cochairman
P.O. Box 1025
Manteo, N.C. 27954
(919) 473-3474
Rep. Margaret Stamey
Cochairman
6201 Arnold Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
(919) 851-0495
Senator Harold Hardison
1001 W. Vernon Avenue
Kinston, N.C. 28501
(919) 523-C023
Rep. Gerald Anderson
P.O. Box 568
Bridyeton, N.C. 28519
(919) 633-2830
Senator R.C. Soles, Jr.
P.O. Box 6
Tabor City, N.C. 28463
(919) 653-2015
Rep. Allen C. Barbee
Bnrbee Building
Spring Hope, N.C. 27882
(919) 478-5114
Mr. Kenneth M. Kirknian
P.O. Drawer 134 7
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
Rep. Vernon G. James
Route 4, Box 265
Elizabeth City, N.C.
(919) 330-5561
27909
Ms. Karen Gottovi
P.O. Box 501
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
Mr. Justus M. AmiTiOns
140 Ammons Drive
Raleigh, N.C. 27609
(919) 847-5460
Rep. Bruce Ethridge, LRC
P.O. Box 98
Jacksonville, N.C. 28540
(919) 347-9303
Ms. Emily Johnson, Staff Counsel
(919) 733-6660
Ms. Janet Pruitt, Clerk
(919) 733-5880
5-1
APPENDIX C
SPEAKERS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Robert Benton
Supervisor, Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Department of Human Resources
Dan Brock
Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
Mike Corcoran
N.C. Wildlife Federation
Ned Delamar
N.C. Fisheries Association
Glenn Futrell
President, Soil & Material Engineers, Inc.
Tom Herrington
Regional Shellfish Specialist
Federal Food and Drug Administration
W.T. Hogarth
Director, Marine Fisheries Division
Natural Resources & Community Development
Jim Kennedy
North Carolina Coastal Federal
Mike McGhee
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Ken Mitchell
N.C. Home Builders Association
Kent Mitchell
Balhead Island
Lynn Muchmore
Assistant Secretary
Department of Natural Resources & Community Development
Lawrence Neville
Regional Counsel Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Marion Nichol
Conservation Council
C-1
Mike Orbach
Chairman, Marine Science Council
Dave Owens
Director, Coastal Management Division
Natural Resources & Community Development
Ken Stewart
N.C. Alliance for Balanced Coastal Management
Kevin Sullivan
Science Advisor, Maryland Critical Area Commission
Ted Waters
Assistant Highway Administrator
Dept. of Transportation
Paul Wilms
Director, Division of Environmental Management
Natural Resources & Community Development
C-2
APPENDIX D
KENNETH M. KIRKMAN. PA.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
aUITK lOa. PROFKBaiONAl. aulUOINO
7IO AnKNOCl.1. STRCCT
MORKHKAO CITY. NORTVI CAI10I.INA 2aSB7
KCNNCTH M. KIRKMAN
P. O. DRAWKR 1947
JACK w. jKNKiNa (•<» 7aa'a4ii
October 30, 1986
TO: Members of the Legislative Study Commission
on Coastal Water Quality
FROM: Kenneth M. Kirkman
Attached hereto please find a layman's simplistic effort to set
out general parameters of a proposed water reclassification
system. What is proposed is designed to elicit comment and
reaction from the Commission members, which comment and
reaction I would hope could lead to a consensus whereby our
Committee could recommend general parameters of a water
classification system to be implemented in detail by the
appropriate agencies. I think it important that a
classification system be adopted prior to attempting to apply
that classification to particular waters. That is, we need to
come up with a logical approach to the classification, and then
let the various interests struggle to determine the appropriate
classification for each particular body of water. I have
neither the training nor the time to attempt to define a
comprehensive set of categorizations for each classification,
and there are questions I have not dealt with in any way, such
as buffers, coliform or metal standards, and the like. Thus, I
am clearly open to criticism on all counts. Again, however, I
think it most important that this Commission take a leadership
role in formulating logical guidelines for the classification
of the water systems of the coast of North Carolina, and we
need a beginning point to use as a frame of reference in
discussion. What I am suggesting has not been approved by any
interest - developmental, environmental, municipal, or
regulatory. I do think, however, these suggestions can form a
beginning point for our deliberations.
D-1
j UnSlCNATION: tl - Commercial Shellfish
' oheUflsh"' """"■'' '"'' "^^^ ""^ '^ harvesting of con,mercial
INTENT: Exclude other uaas to ths extent Required to insucw
mainten.Tnce of existing water quality, pnd to pirpiuote ipproved
water quality.
DETERMINATION: Baaod upon a positive thjree-fold tqst:
(a) historical use by local) commercial
shellf iahermen ;
(b) scientific analysis concluding that 25 buDhels
per acre of a .ihellfish species io to be anticipated;
(c) acca has 'been closed to shellfishing on the
average of two weeks or less per season for past five (5)
years, or, if closed more frequently, closed due to an
identifiable point source of pollution which can reasonably be
corrected.
STORM WATER: Strictly controlled as to setbacks and adjoining
uses to the extent scientific evidence determines runoff is a
danger to shellf ishing.
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: No sewage outfall allowed;
significant setbacks for septic tanks.
MARINAS: Not allowed.
DESIGNATION: >2 - Recreational Shellfish
DEFINITION: Areas which support a significant shellfish
resource, but which, due to location and historical use pattern
and economic impact should support other uses as well.
INTENT: Regulate uses in and surrounding the area to the
extent that it should be anticipated that temporary closings of
shellfish waters would be infrequent.
DETERMINATION: Based upon a positive three-fold test:
(a) Ili;;torlcal use by shellf ishermen ;
(b) Scientific analysis concluding that loss t^ian 2^
bushes per acre, but more than 10 bushels an acre, is
anticipated;
(c) ALca has been closed to shellfishing on the
average of six (6) weeks or less per season for past five (5)
years, or, it cloaod more frequently, closed due to on
identifiable point source of pollution which can reasonably bo
corrected.
STORM WATER: Six months storm event (designed to protect first
1/2 inch of runoft) plus setback requirements, if any, imposod
based on potential of a particular use to cause harmfull
renof f .
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: No sewage outfall; setbacks for
septic tanks.
MARINAS: Noncommorcial marinas; limited boat sizes; upland
basins only.
D-2
DESIGNATION: {3 - Shellfish Propogation
DEFINITION: Areas from which existing shellfish should be
relocated if possible; human body contact is gpppppriate,
INTENT: The intent to maintain the area as a shellfish
habitat; to not increase pollutants; to allow reasonably
controlled development and alternative uses of the water. This
area should provide the shellfish for relocation into areas 11
and #2.
DETERMINATION: Areas which support shellfish at 10 bushels per
acre or greater, but otherwise do not classify for #1 and #2;
areas which would classify under areas #1 and 12, but due to
scientific analysis would be expected to support less than 10
bushels per acre of shellfish.
STORM WATER: No net increase over that naturally occurring
from within 100 feet.
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: No sewage outfall; septic tank
setbacks.
MARINAS: Noncommercial marinas in upland basins allowed;
small/ noncommercial marinas allowed along shoreline.
DESIGNATION: #4 - Primary Bathing Waters
DEFINITION: Highest and best use is swimming and other body
contact water sports/ and other water related recreational
activities.
INTENT: To maintain a water quality suitable for human
contact. Categories f4 and #5 should be utilized to procure
public access points for water use by the public.
DETERMINATION: (a) Little historical shellfishing use of the
waters for other than very casual shellfishing;
(b) . Historical or expected use by significant
numbers of bathers, recreational participants, and boaters;
(c) An area that tends to have a poor flushing
rate to dissipate potential or existing pollutants.
STORM WATER: No restriction other than buffer.
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: No sewage outfall; septic tank
setbacks.
MARINAS: Noncommercial marinas allowed, either upland or
shoreline .
D-3
DESIGNATION: #5 - Recreational Waters
DEFINITION: Highest and best use is swimming and other body
contact water sportS/ and other water related recreational
activities.
INTENT: To maintain a water quality suitable for human
contact. Categories #4 and #5 should be utilized to procure
public access points for water use by the public
DETERMINATION: (a) Little historical shellfishing use of the
waters for other than very casual shellfishing;
(b) Historical or expected use by significant
numbers of bathers, recreational participants/ and boaters;
(c) Due to good flushing, pollutants are
expected to rapidly dissipate.
STORM WATER: Unrestricted, except for buffer.
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: Treated sewage disposal allowed;
septic tanks allowed outside of buffer.
MARINAS: Noncommercial marinas allowed, either upland or
shoreline.
DESIGNATION: #6 - Fishing
DEFINITION: Highest and best use is nonshellfish propogation,
non-body contact fishing and boating.
INTENT: To maintain water quality suitable to fish
propogation, and to promote the area for boating and fishing.
DETERMINATION: Areas not qualifying under any classification
#1 through #5, and which have historically been used more for
boating and fishing than recreational swimming, water skiing,
or other water sports.
STORM WATER: Unrestricted.
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: Treated sewage outfalls allowed.
Septic systems allowed within reasonable proximity.
MARINAS: Allowed without significant restriction.
D-4
DESIGNATION: >7 - Urban.
DEFINITION: Best use is boatage and drainage bejain.
INTENT: To discourage these areas as a primary use for
shellfishing, water contact sports, or fishing. Not
appropriate areas for acquisition of public access areas.
DETERMINATION: An areas unsuitable for categories #1 through
#6, due to heavy and existing development, or the reasonable
likelihood, based on local zoning and land use plans, that
commercial or industrial development will be located adjacent.
Areas of traditional natural or manmade drainage reception.
Area heavily polluted, with no likelihood of economic cure.
STORM WATER: Unrestricted.
WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGES: Sewage allowed if appropriate
under law; no restrictions on septic tanks.
MARINAS: Allowed without restriction.
D-5
Prepared By Ken Kirkman
WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
#1 Outstanding Resource Waters: Pristine commercial shellfish
waters with 30+ bushels per acre and virtuality no pollution
sources
#2 Shellfish Viable Waters: Recreational and low intensity
commercial quantity with 10+ bushels of shellfish per
acre and limited closings due to pollution
#3 Primary Body Contact Recreational Waters: Waters
intensively used for swimming and other body contact
water sports. Areas may also support some shellfish
resources of a recreational quantity
#4 Multiple Use Waters: Well flushed areas suitable for body
contact recreation, fishing, boating, etc.
#5 Fish Propagation Waters: Finfish and Shellfish propagation
areas suitable for occassional body contact
Sewerage Disposal Stormwater Mgt^ Marinas Agric^ Dr§iD§2§
#1 Not Allowed 10\ Impervious Not Not
All Projects Allowed Allowed
50' Setback
5 yr. Storm
#2 Not Allowed 25X Impervious Private Allowed with
All Projects Upland Filtering or
25' Setback Marinas Treatment
1 yr. Storm Only
#3 Not Allowed 30% Impervious Private Allowed
or Equiv. for or Upland
Major Projects Commercial
#4 Tertiary 30% Impervious Allowed Allowed
Treated on Lots with
Septic System
Major Projects
Only
#5 Secondary No Requirements Allowed Allowed
Treated
* Gov't Cost Share Program to Mitigate Pollution Sources in #1
and #2
♦ Augment Relocation Program for Shellfish from #3, #4, #5 to #1
and #2
D-6
APPENDIX E
LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMISSION
ON COASTAL WATER QUALITY
RESOLUTION
Whereas the 1985 General Assembly established a Legislative Study Conunittee on
Coastal Water Quality; and,
Whereas the Study Committee has held several meetings and received numerous pre-
sentations regarding coastal water quality problems, sources of pollution,
inadequacy of current program and staff, lack of research data, adverse
economic impact on coastal development interests, and problems with the water
classification system and its application; .ind.
Whereas the coastal region is rich in environmental resources which are important
to fishermen, tourists and developers alike; and,
Whereas there are justifiable concerns about declining water quality and adverse
impacts on coastal resources including shellfish, finfish, and human recre-
ational uses; and.
Whereas the State of North Carolina has developed and adopted a water classifica-
tion system with only three categories and applied these categories without
benefit of a comprehensive inventory of coastal resources; and.
Whereas there are many areas that are improperly classified under the present
system; and,
Whereas the State has recently developed and adopted stormwater management regu-
lations and marina rules that are tied to liie current classification system;
and.
Whereas problems with the existing classification system, absence of technical
data to support some of the regulations, anti lack of staff to expeditiously
manage regulatory requirements have resulted in serious problems and objec-
tions from coastal landowners and developers; and,
Whereas environmental protection and economic development must co-exist in the
coastal region in order that our citizens and our future generations may
have a beautiful, healthy, economically stable place to live, work and enjoy;
and.
E-1
Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing,, the Legislative Study Commis-
sion on Coastal Water Quality hereby endorses the submittal of legislation
to the 1986 session of the General Assembly designed to:
1) Adopt a new coastal water quality classllication system with an adequate
number of categories to clearly differentiate the true "best and exist-
ing uses" of our coastal waters,
2) Require that all coastal waters be inventoried for shellfish resources
and appropriately classified consistent with the new system mentioned in
//I above. This reclassification effort is to be completed by July I,
1988,
3) Authorize funding for the Division of Environmental Management to conduct
use attainability studies and apply the new classification system,
4) Authorize funding for the Division of Marine Fisheries to conduct an
inventory of shellfish resources of the State,
5) Define the term "existing shellfish use" for regulatory purposes so that
state agencies can determine if a project violates anti-degradation
standards,
6) Require that the appropriate agencies develop and adopt procedures and
guidelines for shellfish area closures,
7) Authorize funding for the Division of Environmental Management for a new
environmental laboratory with state of the art water quality testing
procedures,
8) Evaluate the standards and procedures currently in use to protect water
quality and develop improved tests and standards as appropriate,
9) Designate one agency with the responsilnlity for coastal water quality
protection;
10) Authorize additional funding for basinwide water quality studies to
identify pollution sources and develop appropriate tools to address
them,
11) Evaluate stormwater management alternatives and require that regulations
apply consistently throughout the drain.ige basin. Appropriate stormwater
rules should be applied to each of llie water quality classifications
identified in //I above.
E-2
12) Authorize additional funding for field regulatory staff and require
expeditious permit processing in CAMA and DEM,
13) Establish mitigation as an acceptable regulatory tool to offset environ-
mental losses and enhance coastal resources,
14) Authorize funding for a fish hatchery lo enhance finfish and shellfish
production,
15) Authorize additional funding for the Division of Marine Fisheries for
the Shellfish Relocation Program,
16) Authorize additional funding for fisheries research,
17) Define the term "marinas" for regulatory purposes with a differentiation
between types of marinas,
18) Establish a regulatory and cost-share program to address water quality
cleanup of existing pollution sources with special emphasis on areas
adjacent to shellfish resources,
19) Authorize additional funding to continue the Legislative Study Commission
on Coastal Water Quality for an additiunal year.
E-3
APPENDIX F
State of North GiiDlina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James C. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
November 18, 1986
The Honorable Marc Basnight
The Honorable Fiargaret Staniey
Members of Coastal Water Quality Legislative Study Commission
Dear Senator Basnight, Representative Stamey, and Members of the
Commission:
At your last meeting you requested that the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development prepare its final
recommendations for the commission's consideration. Our
recommendations include:
(1) the authorization and funding of a reasonable and
effective program of protecting sensitive coastal and
marine resources. This program would have three
components:
(a) shellfish resource mapping by the Division of
Marine Fisheries ($500,000 in 1987-88 and
$250,000 in 1988-89) ;
(b) water reclassification studies by the
Division of Environmental Management
($400,000 in 1987-88 and $300,000 in
1988-89) ; and
(c) urban runoff studies by the Division of
Environmental Management ($200,000 in 1987-88
and $200,000 in 1988-89) .
(2) a legislative recommendation for this department to
provide a new definition and permitting review process
for marinas.
(3) amendment of 143-214.1 (d) to include a conceptual
basis for the classification of coastal waters.
(4) a legislative endorsement of the existing Coastal
Stormwater regulations as adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission.
PC Box 27t>87 Rilci),'h Nonh Carolina 37611 7f>87
An Equal Opponuniry / Attirmanvc Acnon Employer
F-1
Honorable Basnight and Stamey
November 18, 1986
Page 2
A list of questions and answers which address the key
issues raised during your earlier meetings is enclosed, as is a
draft amendment for G.S. 143-214.1 (d) .
The Department appreciates the opportunity to respond to
your request for more information and is ready to answer any
further questions which you might have.
Sincerely,
S. Thomas Rhodes
Enclosure
F-2
"DRAFT" LEGISLATION FORM
1. Proposed Scacuce co be Amended: 143-214. 1(d) Water; water quality
standards and classifications; duties of the Environmental
Management Commission
2. Proposed Change:
The following would be added;
(6) With regard to coastal waters, the factors to be considered
shall include historical use for commercial and recreational
shellfishing, recreation, fish propagation or multiple uses, the
degree to which waters have been closed for specific uses in the
past, and the water's potential use in the future including an
assessment of the existing impact or potential impact of
irretrievable man-induced conditions o'r potential uses.
3. Reason for change: To provide basic concepts and guidance for the
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and
Environmental Management Commission in classifying coastal waters.
4. Fiscal Impact: There will be no specific fiscal impact
associated with this change.
5. Gcher Commencs: (such as iadividuai, groups, legislacors, ecc. who support or
oppose the change)
F-3
NRCD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COASTAL WATER QUALITY
LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMISSION
1. Why is there a need to evaluate the current classifications
of coastal waters?
All waters of the coastal zone were studied and classified
between 1956 and 1963. However, it has recently become apparent
that coastal water quality classifications will only be protected
if the State expands its efforts to address stormwater runoff and
marina development. These new efforts should be balanced by an
updating of the classification system.
2. What steps must be followed to reclassify coastal waters?
The Clean Water Act requires the Governor or the State V7ater
Pollution Control Agency (which is the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development in North Carolina) to
classify and reclassify all waters of the State.
In order to reclassify coastal waters in a relatively short
time frame, the following information is required:
- Identification (mapping) of shellfish resources
and areas to be protected.
- Definition of harvestable resources (based on
knowledge of existing resources) .
- Documentation of bottom substrate characteristics
(i.e., where does suitable bottom exist for
shellfish to be present?)
- Detailed water quality evaluation of areas
marginal for shellf ishing.
- Documentation of water pollution sources and
efforts required to eliminate/minimize the
pollution.
This information will be summarized in use attainability studies.
Any proposed reclassification could only be accomplished after
appropriate public hearings are held.
3. Why must these steps be followed in reclassifying these
coastal waters?
EPA requires a use attainability analysis whenever a change
in classification could result in the loss of a presently
protected use. EPA must review and approve all
reclassifications. If EPA fails to approve the State's proposed
reclassification, EPA must impose their own classification for
the waters.
F-A
4. Who v/ill do the necessary use attainability studies and
shellfish mapping?
The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
will do this work. The Division of Environmental Management will
do the use attainability studies and the Division of Jiarine
Fisheries will conduct the shellfish mapping.
The Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development is committed to the appropriate classification of the
coastal waters of North Carolina. Additional resources on the
order of $1.85 million over a two year period are needed to
properly accomplish this. Shellfish resources areas will be
defined as those areas containing a significant shellfish
resource or that have shown through historical records to be
shellfish producing areas or are considered to have a high
potential for shellfish production. A significant shellfish
resource will be determined by the Marine Fisheries Commission
from data obtained in a directed shellfish bottom survey. Those
species considered will be important to commercial and
recreational shellfishing interests and will include oysters,
hard clams, bay scallops and mussels.
Studies will be conducted concurrently in each of the four
Marine Fisheries districts. The surveys will begin in Dare
County in the Northern district and in significant shellfish
producing areas in the Pamlico, Central and Southern districts.
The Division of Marine Fisheries will study bottom types,
salinity regimes, shellfish concentrations, areas of present and
historical harvest of shellfish and information concerning
shellfishing closures. The Division of Environmental Managements
studies will include bacteriological data, sediment analysis,
water quality sampling and documentation of pollution sources and
efforts required to eliminate/minimize the pollution. With the
necessary resources to study and implement a modified
classifications system, changes can be used to enhance and
protect commercial and recreational shellfishing as well as
provide for balanced resort/recreational development.
5. What would be included in an appropriate classification of
coastal waters?
Two proposals have been put before the Coastal V?ater
Quality Legislative Study Commission, and the proposals both
have very strong points. The proposal with five tiers of
classifications is very similar to the concept presented by
Division of Environmental Management representatives at the first
meeting. An appropriate classification should recognize
outstanding resource waters, shellfishing waters, primary contact
recreational waters and multiple use waters which provide for
finfish and shellfish propagation.
F-5
6. What legislative action is needed?
(1) The authorization and funding of a reasonable and
effective program of protecting sensitive coastal and
marine resources. This program would cost $1.85
million over two years and have three components:
(a) shellfish resource mapping by the Division of
Marine Fisheries ($500,000 in 1987-88 and
$250,000 in 1988-89) ;
(b) water reclassification studies by the Division of
Environmental Management ($400,000 in 1987-88 and
$300,000 in 1988-89); and
(c) urban runoff studies by the Division of
Environmental Management ($200,000 in 1987-88 and
$200,000 in 1988-89) .
(2) A legislative recommendation for this department to
provide a new definition and permitting review process
for marinas. This definition should recognize the number
and type of boats, the design of the facility, the type
of pollution control measures proposed, and potential for
health risks.
(3) The amendment of G.S. 143-214.1 (d) to add the following
concepts for a coastal water quality classification
system:
"(6) With regard to coastal waters, the factors to be
considered shall include historical use for commercial
and recreational shellf ishing , recreation, fish
propagation or multiple uses, the degree to which
waters have been closed for specific uses in the past,
and the water's potential use in the future including
an assessment of the existing impact or potential
impact of irretrievable man-induced conditions or
potential uses."
(4) A legislative endorsement of the existing coastal
stormwater regulations as adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission. These regulations have a one year
sunset provision and will provide protection from
irreversible impacts during this year.
F-6
m
UNITCO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTCaiON AGENCY
\,^ RtGION IV
HfCQURTLANDTTRCtT
»Ti.»i«'»».OlORCIA >»M)
*0V18 1386
rar: 4v*v>iE8/Pv
R. Paul Wilms, Director
DiviBior of Ehvironraental Managenent
North Carolina Departnent o£ Natural
Resources and Oonaffilty tevelopraent
P.O. Bax 27687
Raleigh, fteth Carolirw 27611
Rb: Ititdr Quality Classification Scheoe
Dear I^ul:
In your letter of Msvaober 7, 1986, you rei^L-ested that I respond to the
inplicatlone of adoption of a water quality classification scheme in the
North Carolina General Statutes. You Indicate In your letter that the
proposed classification scheme wuld have criteria associated with each
level of use, but may not provide protection toz the swunable/fishable
goals of the Clean Hater Act (OA).
In advising you I feel it would be useful to discuss four specific
questions:
1. Are there legal/pnxxdural problans in having the State Legislature
adopt classifications/criteria?
Section 303(c)(1) of the Oft authorizes "the Owemor of a state or
the State water Pollution Control Ajency..." to "hold public haarings
(aophasis acbed) for the purpose of reviewing applicable yater
quality standartle and, as appropriate, nodlfying and adopting standards
A classification schesie adopted by the State Lfgislature in the umer
propoMd raises seme legal (3ue3tian3 on consistency with the Oft. It
is also mclear rfiether the public hearing requireaents wuld have
been n»t.
2. Wat Is required for the State to adopt classifications/criteria that do
not achieve the goals of the Oft:
Clearly the RnvlroanGrtal Managatent OcBnlasion in the Departnent of
Natural Rasources and (Xnranity Development cm adopt and revise
classification and criteria for coastal wters. ftowver, ^^enever the
F-7
state designates a classification that dbes not inclixJe uses specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Oft (propagation of fish, shellfish, and
trildlife and recreatior), or »*enever the State wishes to ranove a
designated U9e that is specified in Section 101(a)(2), the State mat
conduct a use attainability andlysis. A use attainability analysis lust
danonstrate that the use is rot feasible for one or more of eix limited
reasons includinq natural oonditiong, hunan caused conditions uhichi
cannot be reniedied, and controls which would r«sult in substantial and
videsproad econcnic and social inpact. (40CFR 131.10)
3. *at laBt Hft do if the State adopts classifications/criteria
inconsistent with the goals of the OR?
If new or revised classifications or criteria are adopted they
oust be subnitted to EPA for approval. If the new classifications
or criteria for particular water bodies are not consistent with
the goals of the OR, ffld if the new classifications are not fully
supported by a use attainability analysis, EK must disapprove the
new classifications and criteria and pranilgate federal stanlaids
to assure oaifilianc* with the OiA.
4. How would this inpact the NPQES petmitting px^n?
The State Agency that has been delegated NFDES permitting authority
■jst issue permits in ooaplianoe with these ETA standards, or EPA
oould rescind delegation and all HPDfS penuts in the State tould
be Issued by EPA.
I tnst these questions and answers are responsive to the issues raised
in your letter. If you would lite to discuss this further feel free to
contact ne.
Sincerely yours.
4
Bruce R. Bfiunett, Director
Vtiter Nanagoaent Division
'■-8
APPRNDIX G
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
Route 5. Box 603 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • 919-393-8185
November 1^, 1986
Senator Marc Basnlght
P.O. Box 1025
Manteo, North Carolina
2795^
Representative Margaret Stamey
6201 Arnold Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 26207
Dear Senator Basnlght and Representative Stamey:
The North Carolina Coastal Federation commends you on your
handling of the Coastal Water Quality Legislative Study
Committee. The speakers to date have provided excellent
general background information on the current threats to
our coastal water resources.
We hope that you will lead the Committee to act diligently
on the Information that has been presented and to provide
the resources necessary to obtain the detailed
technical/scientific data needed to manage our Important
water resources.
The Coastal Federation submits the attached suggested
recommendations and explanations for the Committee's
consideration in developing their final report. The
attachments indicate the key information that we have
obtained from the Committee meetings and provide some
additional information that should be of value to the
Committee.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any
service.
Sincerely,
^T^cf
Todd Miller
Executive Director
Attachment
cc: Representative Bruce Ethridge
Emily Johnson
G-1
SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
COASTAL WATER QUALITY LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
1. RECOMMENDATION: ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF PROGRAMS.
Increased numbers of qualified staff should be
provided to implement and enforce existing environmental
programs .
EXPLANATION:
Degradation of water quality and loss of habitat are
the most significant factors affecting fishery
productivity.
Adequate enforcement of existing environmental
regulations is the single most important step that can be
taken to enhance the fishing industry. Current State
programs do not have adquate personnel to protect water
quality and habitat. More staff is needed to review
permits and, more importantly, to carry out inspections to
assure compliance with permit conditions.
Additional personnel would also reduce the time delays
in processing permits. These delays are a common source
of complaint among permit applicants.
Funds for fishery development will have the greatest,
long-term benefit for the most people if spent
strengthening the existing environmental programs.
Artificial enhancement of fishery productivity will have
no sustained value if water quality and habitat cannot
support commercial species.
(:-2
2. RECOMMENDATION: FINE TUNE CLASSIFICATIONS.
The Environmental Management Commission should develop
a new water quality classification to fine tune the
State's recognition and protection of the uses of the
coastal waters. A classification intermediate between the
current SA ( shellf ishing ) and SB (swimming) should be
considered to provide multiple use waters which do not
receive discharges of sewage. This new classification
could be called SB "protected" or "SBP."
EXPLANATION:
The four current water quality classifications for
marine waters are:
ORW outstanding resource waters
SA shellfishing waters
SB swimming waters
SC fishing and occasional swimming.
Discharges of sewage are prohibited in SA waters but
are allowed in SB and SC waters.
Recently considerable confusion, controversy, and
frustration has occurred because people want certain
waters to have the quality and assured protection that
results from a prohibition on discharges, but they do not
have a shellfish resource present and do not want the full
water quality protection afforded to shellfish waters.
These waters are often adjacent to shellfish waters and
are in need of a higher degree of protection than the
current SB classification provides.
A new classification would resolve this problem.
New classification schemes have been proposed to the
Committee by Ken Stewart of the Alliance for Balanced
Coastal Management (ABCM), an organization of developers,
and by Ken Kirkman, an attorney for developers. Although
these proposed classifications are given different labels,
they are essentially the four existing classifications
with one or two additional intermediate classifications
which prohibit sewage outlets and restrict marinas.
Kirkman proposes two new intermediate classifications with
basically identical protection measures while the ABCM
proposal essentially combines those into one new multi-use
classification. These classifications are summarized in
the table below.
G-3
Current
Class .
ORW
SA
"SBP"
(new)
SB
SC
ABCM Kirkman
#1 ORW #1 CS
#2 SVW #2 RS
#3 PEG #3 SP
#4 PBW
#4 MUW #5 PBW
#5 FPW #6 RW
Use
Exceptional shellfish or
other waters needing
maximum protection.
Commercial and recreational
shellf ishing
Swimming and other uses
with sewage discharges
prohibited.
Swimming with sewage
discharges allowed.
Fishing and some
swimming with sewage
discharges allowed.
Note that Kirkman' s proposed #6 classification would have
waters that apparently are not suitable for any swimming.
This would be counter to the Clean Water Act which
requires that all waters be "fishable and swimmable."
Thus, his #6 classification has been made equivalent to
the current SC classification in the table.
The Environmental Management Commission has authority
to adopt new classifications and will likely recognize the
need for an intermediate classification. Such a new
classification will probably be proposed in the near
future and can be initiated by anyone using a petition for
adoption of rules (N.C.G.S. 150B-16).
This new classification would not be intended to
protect waters for shellfish harvesting. Therefore,
reclassification of SA waters to the new classification
would be a downgrading which must be justified with a use
attainability analysis.
In considering an outline for a classification system,
the Environmental Management Commission should have
authority to quickly develop new classifications that are
found to be necessary. It would be a mistake to require
legislative action for all new classifications as that
would compound the problem of slow State action that has
occurred with the coastal classifications. In most cases,
the Commission has the resources to handle classification
problems. The recent problems with classifications on the
coast have occurred because the Commission did not have
the resources to do the field work that needs to be done.
G-4
The ABCM and Kirkman proposals go beyond outlining
classifications and propose numerical details for
implementing the classifications. Such details are better
left to be developed by the expertise and procedures
existing with the Environmental Management Commission.
The reasons for this include:
A. Extensive review and evaluation of technical
information is required to properly establish the
quantitative criteria. This Committee has not
investigated that technical information nor provided
adequate public participation to establish such
criteria. For example, the most protected
classification in North Carolina should have degrees
of protection more in line with the Maryland
Chesapeake Bay program than the requirements suggested
by ABCM. Also, ABCM proposes that a 1 year design
storm be used for shellfish waters (#2). After
extensive investigations and public discussions, the
Environmental Management Commission has found the two
year storm to be more appropriate given available
information.
The ABCM proposals are also not consistent with the
regulatory framework for protecting water quality.
For example, ABCM proposes to require tertiary
treatment of sewage in classification #4 and secondary
treatment in #5. However, the degree of treatment for
discharges must be determined by a case-by-case waste
load allocation analysis. Secondary treatment will be
inadequate to protect water quality standards in some
cases while tertiary treatment may be unnecessarily
stringent in other cases.
B. The criteria for protecting water quality should be
updated periodically based on new information. The
Clean Water Act requires that the State review and
update the water quality classification system at
least every three years. Detailed criteria fixed in
law do not provide the flexibility that is needed to
carry out such updates and to manage the public
resources .
G-5
3. RECOMMENDATION: SHELLFISH RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION
The State of North Carolina should carry out an
inventory and mapping of shellfish resources and shellfish
areas. The Marine Fisheries Conunission should establish
a panel of scientific experts to evaluate and refine
existing criteria for identifying shellfish areas. The
criteria reconunended by the panel should be adopted in
regulation following the rule-making process. Based on
this criteria, the shellfish resources throughout the
coast should be mapped. This inventory should determine
for each area (a) the existing productivity, (b) the past
productivity, and (c) the potential productivity with
proper management .
EXPLANATION:
Proper management of the State's fishery resources
requires that the amount and location of existing, past,
and potential resources be identified. This basic
resource inventory is necessary to properly manage
shellfish harvesting and to manage environmental
alterations that adversely impact the resources.
The criteria used to identify shellfish resource areas
is crucial. The most complete, current scientific
information available should be used in this criteria.
North Carolina is blessed with many scientific experts in
fisheries biology and ecology. This valuable scientific
resource should be utilized in selecting the criteria.
Since the identification of shellfish areas directly
affects a wide range of the public, particularly the
fisheries and related tourism industries, public awareness
and review of the criteria should be provided. The rule
making process provides the needed public participation.
G-6
4. RECOMMENDATION: USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
Use attainability studies in accordance with federal
rquirements should be carried out in conjunction with the
resource inventory describe in recommendation 3 above to
determine the proper classifications for coastal waters.
The entire coast should be done on a priority basis. The
highest priority should be shared by key waters which are
appropriate to upgrade to outstanding resource
classifications and by key waters which are not
appropriately classified for shellf ishing.
EXPLANATION:
Private and public money is being wasted by legal
actions which have the net result of determining whether
an area is appropriately classified. It would be more
efficient and economical in the long term for the State to
carry out the use attainability studies and to reclassify
where appropriate to properly implement the water quality
protection.
G-7
5. RECOMMENDATION: STORMWATER POLLUTION
Stormwater runoff pollution is a very serious threat
to water quality, fisheries, and the related tourism
industry in North Carolina. State agencies, including the
Environmental Management Commission, the Health Services
Commission, and the Coastal Resources Commission, should
continue to develop adequate, strong controls for
stormwater pollution to protect these essential public
resources and related industries.
EXPLANATION:
Testimony from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, the N.C. Division of Health Services, and the
U.S. EPA uniformly reported that stormwater pollution was
one of the most serious problems for coastal water quality
and related industries.
The experience in Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina
shows that even well planned, low to moderate density
development can cause closure of shellfish waters due to
stormwater pollution. Such low to moderate density
development can maintain water quality if carefully
managed, but is outside the jurisdiction of the current
stormwater program.
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina is spending millions of
dollars attempting to clean up stormwater pollution
problems which threaten public health and their tourism
industry.
The Chesapeake Bay program in Maryland has also found
that stormwater pollution is a serious problem. That
program determined that a 100 foot buffer area and a limit
of 15 percent impervious surface within 1000 feet of the
water was needed to protect water quality in areas with
low levels of development. Engineering controls were
considered to not be sufficiently reliable in these areas.
Growth is encouraged to occur in areas that are already
intensely developed.
In order to supplement the testimony at the Committee
meetings, excerpts of relevant documents are provided as
Attachment A. These documents include a report by DEM on
"Coastal Development and Shellfish Waters," a memo by
Division of Coastal Management staff summarizing some of
the available information on the effects of stormwater,
and the "North Carolina Barrier Islands Wastewater
Management Environmental Impact Statement" by EPA which
concluded, among other things, that:
r,-8
"Degradation of surface water resources by urban
runoff is an increasingly serious problem on barrier
islands. Development has produced documented negative
impacts on shellfish beds bordering several
southeastern barrier islands. In some cases these
impacts, initially attributed to point source
discharges, have been shown to be due to nonpoint
sources . "
Numerous North Carolina experts in various disciplines
have provided comments on the stormwater issue as part of
rule-making hearings by the Environmental Management
Commission and the Coastal Resources Commission. Like the
agencies and States noted above, these experts have
concluded that stormwater is a very serious problem and
that stringent controls over an area of 1000 feet to half
a mile from surface waters is needed. Copies of comments
from North Carolina experts in marine biology, public
health, and environmental engineering are provided as
Attachment B to further supplement the information
provided to the Committee.
G-9
6. RECOMMENDATION: SEPTIC TANKS.
Improperly sited septic tanks significantly contribute
to pollution of coastal waters, particularly shellfish
waters. Increased State oversight of local septic tank
permit programs and greater opportunity for public
scrutiny of septic tank permits is recommended to reduce
the problem of improper issuance of septic tank permits.
Also, the current requirement for a separation between the
nitrification field and the groundwater table is not
adequate to protect shellfish waters. An appropriate
separation for shellfish water should be developed.
EXPLANATION:
Several Committee members and speakers noted that
improperly sited septic tanks are a serious problem in
coastal counties. The improper siting is due to two
causes :
1. Under current practices, local public health
departments sometimes cannot withstand the local
political pressure to issue permit for unsuitable
sites. Local public health personnel may have their
jobs jeopardized if they properly enforce the State
regulations.
Increased State oversight of local programs would help
reduce this problem. A specific program of State
review of a portion of the permits issued by local
health departments would let the local personnel and
those attempting to influence them know that improper
permits could be caught and would result in stiff
enforcement actions. Additional staff in the Division
of Health Services would be needed for such a program.
In addition, the most effective means of reducing
political influence in environmental decision (and in
line with the principles of democracy) is to have an
opportunity for public scrutiny of the agency's
actions. Public notice of applications for permits
would allow the public to more carefully observe the
actions of the local health departments and respond to
any impropriety.
2. The current North Carolina regulations allow septic
tanks to be located at sites with only one foot of
separation between the nitrification field and the
water table. Recent studies have shown that this
distance in not adequate to protect adjacent shellfish
waters. A summary of some of the recent research is
provided as Attachment C (obtained from the "North
Carolina Barrier Islands Wastewater Management
G-10
Environmental Impact Statement").
More appropriate separations are needed for septic
tanks near shellfish waters.
G-11
7. RECOMMENDATION: NUMERICAL NUTRIENT STANDARDS.
In order to force discharges in the State of Virginia
to protect water quality in North Carolina, numerical
water quality standards for nutrients should be adopted
for the Chowan River Basin.
EXPLANATION :
Conunittee members and speakers stated that discharges
of nutrients in Virginia were very significant causes of
pollution to the Chowan River Basin in North Carolina.
The State has been unable to make Virginia control these
discharges .
EPA and the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management both testified that the state of Viriginia
would be required to protect water quality in discharges
to waters flowing to North Carolina if numerical standards
for nutrients were adopted for the Chowan River Basin.
Such standards should be adopted.
G-12
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
G-13
!oastal Development
ind Shellfish Waters
APRIL t985
Divisbn of environmental MonoQement
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REPORT No. 85-05
G-14
INTRODUCTION
North Carolina's coastal areas are rapidly being developed, and
the impacts of this development are reflected in the declining quality
of our coastal waters. The results of a recent study by Drs. Maiolo
and Tschetter at East Carolina University suggest a correlation
between the population increase in nine coastal counties and the acres
of estuarine waters closed to shellfishing from 1950 to 1980 (Maiolo
and Tschetter, 1984) . Both point source and non-point source
pollution contribute to degraded water quality in shellfish areas.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has a
permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants into these
coastal waters from point sources. Discharges from point sources into
SA waters are addressed in the State's classification and water
quality standards (15 NCAC 2B .0212C 3{B}+{C}). This regulation
prohibits the discharge of any sewage into SA waters. The standard
for SA waters for fecal coliform is a median of 14/100 ml. with no
more than 10 percent of the samples exceeding 43/100 ml. No mixing
zone for fecal coliform organisms is allowed in SA waters and the
standard applies during the most unfavorable hydrographic and
pollution conditions. Dischargers existing prior to the
classification of the waters as SA are prohibited from expanding their
facilities. In addition to protecting SA waters from sewage
pollution, this classification prohibits the discharge of Industrial
wastes that are not treated to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Management Commission (in accordance with the requirements of the
Division of Health Services) .
While a comprehensive i^rogram is in place to address point
sources discharges into SA waters, no program exists to address
non-point source discharges into these waters. Significant levels of
contaminants have been attributed to several nonpoint sources in
coastal areas. As coastal development continues, urban runoff will
increasingly affect water quality. High density development with large
areas of Impervious cover will produce larger runoff volumes with
associated pollutant loads. The discharge of sewage wastes from boats
and runoff from development around marinas is also degrading water
quality. The failing of septic tanks due to improper siting and/or
construction has led to the closure of shellfish waters in several
areas along the North Carolina coast. Mitigation practices will be
needed to address all of these pollution sources if coastal shellfish
resources are to be protected.
G-15
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
Constituents of ITrhan .qtormwahpr Runoff
Numerous studies conducted over the last 15 years have
documented the pollution potential of storrawater runoff from
urban areas (Sartor and Boyd 1972, Bryan 1970, NRCD-DEM, 1983).
The most exhaustive effort, funded by the U.S. EPA, was the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (U.S. EPA 1983a) .
This program sponsored comprehensive field studies in 28
cities located nationwide, including Winston-Salem, North
Carolina; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; and Long Island, New
York; which are particularly pertinent to this report and will be
discussed in more detail later.
These NURP studies have not only measured the types and
quantities of pollutants contained in urban runoff, but have also
evaluated receiving water quality and biological impacts caused
by these runoff constituents. The effectiveness and cost of a
wide variety of runoff pollution control measures has also been
considered by NURP and other studies (NRCD-DEM 1979, Colston
1974, Field et al. 1977, and Amy et al . 1974). In addition,
desk-top and complex computer models have been developed by
federal, state and local agencies, as well as private and
academic research institutions, which predict the quantity and
quality of urban stormwater runoff and its effect on receiving
waters (Huber et al. 1975, Proctor and Redfern 1976 and 1976a,
U.S. Army Corps of Eng. 1977) .
Pollutant types in urban runoff and their predominant sources
are summarized in Table 1. It is quite clear that all pollutant
categories are prevalent in runoff from all major urban land use
types and that the sources of these pollutants are quite diverse.
Loading rates which can be expected as a result of stormwater
washoff of these pollutants are summarized in Table 2 as a
function of urban land use categories. EPA recommends the use of
these numbers for planning purposes. Extensive statistical
analysis of these data did not show any regional or geographical
trends or relationships, hence the numbers should be valid on a
nationwide basis. Similarly, the "typical" quality of runoff
waters, based on data collected by NURP is shown in Table 3.
Indicator Bacteria and PathQ9ens In Urban Runoff
Although all pollutant types in runoff are of importance in
coastal North Carolina, microorganisms are the most immediate and
apparent concern for shellfish waters. They are of particular
C-16
importance because oysters and clams are known to concentrate
viruses, and hepatitis outbreaks have been traced to consumption
of viius-contaminated shellfieh (Long Island Regional P]anning
Board 1982, pg. C-7) . As a result, the North Carolina Division
of Health Services recommends closure of waters to shellfishing
when median levels of the indicator organism, fecal collform,
exceed 14 organisms per 100 ml (MPN, Method A.l). Fecal coliform
bacteria are not pathogenic, but are derived from the intestines
of warm-blooded animals and have long been used by public health
and pollution control agencies as Indicators of the likely
presence of pathogens.
Data collected by NURP (Table 4) demonstrates that high
concentrations of total and fecal coliforms are contained in
urban runoff. These coliforms can be derived from human
sources such as combined sewer overflows, septic tank leachates
(under high water table conditions) , and illicit sanitary
connections to storm sewers. Several studies have also
shown the source of high numbers of coliforms In runoff from
impervious surfaces (roads and parking lots) to be animals such
as rodents, dogs, cats, birds, and livestock in carrier vehicles
(Moore, Gardner and Assoc, Inc. 1979, Long Island Regional
Planning Board 1982, Olivieri et al . 1977, and Gupta et al.
1981) . The source of indicator bacteria is usually determined by
the relative numbers of fecal coliform (FC) to fecal
streptococcus (FS) organisms. An FC/FS ratio of less than 0.7
suggests that the bacterial source is non-human, while a ratio
greater than 4.0 implicates human sources (a ratio between 0.7
and 4.0 allows no conclusions to be drawn) (Gelldreich and Kenner
1969) .
The presence of human pathogens (bacteria and viruses) in
separate stormwater has been confirmed in two studies (Olivieri
et al. 1977 and Long Island Regional Planning Board 1982) . Both
studies found relatively low concentrations of these pathogens
compared to levels normally found in raw sewage. Although little
is known about the density of various pathogens required to cause
human infection, it is known that theoretically only a single
virus is sufficient. Since shellfish are known to concentrate
viruses, the danger from consumption of raw or partially cooked
shellfish is particularly serious.
It is important to keep in mind that questions of pathogen
occurrence and quantifiable human health hazard with respect to
stormwater and shellfish are for the present, and the forseeable
future, largely academic. The use of coliforms as indicators,
and their Incorporation into water quality standards, is based on
the fact that pathogen determinations are complicated, tedious,
time consuming, and consequently subject to more uncertainty than
coliform determinations which are simple, quick, and accurate
(Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) . Achieving good
quality control across the spectrum of public and private
laboratories which would be performing pathogen determinations
would be extremely difficult. As such, the administrative
convenience of the coliform determination is a compelling reason
G-17
for its present and continued use.
Field Documentahion of Shormwafpr Runoff Impacts
on ShellflKh Waters
One of the most comprehensive programs to evaluate
effects of urban storrowater discharges on shellfish waters was
done by the Long Island Planning Board (1982). This work was
begun under EPA's 208 program and was continued under NURP
(U.S. EPA 1983a). As shown in Table 5, fecal coliform
concentrations in the runoff samples were often very high
(greater than 2000/100 ml in two-thirds of the samples) , and
Salmonella pathogens were detected in one-third of the
samples. In stream and estuary samples, fecal coliform counts
exceeded 2000/100 ml in about 30% of the samples while Salmonella
were detected in 3-5% of the samples.
This study also found that well over 90% of the coliform
loading to Long Island bays was derived from separate stormwater
runoff (illustrated in Table 6 for Suffolk Co.). This has
resulted in closure of major segments of Long Island's shellfish
waters, especially those along the South Shore. Table 7
summarizes these South Shore shellfish area closures. Note that
73.5 percent of the shellfish waters in Nassau County are closed,
13.8% in Suffolk, with an overall South Shore closure of 21.3%.
The density of development in Nassau County is considerably
higher than most of Suffolk County. Nassau County shares its
western county line with New York City. The annual commercial
shellfish harvest along the South Shore was valued at $17.5
million.
Based on fecal coliform to streptococcus ratios, the
coliform loadings were traced to non-human sources. Tlte fecal
coliform loading rates for a 73 acre medium density residential
area (20% impervious cover, average lot size of 7500 sq. ft.)
varied from 4.5 x 107 to 9.7 x 10^ organisms per acre per inch of
rainfall .
Another intensive field monitoring effort in a coastal area
was carried out under both the 208 and NURP programs in
northeastern South Carolina at Myrtle Beach (Moore, Gardner and
Assoc. 1979) . One of the major issues which prompted the Myrtle
Beach studies was public health concern over direct stormwater
runoff discharge to Grand Strand beaches. Early studies had
identified 289 separate and distinct stormwater pipes discharging
directly onto beaches within the city limits, and 120 were
selected for sampling. In the Myrtle Beach area most beach
discharges are derived from areas only several blocks wide along
the Grand Strand. As was shown in Table 4, these storm sewer
discharges had high geometric mean fecal coliform levels,
especially for fhe commercial district.
In a follow-up study, bacterial data were also collected from
the surf, eroded areas between sewer outfalls and the surf ("pipe
streams"), and natural beach pools, all of which were influenced
G-18
by the runoff from the same commercial district listed in Table
4. Data summaries for each of these sample sources compared to
State of South Carolina Standards are given in Tables 8 and 9.
Note that shellfish waters do not exist in the Myrtle Beach area
and the SA standards are used for comparative purposes only. These
data demonstrate that standards for both shellfish protection
(SA) and frequent body contact, i.e. swimming (SB) are frequently
violated as a result of stormwater discharges. Though standards
were frequently violated in the surf, the major public health
concern was related to direct body contact with stormwater
discharges in pipe streams.
It was also concluded in this study that the major source of
conforms in stormwater samples was accumulation on impervious
surfaces; street samples collected during peak tourist season
revealed very high coliform counts. Based on fecal
colif orm/fecal streptococcus (FC/FS) ratios, nonhuman sources
were implicated much more frequently than human sources for wet
weather generated conforms for this Myrtle Beach commercial
district.
Another comprehensive field study of stormwater impacts on
shellfish waters was recently done at Hilton Head Island, South
Carolina (Applied Biology, Inc. 1984) , Substantial oyster
growing areas in Lawton Creek, Broad Creek, and Point Comfort
Creek have been closed to shellfishing due to high coliform
levels. Previous studies had suggested that coliform levels
increased during rainfall events, implicating nonpoint sources,
but fecal coliform to fecal streptococcus ratios suggested that
these bacteria were derived from human sources. As a result, a
detailed study to define the sources of conforms, and recommend
a means of abatement, was undertaken. Intensive monitoring of
one watershed (Lawton Canal) revealed three predominant sources
of bacterial contamination:
1. Illicit sanitary waste discharges from two private clubs;
2. Manure from a riding stable; and
3. Septic tanks.
Although this study did not implicate coliform washoff from
Impervious surfaces as the major source in the watershed
investigated, it provided useful insight into nonpoint loadings
in highly developed urban areas. As has been shown in other
urban runoff studies, it is extemely difficult, if not
Impossible, to prevent all sanitary sewage inputs to stormwater
systems in highly developed areas. The obvious inference is that
stormwater control practices will not only mitigate contamination
from non-human sources, but they also provide some degree of
protection from uncontrollable human sanitary sources.
G-19
lUtiQation Practices
There are several general types of practices which can be used
to mitigate the effects of urban runoff pollution. As summarized by
the NURP project four of these are:
1. Detention devices such as dry and wet detention
basins, over-sized drain pipes and catchbasins;
2. Recharge devices such as infiltration pits, trenches
and ponds, open-bottom galleries and catchbasins and
porous pavements;
3. Housekeeping practices such as street sweeping, sidewalk
cleaning, litter containers, catchbasin cleaning,
pet waste cleanup ordinances, etc.; and
4. Other non-structural treatment methods such as grassed
swales and wetland filtering.
Except for housekeeping practices, these mitigation measures are
most effective for new urban developments.
The U.S. EPA has also channeled considerable funding over
the last decade into research and development projects designed
to evaluate structural treatment systems for urban runoff and
combined sewer overflows. These include such devices and
processes as swirl concentrators, dissolved-air flotation,
contact stabilization, sedimentation, screening and high-rate
disinfection. This type of treatment is costly, and the research
was intended to address pollution abatement in existing urban
areas where water quality impacts are severe (Field et ali 1977,
NRCD-DEM 1979) .
The determination of effectiveness and cost of stormwater
management practices which are technically and institutionally
feasible on the local level was one of the main objectives of
NURP. Figure 1 shows the costs and total suspended solids (TSS)
removal effectiveness for wet detention basins as a function of
detention basin size. Note that basins designed with surface
area only 0.5 to 1.0% of the urban drainage area will remove
80-95% of the TSS and that the larger the size of the
development, the lower the unit cost. The Long Island NURP study
showed that wet detention basins are also capable of significant
coliform reduction (more than 90% overall reduction of total and
fecal conforms and fecal streptococcus). Given the high levels of
conforms in untreated runoff (Table 4) even a 90% reduction as a
result of passage through a detention basin might not be
sufficient to prevent water quality violations in poorly flushed
estuarine areas.
Recharge devices were also found by NURP to be a highly
effective means of runoff pollution abatement with no apparent
degradation of groundwater quality. The most extensive study of
groundwater recharge basins was made in the Long Island program.
G-20
J ■»-> . O
-.- c •<-
OJ • — O in
■ — •#-</»
u •>■•-> •■-
•<- -^ <D E
Ol o ■<-
> x: I— -o
U1 Q. C
I- J ro
H3 <-
Ol u -o
S "- C
1. IV
+-> (D I/)
c x:
010.1.
E uy OJ
OJ o -M
> ^ ==
0) -r- C
i I- o
<U .C ■!->
I— CL 1/)
(J to 3
O XI
3 .— 5
x: ••- to •
x: e E E
O) -P o +->
Q. O)
1/) <—
o u
ro <U
O to
t/) 4->
<U U
> .— 3
01 E O
»— -I- 1-
C Q.
C C
TJ ' O
t. ■•-
C Ol ♦->
O *-> l/>
■^ *J 3
♦J -^ X5
<D r- E
4J O
<U • O
Qj fO TJ
> O) C
» <o
OJ
"O Ol •
•I— i — to
to o QJ
"O -r- iJ
O)
• r-
••J
J3 »
a;
to
t-
■ a
<j
C7) O
X
d; -o
i?
<T3 (D O
I/) I — -tJ
CL Ol
1- 3
O) •>- .
Q. E Ol
Q. O I/)
O J- flj
U J= C
« CD
t. OJ E
u
•r- o;
U
■D
f—
TJ C
#t
•r—
C
X)
1- -r-
u
C
ID
■n
af>v»-
c:
,
,
c-
•k *
M
H
>1
ID
1 — l/l
3
I-
Ol .—
*•
•r—
3
4.J
> ITJ
T)
1^
O
to
<o *J
ro
TD
1-
T
s- tu
<U
03
OJ
o
cr> E
— 1
O
t
- o
+J -^ u
I- ■!-> QJ
•r- (o x:
■o >— +-'
3 O
•O E
C 3 "O to
(O u c ♦->
O ID tj
♦J HJ 3
to 3r T3
3 >,«:l O
TD 03 D. l-
5 CL
»-o -
C 03 to C
o o ■— o
•r- I. Ol -^
*-> 3 *->
ID
Qj ID
O I—
to
cn E ^ E
Q) 3 •<- O
> x: o (J
to
3
p. XI -r- ■»->
«^
-dI
to . —
E ID.—
U •— <D
O »- C
s- a» Q
•r- *J E
^ L> ^
O (O ID
oxa
OOl
<- 1/1 o
G-21
CM r—
O ^ .—
G-22
•<- -o a>
■— O) c
•r- en <o
J3 C 1.
rtJ ID
•r- s- x:
I- u
> C -C
o i
+J -r-
C ■•-> •■
> •■- I/O
— -- .— E
c
,
o
to .—
o
ro (D
c
■O I- O
ID
<U O •
OJ
to >4- CM
E
1/1
Qi O O
G-23
O O
O O
o to
o o
o o
• E
cn «/>
r^ ••-
o> c
1— 03
CD
cvj r^ I—
oo
oo
o o
I- o
O •'-
O -tJ
z: fo to
i_ . <u
E 4J 1/) 4J
O C QJ T-
l- Ol r— to
»«- O Q.
c E «♦-
<n o "O o
+-> u ui
ro
■o C i*- o
TJ O C
<_> (U
00 E I- T3
<U <U
.»T3 ^ -r-
CO OJ E **-
CO +-> 3 •'-
CT> x: c o
cn
O)
•r- "o a.
" <U (U t/>
Q. >♦- V-
UJ 5 -r- O
o o >♦-
oo f— O)
Z5 >♦- CL to
to -
E r- O
o .— J- s:
L. ro O LiJ
m o OJ n3
*J 3 -r-
fO OJ I— T3
T3 3 ID 01
q; > c <u
to fo
» 3 •<-
OO ■!->
I c
• r- 0)
I lU "O
1 1- -r-
<_> .— -^
LO ro ,— •
•I— (D to
- +J •<- OJ
x: c <J ct
o oi s-
<0 TJ QJ T3
<u •>- E a»
03 to E X
OJ o •>-
oj o: (_) ac
.— III
•.- in -r-
c -o ■
r— to
z c
0) -i-
(D
E to
-D -r-
C T3
o >*-
ra QJ
•r- O
z:
u
>•
■»-> c
Z 1
dJ ro
E •■-
-<_>
O TS
o 3:
Oi 0)
z: Lij
o z:
lO X3 U "O
G-24
C71
(-
o
m
«♦-
r—
1
o
QJ
o
c
^—
0)
o
-s^
en E
z
e
r~—
D^
ro
fD
S
0£.
1/1
I I I I CM
Oi
>
■r-
1/1
*J
an
•r-
c
1/1
•f—
o
■o
o.
c
»«
Ll.
r~. n ^j- ld LO
T O o o ro
O O O csjosi
OLDLororo csjcnncvi^D i — i— ■ — r— ^ i— oo o^-
01 <—
cr
Ol r—
U IT3
OC •—
l/l
OI
Q.
E
ro
O)
I/O
C71
c
1*-
I?
o
c
o
*"
1 — • — O "a- vx3
OI o
CTlO
o o
O CM O .—
- I o .—
O CM .— O nj
O I O - 1-
CM r— O O dJ
I O »fM >
O CM CM A O
O O
O CM O r—
• I O .—
O CM i — O <T3
O I O - l_
CM . — O O <U
I O 'CM >
O CM CM A O
O O
O CM O .—
» I O r-
O CM >— O 03
O I Ci • J_
CM . — O O (U
I O "CM >
O CM CM A O
O CM I — O IT3
O I O - l-
CM .— O O O)
o o
O CM O ^
» I O .—
O CM . — O IT3
O I O « 1.
CM I— O O 01
I O -CM >
O CM CM A O
(;-25
o
o
O
O
O
o
O
o
o
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
UD
CM
UD
CM
r^
'a-
V£)
CM
r^
■n
m
c
JC.
no
<u
^—
u
ro
(O
• r-
O
;_
OO
+j
c
+J
o
c
<_>
o
(U
a.
>
•
•r-
■n
^ — ^
+J
4_
CM
<D
<o
00
a\
aj
•t
r*
a:
I
o
*»
>i
f—
X)
u.
4-
c
<n
3
<u
O
o
U)
cu
o
m
CO
C71
-ii;
c
^
F
•r-
o
(D
c
•*-
<U
c
i«-
i.
<o
T
+J
^
KO
oo
a.
.— <:«—
r- o
CO <—
cr >,
l/> CO
G-26
Q. <_)|
I
CT» ,—
c
c
'f—
c
ro
lO
^~
di
Ol
L.
3
r—
lO
(O
O
c
r—
o
o
l_
en
01
OJ
a:
+J
03
-o
IS
c
"D
.c
I/)
U)
<♦-
^—
cn
r—
c
,_^
<i:
oo
■o
Ol
QJ
c
*->
• r—
OD
j:
C
1/1
Ol
•r-
■r-
>*-
l/)
r—
<u
r—
Q
(D
-C
^—
OO
(D
■4->
u
O
o
1—
<*-
o .—
(;-27
,
OJ
E
Ol
(O
o
-•-> o|
c
r—
<u
^-^
u
o
s-
o
OJ
^
Q.
A
u
r—
U
+J
c
QJ
03
E
<U
O
y
OJ
O I—
I— Q.
n3
n3
<u
O
CO
<u
<U
l-
-t-"
o
C
T3
o
i~
ra
+->
T3
ITJ
c
r—
(D
o
■•->
1/1
;»
ai
'e
cr>
ID
o
■u o|
c
f—
0)
— ^
o
o
1-
ro
0)
CVJ
o.
A
I- E
o •—
O a.
r— Q.
•— E
-~^ E
^-^ ID
2Z <0
Z 1/1
t^ a. LTt
O Q.
OJ 2:
CT> s: vo
ro
r-- <—
<_> W)
<_) CM
(J o
c
o
C -o
o o
<T3 ^,
l(- •(-
■t-> O
•r- J_
O ro
f— <u
h- CM
O Q.
o
C »t-
>>
<D O
1— <o
ID O
•5 2=
(J 1
OJ a.
<u o
s: z:
U. ro
G-28
4i ON
;* -r
- 4*
U "D
w 0^
(k
o.
z
^uu
<L
'at
?^
o
rC
S
»*
^
o
0- o
CO
03
ro
t-J
'i^^
1-^
1 -^
1 —
1'-
1 —
o a>
O OJ
o a;
O O)
O 0^
o u
o o —
»£> O —
CO o —
00 o ^
o o —
CO o —
O -- Q.
\0 r~ C*
X— a.
ir» ^ ci
r» — C
UJ — c.
o ^ E
^ ^ E
V -~~ E
~-~ E
U1~^ E
« -^ E
o"Sc «!o
vi ^
r ^
(N( I l/l
I l/l
E c
O T
(-> <—
(^ CC
^_J CT*
U Ol
O ^
«_> o
U. r—
L3 r
>/!
"o
o
-^ "D
c^
l/»
^
U TD
K^
i/<
£Z
a*
l»
Oi
IK
E
a>
CO
_J UJ
1^
?
_
i/l
a- E
Of
3
^
C»H
-D o
■^
«l
— o
»*
Z
•4
t<
o
o
o
CT-
CO
\D
u o
u O
C, <T
LJ
1 ^^
E -^
"i — -
"i —
"i-^
"i —
^
o a>
o a*
O Oj
o a.
o <u
o <u
o o —
,x> o —
00 o --
■S^ ■;;
o o —
ss-s.
O -— Cl
03—0.
O — Q.
in ^ ex
r^ ^- Q.
O \ £
^3 ^ E
« -- E
^ E
vO -~. E
«r ~~. E
u- n
U- <D
£ ^
O I i^
'T ;:i «-^
w I 1/1
i: >/i
CNJ I t/1
X »/l
O O
c_) CD
(_> O^
(_j CT^
O ^
(_) O
S r
c
.-
C
^
.^
i
o
u
o
o
>*
Oi
>c
LJ
^
OU
^
a>
o
X
a.
o
X
w
:x
5
3
11
fl*
:x
X
.c *0
o E
_ _
E O
r.7.?
o -o
O <M O
O K
O 0/ O
"£^
01
.0 0/0,
u o.
E
n X
<D O
^Z
5 £ "o
O^ CI
C7> O.
>>
t ,?
E5°
1- o a<
•^ o -
j: o-
o
O M 3
u >.
o o -o
c
>.
CD 1. C^
•n &
W iQ c
u
«
« >< O
Quo
u o
U -D —
G-29
P&SI -
State of North Orolina
Department of Natural Resourxres and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raldgh, North Orolina 27611
James C. Martin, Cov«crr>or David W. O
S. Tlwmas Rhodes, Secrrtary Dirt
August 28, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
FROM: Mell68a McCuIlough
RE: Urban Runoff Impacts and Management Strategies
In recent years we have seen North Carolina's coastal water quality
declining, our fisheries resource suffering, our shellfish resources
being closed because of bacterial contamination and our coastal rivers
green and clogging with algae. McCuIlough (198^) described a declining
water quality trend almost coastvide — especially due to non-point
sources and all under current NC regulations. It is evident that existing
regulations are not adequately protecting our fragile estuarine waters
from the activities taking place adjacent to them.
Consequent to a CRC Water Quality Task Force investigation into the CAMA
mandate to preserve and enhance water quality and a CRAC Roundtable
series for coastal residents on water quality, the CRC planned a water
quality Initiative to address water quality problems of highest concern
to the North Carolina coaat. The water quality issue to be addressed
first was urban runoff. The recent availability of the EPA Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NITRP) results, Chesapeake Bay-related research and
extensive other urban and atormwater runoff studies' results, as well as
feedback from other states about j the efficacy of their programs, provided
a firm Informational base from which to develop the proposed runoff
management strategy.
Hils report will attempt to characterize urban runoff, its Impacts and
land use origins. Various runoff controls will then be described and
their advantages and disadvantages explained — especially with respect
to the coastal situation In North Carolina. Finally, the proposed
regulations will be outlined and the rationale for their selection
PO. bm 376*7. R<k«K North Cuolhu 37«|.76«7 Telephone 9l»733-3393
An Eqial Opportuntty Amrmittvc Action Imtlayrr
detailed.
In a normal hydrologlcal cycle, rainfall water divides Into four general
'compartments". In an undisturbed watershed, evapotrans^ splration
that which Is taken up by vegetation In transpiration and" which evaporates
from land and plant surfaces and returns to the atmosphere ~ accounts
for AOX of the rainfall. Deep Infiltration and shallow Infiltration
each account for 252 of the rainfall. Some of the shallow infiltration
will also recharge surface waters. Only lOZ runs off to nearby creeks,
streams and lakes.
In a developing watershead, impervious surfaces -- pavement and buildings -
cover soils and destroy vegetation that would normally slow and absorb
runoff. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of Increased impervious surfaces
on the volume distribution of water to the four "compartments". The
increased runoff is caused by the quick removal of rainwater from paved
7
m
■i>« i.1. laMlK art 1 ata
•■Mint ^
MUMIt
MMUM ^ ▼■<
■itfuiat in
m
A KM
YlUH
" J
surfaces allowing less evaporation, less vegetation transpiring, and
less soil area for Infllteratlon. Several literature reviews verify
that the volume of runoff Increases significantly with the percentage of
impervious aurface (US EPA, 1983; Klein, 1979, 1985; Metro. Wash. COG,
1979). The diversion of water from Infiltration to runoff has obvious
hydrologlcal Impacts, such as decreasing dry weather stream baseflow,
non-recharge of groundwater, increasing the severity and frequency of
flooding and Increasing channel erosion (Klein, 1979, 1985).
The increase in storvwater runoff volumes Into surface water bodies has
a number of Impacts. In North Carolina estuaries, slugs of freshwater
can act as pollutants, impacting marine organisms using the estuaries as
reproduction and growth habitat (Pate and Jones, 1981). But the Increased
runoff due to Impervious cover also carries a significant Increase in
pollutant Inputs, such as sediments, nutrients, bacteria and toxics
(Klein, 1979; EPA, 1983; Long Island, 1982; Metro. Wash. COG, 1979;
Waccamaw Reg. P.D.C., 1972; Hartigan, 1985).
Klein (1985) cited eight reports which likened urban runoff to row
sewage or secondary treatment plant effluent In terms of pollutant
content. The final NURP report (EPA, 1983) made the some comparison
after calculating loads for several pollutants. The NURP report gives a
general characterisation of the water quality of urban runoff, obtained
by pooling the site data from all sites, which they feel is appropriate
for planning purposes. Pollutant concentrations are given as EMC (event
■ean concentration - the average of all sample measures taken for the
G-31
duration of any one storm event) In Table 1 and compared to North Carolina
water quality standards of SA waters. It Is Important to note that most
pollutant measures are given In concentration, which Is not sensitive to
Conitltucnt
Cv«nt to tv«nt
Variability
In CHC'a
(Co«f Var)
Site M*41«fi CMC
For
NMllan
UftMn Sit*
ror
90th P«rc«ntllc
Urban Slta
MC
Tidal
Saltwacar
Stasdarda
TkS (Bg/l)
•00 ««9/l)
COO (■g/1)
lot. f (a^/))
«ol. r imi/l)
TKN <»9/l»
**3.j"** '■«/*'
Tot. Cu (t(«/l)
Tot. ft AU9/1)
Tot. In <ir9/l)
0.5-1.0
O.S-1.0
O.S-J.O
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
_L
65
0.13
0.12
1.50
0.66
14
144
160
15
140
0.70
0.31
J. SO
1.75
53
350
5O0
Tabla 1. Uatar QuaUcy OiaracCarlaUca of Orbao Runoff and MC Standard*
runoff volume. However, total loads of pollutants are atrongly Influenced
by runoff volume. (US EPA 1983).
The pollutants carried by stormwater are In two fractions — settleable
and dissolved. Pitt and Bozeman (1960) report that most pollutants In
urban runoff are soluble and remain available In the water column.
Among those pollutanta eiq>ected to be attached to particulates (especially
of very small aire) are 95X of lead (Pitt and Boteman, 1980), 83-96X of
petroleum hydrocarbons (Ammon and Field. 1980; Klein, 1985), 25Z of BOD
(biochemical oxygen demand), 33-SOZ of nutrients, 50Z of metals and 7SZ
of pesticide^ (Klein, 1985).
Inert sediments themselves are not a significant urban rxmof f pollutsnt
except In coijstrtictlon phases when sediments can cause Increased turbidity.
change bottom aedlment compoaltlon and bury benthlc (bottom-dwelling)
organlsma (Klein, 1985). An urbanizing waterahed generally loses nine
times as much sediment aa a rural one. An acre under construction may
erode 20,000-40,000 times the amount from an acre of farm or woodland
(Klein, 1979y.
Pollutants vU±ch are aorbed to settleable solids are a significant urban
runoff problem. The solids can settle to estuarlne bottoms where they
arc available to benthlc fish, shellfish and a multitude of lover food
chain organi«8M. Substancea bound to sediments can be released (Klein,
1985) through biological decomposition C*m by microbial action or ingeation
by benthlc invertebrates) or when subjected to higher acid environments
(such aa the :PH gradient from river to estuary). Substances msy also
(;-32
accumulate In the sediments. Comparisons of stream bottom sediments
showed concentrations of lead in urban streams ten times as high as
rural, arsenic nine tines as high, BOD 4.4 times as high, ortho-phosphorus
4.4 times as high, sulfate 33-60 times as high and high molecular
weight hydrocarbons significantly higher (Field and Turkletaub, 1980;
Pitt and Bozeman, 1980). A similar study of heavy metals in North
Carolina showed aluminum in urban stream sediments 13-24 times as high
as in rural, chromium up to three times as high and lead S-20 times as
high (Klein, 1985).
To convey an understanding of the implications of these pollutants*
presence in North Carolina waters, this report will briefly describe
some studies' results on various pollutants.
Bacterial contamination la a aignlficont problem in North Carolina now
because it has resulted in the closure of a significant portion of North
Carolina waters to shellfishlng — over 301 in three of the six major
estuarlne systems (NC DEM, 1984). An EPA survey at Myrtle Beach, SC
recorded concentrations of fecal conforms (an indicator for pathogens)
from urban runoff of 200-163,000 MPN per 100 nl; a mean without extreme
values of 600 per 100 ml (Waccamaw, 1977). (The US FDA standard is a
median of 14 MPN per 100 ml, lOX not to exceed 43). The final NURP
report (US EPA, 1983) described a median fecal coliform EMC of 21,000 in
warm weather urban runoff, 1,000 in cold weather.
There is some argument taking place as to how effective fecsl conforms
are as indicators of pathogen contamination. The Long Island NURP
(1982) felt their fecal coliform/fecal streptococcus ratio was not
conclusive as to whether the bacteria were a human or animal origin.
Quereshi and Dutka (1979) tested three urban sites (two residential, one
commercial) and found bacteria of predominantly non-human origin — but
1/3 of the samples contained pathogens as well. The authors felt a
health risk existed. Klein (1982) in his research review concluded that
pathogens found In urban runoff may cause potential health problems
resulting from body contact with urban atreoas. Since the studies were
of •creams, shellfish inpacts could not be considered. However, the
Long Island NURP (1982) report examined and confirmed that urban runoff
sources of bacteria were the principle contributors to the water column
concentrations chat resulted in closure of ahellflsh beds In a nuid>er of
emba3nBenta. So, while current literature auggests that indicators such
as fecal coliforms may not be useful in Identifying health risks from
urban runoff polluCanCs (US EPA, 1963), Cwo facts remain. First, Chat
pathogens are found In urban runoff and, second, that Chose levels of
fecal conforms found in urban runoff can conCominaCe shellfish beds aC
levels exceeding Che US FDA scondard.
Nutrienc cnrichaenC la anocher major problem on the North Carolina
coasc. The euCrophicatlon problem, denonstrated as Increased algae
blooms in coascal river aysCema, has showed a crend of worsening (McCullough,
1984). Though Che NURP report (US EPA, 1983) opined Chat no general
G-33
assessment of eutrophlcatlon by urban runoff could yet be made, they
recognlted that specific situations have been Identified where urban
runoff is a significant contributor. Klein (1985) found that watershed
urbanization had caused loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus to Increase
by 33X and IIOZ, respectively. The majority of nutrients emanating from
residential land uses, also, are In a dissolved, more available form
(Klein, 1985; Metro. Wash. COG, 1979). Klein (1979) related that mean
total nitrogen exports from urban areas were second only to Intensely
farmed watersheds, phosphorus second only to cleared, unproductive land.
Related to the nutrient problem Is that of oxygen-demanding (BOD) materials,
such as organic matter, that decays and depletes dissolved oxygen (DO)
In the water — severe episodes ending In fish kills. The BOD coitfcent
In urban runoff, equivalent to that In secondary wastewater effluent
(Field and Turkletaub, 1980), contributes about 45Z of the annual load
of oxygen-demanding material (Aomon and Field, 1980) and Is sufficient
to cause low DO problems In receiving waters (Klein, 1985).
Toxic substances are the other major pollutant category of concern for
North Carolina — toxics such ^ heavy metals (lead, chromium, cadmium,
etc.)* petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides (weed killers. Insecticides)
and other substances emanating from vehicles and urban chemical uses.
The final NURP report (US EPA, 1983) described toxic metals as by far
the Bost prevalent EPA priority pollutant constituent of urban runoff.
Those detected most often were copper, lead and zinc — all were found
In at least 90Z of the samples, were the most geographically well-
distributed, and w6re found with the highest concentrations for any
pollutant (reaching maximum concentrations of 100, A60 and 2400 mg/1
respectively). A number of Independent studies also found metals at
much higher concentrations than background, expeclally for shockload
discharges, and at concentrations high enough to Impact aquatic life
(some with maximums 10 times higher than the recommended criteria for
aquatic or marine life) (Ammon and Field, 1980; Klein, 1979, 1985;
Metro. Wash. COG, 1979; Field and Turkletaub, 1980; Pitt and Bozeman,
1980). Another Inorganic chemical of concern Is chlorine. Used to
backwash water treatment plant sand filters and pool filters, and to
disinfect wastewater. It la also very toxic to aquatic life (Klein,
1985) .
Petroleum hydrocarbons comprise about 55X of the 6A00 mg/kg of oil and
grease in strfcet solids (Ammon and Field, 1980) — concentrations In
undiluted runoff are auf flclently high to cause mortality of aquatic
organisms. Such organic chemicals were found less frequently and at
lower concentrations than the inorganics. Of EPA' a 106 priority organic
pollutants, 63 were detected In urban runoff sampling (US EPA, 1983).
Klein (1985) poncluded from hl» reviews that three insecticides —
chlordance, endosulfan, and lindane — pose the greatest threat to water
quality due to urban runoff. Though organlcs in urban runoff exceeded
EPA water quality criteria leas frequently than Inorganicc, two organic*
exceeded the freshwater acute criteria, five the freshwater chronic
criteria and «ix serioualy axcccded the human carcinogenic criteria.
Also, some priority pollutants have criteria balow the level of detection
by standard laboratory aethoda and may be preaent undetected in runoff
•aaplea, as evidenced by one RURP analysis of street aweepinga.
G-34
Klein (1985) noted compounding probleiM to chemical pollutant Inputs.
EPA water quality criteria, developed under alngle-chemlcal laboratory
testing, do not account for chemical synergism (the magnification of
toxicity when two substances are mixed) . This oversight makes It quite
possible that EPA's recommended water quality criteria will not adequately
protect aquatic life when applied to urban runoff. Also, a laboratory-
derived criteria level pollutant may exceed the ability of an organism
to survive When under physiological stress, such as low DO conditions.
The impacts of urban runoff on receiving water quality are very slte-
speclflc. They depend on the type, sire, and hydrology of the water
body, designated beneficial uses and pollutants that affect that use,
urban nmoff characteristics, and amounts of urban runoff dictated by
local rainfall and land use patterns (OS EPA 1983). Since the major
resources in North Carolina estuaries are biological, following are some
examples of biological impacts by urban nmoff pollutants. In three
comparisons of rural and urban stream communities, urban streams exhibited
lower and less stable species diversity. In North Carolina, rural streams
had 3.5 to 9 times as many species aa urban. In a Maryland study of
watersheds, similar save land use, five out of the nine urban streama
were devoid of fish; in three of the four with fish, the dominant species
was a pollution-tolerant one described as "found where no other fish can
live". In the analysis of speclea diversity for this study, Klein
(1979) found a generally direct relationship between the degree of
urbanization Increase and a decrease in fish diversity.
Pollutant loading Is also positively related to the percent imprevious
of urban land (Klein, 1979; Kobriger, et al., 1984; Sartor and Boyd,
1972; Polls and Lanyon, 1980; and Metro. Wash. COG, 1979). — attributable
to higher traffic volume, larger surfaces for deposition and washoff ,
and a higher volume of runoff on a per acre basis. A study by Pitt and
Bozeman (1980) demonstrated that impervious urban land uses constitute
5-20Z of the surface area, but deliver 30-75X of the runoff pollutant
yeild to outfalls, while vacant lots and landscaped areas, 10 and 40Z of
the surface area respectively, only delivers 52 each of the runoff
yeilda to outfalls.
The final NURP report (US EPA, 1983) summarized urban nmoff control
performance characteristics developed by individual NURP projects.
Though not all-inclusive, they did discuss those which were potentially
attractive and practicable at a local level. The types of controls were
grouped into four major categories: detention devices (wet, dry, and
dual purpoae detention basins, oversized drain pipes and catch basins);
recharge devicea (infiltration pits, trenches and ponds, open bottom
catch basins and porous pavements) ; housekeeping practices (street
sweeping, sidewalk cleaning, litter containers) and; other (living
filter approaches — grassed swales, wetlands, etc). This report evaluates
those practices performance (comparing contaiainante in outflow vs
inflow) according to the NURP and other reports, aa well as how each
practice would function ecologically and practicably on the North Carolina
coast.
Detention Devices. These devices contain and detain storawater runoff
letting it discharge at some design rate. Dry ponda, dry between storm
G-35
events, contain the runoff for Boae deslgr stons and release It through
a botton outlet at a aet, usually pre-devcloptoent, rate. Pollutant
removal performance ranges from insignificant to quite poor (US EPA,
1983; Pitt and Bennennan, 1985; Metro. Wash. COG, 1983; Randall, et al.,
1982) — and. In fact, dry ponds can serve as a pollutant source when
flow resuspenda materials deposited previously. (Schuler et al., 1985).
Vet detention baalns maintain a permanent pool of water and have an
outlet designed so a storm's runoff displaces the previous volume — the
storm's residual la retained until the next storm. Wet ponds function
by allowing settling of solids and adsorbed pollutants and allowing
biological activity to reduce soluble nutrients (US EPA, 1983; Randall,
et al., 1982; Pitt and Bennerman, 1985; Metro. Wash. COG, 1983; Schuler,
et al., 1985). Performance characteristics ranged from poor to excellent,
depending on basin size/urban area ratio and storm characteristics (US
EPA, 1983; Randall, 1982; Schuler, et al. , 1985). While performance can
be excellent for settleable pollutants, studies show that settling will
still allow above-criteria levels of pollutants to remain in auspension
(Randall, et al. , 1982). Long Island (1982) reported fecal collform
reductions up to 98Z, with remaining concentrations still 42-2320 MPN/100
b1. Also, Increases (254-366Z) in collform concentrations were also
evidenced while in detention.
Other problems with detention ponds ar« related to the validity of the
"first-flush" effect, maintenance needs and groundwater impacts. Detention
design la based on the first flush concept, that disproportionate shares
of pollutant loads wash out in Initial etorm stages, and that catching
and treating the first small percentage of rxmoff will remove a high
percentage of the pollutant load (URS Research Co. 1974; Hartlgan,
1985). However, reaearch suggests that while this occurs with solids.
It may not for soluble pollutants and it appears not to for bacteria
(Klein, 1985; Quereski and Dutka, 1979). Problems concerning maintenance
and groundwater Impacts will be discussed In the section on recharge
systems.
Infiltration /Recharge Systems. These systeiu are designed to enhance
infiltration, and pollutant removal is in direct proportion to the
nmoff volume Intercepted and recharged — affected by service area and
soil permeability. Pollutant removals of 50-99Z (OS EPA, 1983; Long
Island, 1982; Schuler, et al. , 1985; Metro. Waah. COG, 1983; Chan, et
al., 1982) runoff peak reductions up to 83Z (Field, Masters and Singer,
1982) have been reported. In addition to very effective urban runoff
control, infiltration provides the hydrologic amenity of recharging
groundwater (Schuler, et *1. , 1985; Pitt and Bennerman, 1985).
Ihe two aajoi: concema mentioned for detention ponda are also major
problems with engineered infiltration ayateaa — maintenance and groundwater
lapacta. These sy terns are prone to clog and fill with sediment and, to
function properly, need periodic maintenance. It has been evidenced
that inapection and maintenance of these aysteas Is very difficult and
very often overlooked when a private reaponslbllity (Berg a^d Vllllama,
1982; Wlllla^, 1982; Jonea and Jonea, 1984; Pennell, 1980). Therefore,
unless public maintenance la required, the continued functioning of
theae engineered aystema cannot be auaranteed or expected.
The KURP (EPA, 1983) reports that ooBt pollutants of Importance are
filtered by aoll during Infiltration, though Long Island (1982) questioned
the removal of nitrogen and bacteria. The NURP stated that most pollutants
were intercepted before the Infiltrate reaches groundwater. However,
the NURP test location had at least 20' separation from groundwater,
often aore, and the final report Indicated that findings may not be
applicable at locations with shallow water tables. Others emphasized
this as well (Long Island, 1982; Water Planning Dlv. , 1977; Maryland SWM
Dlv. , 1984). In fact, a Florida researcher studying high water table
Infiltration, noted that pollutant may not be removed by soil filtration,
with resultant deterioration of groundwater or Indirect discharge to
surface water via groundwater (Wanlellsta, 1978).
Housekeeping Practices. Reductions In pollutant concentrations or loads
by street sweeping were not found to exceed 501 — statistically, no
significant decrease (US EPA, 1983; Waccanaw Reg. P.D.C. , 1972). However,
the Baltimore URP Indicated a substantial difference In runoff quality
by maintaining a general level of cleanliness in urban neighborhoods.
Other. With limited data on wetland filtration. It appears that wetlands
may reduce urban runoff pollutant loads, especially sediments, heavy
■etala and nutrients (US EPA, 1983; Assoc, of Bay Area Govts. 1983).
However, there is wide disagreement on the use of wetlands to treat
runoff (C3ian. et al., 1982) — the fate of heavy metals is not known
(Kobrlger, et al. , 1984) and it la questionable how long a wetland can
assimilate nutrients before capacity is reached and a net export begins
(Annon, Huber, and Heaney, 1981; Richardson, 1985).
A number of studies explain how buffers can reduce runoff Impacts.
Vegetative cover reduces rainfall impact and roots consolidate soil
particles and draw out water, decreasing erosion; vegetation reduces
total runoff volume by retarding flow and allowing infiltration; vegetation
and soil microbial processes can serve to remove nutrients (Palfrey and
Bradley, 1982; Maryland SWM Dlv., 1984; Kercher, et al. , 1983; Tollner,
et al., 1976; Schltt, Miller and Coulson, 1982; Pitt and Boseman, 1980).
Removal/ Infiltration efficiency depends on the relative sizes of upland
runoff area, and buffer width, slope, vegetation condition and type,
sediment size, properties of underlying soil, rainfall intensity and
antecedant aoU condltlona (Lowrance, Todd, and Aauasen, 1983; Schultz,
Miller and Coulson, 1982; Pitt and Bozeman, 1980). Buffers also provide
amenities of providing a wet land /upland transition zone and wildlife
habitat (Palfrey and Bradley, 1982). The disadvantage of buffers is the
reduced development density allowed adjacent to the waterway, thereby
generating Ifss development profit.
RecoBBiendatlons for Coastal North Carolina. The final NURP report notes
that, in defining a water quality problem, there must be one of three
Clements •— first, the denial or serious Impairment of beneficial uses;
second, a violation of ambient water quality standards and; third, the /
local perception of a problem. Coastal North Carolina has experienced /
all three and declines are largely attributable to non-point pollutant
sources. To. address those aspects of coastal non-point source pollution
problem which fall under CAHA Jurisdiction. DCM has proposed the following
changes to the estuarlne shoreline AEC regulations:
G-37
o expansion of the AEC to 200' Inland from MHW;
o expansion of the shoreline AEC to Include public trust shorelines;
o establishing a buffer/setbsck requlreinent of 50*, of which 30'
closest to water aust remain In natural vegetation; and
o establish an Impervious surface limit of ISZ for all areas
within the 200* AEC.
In developing an urban runoff management strategy, considering the
drawbacks related earlier for so many of the controls for the high water
tables amd soils of coastal North Carolina, It was decided to take the
advice of Flnnemore (1962), who concluded that the optimal aanagement
program would have three features: 1) the combination of various best
management practices, which together are best suited to local pollutants,
conditions and control objectives; 2) where possible, aeasures shotild
also have uses and benefits beaidea water quality and, 3) that institutional
measures and means should be tailored to support the program objectives
sud the above features. The proposed regulations have these elements.
In examining the explanations for the proposed regulations, it must be
remen&ered that these use standards are not designed so each alone could
address urban runoff. In fact, they could not. The approach is an
integrated one, and the use standards must be evaluated as such. Following
is the rationale for the proposed shoreline AEC use standards.
Extension of AEC Boundariea. In inveatigation of rone of influence
infonaation, it was found that most studies of pollutant origins dealt
with watershed boundaries. By definition, %ihat happens in a watershed
affects downstream because it is connected by streams, channels, and
subsurface flow. And, as Grigg, et al. , (1980) suggested, the need is
to prevent pollutant sources from being hydraulically Interconnected to
surface waters. This vast area would be practicably impossible for an
AEC, however. Of the 16 other coastal states' programs we examined,
specific coastal developaent jurisdictions ranged from 250' from HHW
(ME), to 1000' (MD, MN), the entire coastal area (SC, NJ) or the stste
(PL). They could not provide cone of influence studies upon which these
were baaed.
Buffer atudies were then examined, to see what buffer distances could
prevent urban runoff pollutanta from being hydraulically connected to
the estuary. Palfrey and Bradley (1982) in their review of buffer
atudies recoooended a minisum buffer width of 100' from MHW, 300' to
protect water quality from high nutrient loadinga. Since many of the
coaatal waters are nutrient-aenaltive, and aince many diasolved and
colloidal po^utanta are carried like nutrients, it was decided that
100' would not provide adequate protection. However, the mfndj aoila of
the coaatal area (aave peaty areas) have a high infiltration capacity
«nd very alight slope, making 300' likely to be unnecessary. Given
theae moderating factors, it was decided that 200' from MHW should be a
sufficient atea in which to overview development, provided that development
within that area is kept to «• naar natural nmoff characteflstica as
poasible.
Impervioua Stirface. Evsluatlag sll runoff controls Information, it
appears that engineered detention and infiltration controla to minlolKe
runoff are not aultable for the needa of coaatal North Carolina. Detention
devices cannot remove non-aettllng pollutants. Bacteria, eapeclally,
dlacharged at urban runoff concentrationa, do not die off at a faat
enough rate in saline waters to meet water quality standards (90Z die-
off In 2-4 days, Waccamav Reg. P.D.C., 1972). Recharge devices have
shown a high probability of contaminating high water table groundwaters,
and through novenent, surface waters. Since all data indicate that with
increasing impervious area in a watershed, the volume of runoff and
pollutant load increase proportionally, it logically followed that an
Impervious limit would be the most effective and appropriate neans to
mlnlmlre runoff. Pennell (1980) suggested this strategy as the most
economical and practical control in high water table areas.
Biological assays of streams showed stream impalnpent when stream quality
dropped from good to fair (Klein, 1979). This threshold is reached for
fish species diversity when watershed Impervlousness reaches 12Z. Klein
felt that water quality impairment could be prevented If watershed
imperviousness doesn't exceed 15Z — lOX in more sensitive systems.
When questioned in 1985, Klein (pers. comm. ) stated that further research
had served to verify his 1979 analysis, that the analysis was valid for
estuarine systems and that Impervious cover is perhaps the most Important
control tc urban runoff management. Therefore ISZ is proposed as the
aaxlfflum impervious area allowed.
Buffer. Aa figure 1 shows, 10-20Z paved surface in a watershed results
in a doubling of runoff over natural conditions, from lOZ to 20Z. To
maintain a natural runoff pattern, the extra lOZ could be infiltrated
through a vegetated buffer, adequate to remove any nutrients, bacteria
or pesticides. Palfrey and Bradley (1982) reported sediments removal
efficiencies of bluegraas from 45Z for 15 meters (49.2') to 90Z for 150'
at a 3Z slope. Considering the Integrated approach, there will be a
minimal increase In runoff volume, but solids and soluble pollutants
must all be settled or infiltrated out. If infiltration is maximized in
a smaller area, by restricting soil compaction during construction
(Klein, 1985) and naximizlng vegetation, especially dense vegetation and
trees (Stephenson. 1981; Palfrey and Bradley, 1982 ), a 50' buffer
should be sufficient to maintain a natural runoff pattern and hydraulically
disconnect development in the AEC from the estuary.
Conclusion. Though there have been no NURP-acale studies on urban
runoff pollution in ooaatal North Carolina, the threats to our estuarine
reaources demand immediate action. Waiting for a North Carolina-specific,
conclusive urban runoff study would mean ignoring, for a time, declining
water quality and the loss of yet more estuarine resources. The proposed
regulations are based on the best available information in 1985, an
extenaive review of recent urban runoff studies and the experience of
other atatea.' The information collected was evaluated against the
geologic, hydrologlc and ecologic conditions In coastal North Carolina
and, with the professional Judgement of the DOM, drafted into regulations
which attempt to balance responsible development and the protection of
water quality. While these regulations will not totally eliminate
potential problems, they will permit development which better protects
our waters. iShould future research prove that these proposals are too
conservative lOr too lenient, they may then be revlaed to reflect more
up-to-date Information.
The proposed .regulations cannot, however, addreas all urban runoff /water
G-39
quality problena. The problea of precxlsLlng drainage dltchea emptying
Into the eatuarlea miat be addressed , but many connectlona to these
existing ditches lie outside CAHA's permit authority. The Division
recommends that the Cocaoilsslon alao support the regulation of storni#ater
"^J"*^^°° through NPDES permits for development both Inside and outside
Jurisdiction. To address inputs from upstream, the Commlslon should
support the baalnwlde management concept for regulatory programs through
the state.
G-40
REFERENCES
Amnion, D. and Field, R. 1980. Potential of Urban Stonnwater Inpacta Based on Com-
parative Analysis of Wet and Dry Weather Pollutant Loads in US EPA, 1980.
Ammon, D.C., W.C.Huber, and J.P.Heaney, 1981. Wetlands Use for Water Management In
Florida. ASCE, 107(WR2) :315-327.
Assoc, of Bay Area Govemnents. 1983. San Franciaco Bay Area Govemaental Manaeemen
Plan; Appendix 0: Regional Wetlands Plan for Urban Runoff Treatment. Vol. I&II.
San Francisco, CA.
Berg,V.H. and L.H. Williams. 1982. Institutional Arrangements - Stormwater Managemen
in De Groot, 1982.
Chan.E., T. Burartynaky, N. Hantcsche, Y. Litwln. 1982. Use of Wetlands for Wate-
Pollution Control. EPA 600/2-82-086. Assoc, of Bay Area Governments. Berkley,
CA.
DeGroot, Wllllaa. 1982. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Conference on Stormwater Detention
Facilities ; Planning. Design. Operation and Maintenance. ASCE, NY, NY.
Field, R., B.Maaters aild M. Singer. 1982. Porous Pavement: Research, Development anc
Demonstration. ASCE(TE) , 108(3) :244-258.
Field, R. and R. Turkletaub. 1980. Urban Runoff Receiving Water Impacts: Program
Overview and Research Needs in US EPA 1980.
Finnemore, E.J. 1982. iStomwatef Pollution Control: Best Management Practises.
ASCE 108(EE5): 835-851.
Grigg, Neil S., Alfred Duda and John Morris. 1980. Stonnwater Management in Coastal
North Carolina in Ruo, 1980.
Hartigan, John P. 1985. Draft report to the Maryland DNR- Use of Stormwater Infil-
tration Practicea for Water Quality Management; Minimum Criteria and Planning
Guide lines. Maryland DNR - WRA - SSD , Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. Annandale,
VA.
Jonea, J.E. and D.E.Jonea, Jr. 1984. Eaaential Urban Detention Ponding Conaldera-
tlooa. J. Water Resource Planning and Management. 110(4) :A18-A33.
Kercher .William, Jr. . John C. Landon. R. Maaaerelli. 1983.
Graasy Swales Prove Coat-Effective for Water Pollution Control. Public Works,
114:53-54.
Klein, Richard. 1979. Urbanisation and Stream Quality In4>aiment. Water Res. Bull..
15(4) :948-963.
Klein, Richard. 1985. Ef facta of UrbanJgatlon Upon Aquatic Reeourcea. (Unpublished)
Maryland DNR-Tldewater Adminlatration. Annapolis Maryland.
G-41
Kobrlger.N.P.. T.V.Dupuls and W.A.Kreutsberger. 198«. Effects of HlRhway Runoff
on Wetlanda. PrepTed for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Trans-
portation Research Board, National Research Council, Rexnord, EnvlroEnergy
Technology Center, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Kuo, Chin Y. (Ed.) 1980 Proc. of a Nat'l Symposium on Urban Stonnwater Manageinent
in Coastal Areas. Virginia Tech., Blackaburg, VA. June 19-20, 1980. ASCE,
NY, NY.
Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program. Hauppauge, NY.
Lowrance, R.R. , R.L.Todd and L.E.Aanussen. 1983. Waterbome Nutrient Budgets for
the Riparian Zone of an Agricultural Watershed. Acr. Ecosys. Envlr. 10:371-384.
McCullough, M.W. 198A. North Carolina Coastal Water Quality Trends. 1970-198A.
NC-ENRCD-Dlv . of Coastal Mngmt.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Govemnenta. 1979. Land Use Practices for
Clean Water. Appendix B. Metro. Wash. COC - Water Resources Planning Board.
Washington, DC.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Govemnenta. 1983. Urban Runoff in the Wash^
ington Metropolitan Area - Final Report - Washington DC Atea Urban Runoff
Project. Washington, DC.
NC DEM. 1984. Water Quality Progress in North Carolina. 1982-1983 - 305b Report.
NC DNRCD Dlv. of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
Palfrey, Raymond and Earl Bradley, 1982. Natural Buffer Areas Study. M«7l"<l
DNR - Tidewater Administration, Coastal Resources Dlv., Annapolis, no.
Pate, Preston and Robt. Jones, 1981. Effect of Upland Drainage on Estuarlne
Nursery Areas of the Pamlico Sound. NC DNRCD Dlv. of Coastal Mngmt, Dlv.
of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC.
P«mell, A.B. 1980, Retention/Detention Basins In the Coastal Area in Kuo, 1980.
Pitt, R. and R.B«nper»an. 1985. Management Alternatives for Urban Storawater.
Wisconsin DNR, Madison ,WI.
Pitt.R. and M.Boeesum. 1980. Water Quality and Biological Degradation in an Urban
Creek In US EPA, 1980.
Polla.I. and R.Lanyon. 1980. PoUutant Concentrations from Homogenous Und Uses.
ASCE. 106 (EEl>:69-80.
Quere.hi,A.A. and B.J. Dutka. 1979. Microbiological Studies on the Q^f^J^ °J "^"^
Sto^ater Runoff in Southern Ontario, Canada. Water Research, 13.977 985.
Randall.C.W., K.Ellia, T.J.Crltrard and W.P.Knocke. 1982. Urban Runoff Pollutant
Removal by Sedimentation in DeCroot, 1982.
G-42
Richardson, C.J. 1985. Mechanisms Controlling Phosphorus Retention Capacity In
Freshwater Wetlands. Science. 228:U2«-U26.
■♦ ^^— ^-^— —
Sartor, J. D. and C.B.Boyd. 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface ContamJ-
nants. EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS)PB 21A 408). Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Schuler, T. ,R.Maglll, M. P. Sullivan and C.Wlgand. 1985. Comparative Pollutant
Removal Capability. Economics and Phuslcal Suitability of Urban Beet Hanage-
nent Practices In the Washington. DC Metropolitan Area. Presented at Sediment
and Stomwater Management Conference, Salisbury, MD, July 24-26,1985.
Schultt.N.U., D. Miller and M.Coulaon. 1982. Merranac River Greenway Plan- Anticipated
Water Quality Benefits In Kruse, E.G., et al. (Eds) Proc. of a Specialty Con-
ference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil Management. Orlando, FL. ASCE
Steph«tnson,D. 1981. Stomwater Hydrology and Drainage : Developments In Water Sci-
ence, v. 14. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.
Tollner, E.W., B.J.Barfield, C.T.Haan and T.Y.Kao. 1976. Suspended Sediment Filtra-
tion Capacity of Simulated Vegetation. Tranactlons of the A.S.A.E.. 19(11):
678-682.
URS Research Company. 1974. Water Quality Planning for Urban Runoff. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-1846. San Mateo, CA.
US EPA. 1980. Urban Stomwater and Combined Sewer Overflow Impact on Receiving
Water Bodies. Proc. of a Nat'l Conf., Orlando, FL, Nov. 26-27. EPA - 600/
9-80-056.
US EPA. 1983. Resulta of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Vol. I-Final Report.
US nvlronnental Protection Agency, Water Planning Dlv. WH-554, Washington,
DC 20460.
Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council. 1977 208 Areawlde Wastewater
Management Plan - The Intracoastal Waterway . Wgccanaw River and WlnVflh Bav -
Final Rpport Appendix F - Non-Point Source Pollutant Evaluation. Moore ,
Gardner and Associates, Inc. Asheboro, NC.
Wanlellsta.M.P. 1978. Storawater Management: Quantity and Quality. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI.
Water Planning Division, Office of Water Planning and Standards. 1977. Preven-
tative Approaches to Storawater Management. EPA 440/9-77-001. Washington, DC.
Williams, L.H. 1982. Effectiveness of Stormwater Detention iji DeGroot, 1982.
G-43
United stales Region 4 EPA 904/9-84-117
Environmental Protection 345 Cour'land Street, N.E. January 1964 j
Aflency Atlanta, GA 30365 • J
^EPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
North Carolina Barrier Islands
Wastewater Management
G-44
(a) Surface Water
A major Issue of the EIS 1s the Impact of alternative strategies on the
surface waters associated with the North Carolina barrier Islands. It Is
difficult to overemphasize the resource value of the coastal surface waters.
They provide recreational opportunities for boating, swimming and sport fish-
ing. In addition, they support a large commercial fishing industry based on
shellfish and finflsh populations. Another primary consideration is the
importance of the estuarine systems' dynamics and the dependence of many
ocean finfish on the system.
The State of North Carolina has recognized the importance of the coastal
waters near barrier islands by classifying most of them as shellfish waters
(Class SA) and prohibiting the discharge of wastewaters regardless of treat-
ment level. The use of surface discharges is therefore largely restricted on
barrier islands. However, even with the most stringent water use classifica-
tion, there are still major water quality problems in coastal surface waters.
Approximately 46,170 ha (114,000 ac) of shellfish waters within the study
area are currently closed to harvesting. Areas of concern include bacterial
contamination, nutrient levels and heavy metal contamination. However, most
of these problems appear to be generally associated with mainland activities
such as land use changes, specific coastal areas such as marinas or discrete
environmental phenomena such as flocks of migratory waterfowl.
Few cases have been documented of surface water pollution directly attri-
butable to barrier islands wastewater management practices. A study of nu-
trient pollution resulting from man's use of the barrier islands was conduct-
ed at Surf City, North Carolina (EPA 1975, Shiver and Register 1978). The
study concentrated on identifying pollution from septic tanks located on
finger-fill canals. This study found that nitrogen compounds, total phos-
phorus and total organic carbon exceeded background counts in groundwaters
and surface waters in proximity to the septic tanks. Contamination of the
groundwater is attributed to the fact that the septic tank drain field was
placed directly into the aquifer. Little or no separation was found between
the nitrification field and the groundwater tabVe, and adsorption of
nutrients by soil particles was very poor (Shiver 1981).
It is possible that some surface discharges would also occur under the
EIS Strategy. State regulations prohibit discharges to SA waters but do
permit discharges to SC (fishery use) waters where adequate assimilative
capacity can be documented. However, few future point source discharges are
expected since few waters near barrier islands are classified SC. Due to
costs, the number and volume of discharges would also be expected to be few.
Current water quality standards would be expected to be met under all
strategies examined by the EIS.
Degradation of surface water resources by urban runoff is an increasingly
serious problem on barrier islands. Development has produced documented
negative impacts on shellfish beds bordering several southeastern barrier
islands. In some cases these impacts, initially attributed to point source
discharges, have been shown to be due to nonpoint sources. A significant
nearby example is Hilton Head Island, SC (USEPA, Gannett Fleming Corddry and
Carpenter, Inc. and Claude Terry & Associates, Inc., 1981).
C-45
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
G-46
Cov BattRp
Thank you. The next speaker Henry C. Summerson
Henry C. SummersQn/ ShelTfl'sh B 1 o1 og 1 st ." Uh ivers 1tv of N'orth
Carolina'. Morehead Citv. North Carolina (S-3 2)
I'm Hal Summerson. I'm a shellfish biologist with the
University of North Carolina. Institute of Marine Sciences. I've
been working on shellfish biology problems now for six years 1n
Carteret County and I've been Impressed with the gradual
deterioration of water quality here In spite of the relative lack
of Increase In population compared to what I see In the future.
I've also been Impressed with the number of fishermen that I see
moving down from northern states were the water quality has
deteriorated to the point that they can no longer make a living.
I support the proposed regulations 1n order to protect the waters
here. I wish to also point out that even though the situation 1s
not so bad. the waters are closed. We want to protect the waters
prior to their being closed but it's very difficult to go In and
tear down the building that makes the closing necessary. Thank
you .
Cov Batten
Thank you. The next speaker is Dr. Charles Peterson.'
Dr. Charles Peterson.' Professor.' UNC Institute of Mar^n6
Sciences. 'Morehead City. North Carolina (S-33)
I 'm
County f
b 1 ol ogy
of Marin
Marl ne F
profess 1
give you
shellf Is
My t
that sto
potent i a
the wate
probl em
pel 1 utan
sense th
sal In 1 ty
f reshwat
the extr
of exten
estuary,
sea like
the ocea
recreat 1
they now
Charles Peterson,
or ten years . I '
at University of
e Sciences here 1
Isheries Commi s s 1
ona 1 expert 1 se 1 s
my reactions to
h b 1 ol og 1 St .
hinking - In my p
rmwater runoff in
1 for pol 1 ut 1 on a
rs of North Carol
of runoff in cont
ts but the freshw
at these are estu
to which the org
er can change tha
erne 1 f you i nc rea
t you would actua
You would end up
the Amazon where
n and no longer 1
onal cl imbers cou
have .
I've been a resident of Carteret
m a professor of marine sciences and
North Carolina. Chapel Hill's Institute
n Morehead City. I also served on the
on of the state of North Carolina. My
in shellfish biology and I think I'll
these proposals as a professional
rofess
a gre
nd the
1 na an
ami nan
ater 1
a r 1 ne
an i sm
t 1 nc r
se f re
1 ly dr
hav in
the e
n area
Id hav
lona
at p
act
d el
ts t
tsel
wate
a re
edib
shwa
1 ve
g r 1
stua
s wh
e ac
1 op In 1
robl em
ual pol
sewhere
hat we
f can b
rs that
accusto
ly. In
ter run
the est
vers ru
ry 1 s r
ere coa
cess to
on -
In 1
lutl
. N
wou 1
e a
hav
med .
fac
off
uary
nn In
eall
stal
the
there' s
ncreas In
on of sh
ot only
d normal
poll utan
e a cert
Conseg
t you • re
with gre
out of
g right
y offsho
f 1 sherm
resou re
no doubt
g the
ellflsh 1n
Is there a
1 y cons i der
t 1n the
a 1 n
uen tl y . the
pushed to
at enough
the
out to the
re - out in
en and
es that
G-47
Now of coursSf we're not threatened with that at the moment
but there's no question 1n my mind as well that Increasing
Impervious surfaces due to various sources of development
Increases the amount of runoff Into the estuaries and
consequently represent problems which these regulations attempt
to address. I think addressed In a fair and equitable fashion.
I have attended hearings and meetings of the Marines Fisheries
Commission and on the number of occasions In which fishermen from
all over the state have spoken; they speak with a single voice
about one problem and that Is water quality and what we're doing
about water quality.
On
that w
reason
all ov
concer
water
I hope
they a
sett 1 n
bulldl
torn d
h 1 stor
and CO
to pro
woul d
the Ma
e don • t
why I
er the
n and r
qua! 1 ty
that t
re Inde
g some
ng that
own eve
y of CO
nseguen
tect us
threate
r 1 ne
d1 r
appe
Stat
ecog
. I
hese
ed f
Stan
has
n wh
ntin
tly
aga
n ou
s Co
ectl
ar h
e as
n 1 ze
urg
are
air.
da rd
air
en a
ued
some
Inst
r re
mm 1 s
y de
ere
wel
whe
e yo
the
We
s be
eady
sto
deve
req
con
sou r
s 1 on
a 1 w
bef o
1 as
re t
u to
one
cer
cau s
occ
rm d
1 opm
u 1 at
tinu
ces .
we
1th
re y
rec
hel r
con
s th
tain
e as
ured
oes
ent
1 ons
ed d
are u
that
ou to
reat 1
p rob
s 1 der
at yo
1 y ca
you r
are
It fo
that
are
evel o
n f or
1 ssu
day
onal
1 ems
som
u ch
nnot
own
not
r yo
Is n
nece
pmen
tuna
e an
to s
pi a
lie
e re
oose
del
reg
goln
u .
ot g
ssa r
t to
tely
d th
ay t
nner
. T
gu 1 a
bee
ay a
u 1 at
g to
So t
oing
y to
a p
In
at's
hat
s ha
hey
tlon
ause
ny 1
1 ons
be
here
to
be
oint
a po
ano
fish
ve a
lie
s so
I t
onge
sug
aske
•s a
be r
on t
whe
sitl on
ther
ermen
great
with
on and
hink
r 1 n
gest»
d to be
eversed
he book
re we
I urge you to pass the regulations as soon as convenient.' I
think these are gulte fair and are regulations that we can live
with. I also urge you after you pass these to look In to the
Issues of agribusiness and the potential for farm land for
solving pollution of Just this same sort for some of the same
reasons. I don't think this Is an end. I think It's a beginning
but It's a good beginning and I support them. Thank you.
Coy Batten
Thank you
The next speaker Is Mark Hooper,
Mark Hooper. Commercial F 1 sherman . Carteret County Waterman s
Association. $mvrna. North Carolina (5-34)
My name Is Mark Hooper. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of
the Carteret County Watermen's Association. It's a group of 250
fishermen and we all pay $25.00 so that we could have a united
voice. We're disturbed about water quality. If an area Is
closed to shel 1 f 1 sh Inq , we can't work that area. It's Just as
simple as that. Areas that are closed to shellflshinq Increase
1n acreage each year. That's more and more land that's been
denied us to make our llvlnq.
I want to bring up three points. First of all the Division
of Marine Fisheries tells about $7.000»000 annually to the state
(;-4{
Cov Batten
Thank you. The next speaker 1s Tom C. Johnson.
Thomas C. Johnson. Duke Marine Lab. Seauforti North
Caro11na(S-39)
at t
the
here
thin
a re
shel
situ
env 1
with
Inte
both
1 Ike
val u
the
econ
of t
Than
he D
Duke
to
k th
abso
1 f Is
atlo
ronm
one
rest
Sid
to
e of
fish
omy
hese
k yo
uke
Un1
supp
ey • r
1 ute
h qu
n . o
enta
ano
ed 1
es a
subm
ou r
erme
Imp r
kin
u . My
Un 1 vers
ve rs 1 ty
ort the
e as st
1 y cl ea
a1 Ity.
n this
1 Ists a
ther. I
n the e
re very
It that
real e
n are g
ove as
ds of r
name 1
Ity Ma
North
requ 1
ronq a
r on t
I thi
part 1c
nd tho
•d 11k
col oqy
Inter
with
state
o1 nq t
well a
equ 1 at
s To
r 1 ne
Car
atlo
s th
he f
nk t
ul a r
se c
e to
, In
este
p res
Is q
0 qo
s th
1 ons
m John
Labor
ol 1 na
ns as
ey sho
act th
hat we
probl
once rn
suqqe
the e
d 1n t
ervat 1
o1 nq t
up.
e env 1
. I f
son .
ator
Ocea
they
uld
at s
hav
em.
ed a
St t
nv 1 r
he e
on o
o qo
So w
ronm
ully
I«
y an
noq r
• re
be b
torm
e a
Nor
bout
on 1 q
onme
cono
f th
up
e' re
ent
sup
m a Ma
d I'm
aph 1c
writte
ut the
water
kind o
mal 1 y
thee
ht tha
nt and
my of
e en V 1
Just a
qoinq
Improv
port t
rine B
the D1
Consor
n. I
sc 1 en
runoff
f nice
we see
conomy
t we ' r
I'd s
this a
ronmen
s the
to se
e by t
hem .
lol oql st
rector of
1 1 urn . I'm
don't
t1 f 1c data
effects
cl ash Inq
e both
ay that
rea . I'd
t, the
catch of
e the
he passaqe
G-A9
June 1, 1986
Joyce McKenney, M.D., M.P.H.
Box 3431
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina 22710
Mr. Bill Kreutzberger
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Kreutzberger:
I am writing to comment on the proposed regulations for
controlling stormwater pollution on the coast of North Carolina.
Having a B.S. degree in biology and several years research
experience in coastal and estuarine ecology in Washington,
Alaska, and Maryland, prior to obtaining a Masters degree in
Public Health and my M.D., I have serious concerns about the
effect of pollution from uncontrolled development on our
estuarine waters. There is no need for the beautiful estuarine
areas of North Carolina to be degraded and lost to natural uses
as has occurred in some other areas of the country.
It is documented that without proper control, man's impact
on sensitive ecosystems destroys them. We need to take
responsibility for controlling and limiting our impact on
sensitive ecosystems or we will loose them. Careful controls on
development in North Carolina's estuarine waters is essential if
such losses are to be prevented.
Sincerely,
Ju,
M.D. ,
Joyce McKenney M.D., M.P.H.
(;-5U
WILLIAM A PHILLIPS. M D DERM ATOLOGV P A
UtSCAStS Of TMC SKIN
320U OLEANDER DRIVE
WILMINGTON NC 28403
Tf I tt"HONt 763 733 J
May 15, 19 86
Bill Dreutzberger •• , -,','::
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687 ,^^ • :.•
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Dreutzberger:
I am very hopeful and am urging consideration for a strong
storm water control for housing and developments and a serious
consideration of agricultural run offs.
I think the article about the Pamlico in the last N.C. Wild Life
is certainly self ex[5lanatory and those of us who have lived
around the water for a long period of time have witnessed an
accelerating change in the water quality as well as the plant
life.
As a physician I see many patients who use very toxic herbicides
and pestioidet;, are illiterate, and end up with medical problems
directly traceable to the misuse of these products. Surely
we do not have to wait until the wet lands have been so compromised
its become unproductive^as it took so long to establish a relationship
between smoking and lung cancer and thalidamide in the production of
gross genetic defects.
(;-51
In my view changes are being seen along the entire coast that
are currently unexplained, so the only humane approach is strict
containment of any contaminants until long range effects can
be evaluated.
Thank you for your efforts .
Sincerely ,
William A. Phillips. M.D.
WAP/bl
i;-52
Or. Pobert. A. ^arr. Sierra Club, NC (S-80)
I'm a practicing physician In New Hanover
County. Previously I obtained a Master of Science degree In
Oceanography from Morgan State University. I'm familiar with
the scientific opinion of marsh ecosjystoms on both the west and
east coast. I'm also Coastal Watch Chairman for the Cape River
Sierra Club.
The estuaries of coastal North Carolina have been
viable and environmentally stable for thousands of years. Our
ancestors from pre-colonlal times up to the recent past have
traditionally used these areas for non-destructive recreation and
harvesting of seafood resources. Only within the last twenty to
thirty years have 111 advised and short sighted planning boards
and over zealous developers start to build up and destroy these
areas for commercial gain. Once high density, unrestricted
development is allowed, the fragile marsh ecosystem Is destroyed
and our natural heritage of a clean and biologically productive
coast is gone forever.
The Cape Fear Group Sierra Club consisting of 150
environmentally concerned citizens of New Hanover County. Pender
County and Brunswick County strongly support the proposed
stormwater runoff regulations. Specifically our group supports
the one-half mile Jurisdiction zone, stringent controls for high
density and commercial development, proposed criteria for
Impervious coverage, design storms and the rogulrement that
unproven Innovative control measures be shown offectivo prior to
wide spread utilization.
It is important to note that these regulations have been
developed over years of study by concerned and informed marine
scientists. The state environmental commission of Florida.
Georgia. Virginia. Maryland and New Jersey have studied the
problem of stormwater runoff and reached the same conclusion of
marine scientists in North Carolina. Strict regulations must be
implemented and enforced to protect coastal waters from
degradation and permanent destruction. Althiough developers,
lawyers and paid consultants may argue against these regulations.
C-53
the wide spread scientific community on both state and national
levels strongly support the deslqn and absolute need for these
requl at 1 ons .
In conclusion. If we are to protect our natural heritage and
pass on a clean and productive marine environment to our
children, we must act now by supporting these and future
regulations. The traditional use of our coastal waters Is not
for high density developments, strip development and fried
chicken stands. We do not want another Miami Beach, Atlantic
City or Myrtle Beach In North Carolina. Thank you.
C-54
North Carolina
Department of Administration
,.nu-s G. Martin, GcAomcr Office of Marine Affain,
,r,Kc]. Rohrcr, bccrerarv j^^ 5^ ;^93g p, ^X' Nc.l Conoley. Jr.. Direcmr
Mr. Bill Kreutzberger, Supervisor
Classification and Assessment Unit
Water Quality Planning Branch
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Kreutzberger:
At our May 15, 1986, meeting, the NuiLh Carolina Marine Science Council
voted to comixinicate to the Division of Environmental Management our
strong support for the adoption of appropriate, effective stonnwater
runoff regulations.
We realize that such regulation must be tailored to the needs of all users
of the natural environment in North Carolina, and that an effective
regulatory program will involve the cooperation of all parties far beyond
mere adherence to legal standards. The Council is willing to assist in
any way possible with this process.
The Council has not investigated the proposed regulations in detail
because of the excellent analysis and input your Division has ad ready
received from other parties. Therefore, we will not comnent on the
particulars of those proposals.
However, we feel that it is iirperative that appropriate, effective
stormwater runoff controls be inplemented and enforced as soon as
possible. We cormiend you and the Environmental Management Comnission for
the excellent job you have done in preparing the proposed regulations, and
strongly support the adoption of final regulations at the earliest
opportunity.
Sincerely,
Micliael K. Orbach, Chairman ^'^
N. C. Marine Science Council
els
116 West Jones Street • Rjleigh, North Carolina 27611 • Telephone 919-733-2290
Anfc.|uall)pp'»tiiniiv ' Attirmjcivr^iiim fcrnpioytt
October 11, 1985
Mr, David W. Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Coramunity Development
State of North Carolina
P.O. Box 27607
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
In response to your kind letter of September 13th. I'm
pleased to make comments concerning the proposed runoff rules to
be discussed at a public hearing on October 17th, as well as the
draft marina standards.
The principles involved in protecting coastal waters from
degradation apply to both runoff from development and to marinas:
1. Site selection is most important. A fragile or sensitive
site, which impacts on shellfish waters for example, should be
treated very differently than sites that are well flushed and/or
already commercially developed.
2. Engineering measures, whether involving construction
and/or operations, cannot protect nearby waters from the impacts
of development. They might reduce or delay impacts slightly, but
degradation is inevitable.
3. Given that marinas are associated with, and stimulate,
residential and commercial development, marinas should not be
located in areas where shellfish-bearing waters would be
vulnerable. The only suitable sites for marinas would be
adjacent to inlets where vigorous tidal flushing takes place and
in areas already dedicated to heavy commercial development.
(That is why a marina at Beacon's Reach is indefensible.
Adequate sites for marinas exist at Atlantic Beach which would
not harm shellfish waters.)
Continued
(;-56
Mr. David W. Owens October 11, 1985 Page 2
Specifically, with regard to runoff, waters around the flat
lands of the outer banks cannot be served by the measures that
have found application in inland areast detention ponds,
infiltration areas, etc. In coastal areas, runoff cannot be
adequately contained because of the terrain and the nature of the
soils. Accordingly, densities should be limited - say to 10%,
but, in addition, extensive areas need to be dedicated to
nondevelopment. Secondly, regulatory jurisdiction over
development needs to extend much further, because of the easy
groundwater movement, say 1000 feet. As now written, the
proposed regulations for estuarine shorelines would not protect
the coastal waters when all the developable land is developed.
Also, the proposed regulations for marinas need to be more
rigorous if the next generation of North Carolinians, and
visitors to Narth Carolina, are to have use of the fine coastal
water resources of the state.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel A. Okun
Kenan Professor of Environmental
Engineering, Emeritus
DAO/cat
BCC: ^r. Todd Miller
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Route 5 Box 603 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
C-57
D.viJ H. Howell.. P. E.
knvironmmlal hn(*inrrr
491) L«r«nmon< Drivr
R«l<-^k. NoHk CatoLn* 27612
October 15, 1985
Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
I would like to comment on several aspects of proposed regulations
of the Coastal Resources Commission relative to shellfish growing
waters and will not be able to attend the October 17 hearing for
this purpose. Please make this letter part of the hearing record
so that it can be considered by the Commission in the promulgation
of the final regulations.
The inverse relationship between the quality of stormwater runoff
and developmental density of the land has been well documented.
While we don't have all the information we would like to have
relative to alternative site controls and their specific effects,
we do know that increasing density will inevitably decrease water
quality, other things being equal. Density controls, impervious
surface limitations, and vegetative barriers are about the only
ways to deal with the problem.
It is instructive, I believe, to examine how we have dealt with
two different areas of concern in this regard. These include waters
classified for drinking water (A-1) with only disinfection as treat-
ment and the shellfish growing waters (SA) for the raising and
harvesting of shellfish to be eaten raw. In the case of A-1 waters.
State regulations limit such waters to uninhabited watersheds with
restricted human access. A-1 waters must also be disinfected before
consumption. This is in stark contrast to the protection afforded
SA waters. Lands contiguous to shellfish growing areas are being
developed to urban density levels at which bacterial stemdards cannot
possibly be met. The inevitable result will be the closure of ad-
jacent shellfish growing areas as the standards are contravened
and the steady erosion of the shellfish industry in North Carolina.
The sooner we recognize that we can't have unlimited development
and a viable shellfishery side by side, the better off we will be.
To expect to control pollution from surface runoff from urban de-
velopment of 30% of the land area within 75 feet of the shoreline
is to anticipate the impossible. Er^ineering works to control,
treat, and dispose of such waters at a multitude of sites cannot
be expected to be fully reliable even if designed and constructed
C-5!
/
/
to ideal standards because of operational and maintenance problerrs
inherent in such works. The principal line of defense should be
developmental density, impervious surface, and vegetative buffers.
I suggest that the density be reduced from 30% to 10% and the control
perimeter be widened from 75 feet to at least 200 feet. While there
is no assurance that these standards will provide the needed pro-
tection, it is highly unlikely that anything less will. These fig-
ures can later be adjusted upward if justified by actual experience.
I understand the types of economic pressures that must be emerging
in the coastal areas from land speculators and developers. But
local and state governments must understand that they cannot have
their cake and eat it too. The very values that make the coast
attractive for living and recreation are being undermined by
present developmental density and patterns.
I can't overstate the importance of the State facing up to the
realities associated with this problem. It it doesn't, someone
will have a lot of explaining to do in the not too distant future.
CC: Dr. Barber
Dr. Everett
Mr. Miller
Sincerely yours.
OuJ^ //f^^^-^-^^-^^^^
David H. Howells, P.E.
G-59
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
G-60
United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-M-117
Environmental Protection 345 Courlland Street, N.E. January 1964
Agency Atlanta. QA 30365
oEPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
North Carolina Barrier Islands
Wastewater Management
C-bl
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
North Carolina Barrier Island Wastewater Management
Written Comments
Craig Cogger, Ph.D.
Research Associate, On-Slte Waste Management
Soil Science Department
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
August 23, 1983
General Comments
Overall, this environmental Impact statement (EIS) Is thorough, informative,
and well done. The recommended EIS strategy using on-site systems with small
community systems In sensitive or higher-density areas appears to be the best
overall for most of our barrier Islands.
Several of the assumptions and conclusions should be reexamined, however,
to make this EIS a better assesment of the monetary, health, and environmental
costs of waste treatment on the barrier Islands.
Specific Corments
Several specific coiments are described below. Most pertain to
material which appears a number of times in the document, so specific page
references are not given.
1. Separation to Water Table
NC rules require a minimum one- foot ver;tical separation between the bottom
of the absorption area and the seasonally high water table (SHWT). As little
as one foot from the surface to the SHWT can be used with a mound system.
Data we have collected from experiments on West Onslow Beach suggest that a
one-foot separation is not adequate for effluent treatment under barrier
island conditions (See Table 1 in Appendix).
I suggest that the EIS recommend a more conservative two- foot separation. 7
The EIS alrea^ points out that much developable land meets this requirement,
and that alternative systems are available which can be used to increase the
separation to the SHWT. A two- foot separation requirement should not have
a large effect on development.
2. Cost
a. System installation. For low-pressure pipe (LPP) and mound systems, |
absorption areas are more expensive and pumping systems less expensive than
listed in the EIS. Also, in areas where these systems are not widely used o
costs will be much higher, because of a lack of competition and expertise i
among installers. I
G-62
APPENDIX
Table 1. Movement of pollutants into the ground water beneath experimental
septic absorption trenches in a Corolla soil. Hay, 1982 - flay, 1983
Loading
Rate
NHi-N NOvN P
Fecal
Col i forms
Bovine
Enterovirus
mg/L
2-foot separation
MPN/100
<2
7
25
700
3,000
10,000
300,000
ml
PFU/L
Conservative
Normal
Overloaded
<0.5 1.9 0.1
0.6 4.2 0.1
0.8 14.6 1.9
1-foot separation
<1
<1
<1
Conservative
Normal
Overloaded
6.1 0.9 1.5
9.2 1.0 2.8
14.0 2.0 3.9
Septic-tank effluent
29 <0.5 5.6
2.000
3,000
4,000
50,000
G-63
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11