2011
Stateof the
Environment
North Carolina
Report
Enjoy the “goodliest” land, air and water of the Old North State.
North Carolina State of the Environment Report 2011.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Secretary’s Comments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Executive Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Strategic Goals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Environment and Natural Resource Protection Strategies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Pollution Prevention.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Pollution Mitigation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Resource Conservation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Environmental Infrastructure Investment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regulation and Compliance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Environmental Education and Outreach.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Air Quality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Air Monitoring.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Other Air Quality Issues.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Water.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Surface Water.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Groundwater.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Water Quantity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Fish Populations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Beach Water Quality Monitoring.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Current Initiatives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Land.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Mining.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Land Conservation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Land Use Planning.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Land Development and Wetland Impacts Mitigation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Waste Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Brownfields Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Underground Storage Tank Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Solid Waste Generation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Hazardous Waste Management Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Inactive Hazardous Sites.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Emerging Challenges.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Contents
2011
Stateof the
Environment
North Carolina
Report
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Dee Freeman
Secretary
To the citizens of North Carolina:
Our state’s scenic beauty and abundant natural resources have atracted new residents, new companies and tourists
to our mountains, coastal areas and piedmont for many years. Though we all must share the responsibility of
managing, protecting and conserving a high quality environment in North Carolina, the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) strives to lead eforts to conserve and protect these natural resources, and to
continue our state’s tradition of ensuring clean air, clean water and abundant natural spaces for the enjoyment and
recreation of citizens and visitors alike.
The 2011 edition of the State of the Environment Report highlights DENR’s strategic goals; the protection strategies
the department uses to atain these goals and thus atain a healthy, vibrant environment in North Carolina; and
data and trends (where available) to help quantify the status of the state’s air quality, water resources and land
resources. The report also discusses emerging challenges as the department faces its vision of securing the future
of a cleaner environment, sustained natural resources, healthier lives and a stronger economy.
DENR’s mission is to conserve and protect North Carolina’s natural resources and to maintain an environment of
high quality by providing valuable services that consistently support and benefit the health and economic well-being
of all citizens of our state. Governor Perdue, the department and I believe that a clean environment lends
itself to a thriving economy, and trust that our protection and conservation eforts over the years and into the
future – in combination with the eforts of our partners and all of you – will continue to enable North Carolinians,
businesses and visitors alike to enjoy the “goodliest” land, air and water of the Old North State.
Sincerely,
Dee Freeman
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919-707-8622 \ FAX: 919-707-8625 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity \ Affi rmative Action Employer – 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
One
North Carolina
Naturally
North Carolina is a large and diverse state rich in resources, from its people and vibrant cultural institutions to its natural resources.
4
Executive Summary
North Carolina is a large and diverse state rich in resources, from its people and vibrant cultural institutions to its
natural resources. This report is a science-based review of the state’s air, water and land resources. This document
also fulfills the requirements of G.S. 143B 279.5 by evaluating the quality of the state’s environment and describing
the department’s eforts to protect the state’s natural resources.  The report identifies both current and emerging
environmental issues facing the state.
Much of the information presented in this report documents noteworthy
progress in addressing past environmental challenges.  For example, the
state’s environmental protection programs have resulted in significant
improvements in air quality and water quality; those improvements are
reflected by a number of the environmental indicators presented in the
report.
Air quality in North Carolina has improved substantially since the 1980s.
As a result of eforts at the federal, state and local levels – and with the
cooperation of business and industry – the state has taken significant
steps to reduce ozone and particle pollution. Additional reductions are
expected as industries and motor vehicles meet more stringent federal
air quality standards. The state has also achieved significant reductions
in the emission of toxic air pollutants in recent years. New federal
standards, including some still in development, represent the most
significant emerging issue for the Division of Air Quality. Implementation
of stricter standards requires additional program resources at the state level and meeting those standards becomes
a greater challenge as the state’s population increases.
The majority of the state’s lakes, streams, and rivers have good water quality. Those waters support fisheries
and fish habitats, provide drinking water and allow a number of recreational uses. However, about 40 percent
of the state’s waters have impaired water quality. Mercury, bacteria and large amounts of sediment are among
the major causes of water quality impairment in the state.  In some areas, excess nutrients (primarily nitrogen
and phosphorus) have threatened water quality in both rivers and water supply reservoirs. The state has made
significant progress in addressing nutrient pollution; nutrient management strategies for the Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico river basins have been successful in reducing fish kills and noxious algal blooms. Similar strategies have
more recently been developed for the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake water supply reservoirs. Recent accomplishments
related to water supply include the development of local water shortage response plans to improve the state’s
5
drought response; recovery of the aquifers in the Central Coastal Plain;
increased collection of groundwater data; and development of water supply
models for most of the 17 major river basins.
The state continues to face a number of challenges, however.  Over the last
decade, rapid population growth and development in some parts of the state
put additional stress on water bodies and other sensitive natural areas.  The
state will need to maintain strong sedimentation and water quality programs
to realize the benefits of growth without puting drinking water supplies,
fisheries and wildlife habitat at risk.  Growth (of both cars and people) in the
state’s urban and suburban counties will also make atainment of stricter air
quality standards an ongoing challenge.
After a decade of strong growth, the rate of land conservation has declined
since 2009.   However, the state continues to work on protection of key
parcels, focusing on acquisition of lands that are critical for water quality
protection, wildlife habitat, recreation, agriculture and military activities.
The North Carolina state parks system manages more than 213,000 acres,
including 35 state parks, four recreation areas and a system of state natural
areas. Since 1994, the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) has been
used to acquire 18,622 acres of land for state parks. PARTF also collaborated
with other funding agencies to preserve an additional 37,616 acres.
The state has continued to make progress in cleaning up contaminated
properties and in helping to provide alternative water supply where drinking
water wells have been contaminated.  Progress in some programs continues
to be slow, however, because of limited resources. In the most recent federal
fiscal year, the N.C. Brownfields program received 45 proposals for voluntary
cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites across the state – a 25 percent increase over the previous year.
The state’s Inactive Hazardous Sites program continues to focus on the more than 2,000 sites with hazardous
contamination and the highest level of risk.
Since 1988, more than 17,730 petroleum-leaking underground storage tank (UST) releases have been assessed
and remediated. Approximately 7,770 additional releases still need to be cleaned up and several hundred new
UST releases are reported every year (more than 700 in 2010-2011).  Progress toward cleaning up and closing out
intermediate and low-risk UST sites has been slow in recent years because the commercial and noncommercial
UST trust funds (which reimburse for cleanup of UST sites) do not receive suficient revenue to reimburse for all of
the cleanup work that needs to be done.
A major air quality development in 2011 was the setlement of a lawsuit against the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA).  North Carolina filed a public nuisance lawsuit against the TVA in 2006, claiming that the utility’s coal-fired
6
plants sent polluted air into North Carolina. This agreement will result in the closure of many uncontrolled units
and installation of emission-control equipment on almost all of the remaining units. In addition, the TVA will pay
$11.2 million to North Carolina over the next five years to be used for energy eficiency and electricity demand
reduction programs. These measures will improve North Carolina’s air quality and reduce incidences of premature
mortality, asthma, chronic bronchitis and other cardiopulmonary illnesses.
The department is promoting several new and ongoing initiatives aimed at improving the quality of environmental
and natural resource data. In early 2012, the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program will release its State of
the Sounds report, an assessment of the estuarine ecosystem in northeastern North Carolina and southeastern
Virginia. The report, based on a suite of environmental indicators, will shed light on the overall health of the
estuarine system and discuss some of its most significant threats. The Division of Marine Fisheries began a new
spatial analysis of all coastal fish habitat to identify and prioritize a network of strategic habitat areas. Assessment
of the northern half of the coast is complete, and assessments will continue in 2012 and 2013. Finally, the Ofice of
Conservation, Planning and Community Afairs developed the Conservation Planning Tool to identify and prioritize
areas for future conservation. This analysis pinpoints “gaps” in ecosystem networks and delineates unique
resources or features.
In response to public feedback, the department created the Environmental Assistance
Center in 2011 to increase its eforts to help small businesses, landowners and residents
comply with environmental rules. This center, which uses existing agency staf, focuses
on the needs of those customers who are frequently afected by environmental rules but
lack the expertise and money to hire someone to guide them through the regulatory,
permiting and compliance process.
The department also faces several important emerging issues. As directed in Session
Law 2011-276, DENR is leading a state study to identify issues associated with oil and gas
exploration in the state; the study will specifically focus on the use of horizontal drilling
and hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas. This report will be provided to the General
Assembly by May 1, 2012.
DENR has done research on the potential impacts of climate change in North Carolina.
Even small increases in temperatures could cause major changes such as disruption of
normal growing conditions for food crops; melting of polar icecaps; rising sea levels and
flooding of coastal lands; changes in ocean currents; and more frequent and stronger
storms. The Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards has
reviewed projections for sea level rise on the North Carolina coast; based on the panel’s
work, the Commission has begun to consider how to plan for the potential impacts of
sea level rise. The department has also participated in statewide initiatives that focus on
climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Water supply and allocation of water has become another emerging issue in the state. For the last five years,
the General Assembly has debated a number of bills dealing with water conservation, drought response and
7
allocation of water resources between competing water users. Most recently, the General Assembly directed the
department’s Division of Water Resources to complete hydrologic models of the state’s major river basins. The
models -- which will demonstrate a water body’s response to water withdrawals by various users under different
conditions -- will be critical for future water supply planning.
North Carolinians value the state’s environmental quality and rely heavily on outdoor resources and amenities for
industrial and recreational pursuits. In a recent poll completed by Public Policy Polling, nearly half of respondents
indicated that the state should be doing more to protect the environment. More than 80 percent of people surveyed
indicated that protecting North Carolina’s air and water is very important for atracting good jobs to the state. The
recent recession and resulting state fiscal constraints have had noticeable impacts on various department programs.
In the past few years, the aquariums, zoological park, Museum of Natural Sciences and state parks system have
had some of the highest visitor numbers ever recorded. This has increased the needs for staf, exhibit and facility
maintenance and program development. Reductions in fee income, trust fund balances, and appropriations have
led to reduced levels of habitat preservation, fewer pollution prevention initiatives and a diminished ability to
clean up polluted sites. The department is focusing on maintaining core services and evaluating opportunities to
increase institutional eficiency in this challenging operational environment.
This document provides a tool to allow the people of North Carolina, state leaders and public agencies to assess the quality of the state’s environment.
Introduction
9
North Carolina is a large and diverse state rich in resources, from its people and vibrant cultural institutions to its
natural resources. This report is a science-based review of the state’s air, water and land resources. This document
provides a tool to allow the people of North Carolina, state leaders and public agencies to assess the quality of
the state’s environment. In addition, the report highlights management strategies for environmental and natural
resource protection, specific accomplishments, current activities and emerging environmental issues.
The North Carolina General Assembly created the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to protect the state’s
environment and natural resources and to prevent public health problems
caused by pollution (G.S. 143B-279.2). The department also provides the
organizational structure for several commissions created by the General
Assembly with the specific authority to adopt environmental rules,
including the Environmental Management Commission (air quality and
water quality rules); Coastal Resources Commission (coastal development
rules), Marine Fisheries Commission (fisheries management plans);
Sedimentation Control Commission (rules on sedimentation and erosion
control); and Mining Commission.
The department must provide staf support to the rule-making
commissions and implement environmental policies set out in state law
and through commission rules.  Particularly in the programs addressing
water quality, air quality, solid waste, hazardous waste and petroleum
underground storage tanks, those statutes and rules often reflect federal requirements. The department also
implements federal regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by delegation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
DENR meets its environmental and natural resource management responsibilities in a number of diferent ways.
Some programs carry out monitoring, permiting and compliance activities designed to balance growth and
development with the need to be good stewards of the state’s air, water and other natural resources for all of the
state’s citizens. Other programs focus on preserving natural areas; maintaining recreational lands for public use;
restoring natural ecosystems; or cleaning up environmental contamination. The North Carolina Zoological Park,
state aquariums, state parks system and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences provide opportunities for
citizens to learn about and interact with nature.
10
In meeting its state and federal responsibilities, the department must often find the right balance between
effective environmental protection and the need for strong economic growth. The department works with the
rule-making commissions to develop and enforce rules that are clear, consistent and practical. DENR also has
programs designed specifically to assist business and industry with permitting issues and compliance problems.  In
addition to helping with compliance, the Division of Environmental  Assistance and Outreach works with companies
to identify waste reduction and eficiency measures that can reduce operating costs -- allowing the company to
operate more profitably -- and in some cases eliminate the need for an environmental permit.
All of this goes on against a backdrop of significant growth and development over the last 20 years. According to
Census Bureau estimates, North Carolina’s population increased by nearly three million -- or 44 percent -- between
1990 and 2010.  During the last decade, North Carolina had the fifth- highest growth rate in the country. By 2030,
the state’s population is expected to reach 12.5 million; that would represent an increase of another 25 percent
over the current population. Much of this growth will come from people migrating into the state, many of whom
do so because of the state’s scenic beauty, natural resources and quality of life. As North Carolina continues to
grow, maintaining the state’s environmental quality will be one of our most important challenges.
We hope that the information in this report gives you a
picture of the state’s environmental health and allows you to
see both the progress that has been made and the challenges
for the future. Environmental quality is site-specific and
can vary dramatically in diferent regions of the state;
wherever possible this report contains links to websites that
can provide location-specific measures of environmental
quality. In addition, all of the reports that DENR submits
to the General Assembly are available on our website at:
htp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/lia/denr-legislative-reports
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ strategic plan identifies goals for the department that will
support conserving and protecting the state’s natural resources, while maintaining a high quality of life and fostering economic development.
12
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources’ Strategic Goals
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ strategic plan identifies goals for the department
that will support conserving and protecting the state’s natural resources, while maintaining a high quality of life
and fostering economic development. Broad supporting actions accompany each of the goals. These supporting
actions serve as a starting point for divisions and programs to create measurable accomplishments. The 2009-2013
strategic plan contains eight specific goals:
Sustaining Water for the Future. Beter manage the entire water cycle to prepare for the
future by developing and implementing sustainable solutions based on sound science that
efectively: protects water at its source; treats it to the highest standards; delivers it to
homes and businesses; encourages its eficient use; and then collects and again treats the
wastewater before reintroducing it safely back into the environment.
Sustaining Clean Air for the Future. Work to improve air quality of the state for the health
and well-being of all its citizens by using sound science, monitoring and input from the
public and regulated community.
Growing a Green Economy. The department will champion evolving, and support existing,
primary industries that promote environmental protection and energy independence and
use of products, production techniques and services that have minimal impact to the waste
stream, while ataining energy independence, resiliency to climate change and economic
development in the state, the region and the country.
Conserving Natural Areas and Sustaining Working Lands. DENR and its One North Carolina
Naturally initiative will coordinate public and private eforts to sustain, conserve, restore
and protect the state’s natural, economic and social resources in a balanced, focused and
integrated way for current and future generations.
Climate Change. To address climate change in North Carolina in a comprehensive way, using
mitigation eforts and adaptation strategies to increase the resilience of our state’s resources
to these complex changes.
13
More Effective Environmental Regulation. To protect the environment by developing and enforcing rules that
are clear and consistent and result in business and government, together, preserving the environment and its
resources, while growing our economy as well as maintaining the high quality of life for the state’s citizens that
atracts new companies and retains existing industry.
Growing DENR’s Visitor Atractions and Nurturing North Carolina’s Natural Resources. Enrich the quality of
citizens’ visits to our atractions by further developing the services within our museum, zoo, aquariums, state parks,
coastal reserves and state forests. Create a memorable visitor experience that fosters awareness of environmental
stewardship in a manner that is eficient, efective and ensures value.
Organizational Efectiveness Supporting DENR’s Mission. An agency where all actions, services and products
are of high quality, and serve the department’s mission and vision through continuous improvement, optimum
eficiency, efectiveness and customer satisfaction in all operations.
The full strategic plan is located on the department website:
www.ncdenr.gov.
14
The department uses a number of strategies to attain environment and natural resource protection.
15
Environment and Natural
Resource Protection Strategies
The department uses a number of strategies to attain environment and natural resource protection. These include:
pollution prevention, pollution mitigation, resource conservation, investment in environmental infrastructure,
regulation and compliance and environmental education and outreach. These strategies are used alone or in
combinations to achieve department goals. This section provides a working definition of these strategies and
examples of DENR’s program implementation of them.
Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention, often abbreviated as P2, is a proactive, cost-efective strategy that creates a strong basis for
environmental sustainability. Pollution prevention seeks to reduce waste from a production process by increasing
eficiency, reducing the use of toxic materials, reducing resources consumed in the process and reusing waste
where possible. Preventing pollution before it enters the state’s land, water and air is a preferred method for
natural resource protection because it is frequently the most cost-efective.
Since the mid-1980s, DENR has ofered free and confidential pollution prevention services throughout North
Carolina to public and private facilities. The Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach ofers P2 assistance
through the Environmental Assistance Center, the Environmental Stewardship Initiative and Waste Reduction
Partners.
The Environmental Stewardship Initiative is an environmental excellence program that recognizes regulated
entities that have gone above and beyond regulatory requirements in their protection of the environment. The
program also ofers free assistance to those who wish to become environmental stewards. The requirements of
the program are also proven tools for improving and assuring compliance.
Waste Reduction Partners (WRP) is one of DENR’s most innovative programs. WRP is a team of highly experienced
staff and volunteer retired engineers, architects and scientists, who provide North Carolina businesses and
institutions with waste and energy reduction assessments and technical assistance. WRP services are typically
grant-sponsored or supported through technical service contracts to provide services to clients at no cost. All
services are non-regulatory and confidential.
Combined, the Waste Reduction Partners and Environmental Stewardship Initiative programs have seen their
customers and members reduce water consumption by more than two billion gallons through eficiency techniques
and technologies. Similarly, from 2004 to 2010, members reported reduced energy usage of 40 million (mmBTUs),
or 40 trillion British Thermal Units, equivalent to the energy consumed annually by 526,000 North Carolina homes.
These programs save the state’s natural resources while simultaneously saving private companies money.
16
Pollution Mitigation
Pollution mitigation strategies allow communities to decrease the negative impacts of human activity on the natural
environment, such as reducing the impacts of land development on water quality and wildlife habitat fragmentation,
while still providing roads, buildings and other infrastructure necessary to support a growing population. North
Carolina’s nonregulatory Ecosystem Enhancement Program, founded in statute in 2003, provides an eficient
and efective statewide compensatory-mitigation initiative that ofsets unavoidable environmental damage to
streams and wetlands caused by transportation-infrastructure improvements and other economic development.
Compensatory mitigation involves an environmental crediting system in which a regulatory agency allocates credits
and debits. Compensation activities – called “credits” – can involve habitat creation, restoration, enhancement,
preservation or management, which may subsequently be used to ofset unavoidable stream or wetland impacts
-- called “debits”-- that occurred at a project development site. Cumulative Ecosystem Enhancement Program data
is located in the Land section of this report.
Resource Conservation
Resource conservation is the protection, preservation, management or restoration of wildlife and of natural
resources such as forests, soil and water. DENR works with other state agencies, nonprofits, private industries
and institutions to conserve plant and animal habitats and lands that ofer the state opportunities for strategic
resource preservation. North Carolina has many good reasons to engage in conservation, including: protection of
water resources, enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities statewide, preserving working farms and forests,
and protecting wildlife habitat. The conservation of these resources is critical for sustaining and enhancing the
quality of life for current and future North Carolinians. Examples of recent resource conservation projects are
located in the Land section of this report.
Environmental Infrastructure Investments
Environmental infrastructure consists of water supply, waste disposal and pollution control services. The Department
of Environment and Natural Resources uses investments in environmental infrastructure to improve the quality
of life for residents and to protect environmental and human health. Population growth, urbanization, changing
environmental standards and industrial development place increasing demands on existing infrastructure. These
demands in turn create a need for the planning, design and construction of new facilities.
DENR assists local communities with the development of wastewater and drinking water facilities. The Division of
Water Quality administers several clean water funding programs available to local government units.  During FY
2011, North Carolina made a total of 17 binding commitments in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program
for the construction of wastewater facilities. A majority of these projects either aided impaired streams or were
part of a basinwide strategy. These obligations totaled $172 million.   In addition, projects totaling $5.4 million
were funded through the state’s Wastewater Reserve fund for the construction of wastewater facilities.  These
funding programs increase the afordability of clean water infrastructure projects by ofering a lower interest rate
compared to market interest rates. In addition, Technical Assistance Grants totaling $435,475 were made available
to help develop plans to resolve non-compliance at wastewater facilities.   Figure 1 below displays the federal
capitalization grants and the associated state matching funds for each year since the program began. This table
does not include supplemental, one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.
17
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
45000000
50000000
'89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11
Dollars (not adjusted for inflation)
Figure 1: N.C. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant History
State Match
Federal Grant
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund has provided more than $248 million for 276 projects to improve
wastewater systems for local governments and communities with failing systems dumping untreated waste into
our surface water. These wastewater projects have focused on rural, economically distressed communities to
eliminate failing septic tanks, straight piping (dumping sewage directly into the environment without treatment
by a wastewater system) and failing wastewater collection and treatment plants. This efort has also focused on
aiding communities in regionalizing treatment facilities and in beter managing systems so that future repairs can
be managed within the financial system of the community.
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) funds drinking water capital projects that protect public health through
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The DWSRF makes loans to communities at one-half of the
market rate for a period of up to 20 years.   All funded projects must address a threat to public health. At the
end of FY 2010, the DWR commited approximately $296 million in low-interest and principal forgiveness loans
as part of the DWSRF Program. Figure 2 below displays the federal capitalization grants and the associated state
matching funds for each year since the program began in 1997.  This table does not include supplemental, one-time
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.
For FY 2010, almost $36 million was commited to build a new five million gallon per day water treatment plant
in Craven County, along with 16 new wells and various transmission lines. Other notable projects include a
consolidation of nonviable Holly Hills and Mountain Creek Estates water systems in Jackson County; a raw-water
bypass pump station for use in times of drought in Randolph County; and an installation of a water main extension
along Thomas Langston Road to provide interconnection with the town of Winterville in Pit County.
18
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 2: N.C. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant
History
State Match
Federal Grant
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources received more than $157 million as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The department is using the money to stimulate the economy, create
jobs and help cities, towns and counties with a host of environmental improvements. A substantial portion of this
funding supports the development of needed environmental infrastructure.
• $70.7 million to fund wastewater improvements such as infrastructure projects that aid wastewater reuse,
stormwater management, water eficiency and energy generation. Another $251,000 has been awarded to
regional councils of government for planning and to assess water quality and develop plans to control water
pollution.
• $65.6 million for public drinking water infrastructure improvements. The money will improve water quality in
cities and towns by building interconnections between towns and replacing aging water lines. It has also been
used to install more eficient residential water meters.
Regulation and Compliance
As a regulatory agency, DENR enforces state and federal pollution regulations. In addition, the EPA has delegated
to DENR the authority to enforce federal laws and regulations dealing with air and water pollution in the state.
Compliance activities include responding to complaints, conducting regular inspections, helping facilities meet
regulations and taking enforcement actions against violators. Facilities and activities are often tracked and
measured through the issuance of permits. The Division of Air Quality alone handles permits for more than 2,680
facilities with air emissions. DENR operates ofices in each of the seven state regions to inform people about
regulations and requirements, assist with permit applications, and conduct site visits for regulated activities.
19
Claire Aubel - PKS
In an ideal world, regulation is replaced by stewardship and an inherent respect for the environment. In this
concept of stewardship, everyone takes responsibility for their actions and the use of resources for the benefit of
the community. In the real world, stewardship is sometimes compromised by conflicting capabilities, priorities,
values and perspectives. This creates the need for regulation and enforcement.
The challenge for regulators is to balance the use of compliance tools with the recognition of stewardship eforts.
Regulated entities must be made aware of the conditions for compliance, made to feel the consequences of non-compliance
and provided an opportunity to demonstrate behavior beyond compliance. When enforcement is
necessary, it should be fair, focused, transparent and timely.
DENR balances enforcement with education, technical assistance and incentives to achieve compliance and
encourage stewardship. In 2011, the department created the Environmental Permit and Compliance Assistance
Center to increase its eforts to help small businesses, landowners and residents to comply with environmental
rules. This center, which uses existing agency staf, focuses on the needs of those customers who are frequently
afected by environmental rules but lack the expertise and money needed to hire someone to guide them through
the regulatory, permiting and compliance process. Housed in the Division of Environmental Assistance and
Outreach, some benefits of the Environmental Permit and Compliance Assistance Center include:
• Ofering a single point of contact to guide applicants through the permiting system;
• Providing technical assistance to obtain necessary permits and/or address compliance assistance issues;
• Arranging pre-application meetings to outline potential permits, processes,
timelines and expectations;
• Designating technical staf to answer – in plain English – regulatory questions,
explain permit and regulatory issues, and receive and ensure resolution of
environmental complaints and issues; and
• Providing technical assistance on compliance strategies, including those that
reduce waste and enable companies to save money.
Environmental Education and Outreach
Another one of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ strategies to
protect natural resources is public education and outreach. Environmental education
is a learning process that increases people’s knowledge and awareness of the
environment and associated challenges. Environmental education gives people an
understanding of how individual actions afect the environment and allows them to
acquire skills to weigh various sides of issues and become beter equipped to make
informed decisions.
More than ever, children and adults need to understand how ecological systems work
and why they mater. Some people have become so disconnected from the natural
resources that sustain them that they don’t know where their food comes from or
where they get their drinking water. The health of the environment is inseparable
from humans’ well-being and economic prosperity and to successfully address and
solve environmental problems people require knowledge, tools and sensitivity.
20
The Division of Environmental Education and Public Afairs administers the N.C. Environmental Education
Certification Program. This program recognizes professional development in environmental education, to
acknowledge educators committed to environmental stewardship and to establish standards for professional
excellence in environmental education for formal and non-formal educators. Individuals who elect to take
environmental education courses or workshops demonstrate a desire to develop a sense of stewardship for North
Carolina’s natural resources and to instill that sense of stewardship in children and adults.
The department operates several facilities that help provide recreational and educational opportunities to citizens
and visitors. North Carolina’s zoo, aquariums, state parks and the Museum of Natural Sciences facilitate a wide
variety of experiences and activities to help people understand and appreciate the natural world. These facilities
provide unique experiences and create a critical link to the department’s role in environmental education.
• The N.C. Zoological Park in Asheboro is designed to exhibit representative species of animal and plant life from
around the world. Approximately 500 acres have been developed into one of the largest “natural habitat” zoos
in the United States. Animals are given enclosures that mimic their natural habitats including trees, ponds,
rocks, plants and dirt. It is also designed to foster conservation, preservation and propagation of wildlife. In
FY 2010-11, an estimated 372,828 students and teachers participated in education programs-school groups,
classroom programs and on-site programs. In FY 2010-11, N.C. Zoo atendance was 750,000, a 13-year high.
 
 
 
• The North Carolina Aquariums, located at Fort Fisher, Pine Knoll Shores and Roanoke Island, and Jennete’s
Pier in Nags Head, provide exhibits of live marine life and other marine educational programs, including field
trips, workshops and films. The aquariums are open year-round and are some of the state’s most popular
atractions. In FY 2010-11, almost 1.1 million people visited North Carolina Aquariums. Approximately 517,000
people participated in free and for-fee educational programs in FY 2010-11.
• The N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences encourages visitors to explore the natural world through an array of
permanent and special exhibits, live programs and educational opportunities at the Museum, on school
grounds and in the field that appeal to all audiences including students, teachers and the general public.
 
The museum also operates the Prairie
Ridge Ecostation, and the N.C. Museum
of Forestry. In 2012, the museum’s
new wing, the Nature Research Center,
an 80,000-square-foot environmental
science center, is scheduled to open.
In FY 2010-11 more than 709,000
people visited the museum and 449,354
individuals participated in natural science
educational programs.   In addition, the
Research and Collections section responded to nearly 11,000 public information requests and had 655 people
visit the research collections.
21
• The North Carolina state parks system preserves and protects high quality examples of the biological, geological,
archaeological, scenic and recreational resources of North Carolina by including such resources in the parks
system for public enjoyment, education and inspiration.  The park system consists of more than 213,000 acres,
including 35 state parks, four recreation areas and a system of state natural areas. In 2010, nearly 14 million
people visited North Carolina state parks and nearly 370,000 participated in guided education programs.
• The North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve program protects more than
41,000 acres of unique coastal habitats in 10 reserve sites throughout coastal North Carolina. Each year, the
program reaches thousands of students, teachers, local government oficials, coastal decision makers and
other members of the coastal community through workshops, reserve site field trips, summer camps, and
other educational activities.
Outreach
The department’s outreach eforts provide residents with information on a wide variety of common environmental
issues and measures that can be taken to minimize environmental impact. Disposal of light bulbs, drinking water
quality and public grant opportunities are just some of the topics people may read about on DENR’s website.
The department has also created a social media presence to more directly reach the public. Its Facebook page, which
has more than 1,300 fans, highlights recent departmental press releases and accomplishments. It also provides
information about special projects or programs staf are involved in, to provide insight and a more personal view
into the services the department provides to the people of North Carolina. Close to 850 people follow DENR’s
Twiter page, which provides direct linkage to department press releases and activities, as well as other activities
and programs of environmental interest in North Carolina.
DENR divisions provide outreach with websites, direct interaction with the public at meetings and special events,
and through the production of publications and other guidance documents. Some examples of outreach:
• One of the state’s key eforts for educating and informing the public is the air quality forecasting program
operated by DAQ and the Forsyth County Department of Environmental Afairs. The program issues daily
air quality forecasts for ozone and particle pollution in the Asheville, Charlotte, Fayeteville, Hickory, Rocky
Mount, Triad and Triangle metropolitan areas.  In addition, DAQ issues special air quality forecasts for unusual
events, such as the wildfires that afected much of Eastern North Carolina with smoke in the summers of 2008
and 2011. Other DAQ outreach eforts include maintaining a website, conducting public hearings on rules and
certain permits, developing brochures and other publications on air quality issues, working with the news
media on air issues, stafing exhibits at special events, and working with educators to teach students about air
quality issues.
• The N.C. Recreational Water Quality Program, in the Division of Marine Fisheries, monitors 240 swimming
sites, located on ocean beaches, sounds and coastal rivers. All ocean beaches and high-use sound-side beaches
are tested weekly from April through September; lower-use beaches are tested twice a month. All sites are
tested twice a month in October and monthly from November through March. As needed, the division issues
swimming alerts and advisories to notify the public when testing shows that bacteriological standards for safe
bodily contact are exceeded. These alerts and advisories are sent to local oficials and media through press
releases, highlighted on a website and sent via Twiter to interested parties.
22
• The Division of Water Quality has a full-time coordinator who provides a comprehensive outreach and
education program to support local governments, educators and citizen groups in promoting nonpoint source
pollution awareness and prevention. The outreach program focuses primarily on assisting the regulated
community in meeting the minimum requirements for public participation and outreach under their National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as well as on providing resources and support to
communities under state stormwater programs such as the Coastal Rules, Neuse Rules, Falls Lake Rules and
Jordan Lake Rules. Secondary goals of the department’s program include establishing partnerships with other
environmental government agencies, water quality organizations, community groups and educators. In an
efort to provide thorough customer service, the program coordinator also serves as a first point of contact
to provide rapid response to public requests for assistance with stormwater issues, permitting questions and
water quality complaints.
• The Division of Water Resources administers two environmental education outreach programs: Stream Watch
and Project WET (Water Education for Teachers). Stream Watch is a stewardship program whereby local citizens
can “adopt” a waterway or a portion of one, and act on its behalf by visual monitoring and collecting liter
along stream banks. Project WET is a K-12 interdisciplinary water education program intended to supplement
a school’s existing curriculum.
• Environmental education is considered a key component of the state parks system’s mission. More than
250,000 visitors each year atend one of hundreds of interpretive programs given by park rangers, all of whom
are certified environmental educators or working toward certification. In addition, each of 21 visitor centers
contains a museum-quality exhibit hall with hands-on displays of the parks’ natural resources. These and
numerous wayside exhibits are researched by rangers and the system’s education specialists. In recent years,
the education program has adopted a theme to showcase specific resources. In 2011 it was the Year of the
Turtle in state parks and 2012 will be the Year of the Bat. In 2011, educational day camps were held for the first
time on Jones Island, a recent addition to Hammocks Beach
State Park. The Junior Ranger program was recognized with
a 2011 Media Award from the National Association of
Interpretation, and the division’s education program was
named “Outstanding Environmental Partner Organization”
by Environmental Educators of North Carolina.
North Carolina’s air quality is good and getting better.
24
North Carolina’s air quality is good and getting better. State leaders, agencies and private industries have taken
significant steps in recent years to address air quality problems – notably ozone and particle pollution - and this
work is achieving impressive results. Additional reductions are expected as industries and motor vehicles meet
more stringent federal requirements.
This section provides information about levels of air pollution in the state and state strategies to protect and
improve air quality. For more information about air quality in your community, please visit the N.C. Division of Air
Quality’s Forecast Center or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s My Environment website.
Air Monitoring
Local and regional air monitoring began with the initial passage of the federal Clean Air Act in the early 1970s.
Under the act, EPA set federal standards for six major air pollutants (called “criteria pollutants”): ozone, lead,
particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. The federal standard for each pollutant is set at
the level deemed to protect public health and the environment.  Concentrations of these pollutants in the air – as
measured by air quality monitors - are not supposed to exceed the federal standards.
North Carolina has 65 air quality monitoring sites for criteria pollutants. The monitors are located in 45 counties and
operated by DENR’s Division of Air Quality (DAQ), local air programs and EPA. The state also has special purpose air
quality monitors - nine for measuring acid precipitation and six to measure toxic air pollutants.  Although monitors
are distributed across the state, monitoring equipment tends to be concentrated in urban areas that have more
air quality problems.
Figure 3 depicts the change in air pollution concentrations over time. The majority of the state’s air has levels of
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate mater and carbon dioxide that are below the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency.   The decline in ambient SO2 is one of
the most striking changes in Figure 3. North Carolina’s reductions in SO2 concentrations were experienced after
the implementation of the federal acid raid program in 1983 and the N.C. Clean Smokestacks Act in 2002.
air
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Percent of NAAQS
Figure 3: Air Pollutant Concentrations as Percent of National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, 1981-2010
Carbon monoxide
Ozone
Particulate matter 2.5
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Federal standard
25
Ozone, a highly reactive form of oxygen, is North Carolina’s most widespread air quality problem. In the upper
atmosphere, ozone protects the Earth from damaging solar radiation, but ground-level ozone is unhealthy to
breathe and can damage trees and crops. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that forms when nitrogen oxides (NOx)
react in the air with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on hot, sunny days with litle wind. Strategies for controlling
ozone primarily focus on NOx because the southeastern United States has naturally high levels of VOCs in the air
coming from trees and other vegetation.
NOx is formed during the combustion of fuels or other burning. The primary sources of NOx emissions in North
Carolina are cars, trucks and other highway vehicles, representing 47 percent of all NOx emissions. Industrial point
sources such as boilers and coal-fired power plants represent another 39 percent of emissions.  Another significant
source is non-road vehicles, which include construction equipment, railroad trains, lawnmowers and airplanes.
In the past, substantial portions of North Carolina had ozone levels exceeding the standard, and areas once
designated nonatainment1 of these standards included more than 30 counties in the Charlote, Fayeteville, Rocky
Mount, Triad and Triangle metro areas, as well as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. However, as depicted
in Figure 4, ozone levels have substantially declined across the state since the 1970s.
1 Nonatainment areas are regions oficially designated by the EPA as not meeting air quality standards and the state must develop plans
for bringing such areas back into compliance. Areas that are re-designated to atainment are called maintenance areas.
4
101
111
82
74 78
35
27
61
46
66
36
6
26 26
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Days
Year
Figure 4: North Carolina Statewide 8-Hour Ozone
Exceedance Days
2008 8-Hour Standard of 0.075 ppm
2011 data through October 4
26
The EPA has adopted more stringent ozone standards several times during the last two decades.  In 1997, the
federal agency adopted a new 8-hour standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) and subsequently discontinued
the previous 1-hour standard of 0.125 ppm.  In 2008, the EPA lowered the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm, but
postponed its implementation in 2009 while considering whether to lower the standard to a level ranging from
0.060-0.070 ppm. In September 2011, the EPA announced that it would keep the ozone standard at 0.075 ppm and
restart the process of designating nonatainment areas under the 2008 standard.
Currently, the Charlotte metropolitan area is the state’s only designated nonatainment area for the 1997 ozone
standard. The area now meets that standard, and North Carolina has requested that EPA remove the nonatainment
designation. However, the Charlotte area still violates the 2008 ozone standard and DAQ expects the EPA to
designate the area as nonatainment for this standard in 2012. Ozone levels in the Triad metro area also exceeded
the 2008 ozone standard during the 2008-2010 period, but met the standard during the 2009-2011 period, so DAQ
does not expect a nonatainment designation for this area.
The state and local governments in the Charlotte metropolitan area must develop plans for reducing ozone-causing
emissions in nonatainment areas. These plans include specific proposals for curbing ozone, such as measures
to reduce emissions from cars, trucks, industries and power plants. Nonatainment designations also result in
stricter controls on new industrial emissions. Companies seeking to build large, new industrial sources or expand
existing large sources in nonatainment areas must install the most advanced or best-available pollution control
technology. New or expanded industrial sources also need to obtain “ofsets” if they would be increasing the
overall emissions of ozone-forming pollutants in nonatainment areas.
Particle Pollution consists of very small solids and liquid droplets in the air. Unlike other pollutants, which
generally consist of a single compound, particle pollution can contain a range of substances such as acids, organic
27
compounds, metals, soil and dust. Particle pollution can be unhealthy to breathe and contributes to the haze
that obscures visibility. Exposure to particle pollution can cause or contribute to lung and heart disease. The EPA
adopted a new standard for fine particles in 1997 due to growing concerns about the health efects.
The EPA regulates particle pollution according to the size of individual particles. Smaller particles are more of
a concern because they can penetrate deep into a person’s lungs and can be absorbed more readily into the
bloodstream. Currently, the EPA has standards for fine particles, which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less,
and coarse particles, which are less than 10.0 micrometers. Although the EPA has no air quality standard for larger
particles, North Carolina has a standard for total suspended particulates (TSP) that covers particles larger than 10
micrometers.
A wide range of sources contribute to particle pollution, including power plants and other industry, cars and
trucks, wood stoves and outdoor fires. Some particles form during the burning of fuels and others form later when
pollutants react in the air.  Emissions from coal-fired power plants are considered the largest source of fine particle
pollution in North Carolina; this is largely due to sulfur dioxide, which converts in the air to sulfate fine particles,
and represents about 33 percent of particle pollution in North Carolina. In 2008 and 2011, substantial portions of
eastern North Carolina were afected by particle pollution from large wildfires.
Unlike ozone, which occurs in the warmer months, high levels of particles can occur throughout the year. Typically,
particle pollution events are associated with air stagnation events, inversions (when cooler air is trapped near
the ground) or during forest fires and other large-scale outdoor burning. For example, high particle levels were
measured after the ice storm in December 2002, when many people were using fireplaces to heat their homes due
to widespread power outages and cold-air inversions trapped smoke near the ground. Absent such events, particle
levels tend to be higher in the summer when higher humidity levels can enhance sulfate formation.
In December 2004, the EPA designated nonatainment areas for fine particle pollution based on air quality
monitoring, commuting paterns and other factors. In North Carolina, the EPA designated nonatainment for fine
particles (PM 2.5) in three counties: Catawba, Davidson and Guilford. PM 2.5 levels have declined substantially
across the state since the 2002 passage of the state’s Clean Smokestacks Act, which required substantial reductions
in sulfur dioxide emissions at coal-fired power plants.   Currently, all of North Carolina meets the fine particle
standard and the state has requested that the EPA redesignate Catawba, Davidson and Guilford counties as
atainment. The EPA is in the process of finalizing approval of the redesignation for all three counties.
In 2006, the EPA adopted a new 24-hour standard for PM 2.5 in addition to the annual standard. North Carolina
has not had any areas that have violated or were designated nonatainment with the daily fine particle standard.
Currently all areas are observing PM 2.5 levels that are well under the 24-hour standard.
Lead levels decreased in North Carolina once the EPA banned the use of leaded fuel in most vehicles. North Carolina
still monitors for lead, but does so as a subset of the fine-particle pollution network with PM 2.5 monitoring data
28
Map 1: North Carolina Current Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas
(SO2) is a pungent gas that is unhealthy to breathe and can damage trees and other vegetation. One of the first
regulated air pollutants, SO2 can be emitted by industries burning coal and fuel oil as well as by certain mining
operations. In 2010, the EPA adopted a more stringent standard for SO2, seting a 1-hour limit of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). The new standard replaced two standards that had previously been in efect, a 24-hour standard of
140 ppb and an annual standard of 30 ppb. Industrial facilities account for most (93 percent) of the SO2 emissions
in North Carolina.
North Carolina had no compliance issues under the previous SO2 standards, but the Wilmington-New Hanover
County area has exceeded the new limit in recent years. DAQ has asked the EPA to defer designation of a
nonatainment area for the 1-hour SO2 standard until after 2012 due to the closure of several large sources in
the area and the resulting drop in SO2 levels. The New Hanover County monitor has measured no SO2 values
above the new standard so far in 2011. If the EPA will not agree to postpone the nonatainment decision for the
Wilmington-New Hanover County area, North Carolina has recommended that the federal agency only designate
29
the northwestern corner of New Hanover County, bounded by the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers and
the Pender County line.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), one of six criteria pollutants identified in the federal Clean Air Act, is unhealthy to breathe
and contributes to ozone formation. The major source of NO2 in North Carolina comes from highway vehicles.
All of North Carolina complies with the federal NO2 standard, and measured levels have declined over the years.
However, the EPA adopted a more stringent NO2 standard in 2010, which sets more stringent emissions limits for
industries and establishes new monitoring requirements for the states. DAQ will implement the new standard
through the permitting process for large industries and is in the process of evaluating the monitoring requirements.
A major development in 2011 was the setlement of a lawsuit against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). In
2006, North Carolina filed a public nuisance lawsuit against the TVA, claiming that the utility’s coal-fired plants
sent polluted air into North Carolina. This agreement will result in the closure of many uncontrolled units and
installation of emission-control equipment on almost all of the remaining units. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
emissions from these plants are linked to increased incidence of premature mortality, asthma, chronic bronchitis
and other cardiopulmonary illnesses in North Carolina. In addition, the TVA will pay $11.2 million to North Carolina
over the next five years to be used for energy eficiency and electricity demand reduction programs.
Other Air Quality Issues
Several air quality issues have emerged or assumed greater importance in recent years for a number of reasons,
including population increases and global trends. In addition to EPA’s recent eforts to strengthen the sulfur dioxide
and ozone standards, the federal agency has also focused atention on visibility, mercury and air toxics.
Visibility
Visibility refers to the clarity of air and the ability to view the landscape unobstructed by haze. Various pollutants
cause haze that reduces visibility, including particle pollution, ammonia and sulfur oxides. Visibility has important
implications for the state’s tourist economy, aesthetics and recreation because haze can obscure views and detract
from scenery – a critical issue in the mountains. In the eastern United States, haze from man-made emissions has
reduced natural visibility in Class I Areas (national parks and wilderness areas) from about 90 miles to 15-25 miles.
The EPA has no health-based standard for haze, but in 1999 adopted a Regional Haze Rule aimed at improving
visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The rule required states to develop haze control plans, with an
ultimate goal of restoring visibility to natural background levels by 2064. DAQ worked with other southeastern
states to develop the first regional haze plan to improve visibility through 2018. Work is now underway to evaluate
the plan and the next full plan is due in 2018, covering the period through 2028. Eforts to reduce sulfur dioxide
emissions, which are the primary source of haze in the southeast, are helping to improve visibility in the area.
30
Mercury
Mercury is a metal that can be toxic to breathe at high-enough concentrations and can pose serious hazards,
caused by eating certain fish, not by inhaling the air, even at low levels due to bio-accumulation in the environment
and the food chain. The primary sources of man-made mercury emissions are coal-fired power plants (which
account for about two-thirds of the mercury emissions in North Carolina) and other industrial facilities such as
incinerators and factories that use mercury in their processes. There also are significant natural sources of mercury
air emissions, such as volcanic eruptions, and much of the airborne mercury in North Carolina is transported into
the state from other areas.
Some of the mercury in air emissions eventually setles to the earth in precipitation or dry particles that reach
streams, lakes and coastal waters.  When mercury reaches water bodies, certain bacteria can convert it to methyl
mercury, a toxic organic form of mercury. Methyl mercury can bio-accumulate in the food chain, eventually reaching
potentially harmful levels in the flesh of certain predatory fish. Eating mercury-contaminated fish is particularly
hazardous for children, pregnant women (because of the potential impact on fetuses) and people who eat a lot
of fish from afected water bodies. Due to such concerns, the EPA lowered the allowable mercury emissions rates
from certain industrial facilities in 2010. The more stringent standards are generally applied through the permiting
process for large industrial sources.
Coastal areas are especially susceptible to mercury because impacts to the entire aquatic food chain may occur
if the water chemistry is conducive to transformation of deposited mercury to the more toxic -methyl mercury.
For this reason, DAQ has been conducting mercury monitoring since 1995 at Petigrew and Waccamaw state
parks in the eastern part of the state. An inland site was briefly operated at Candor from 2005 to 2007. Weekly
rainwater samples from monitors are analyzed for mercury and the results used to determine long‐term trends.
This monitoring method does not directly
measure mercury in the air. Factors such
as localized sources, long‐range transport,
and type of mercury (elemental, water‐soluble
and particulate) afect the amount
of mercury in these samples.
150 200 250 300
Median Mercury Deposition, ng/cm2
1995 2000 2005 2010
Waccamaw Pettigrew
Great Smoky Mountains Candor
(ng/cm2)
Figure 5: Median Mercury Deposition (Wet), 1996 - 2009
31
Figure 5 depicts the comparison of deposition rates at sites in North Carolina and eastern Tennessee (Great Smoky
National Park). These data show a generalized slight downward trend in the deposition rate (measured in units
of ng/cm2). Continued monitoring at these sites is necessary to determine if this is a continuing trend. Since
the controls placed on large coal-fired utilities under the Clean Smokestacks Act have the additional benefit of
reducing mercury emissions, those controls are contributing to any reduction.
Air Toxics
Air toxics include a range of pollutants generally emited in lower amounts than criteria pollutants but having
potentially significant adverse health efects. In addition to mercury, North Carolina and the EPA regulate a number
of other toxic air emissions.  North Carolina’s air toxics rule sets health-based standards on 97 toxic air pollutants,
and the EPA regulates 187 hazardous air pollutants through technology-based limits set by industry category that
requires the installation of specific controls on emission sources. There are 76 pollutants that are common to
both the state and federal lists, and some pollutants appear on one list but not the other. DAQ enforces these
limits primarily through the permitting process for facilities that potentially emit air toxins higher than specified
health-based standards.  Facilities subject to the state air toxics program must demonstrate compliance through
computer modeling.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Median Hazard Rank
Figure 6: Trending for Selected Air Toxics
Smoothed Data, 2000-2009
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
Hexavalent Chromium
Formaldehyde
Note: red line = 1; HR < 1 is more health protective
32
In addition, several DAQ air monitoring programs are aimed at measuring levels of toxic air pollutants, including
urban air toxics, mercury deposition and selected metals.  Monitoring data are used to track trends and identify
potential problem areas but are not used for permitting purposes. To identify the toxic air pollutants with the
greatest potential for adverse health efects in North Carolina, a hazard rank was calculated by dividing pollutant
concentrations from monitoring data by a “benchmark,” or reference concentration. Figure 6 shows how selected
toxic air pollutants have trended since the year 2000. Hexavalent chromium, arsenic and cadmium show slight
upward trends. Formaldehyde may have a slight upward overall trend, but since 2007 has been trending slightly
downward. The benchmark used for formaldehyde is one developed by EPA and that benchmark was substantially
lowered in 2009 as a result of an EPA reassessment of risk posed by formaldehyde. Benzene has generally trended
upward since 2002, but since 2007 has trended down. As Figure 6 shows, benzene poses the most significant risk
of exposure of all toxic air pollutants sampled and analyzed in North Carolina.
Clean water is essential to support the natural environment, public health and a vibrant economy.
34
water
Water
North Carolina has a wide variety of waterways - from sparkling mountain streams to slow-moving
swamp waters; diverse wetlands; lakes that support both water supply and recreation;
and one of the nation’s largest and most productive estuaries. Clean water is essential to
support the natural environment, public health and a vibrant economy. Adequate supply of
clean water continues to be a concern in the state and is a priority issue for the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
Surface Water
North Carolina evaluates the water quality of streams and rivers by examining the biological
communities that live there and by collecting water quality data. The N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) operates a statewide network of 323 monitoring stations for dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, pH and many other parameters. A general indication of water
quality changes can be obtained by looking graphically at changes in dissolved oxygen, turbidity
and fecal coliform data because these parameters have been measured with the same
techniques for several decades. Table 1 indicates how many samples were taken for turbidity,
fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen by region. The map depicts the locations of the monitoring
stations.
Table 1: Environmental Indicators and Monitoring through 2010
Number of Results (Notes:
Period: January 1970 through December 2010.
Summer is defined as June, July, August and September and only surface results used
(< 1m)).
Region
Number of
Stations
Turbidity
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Summer Dissolved
Oxygen
Coastal Plain 63 16,556 19,289 8,290
Mountains 28 8,395 9,531 3,429
Piedmont 80 21,346 25,339 10,426
Total 171 46,297 54,159 22,145
North Carolina has a wide variety of waterways - from sparkling mountain streams to slow-moving swamp waters;
diverse wetlands; lakes that support both water supply and recreation; and one of the nation’s largest and most
productive estuaries. Clean water is essential to support the natural environment, public health and a vibrant
economy. Adequate supply of clean water continues to be a concern in the state and is a priority issue for the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Surface Water
North Carolina evaluates the water quality of streams and rivers by examining the biological communities that
live there and by collecting water quality data. The N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) operates a statewide
network of 323 monitoring stations for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, pH and many other
parameters. A general indication of water quality changes can be obtained by looking graphically at changes in
dissolved oxygen, turbidity and fecal coliform data because these parameters have been measured with the same
techniques for several decades. Table 1 indicates how many samples were taken for turbidity, fecal coliform and
dissolved oxygen by region. The map depicts the locations of the monitoring stations.
Indicator Sites By Region
MOUNTAIN
PIEDMONT
COASTAL PLAIN
35
Map 2: Water Quality Sampling Sites Across the State
Results for dissolved oxygen, turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria were grouped
by region (mountains, piedmont and coastal plain). The following graphs are
based on the results from 172 currently active DWQ monitoring stations that were
established before 1979. Since the data set is large and has been collected over
many years, it can be used to show changes in dissolved oxygen, turbidity and
fecal coliform bacteria over time. The diferences in the three regions of the state
point out the importance of location and geography when trying to determine
trends in water quality.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) in water is necessary for aquatic life, like fish and their
food chain, to survive. Wastewater can contain contaminants, organisms and
conditions that consume DO and take it from the oxygen available for aquatic life.
Figure 7 shows that DO conditions have improved in the mountain and piedmont
areas since the 1970s but that DO conditions in the coastal plain have declined.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010
Proportion (%) violating the standard
Figure 8: Percent of Water Samples Exceeding the
Turbidity Standard by Region
Coastal Plain
Mountains
Piedmont
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5
Proportion (%) violating the standard
Figure 7: Percent of Water Samples Exceeding the Dissolved
Oxygen Standard by Region
Coastal Plain
Mountains
Piedmont
36
Figure 7: Percent of Water Samples Exceeding the
Dissolved Oxygen Standard by Region
Turbidity is a measure of the amount of suspended solids in the water. Turbidity afects water clarity, plant and
animal growth and the usefulness of the water body as a drinking water source. Trout are particularly susceptible to
turbidity because turbid conditions hinder the trout’s ability to reproduce. High turbidity levels largely correspond
to erosion and stormwater runof from land-disturbing activity associated with development or agriculture. Figure
8 shows that turbidity standard violations across the state have declined since the 1970s. In more recent years,
North Carolina has seen increased violations in the mountain and piedmont areas.
37
Coastal Plain Mountains Piedmont
1970s 65.51313 151.004 256.0301 200 14
1980s 45.95178 99.02141 147.9019 200 14
1990s 28.60673 14.95407 99.78808 200 14
2000s 24.03523 34.47221 99.54106 200 14
2010 19.70699 53.15688 114.3868 200 14
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010
Geometric mean cfu/100 ml
Figure 9: Fecal Coliform Levels by Region
Coastal Plain
Mountains
Piedmont
Recreational water quality standard
Shellfishing Standard
Fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria indicate that water is polluted with human or animal waste.  Increased
levels of these microorganisms in waters usually indicate a source of pollution to the waterbody. Sources can include
urban stormwater, animals (including wildlife, livestock and pets), improperly managed animal waste systems,
wastewater discharges, failing or leaking septic systems and marina activities. Figure 9 shows that bacteria levels
have decreased in every region of the state since the 1970s. However, there are individual water bodies within
each region that do not meet the standards; those waters receive special atention, particularly in water bodies
used for shellfishing and swimming.
Designated Uses and Use Support Ratings
Another indicator of water quality is the percentage of waters in the state that can support their designated uses. All
rivers, streams and lakes have designated “best uses” and water quality standards to protect those uses. Designated
uses are defined by classifications and standards associated with those classifications that are intended to protect
and maintain the designated uses; Class C is the baseline classification that is applicable to all waters of the state.
This classification maintains water quality that is good enough to support secondary recreation (wading, boating
and other uses involving infrequent body contact with the water), fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation
and agriculture. Other primary classifications are assigned to protect waters for such uses as shellfishing (Class SA),
drinking water supply (WS-I through WS-V), and primary recreation (Class B). In addition, North Carolina has many
supplemental classifications to recognize other uses and characteristics, such as for Outstanding Resource Waters,
Trout and Swamp waters.
38
The majority of monitored waters in North Carolina support their uses and are in good to excellent condition.
However, almost 40 percent of all monitored waters are impaired. Table 2 depicts the number of the state’s surface
waters by level of impairment. North Carolina relies on biological, chemical and habitat assessments to indicate
whether or not waters are supporting their designated uses.
Water quality impairments are identified every other year through the “use support” assessment process. These
impairments are compiled and submited to the U.S. EPA for review and approval pursuant to Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act. An impairment designation may require development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
specific to those waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can
receive and still meet water quality standards.
*this table does not include mercury as all state waters are impaired for mercury
Table 2: Use Support Categories for Biological Ratings*
Biological Ratings 2010 Level of
Impairment
Assessment
Category
Percent of Surface Water
Excellent/
Natural
Supporting
(Categories 1-2)
Category 1 – all uses
are monitored and
supporting
54%
Good
Good-Fair/
Moderate
Not Impaired
Not Rated Not Rated
(Category 3)
7%
Fair
Impaired
(Categories 4-5)
3%
Poor/Severe 36%
Category 2 - all
monitored uses are
supporting or not rated
and no impairments
Category 3 - monitored
uses are not rated and
there are no impairments.
Waters are not rated due
to inconclusive or
insufficient data.
Category 4 - at least one
impairment but TMDLs
are not required to
address impairment
Category 5 - at least one
impairment that requires
development of TMDL
39
Figure 10: Sources of Water Quality Impairments
* An assessment unit (AU) is a stream segment, lake or estuarine area
that is assessed and assigned an identifying number.
The results are based on a five-year compilation of water quality data that has been quality assured and quality
controlled. For example, the 2010 year assessments are based on data collected from 2004-2008. Figure 10
illustrates the most recent (2008 and 2010) 303(d) water listings by source of impairment for North Carolina.
Leading causes of impairment include metals, bacterial pathogens, biological conditions and turbidity.
Total AUs Assessed*
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Mercury
Dioxin
PCB
Chlorophyll a
Turbidity
Low Dissolved Oxygen
High pH
Low pH
Saltwater Enterococcus
Saltwater Fecal Coliform
Freshwater Fecal Coliform
Macroinvertebrate
Fish Community
Number of Impaired Assessment Units (AUs)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
5000
10000
15000
Years 2002-2006 Data Based on 2,904 Assessment Units*
Years 2004-2008 Data Based on 3,183 Assessment Units*
Metals
Chemical
Physical
Bacterial
Biological
Fish
Tissue
40
Table 3: Description of the Groundwater Quality Indicators
Nitrates
Naturally occurring levels of nitrates in groundwater are typically very low. Groundwater
nitrate levels above 1 milligram per liter (mg/L) often indicate the influence of fertilizer
application or human or animal waste disposal. Elevated levels of nitrates in groundwater
also indicate the possibility that groundwater has been impacted by other pollutants from
human activities, such as pesticides or other chemicals. Nitrate levels greater than the state
groundwater standard of 10 mg/L in drinking water put infants at serious risk of
methemoglobinemia (“blue baby syndrome”) that interferes with the ability of an infant’s
blood to absorb oxygen. Discharge of groundwater with elevated levels of nitrate to surface
water may also contribute to nutrient overloading in sensitive surface waters. Groundwater
nitrate levels therefore provide an excellent indicator of human impacts to groundwater,
health risks to private well users and potential impacts to surface waters. Because nitrate in
groundwater can be an indicator at these two different levels, two separate indicators were
identified from the nitrate data:
1. the percentage of samples exceeding 1 mg/L nitrate, which serves as an indicator of
human impacts to groundwater and potential impacts to surface waters, and
2. the percentage of samples exceeding the state groundwater standard of 10 mg/L,
which serves as an indicator of potential health risks to private well users
pH
pH is a measure of the acidity of water. Low pH groundwater can result from natural
conditions or human influences, including mining or other land uses. Naturally-occurring low
pH is common in North Carolina groundwater. Widespread changes in groundwater pH over
time might result from long-term changes in the pH of precipitation (acid rain) as well as long-term
changes in the distribution and infiltration of precipitation. While low pH in itself does
not constitute a health risk to well users, low pH in groundwater may increase the likelihood
of leaching of metals from aquifers, well materials and plumbing. Groundwater discharge to
surface waters can also inhibit or promote acidification in surface waters. For these reasons,
the percentage of samples number of samples with pH less than 6.5 may be an important
indicator to track for human impacts to groundwater, potential health risks to private well
users and potential impacts to surface waters.
Metals:
Arsenic
and
Chromium
Arsenic and chromium may originate from human or natural sources. Arsenic in particular is
well-known to occur naturally in North Carolina groundwater; due to geologic conditions, it is
more likely to occur in the central Piedmont. Long-term consumption of groundwater
containing these metals above health-based standards can cause health problems. Arsenic
has been associated with some cancers. The percentage of wells exceeding state
groundwater standards for arsenic and chromium is a useful indicator for tracking the degree
to which private well users might be exposed to these metals.
Metals:
Iron &
Manganese
Iron and manganese are common in North Carolina soils and rocks and occur naturally in
North Carolina groundwater, but elevated levels of iron and manganese may result from
human activity as well. Elevated levels of iron and manganese in groundwater primarily
result in concerns about water color, taste and staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry.
Groundwater monitoring by DWQ in central North Carolina also suggests that elevated iron
and manganese may reduce the mobility of arsenic in groundwater. Groundwater with high
levels of iron and manganese may also contribute to high levels of these metals in surface
water. The percentage of samples exceeding the state groundwater standard for each of
these metals was identified as an indicator of naturally occurring groundwater quality and it
can be used to assess whether human or environmental factors are impacting water quality
at a large scale.
Groundwater
About 42 percent of North Carolina’s residents rely on groundwater as a drinking water source. Under a
statewide private well testing program, all new private drinking water wells are sampled by local health
departments and analyzed for a standardized list of chemical constituents by the State Laboratory of Public
Health in the North Carolina
Department of Health and
Human Services. In addition
to the information value
to individual well users,
these samples are the most
abundant source of data on
the status of groundwater
quality across the state.
Regular review of this
data provides information
on human impacts on
groundwater quality, the
quality of groundwater
consumed by North
Carolinians and potential
impacts of groundwater
on surface waters. Table
3 describes the various
groundwater quality
indicators.
41
For the indicator parameters nitrate, pH and metals (described above), the results of private
well sample analyses from 2010 are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Groundwater Pollution Indicators and Description
Parameter Nitrate pH Arsenic Chromium Iron Manganese
State
Groundwater
Standard
10
milligrams
per liter
6.5-8.5 10
micrograms
per liter
10
micrograms
per liter
300
micrograms
per liter
50
micrograms
per liter
Number of
private well
samples
analyzed
4,110 4,901 4,870 4,892 4,896 4,900
Samples
exceeding the
State
groundwater
standard
0.7% 18.4%
below pH
of 6.5
2.4% 1.5% 57.6% 39.9%
Use of the private drinking water well dataset to establish status indicators is a new practice made
possible by the implementation of mandatory testing of all new private drinking water wells beginning in
July 2008. No trends can be established yet. DENR will continue to evaluate this dataset for indicator
parameters as long as the statewide well testing program remains in place.
Water Quantity
Another factor that affects the environment and our quality of life is the quantity of available
water. Effective management of water resources is critical to ensure that water will be available
for North Carolina’s citizens now and into the future. More than nine million residents depend
on the state’s water resources for drinking, irrigation, manufacturing and industrial processes,
mining, recreation, navigation and electricity generation (See Figure 11 below). Combined,
these users require an average of almost 11 billion gallons of water each day. Much of the
water removed from waterways is treated and released back into the waterway after use. In
addition, sufficient flow must be maintained in North Carolina’s water bodies to support fish,
wildlife and recreational uses of the state’s lakes, rivers, streams and estuaries. The N.C.
For the indicator parameters nitrate, pH and metals (described above), the results of private well sample
analyses from 2010 are summarized in Table 4.
Use of the private drinking water well dataset to establish status indicators is a new practice made possible by the
implementation of mandatory testing of all new private drinking water wells beginning in July 2008.  No trends can
be established yet.  DENR will continue to evaluate this dataset for indicator
parameters as long as the statewide well testing program remains in place.
Water Quantity
Another factor that afects the environment and our quality of life is the
quantity of available water. Efective management of water resources is critical
to ensure that water will be available for North Carolina’s citizens now and
into the future. More than nine million residents depend on the state’s water
resources for drinking, irrigation, manufacturing and industrial processes,
mining, recreation, navigation and electricity generation (See Figure 11 below).
Combined, these users require an average of almost 11 billion gallons of water
each day. Much of the water removed from waterways is treated and released
back into the waterway after use. In addition, suficient flow must be maintained
in North Carolina’s water bodies to support fish, wildlife and recreational uses
of the state’s lakes, rivers, streams and estuaries.  The N.C. Division of Water
Resources has a number of programs designed to ensure good stewardship of
the state’s water resources.
Drought Response-Water Shortage Response Plans
Although North Carolina is generally considered to be a water-rich state, water supply is not
unlimited. The limits on the state’s water resources become most apparent in times of drought.
The state has experienced two major droughts in the past decade: one from 1998 to 2002 and
another in 2007-2008. After the last major drought, the General Assembly enacted legislation
to help mitigate the effects of future droughts by requiring the development of local water
shortage response plans. The legislation requires each water system to define different local
stages of water shortage severity and outline responses to each stage that meet minimum
statewide standards. The intent is for each water system to have a framework for managing
drought conditions in a way that minimizes impacts on drinking water supply and on the local
economy. The plans, which must be approved by the Division of Water Resources (DWR), have
to be updated every five years as part of the water system’s broader water supply plan.
DWR has assisted local governments in successfully completing 533 of the 551 required local
water shortage response plans. The remaining 18 are pending local government approval.
Hydrological Modeling Program
12.9%
36.3%
20.8%
2.2%
9.4%
14.7%
3.6%
Figure 11: Estimated Net Annual Average
Water Withdrawals by Use, 2008
Electricity Generation
Public Water Systems
Domestic Self-supply
Self-Supplied
Industrial/Institutional
Mining
Agriculture & Aquaculture
Recreation
42
Drought Response-Water Shortage Response Plans
Although North Carolina is generally considered to be a water-rich state, water supply is not unlimited. The limits
on the state’s water resources become most apparent in times of drought. The state has experienced two major
droughts in the past decade: one from 1998 to 2002 and another in 2007-2008. After the last major drought, the
General Assembly enacted legislation to help mitigate the efects of future droughts by requiring the development
of local water shortage response plans. The legislation requires each water system to define diferent local stages
of water shortage severity and outline responses to each stage that meet minimum statewide standards. The
intent is for each water system to have a framework for managing drought conditions in a way that minimizes
impacts on drinking water supply and on the local economy. The plans, which must be approved by the Division of
Water Resources (DWR), have to be updated every five years as part of the water system’s broader water supply
plan.
DWR has assisted local governments in successfully completing 533 of the 551 required local water shortage
response plans. The remaining 18 are pending local government approval.
DUPLIN
COLUMBUS
ONSLOW
HARNETT
NEW
HANOVER
BLADEN
SAMPSON
PENDER
BRUNSWICK
WILSON
WAYNE
LENOIR
CARTERET
PAMLICO
CRAVEN
JONES
PITT
BEAUFORT
HYDE
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
DARE
MARTIN
BERTIE
GATES
HALIFAX
NORTHAMPTON
HERTFORD
CHOWAN
PASQUOTANK
PERQUIMANS
CAMDEN
CURRITUCK
WARREN
DURHAM
GRANVILLE
VANCE
GREENE
EDGECOMBE
NASH
FRANKLIN
JOHNSTON
WAKE
43
Map 3: The
15-county Central
Coastal Plain
Capacity Use Area
Hydrological Modeling Program
River basin hydrological models being developed by DWR will be used to project the future water needs and the
availability of water in the state’s 17 major river basins. These computer models are vital tools for comprehensively
evaluating surface water availability in each basin and for predicting the impact of additional water withdrawals
and transfers. For long-term strategic planning, the state will be able to use the models to make water resource
policy decisions and to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed water withdrawals on water supply.   DWR
has completed hydrologic models for the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins. The division is currently working on
models for the Tar-Pamlico and Broad River Basins. The division is currently working on models for the Tar-Pamlico
and Broad River Basins. Those models are expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Models for the remaining
river basins will be completed during the next 10 years.
The division uses existing water use data and growth projections provided by local governments to develop the
hydrologic models and to implement comprehensive basin-wide water resources planning.   Local water shortage
response plans will be incorporated into the river basin hydrologic models, allowing local governments to assess
the efectiveness of the plans in the context of other influences on water supply. When completed, the models will
be able to project where water shortages are most likely to occur 20 to 50 years into the future. Local governments
will be able to use this information to prepare for or avoid these projected shortages and plan for continued
economic growth.
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area Rules (CCPCUA)
The central coastal plain capacity use area is a 15-county region in the coastal plain.
For many years, the deep confined aquifers, which are the primary source of water in
the area, were being over-used.  Water was being withdrawn at a rate that was greater
than the natural recharge.  If this situation had been allowed to continue indefinitely,
the aquifers would have eventually been permanently damaged, impairing their ability
to function as a water supply. Because of this significant groundwater depletion, the
Environmental Management Commission adopted rules, efective in August 2002, to
manage withdrawals from the aquifers.
The rules require anyone who withdraws more than 100,000 gallons of groundwater
per day to obtain a permit for the withdrawal; withdrawals of more than 10,000
gallons per day must be registered. Through the permitting system, large water users
in some parts of the capacity use area were required to reduce withdrawals from the
aquifers to allow the aquifer to recover. DWR has worked with local governments in
the Central Coastal Plain to reduce reliance on these limited groundwater sources
and develop alternative water supplies.   By 2011, 33 percent of local governments
in the area had new water sources or connectivity with other water systems, making those
communities less vulnerable to drought and beter able to sustain population growth and
economic development. The Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use program has already shown
early success; by reducing aquifer withdrawals, the aquifers have begun to recover -- with
groundwater levels rising more than 30 feet in some areas.
44
Table 5: Population Served by Compliant Community Public Water Systems
Compliance Measures
1999 (baseline)
2007
2008
2009
2010
Population± Percent Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent
Citizens Served by Community
Public Water Systems having No
MCL* Violations
6,475,785
97.5%
6,216,081
90.2%
6,913,713
94.4%
6,790,618
91.3% 7,550,874 96.5%
Citizens Served by Community
Public Water Systems having No
MR† Violations
5,801,083 87.3%
5,295,021
76.8%
6,801,313
92.8%
6,834,719
91.9% 7,291,626 93.2%
Total Service Population
6,644,281
6,891,776 7,327,179
7,440,822
7,821,672
* “MCL” means a violation with regards to the maximum permissible contaminant level in water delivered by a public water system.† “MR” means a failure to monitor for required water quality tests
as defined by federal and state regulations and for 1999 through the first half of 2005 includes systems that failed to report on time.± 1999 population data is based on last available record prior to
Oct. 1, 2005.
Protecting Drinking Water
Public water systems range from large municipalities to country stores that serve a minimum of 25 individuals for
60 days per year. The complexity of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) can make compliance dificult to
achieve for many small systems.  Of the 6,390 regulated public water systems, about 5,641 serve a population of
less than 500. The Division of Water Resources’ Public Water Supply Section (PWS Section) is the primary agency
responsible for assuring that the people of North Carolina are provided safe drinking water from public water
systems.
In 2010, 96.5 percent of the state’s citizens were served by systems meeting all health-based standards. This is
otherwise known as citizens served by community public water systems having no maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations. This was an improvement compared to the previous year’s 91.3 percent. Table 5 shows the
compliance rates for the past four years, as well as the baseline measure from 1999.
45
Source Water Protection Program
The Public Water Supply Section continued to improve and implement North Carolina’s Source Water Protection
Program (SWP Program) during 2010. The SWP Program evaluates the susceptibility to contamination and initiates
protective strategies for the state’s public drinking water resources. Activities include delineation and assessment,
wellhead and surface water protection, coordination with other state agencies and program creation designed
to initiate SWP Program eforts. These activities allow public
water systems to protect their water sources and thus increase
capacity. Systems that maintain drinking water sources that are
less susceptible to contamination achieve greater financial and
technical capacity because fewer resources are spent maintaining
water treatment.
The SWP Program promotes and provides technical expertise to
assist communities with local SWP plans. A seven-step process
has been used successfully across the state to protect ground and
surface water sources. To date, the PWS Section has approved five
local surface water protection plans which serve to protect drinking
water for approximately 220,000 residents. The SWP planning
process empowers local stakeholders to define and achieve long-term,
proactive drinking water protection goals.
46
Coastal and Estuarine Resources
North Carolina’s coastal ecosystem consists of 2.3 million acres of coastal and estuarine habitats. The Albemarle-
Pamlico estuarine system is the second largest estuarine complex in the lower 48 states, with more than 3,000
square miles of open water. The system supports important habitat areas for fish and shellfish, including key nursery
areas for east coast fisheries. North Carolina’s coastal waters also sustain an array of economic, recreational and
aesthetic functions that are of regional and national importance.
North Carolina is one of the nation’s leading coastal fishing states.   More than 90 percent of North Carolina’s
commercial fisheries landings and more than 60 percent of the recreational harvest (by weight) are comprised of
species that depend on estuarine waters for some portion of their life cycle.  Some of the most valuable commercial
species include blue crab, shrimp and southern flounder, while sought after recreational species include spoted
seatrout, red drum and striped bass.
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) both protect coastal
resources. The DCM carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, the Dredge and Fill Law and the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties, using rules and policies of the N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission, known as the CRC. The CRC and the DCM work together to fulfill the primary mission
of the Coastal Area Management Act, which is to balance the
competing demands of protecting coastal resources while guiding
and managing development in the 20 coastal counties, and to
protect the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical, aesthetic,
cultural and recreational qualities of the state’s coastal shorelines.
DCM’s coastal nonpoint source program, administered through a
partnership with the Division of Water Quality, provides federal
funds to support projects and initiatives focusing on nonpoint
source issues and concerns in the coastal area. It also supports
water quality planning at N.C. Sea Grant, which provides education
and outreach to local governments.
The Division of Marine Fisheries protects and manages coastal
fisheries and habitats through the development of Fishery
Management Plans and the N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan
(CHPP). The CHPP summarizes the environmental conditions
required to sustain all coastal aquatic habitats, the beneficial
services they provide to fish and the environment, their current
status and trends, the major threats affecting them, and recommendations to protect, restore and enhance their
condition. The full plan is available at DMF’s website (htp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/59).
Coastal water quality directly afects the condition of other aquatic habitats that support coastal fisheries and
enhance water quality.  In addition to providing structure for fish, wetlands and oysters help to filter pollutants
47
and sediment from water and stabilize shorelines. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) traps sediment, removes
carbon dioxide from the water and releases oxygen into the water.
Changes in distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation and shell bottom (oyster beds) can be an indication
of water quality changes. Mapping eforts indicate that SAV distribution in Pamlico, Core and Bogue Sounds is
relatively stable. SAV has been expanding in the lower salinity areas of Albemarle Sound and tributaries, Currituck
Sound and Back Bay, Neuse and Pamlico Rivers and tributaries, and high salinity areas south of Bogue Sound.
The increase in coverage is thought to be related to increased salinity and improved water clarity associated
with reduced frequency of major storm events and the persistent drought conditions present in eastern North
Carolina in recent years.
Shell botom consists of concentrations or reefs of oysters, clams and other shellfish.  Shell botom condition can
be assessed by quantifying changes in acreage and distribution through mapping, and by monitoring the number
of new oysters that setle onto shell (referred to as spatfall). In the 1990s, spatfall sampling data indicated that
oyster stocks and harvest from Pamlico Sound remained low due to disease-related death and low number of
adults (biomass). Since 2001, annual spatfall has increased in both the northern and southern areas of the coast
(Figure 12). During the same period of increased spatfall, there was a decline in the prevalence of disease in adult
oysters, indicating that the reduced disease prevalence may be resulting in less stressed oysters, lower mortality
and increased reproduction.
Fish Consumption
Many people enjoy fishing in North Carolina waters. They also enjoy eating their catch
and fish is a healthy, low-fat source of protein. The Division of Water Quality routinely
monitors water quality and fish tissue for potential problems.
The N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issues fish consumption
advisories if a particular fish species presents a health threat because of contamination
in the water body where the fish is found. The advisory may suggest limiting
consumption of those fish or recommend avoiding eating those fish altogether.
There is a general statewide advisory that recommends limiting the consumption of
all fish from North Carolina waters in relation to low-level mercury contamination.
Covered species include cobia, marlin, orange roughy, shark, swordfish, catfish
(caught wild), largemouth bass, and yellow perch.
There also are fifteen water body-specific fish consumption advisories for a variety of
species. View information at the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services to
learn more about fish consumption advisories near you.
48
Figure 12 Average number of attached juvenile oysters (spatfall) per unit cultch (shell), in northern and southern coastal
waters (southern district includes from Newport River to South Carolina), 1981–2011
The 2010 N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan assessed the effect and severity of land and
water based activities on coastal waters and habitats. Water quality degradation not only
impacts the waters that fish and people rely on, but also the habitats that need certain
environmental conditions to thrive.
Threats to coastal waters and habitat come from many sources and usually affect more than
one habitat to various extents. Table 6 lists different human activities that can affect coastal
habitats and water quality, and rates the potential severity of these activities, pollutants, and
other stressors on each fish habitat. Stormwater runoff, associated with numerous activities, is
considered a major threat to coastal water quality and fish habitat. Climate change and
accelerated sea level rise can have an overarching effect on all of North Carolina’s coastal
waters and nearshore habitats. North Carolina was rated as one of the four most vulnerable
states in the United States to sea level rise. Climate change and sea level rise are now
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 1 3 5 7 9 11
Spat/unit cultch
Year
Northern
Southern
Figure 12: Average number of attached juvenile oysters (spatfall) per unit
cultch (shell), in northern and southern coastal waters (southern district
includes from Newport River to South Carolina), 1981–2011
The 2010 N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan assessed the efect and severity of land and water based activities
on coastal waters and habitats. Water quality degradation not only impacts the waters that fish and people rely
on, but also the habitats that need certain environmental conditions to thrive.
Threats to coastal waters and habitat come from many sources and usually afect more than one habitat to various
extents. Table 6 lists diferent human activities that can afect coastal habitats and water quality, and rates the
potential severity of these activities, pollutants, and other stressors on each fish habitat.   Stormwater runoff,
associated with numerous activities, is considered a major threat to coastal water quality and fish habitat. Climate
change and accelerated sea level rise can have an overarching efect on all of North Carolina’s coastal waters and
nearshore habitats. North Carolina was rated as one of the four most vulnerable states in the United States to sea
level rise. Climate change and sea level rise are now recognized as a priority issue for DENR.
49
Threat
category Source and/or impact
Water column
Shell bottom
SAV
Wetlands
Soft bottom
Hard bottom
Physical threats/
hydrologic
modifications
Boating activity
Channelization
Dredging (navigation channels, boat basins)
Fishing gear impacts
Infrastructure (i.e., pipelines)
Jetties and groins
Mining
Obstructions (dams, culverts, locks)
Estuarine shoreline stabilization
Ocean shoreline stabilization
Upland development
Water withdrawals
Water quality
degradation-sources
Land use change and nonpoint sources
Water-dependent development (marinas and docks)
Point sources
Water quality
degradation-causes
Marine debris
Microbial contamination
Nutrients and eutrophication
Saline discharge
Suspended sediment and turbidity
Toxic chemicals
Disease and microbial stressors
Non-native, invasive or nuisance species
Sea-level rise/climate change
Table 6:
Threat sources and
impact severities to
coastal fish habitat.
Shading = relative
severity of impact;
white = no impact/
unknown,
yellow = minor,
orange = moderate,
red = major
50
and Roanoke River is an example of a stock that has increased dramatically from very low levels
in the early 1990s (Figure 13). Red drum, the state saltwater fish, relies on estuarine wetlands,
grass beds and oysters for nursery area, cover and food, and migrates to ocean waters with age
and season. The status of the red drum has also improved (Figure 14). Blueback herring
migrate upstream to spawn but use small tributaries and flooded wetlands for spawning.
Blueback herring and alewife comprise the river herring fishery, which is one of the state’s
oldest fisheries, and of great cultural importance in northeastern North Carolina. Blueback
herring is an example of a stock that has not recovered, despite a fishing moratorium since
2007 (Figure 15). Changes or obstructions to water flow and water quality degradation are
potential reasons. Management is focused on monitoring the stock during the fishery closure,
determining the location of spawning habitats and removing stream blockages (i.e., dams and
culverts) to historic spawning habitats.
Figures 13-15. Trends in stock size currently used to address stock status. The “threshold”(red
line) is the point at which a stock is no longer considered depleted, while the “target” (green
line) is the level which management aims to achieve. No target is available for
Albemarle/Roanoke striped bass.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Spawning Stock Biomass (lb)
Figure 13: Striped Bass Stock
(Albemarle/Roanoke)
Fish Populations
The state of fishery stocks is due to a combination of factors, including environmental conditions, fishery
management and habitat condition.   DMF conducts sampling to determine the status of stocks annually
(htp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/stock-status-reports). Annual changes in the amount of adult spawners are
often used to assess trends in fish populations and determine the status of a stock.  The estuarine striped bass
stock in the Albemarle Sound and Roanoke River is an example of a stock that has increased dramatically from very
low levels in the early 1990s (Figure 13).  Red drum, the state saltwater fish, relies on estuarine wetlands, grass
beds and oysters for nursery area, cover and food, and migrates to ocean waters with age and season. The status of
the red drum has also improved (Figure 14).  Blueback herring migrate upstream to spawn but use small tributaries
and flooded wetlands for spawning.  Blueback herring and alewife comprise the river herring fishery, which is one
of the state’s oldest fisheries, and of great cultural importance in northeastern North Carolina.  Blueback herring
is an example of a stock that has not recovered, despite a fishing moratorium since 2007 (Figure 15). Changes
or obstructions to water flow and water quality degradation are potential reasons. Management is focused on
monitoring the stock during the fishery closure, determining the location of spawning habitats and removing
stream blockages (i.e., dams and culverts) to historic spawning habitats.
Figures 13-15.  Trends in stock size currently used to address stock status.  The “threshold”(red line) is the point at
which a stock is no longer considered depleted, while the “target” (green line) is the level which management aims
to achieve. No target is available for Albemarle/Roanoke striped bass.
51
Beach Water Quality Monitoring
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Spawning Potential Ratio (3 yr
avg)
Figure 14: Red Drum Stock
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Spawning Stock Biomass (lb)
Figure 15: Blueback Herring Stock
52
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Advisories & Days
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
# of Adv. Issued 3 10 11 5 4 0 34 46 16 40 22 24 35 45
Total Days Under Adv. 180 515 296 160 128 0 874 633 190 440 193 173 437 851
Figure 16: Coastal Swimming Advisories by Year
Beach Water Quality Monitoring
In addition to ensuring that water quality is safe for aquatic species, DENR also makes sure that coastal waters are
safe for human activities. The DMF Recreational Water Quality Program monitors 240 sites along the ocean beaches,
sounds and coastal rivers and notifies the public when water quality does not meet standards for swimming. The
water is tested for the bacteria enterococci. While enterococci may not cause illness itself, its presence is used as
an indicator that other disease-causing organisms could be present.  Swimming advisories and signs are posted
when results exceed swimming water standards.
Figure 16 shows the number of swimming advisories for each year.  The total time a site is under a swimming
advisory can vary in duration from one day to multiple months.  The total number of advisory days (days under
advisory, summed over all individual advisory sites) may be a beter indicator of water quality trends than the
total number of advisories issued (Figure 16). In 2003, the increase in both advisories and advisory days is due to a
change in criteria for classifying recreational waters and the unusual amount of rainfall for that year. The majority
of the swimming advisories occur at sound-side beaches and approximately 10 of these sites have recurring
advisories and are responsible for many of the advisory days depicted in the graph. Storm water run-off, pets,
marinas, wildlife and birds all contribute to these sound-side swimming advisories.
2007 and 2008 were both abnormally dry and this contributed to the low number of advisories. The increase in
advisories in 2010 is a result of increased rainfall and a larger number of days under advisory. Other than a few
exceptions, monitoring has shown excellent water quality for North Carolina’s ocean beaches.   An interactive
map and data are available showing the location and advisory status of recreational water quality monitoring at:
htp://xapps.enr.state.nc.us/eh/beaches/viewSiteMap.do
53
Current Initiatives
Stormwater Management – Stormwater runoff is one of the most critical threats to preserving and improving
water quality.  Runoff from developed areas, active construction sites, farms and industrial operations can carry
a wide range of pollutants to rivers and streams. Those pollutants include sediment, pesticides, nutrients (from
fertilizer, animal waste), oil and other chemical pollutants that run of hard surfaces like roofs and paved roads.
One of the primary tools for controlling the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from urbanized areas and
from development activities is through the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program. This program, created under the federal Clean Water Act, requires permits for point source discharges
of stormwater from industrial activities and from municipal stormwater systems. (In this case, a “municipal”
stormwater system means any public system that collects and discharges stormwater; it may actually be operated
by a county, a university, a military base or other public entity.)  DENR’s Division of Water Quality implements the
NPDES stormwater permiting program in North Carolina.
The department also implements stormwater programs created under state law to control stormwater runof
to sensitive water bodies such as water supply reservoirs, shellfish waters and other water bodies experiencing
pollution problems.
In connection with these regulatory and permiting programs, the Division of Water Quality provides technical
assistance, educational materials and outreach:
• Staf continues to maintain and regularly update a manual of stormwater best management practices BMPs)
and provides technical assistance on the materials. Conservation tillage, vegetative bufers along streams and
sediment retention ponds are all examples of BMPs.
• The division continues to partner with N.C. State University to ofer regular Stormwater BMP Reviewer
Certification workshops for local governments. The workshop includes training on stormwater management,
regulatory issues and review of BMP design, implementation,
maintenance and inspection.   Due to limited funding only
one workshop has been held in 2011.
• The division collaborates with the Water Resources Research
Institute to ofer regular stormwater and wetlands training
activities for engineers, consultants, local governments
and other interested parties. These eforts have been well
received and are continuing on a regular basis at various
locations across the state.
Learn more about the division’s stormwater
awareness outreach and education eforts by visiting
htp://www.ncstormwater.org.
54
Nutrient Management – High levels of nutrients in surface waters (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) can cause
excessive algal growth and fish kills.  In response to nutrient problems in rivers,  water supply reservoirs and the
Neuse River estuary, North Carolina has developed nutrient control management strategies for  both point sources
(wastewater and industrial dischargers) and nonpoint sources (urban stormwater, agricultural activities, and septic
systems). Those strategies have evolved over time in response to lessons learned through implementation. The
major nutrient reduction strategies currently in place typically include phosphorus and/or nitrogen limits for
facilities with NPDES permits and BMPs to control nutrient loading from agricultural land, urban areas and other
nonpoint sources.
These nutrient management strategies have been successful in the Neuse River and the Neuse estuary, which had
experienced serious algal blooms and large fish kills in the late 1980s because of excess nutrients. Similar nutrient
management strategies have more recently been developed for two large water supply reservoirs –Jordan Lake
and Falls Lake – to protect future drinking water supplies. Those strategies are just moving into implementation.
In connection with final legislative approval of the Jordan Lake
nutrient management strategy, the General Assembly, in Session
Law 2009-216, required the department to create a scientific
advisory board to evaluate and assign nutrient reduction credits
to diferent nutrient reduction best management practices.   The
work of the N.C. Nutrient Scientific Advisory Board will help DWQ
and local governments identify efective strategies for reducing
 
nutrient loading from existing development  as required under both
the Jordan Lake and Falls Lake nutrient management strategies.
The dificulty of crafting cost-efective nutrient reduction
strategies for existing development in the Jordan Lake and Falls
Lake watersheds has focused atention on the need to manage
the nutrient impacts of new development before water quality
becomes impaired. In 2012, the Division of Water Quality will host
a two-day forum - “Water Quality Standards & the Management of
Nutrient Over-enrichment: The Science, Regulation, Economics and Public Policy,” targeted for state, federal, local
governments as well as research, industry and any other groups conducting water-related monitoring in North
Carolina.   The goal of the conference is to share the most recent scientific, economic and policy development
information on nutrient over-enrichment and nutrient management.
Sedimentation – Sediment has a significant impact on water quality and the state has taken measures to reduce
the amount soil that enters waterways. During land development, land is cleared and graded, removing natural
vegetation and topsoil and making the area susceptible to erosion, which carries sediment onto nearby lands and
into water bodies.
55
Photo - NC State
It is very rare today to walk on a construction site or mine where sediment has poured off the site leaving deep
eroded gullies.   Repairing damage from sedimentation is expensive both economically and environmentally.
Sediment deposition destroys fish spawning beds, reduces the useful storage volume in reservoirs, clogs streams,
may carry toxic chemicals and requires costly filtration for municipal water supplies. Suspended sediment can
reduce in-stream photosynthesis and alter a stream’s ecology. Many environmental impacts from sediment
are cumulative, and the ultimate results and costs may not be evident for years. The consequences of of-site
sedimentation can be severe and should not be considered as just a problem to those immediately afected.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 authorized the state to
create and administer a program to reduce sedimentation resulting from
erosion when people disturb the land.   The sedimentation and erosion
control program in the Division of Land Resources (DLR) plays a key role
in the state’s NPDES construction stormwater permiting program.   The
Division of Water Quality issues a general construction stormwater NPDES
permit based on compliance with a sedimentation and erosion control
plan approved by the Division of Land Resources. These control plans often
require silt fences and undisturbed bufers to protect watercourses. More
than 3,000 new or revised sedimentation plans were reviewed by DLR during
FY 2010-11.  Fewer than 500 of these plans were disapproved.  Monitoring
of the approved sites was achieved through 20,152 inspections. In addition,
the state may delegate authority to implement the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act to cities and counties that adopt a qualifying local erosion and
sediment control ordinance in compliance with state requirements. Local
programs’ stafs perform plan reviews and enforce compliance with plans
within their jurisdictions.
Two new challenges have emerged during the economic downturn since
2008.   First, large construction projects that stopped before completion
because of bankruptcies and defaults left a bank responsible for sites requiring work to stabilize disturbed areas and
address ongoing sedimentation problems.  The second challenge is the limited staf to enforce the requirements of
the sedimentatio