Estuarine Watersheds Preliminary Report-1993

A0.
igpvo .11
= I
ml
ml
.. 'r *t -I. I,- 7-�-.
wIMW
�-"
mi

s,
Summary Project Completion Report
New Hanover County
Contract No. F-3059
Grant Amount $9,717.00
Estuarine Creek and Watershed Management Program
The Estuarine Creek and Watershed Management Program is intended to provide
improved coastal water quality through the implementation of recommended
management strategies, which include: water quality studies; local regulatory
changes (zoning, subdivision); structural controls for stormwater management;
specific watershed/land use plans; education; BMP's; C.A.M.A. regulatory changes
and others. New Hanover County and the State will gain valuable insight into the
estuarine environment through the implementation of this program and continued
cooperation on future studies of estuarine water quality.
Work Program
The work program was completed as outlined in the Contracts "Attachment
All.
Projects Completed
Development of geographic information system (G.I.S.) database; digitized
maps of estuarine watersheds; establishment of information clearinghouse;
Summary Report on Estuarine Creek and Watershed Management Program
Participating Groups
University of N.C. at Wilmington
Center for Marine Science Research (UNCW)
Northeast New Hanover Conservancy
Anticipated Benefits to Local Government
Protection and enhancement of coastal water quality; better information
for local elected officials and other decisionmakers; expanded G.I.S.
database; foundation for future development of individual watershed plans
that will address issues of carrying capacity and cumulative impacts;
impetus for additional water quality studies to be carried out by the
Center for Marine Science Research.
Contribution to Environmental Integrity of Coastal North Carolina
The implementation of this program will result in baseline water quality
data that the State can use in the development of objective criteria for
determining cumulative impacts. The framework for the development of the
program and the G.I.S. database are also transferable to other coastal
jurisdictions.
Products
1. Summary Report
2. Watershed Maps
3. G.I.S. Watershed Database

New Hanover County's
Estuarine Watersheds
Preliminary Report
September 1993

I
I
I
r�
I
11
New Hanover County Estuarine Watersheds
Preliminary Report
September 1993
New Hanover County Planning Department
Dexter Hayes, Director
Patrick Lowe, Assistant Director
Planner -in -Charge
Staff Planners
Walter "Pete" Avery
Wanda Coston
Sam Burgess
Chris O'Keefe
CAMA Interns
D. Dylan Lee
Michael Herrmann
Administrative Secretary
Phoebe Saavedra
Graphics Planning Technician
Lisa Elaine Horne
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Robert G. Greer, Chairman
E. L. "Matt" Mathews, Vice Chairman
Sandra Barone
William A. Caster
William Sisson
Planning Board Members
Kenneth A. Shanklin, Chairman
u
u
Charles R. Howell, Vice Chairman
Ernest Puskas
Wesley Nixon
Dr. William B. Harris
Joyce Fernando
James E. Wolle
The preparation of this document was financed, in part, through a Coastal Area Management Act
by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds by
grant provided provided
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197Z as amended, which is administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Q

9
Table of Contents
aI. Introduction...............................................................................................1
II.
The Emerging Water Quality Issue.................................................................1
III.
Goals and Objectives...................................................................................
2
IV.
The Geographic Information System
............................................................... 3
V.
The Estuarine Watersheds.............................................................................
4
• Futch Creek Watershed Profile .............................................................
4-7
• Howe Creek Watershed Profile
........................................................... 8-11
• Hewletts Creek Watershed Profile ..................................................... 12-15
(� Pages Creek Watershed Profile.......................................................... 16-19
L1 Other Creeks in New Hanover County ................................................... 20
0 VI. Estuarine Creek Regulations........................................................................ 21
VIE. Special Focused Area Creek Studies............................................................. 22
• Futch Creek Studies ............................... 22
.............................................
• Major Estuarine Creek Studies ......... 22
....................................................
rt VIII. Summary / Recommendations................................................................. 23-24
uIX. Appendix ................................................................................................ 25
0
U1
0
U1

INTRODUCTION
llfi hin on December 6 1991 b the N.C. Division of
When Howe Creek was closed to shellfishing g y
Shellfish Sanitation residents were both shocked and outraged by the loss of the once pristine
waters. How could this happen to a creek that was designated an Outstanding Resource Water
(SA-ORW), a classification for unique tidal waters that was supposed to ensure the highest level
of protection ?
This study of New Hanover County's estuarine watersheds was initiated due to growing
0 community concern over declining water quality in the creeks and sounds. A gradual yet continu-
ous decline, it went largely unnoticed for many years except by the local fishermen and longterm
residents.
However, the slow but steady decline in water quality was becoming more evident as one
by one the County's creeks were closed to shellfishing. Environmental agencies and groups had
monitored and reported on the decline for years, but with little action being taken there were
too, few positive results to show for their efforts.
With the closure of Howe Creek, all of New Hanover County's estuarine creeks are now
either fully or partially closed to shellfishing.
U
0 THE EMERGING WATER QUALITY ISSUE
I
0
1
V
In November of 1991 an opinion survey was conducted in preparation for the Wilmington -
New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan (LUP) Update. When asked to consider a number of
land use and environmental issues, citizens focused on drinking water quality, overdevelopment
& growth management and pollution of the environment as the issues of most importance to
them.
A series of public meetings was held throughout the county in December to further iden-
tify issues for consideration in the LUP Update. These meetings reinforced the issues identified
by the survey. They also found an increasing concern among citizens that overdevelopment was
contributing to declining water quality in the creeks and sounds as well as a decline in the overall
quality of their neighborhoods.
These issues were further reinforced when the County Planning Board and City Planning
Commission jointly convened on March 11, 1992 to begin consideration of the draft LUP Update.
After numerous worksessions and two public hearings the issue of "environmental quality" had
emerged time and again. And in a county surrounded on three of its four sides by water, whose
history has been so strongly influenced by the river and the sea, water quality is an inseparable
part of our lives. That was the message that was coming from the residents of New Hanover
County. Protect our environment; protect the quality of our waters.

I
U GOALS & OBJECTIVES
As a result of these meetings and mounting public sentiment to protect and restore estua-
g gP
nne water quality, the Board of Commissioners stated on January 6, 1992 that "New Hanover
County will use every means at its disposal to reduce as much as possible, the pollution in all
creeks. In the following months they went on to authorize the Planning Department to begin
studies of the watersheds and to seek State grant funding for assistance. The purpose of the
studies would be the development of a watershed management program.
The programs long term goals were outlined by the following policy statements, which are
included in the draft "Policies for Growth and Development" of the Land Use Plan Update :
(� 1. Review and fully consider the cumulative impacts of development and the limited carrying
U capacity of our coastal ecosystem in all land use decisions.
a2. Protect, preserve and restore shellfishing in all SA waters.
3. Take all necessary action to prevent further deterioration
of estuarine water quality and loss of public trust uses in the creeks and sounds, and bring
all coastal waters up to the highest quality.
4. Carefully control development activities in the estuarine watersheds to prevent the degra-
dation of water quality in the creeks and sounds and to ensure the protection of these
vital natural resources.
The more immediate objectives for implementation of the program were to: a) establish the
County as an information clearinghouse: coordinating state, local and university efforts; sponsor-
ing local groups; focus work on common objective b) define information needs; c) create GIS
database; d) initiate field investigations; e) analyze preliminary baseline data; 0 provide a sum-
mary report and preliminary recommendations.
0
a
I

I
THE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
QNew Hanover County is utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS) for the compila-
tion, analysis and display of data gathered for the Estuarine Watershed Management Program.
DGIS technology is a relatively new tool in municipal government that is used to develop and
maintain maps in a computerized format. What distinguishes the GIS from other computer aided
mapping programs is its ability to relate any data with a geographic reference, called attributes,
with its corresponding map features.
The County has used the GIS to graphically record both mapped and other attribute infor-
mation for the land surrounding the estuarine system. For example, lines were drawn (digitized)
into the system to represent soil type boundaries. Attribute information associated with each soil
polygon formed by these lines was added to include its size, information about the soil type and
recommended uses for the soil. This attribute information can be displayed right on the map,
(� giving a visual dimension to the analysis and the decision making process.
LJ New Hanover County's GIS has allowed data to be easily shared between the various
organizations involved which has helped to eliminate the possibility of a duplication of effort, an
important part of the County's clearinghouse function. The system is updated as additional
scientific data is gathered and changes occur in the surrounding land uses.
Sampling locations have attribute data for dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, nutrients,
pesticides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, sediment, and fresh water. Residential, recreational and
commercial development along the creeks has also been monitored and digitized on the GIS to
complete the physical, chemical and biotic description of the estuarine system. Maps and related
data are printed out as needed for field checks and analysis. Data input is monitored regularly to
minimize the risk of error.
Although initial stages in the data collection and mapping process were time consuming
and labor intensive, queries are relatively simple now that the GIS database is constructed. Ad-
ditionally, updating data and changing features can be done in a fraction of the time required by
the previous manual methods.
Because this is an ongoing study, graphic and attribute information will be continuously
updated as field work continues. Presently maps and analysis can be produced displaying various
aspects of the estuarine system. The GIS's most obvious contribution to the study is the
computer's ability to change and rapidly print out maps at various scales showing different as-
pects of the estuarine watershed with attribute information included. The following maps can be
printed with only one layer visible at a time or with numerous layers:
• Septic Tank Suitability
Soil Classifications
Conservation overlay districts
• Street Centerline Network
• Parcel information
• Topography
(� Testing sites (Futch Creek only)
�J -3-

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IQ
I
U
THE ESTUARINE WATERSHEDS
FUTCH CREEK WATERSHED PROFILE
Futch Creek watershed straddles the New Hanover County and Pender County boundary
(see Futch Creek Watershed Map). For years the creek has been the most pristine in New Hanover
County. Until recently it exhibited the typical rural character of years past, with farming in the
upland areas and excellent shellfishing and other recreational opportunities. However, new
development has been steadily moving into the area including a large golf course/residential
project and a retirement center.
Still, much of the creek's watershed remains open space with some of the land being
among the County's last remaining prime farmland. Of the watershed's total 1673 acres, 1377
acres remain as undeveloped land in large lots. Approximately 350 subdivided lots are currently
vacant but they will probably be built on within the next few years.
If the area is developed to its maximum potential allowed by current zoning classifications,
Futch Creek will have 3351 dwelling units within the watershed (see Table 1). New Hanover
County is currently extending sewer service to a large portion of the watershed within the
County's jurisdiction. Of the area that will not be provided with sewer, much of the soil has
been rated Class I or Class II, which is suitable for septic tank use (see Soil Classification Map).
Based upon these soil classifications and the County's sewer construction plans development is
expected to occur as projected.
Development within the Creek's watershed has been predominantly residential. Commer-
cial activity has been limited to locations along Market Street (Hwy 17), at the extreme western
edge of the watershed. Mobile homes are scattered throughout the area and generally located on
large lots, as opposed to being concentrated in parks as they are in other areas of the County.
Futch Creek's SA classification indicates that the waters are suitable for commercial
shellfishing, recreation, fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival and wildlife habitat. The
entire creek has also been identified as a primary nursery area. This means that the creek pro-
vides an important breeding area for fish and shellfish that are native to our coastal waters.
However, most of the creek is closed to shellfishing due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
Due to this pollution, Futch Creek has been the subject of a recent water quality study
carried out by UNCW on behalf of the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy. This study has
helped to pinpoint locations within the creek where pollution levels have been consistently high..
Work is currently underway to identify the sources of the pollution and to prevent further con-
tamination of the creek. The County is taking a lead role in coordinating the efforts of the vari-
ous agencies involved and bringing resources to bear on solving the problem.
-4-

if
p Table 1
FUTCH CREEK
WATERSHED
I
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL BY
ZONING DISTRICT
AS OF
JULY 23, 1993
I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I TOTAL
I VACANT I
BUILT
I ACRES I
VACANT
I POTENTIAL
I MAXIMUM I
ZONING
I ACRES
I LOTS I
UNITS
I DEVELOPED I
LAND (Ac)
I UNITS
I BUILDOUT I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I R-10
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0 I
0
l 0
i
1 I
R-15
I 887.5
I 1 I
78
I 100 I
787.5
I 1969
I 2047 I
R-20
I 734
I 265 I
72
I 164 I
570
I 1083
I 1155 i
R-20S
I 35
I 85 I
118
I 18.5 I
16.5
I 31
I 149 I
B-1
I 10
I 0 I
0
I 10 I
0
I 0
I 0
I B-2
I 7
I 0 I
0
I 4 I
3
I 0
I 0
I-1
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0 I
IPD
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
-----------
TOTAL
I
I
I
I---------
I 1673.5
I
I
I
I--------- I---------
I 351 I
I I
I I
I I
268
I--------- I---------
I 296.5 I
I I
I I
I I
1377
I---------
I 3083
I
I
I
I--------- I
I 3351 i
I I
I I
I I
FUTCH CREEK
WATERSHED
I
EXISTING AND
VACANT UNITS
BY ZONING
DISTRICT
------------------
I SINGLE I
------------------------------------------------------
HIGH
I MOBILE I
COMMER-
I INSTI-
I INDUST- I
OPEN
I EXISTING I
VACANT I
ZONING
I FAMILY I
DENSITY
I HOME I
CIAL
I TUTIONAL
I RIAL I
SPACE
I UNITS I
LOTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I R-10
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0 I
I
R-15
I 70 I
0
I 5
I 1
I 2
i 0 I
0
I 78 I
1 I
I R-20
I 70 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 2
I 0 I
O
I 72 I
265
R-20S
I 118 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 118 I
85
I B-1 (SITES)
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0 I
I
B-2 (SITES)
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0
I I
I-1 (SITES)
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 I
0
I 0
I I
IPD
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 I
0
l 0
1 I
10&I (SITES)
I 0 I
0
I 0
I 0
I 0
I 0 i
--------- I---------
0
I 0
I ---------
I I
I--------- I
- I-----------
TOTAL
I
I --------- I
I 258 I
I I
---------
0
I ---------
I 5
I
I---------
I 1
I
I---------
I 4
I
I
I 0 I
I I
0
I 268
I
I 351
I I

HOWE CREEK WATERSHED PROFILE
Howe Creek is.the only creek in the County's estuarine system classified as SA/ORW -
Outstanding Resource Water. The ORW class indicates unique and special waters of exceptional
state or national, recreational or ecological significance which require special protection. While
the Creek's watershed is relatively small, it is developing rapidly and has the largest number of
subdivided vacant lots (1120 lots) of all the County's estuarine watersheds (see Table 2).
Despite the creeks central location in New Hanover County, the Howe Creek watershed
has remained relatively undeveloped until recently (see Howe Creek Watershed Map). However, the
magnitude of new development which is occurring within the watershed has brought concern
over the impact it may be having on the quality of the water in the creek. Howe Creek, which
lies between Ogden and the Middle Sound community to the North and Pembroke Jones/Land-
fall to the South has been the focal point of numerous water quality disputes in recent years.
Runoff from areas of new residential and golf course development in addition to agricultural
runoff from large tracts of farmland at the headwaters of the creek contributed to the creeks
closure to shellfishing in December, 1991.
Howe Creek contains a wide variety of residential and commercial land uses. Fifty eight
commercial and eight institutional uses have located along the U.S. 76 (Military Cutoff Rd.) and
U.S. 17 (Market Street) corridors. These intense uses have increased the percentage of impervious
{ surface and added traffic to new streets throughout the watershed.
The County has provided sewer service to the land south of the creek and to several new
projects on the north side. The soils to the south of the creek are primarily class III, which are
not generally considered suitable for development with septic systems (see Soil Classification Map).
North of the creek, the Middle Sound area has not been provided with sewer. However, most of
this area has been permitted to use septic systems despite the class III soils and proximity to the
creek and intracoastal waterway. Most of the development occurring to the north of the creek
has been single family detached housing on large lots.
If sewer were to be provided to the remainder of the watershed, the current zoning would
allow an additional 2992 units to be built. Already there are over 1000 vacant platted lots, most
of which are south or west of the creek. However, new development will likely come under more
intense scrutiny due to the creeks ORW classification, rapid residential and commercial develop-
ment and the recent closure to shellfishing. Golf courses, residential development and commer-
cial development along the Market Street and Military Cutoff corridors is being closely monitored
for potential impacts each of these may have on water quality in Howe Creek.
u
u -8-

L
I
4
L
L
I
Table 2
HOWE CREEK
WATERSHED
I
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL BY
ZONING DISTRICT
AS OF
JULY 23, 1993
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I TOTAL
I VACANT I
BUILT
I ACRES I
VACANT
I POTENTIAL
I MAXIMUM I
ZONING
I ACRES
I LOTS I
UNITS
I DEVELOPED I
LAND
I UNITS
I BUILDOUT I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-10
I 40
I 6 1
76
I 37.5 I
2.5
I 8
I
1 84.25 I
R-15
I 1023.5
I 177 I
416
I 244.5 1
779
I 1948
1 2363.5 I
R-20
I 836.7
I 859 I
123
I 402 I
434.7
I 826
I 948.93 i
R-20S
i 171.2
I 78 I
146
( 60.3 I
110.9
I 211
I 356.71
B-1
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
B-2
I 200.1
I 0 1
90
1 135.6 I
64.5
I 0
1 90 1
1-1
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
PD
1 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
-----------
TOTAL
1 ---------
I 2271.5
I
I
I--------- I---------
I 1120 I
I I
I I
851
i --------- I
I 879.9 I
I I
I I
---------
1391.6
1 ---------
I 2992
I
I
I--------- I
I 3843 I
I I
I I
HOWE CREEK WATERSHED
I
EXISTING AND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VACANT UNITS
BY ZONING
DISTRICT
I
I SINGLE I
HIGH
I MOBILE
I COMMER-
I INSTI-
I INDUST- I
OPEN
I EXISTING
I
I VACANT I
ZONING
I FAMILY I
DENSITY
I HOME
I CIAL
I TUTIONAL
I RIAL (
SPACE
I UNITS
I LOTS I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-10
I 76 I
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0
1 76
I
6 1
R-15
I 278 I
0
1 135
I 0
1 3
1 0 1
0
1 416
177 I
R-20
I 121 I
0
1 0
1 0
1 2
1 0 1
0
1 123
I 859 I
R-20S
I 146 I
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0
1 146
1 78 I
B-1 (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
B-2 (SITES)
I 21 I
0
1 0
1 58
I 8
1 1 1
2
1 90
I 0 1
I-1 (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
IPD
I 0 1
D
1 D
1 D
1 D
1 D 1
D
1 D
1 D 1
1 0&I (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
---------
-----------
I TOTAL
I--------- I
I 642 I
---------
0
I ---------
1 135
I---------
I 58
i ---------
I 13
I--------- I---------
I 1 1
2
I---------
1 851
I I
I 1120 I

[A
HEWLETTS CREEK WATERSHED PROFILE
Located in New Hanover County's central coastal region, the Hewletts Creek watershed is
rapidly losing the rural character which once attracted wealthy Wilmington residents to resort
cottages amidst tree lined shores. While the watershed contains part of a nationally registered
historic district, today it is seeing a mixture of residential and commercial development. The
watershed's boundary extends far westward into the City of Wilmington and includes large
commercial tracts such as Independence Mall and Long Leaf Plaza (see Hewletts Creek Watershed
Map).
Development within the watershed has migrated from the City's boundary eastward and
from the intracoastal waterway to the west. Today almost 70% (1688 acres) of available land in
the Hewletts Creek Watershed is developed. There are more than two thousand residential units
in the County's section of the watershed and at least 250 subdivided lots that are vacant but
ready for development. The total land area of the watershed is 2415 acres (see Table 3).
Remaining vacant land in the watershed consists primarily of timberland to the south and
several plots of what was once prime farmland to the north of the creek. Several large resort
homes remain on large lots that so far have not been subdivided.
Much of the land in the Hewletts Creek watershed consists of class III and IV soils which
would not be suitable for septic systems (see Soil Classification Map). However, New Hanover
County has extended sewer lines to the area to eliminate the use of septic tanks which were
viewed as a source of pollution. As expected, this has resulted in further development and ironi-
cally it has also resulted in two major contamination events in the past eighteen months. Contin-
ued growth is projected to occur within the Hewletts Creek Watershed at an accelerated rate.
Recently two new neighborhood groups were formed; the Hewletts Creek Watershed
Association and the Southern Outer Loop Opposition (S.0.L.0). These watch dog citizen groups
want to ensure that adequate steps are taken to protect the creek's water quality and the quality
of life for all of the people living within the watershed's boundaries.
-12-

N

L�
p
Table 3
HEWLETTS CREEK WATERSHED
I DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL BY
ZONING DISTRICT
AS OF
JULY 23, 1993
I
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=----------------
I TOTAL
I VACANT I
BUILT
I ACRES I
VACANT
I POTENTIAL
I MAXIMUM I
ZONING
I ACRES
I LOTS I
UNITS
I DEVELOPED I
LAND
I UNITS
I BUILDOUT i
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-10
I 62
I 4 1
152
i 54 I
8
1 26
I
I 178 I
I R-15
I 1698
I 171 I
1708
I 1183 I
515
I 1288
I 2996 I
R-20
I 421
I 46 i
134
I 293 (
128
I 243
I 377 I
R-20S
I 233
I 33 I
57
I 137 I
96
I 183
I 240 I
B-1
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
B-2
I 0
1 0 1
4
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 4 1
I-1
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
IPD
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
-----------
I---------
I--------- I---------
i--------- I---------
747
I---------
1740
I--------- I
3795
TOTAL
I
I 2415
I
i 254 I
1 i
2055
-----------------------------------------------
I 1668 I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
HEWLETTS CREEK WATERSHED
EXISTING AND
VACANT UNITS
BY ZONING
DISTRICT
I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I SINGLE I
HIGH
I MOBILE I
COMMER-
I INSTI-
I INDUST- j
OPEN I
TOTAL
I
I PLATTED i
ZONING
I FAMILY I
DENSITY
I HOME I
CIAL
I TUTIONAL
I RIAL I
SPACE I
UNITS
I VACANT I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-10
I 138 I
14
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
152
I
I 4 1
I R-15
I 1595 I
105
I 7 1
0
1 1
1 0 1
0 1
1708
I 171 I
R-20
I 134 I
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
134
I 46 I
R-20S
I 56 I
0
1 1
i 0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
57
I 33 I
B-1 (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
0
1 0
B-2 (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 4
1 0
1 0 I
0 1
4
1 0 1
I-1 (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
0
1 0 1
I PD
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
0
0 1 1
i 08I (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
---------
1 0 1
---------
0 1
--------- I---------
0
1 0 1
I--------- I
_
I-----------
TOTAL
I --------- I---------
I 1923 I
119
i---------
I 8
i---------
1 4
I
1 1
I j
1 0 1
0 1
2055
I 254 I
TT!
u
Irl

O
r '
i�
- ` LEGEND
L�l Class I Soils
Class 11 Soils
��- Class III Soils
Class Iv Soils
=r 0 Water
HEWLETTS CREEK WATERSHED
Date: August 24, 1993 Scale: 1:27,000
Soil Classification for Septic Tank Suitability

PAGES CREEK WATERSHED PROFILE
Nestled between Middle Sound and the Porters Neck area, Pages Creek is one of New
Hanover County's larger estuarine creeks (see Pages Creek Watershed Map). The creek is heavily
used for recreational purposes and is the home to several marinas. As is true with the other
creeks in the County, Pages Creek has felt the pressure of a growing human population in the
surrounding watershed. However, Pages Creek has remained partially opened for shellfishing.
Until recently, the Porters Neck area to the north of Pages Creek has seen little pressure
from development. The majority of the Watershed's approximately 2029 acres of vacant land lies
to the north of the creek. The Middle Sound community, which is in the southern section of the
watershed, continues to develop at a rapid rate.
Currently, the watershed contains 1550 residential units with an additional 591 vacant
subdivided lots (see Table 4). Most of the residential units in the watershed are detached single
family homes. However, there are about one hundred mobile homes located in several mobile
home parks and on individual lots.
The Market Street (H 17) commercial corridor forms the western boundary of the water-
shed. This corridor consists of several restaurants and shops which greatly increase the traffic
flow and impervious surface area within the watershed. In addition, marinas at the mouth of the
creek serve hundreds of boats, providing access to the waterways for residents of the watershed
and others throughout the region.
Soil conditions to the north of the creek are generally Class I, which will support septic
systems. To the south of the creek there is a mix of soils but class III and IV soils are predomi-
nant (see Soil Classification Map). While these soils do not support septic systems, the County has
extended sewer lines to the western part of the Middle Sound community that would allow more
development to take place. If the area is developed to the maximum potential allowed by the
current zoning classifications there will be 5812 dwelling units in the watershed.
The waters of Pages Creek have been classified as SA, the highest classification available
for saline waters. The SA classification is intended to help ensure that residents will have clean
productive waters suitable for shellfishing, primary nursery habitat for fisheries, as well as swim-
ming. In a survey of Middle Sound residents in 1987, 75% of the respondents cited declining
water quality as a primary concern.
L
0
U -16-

c
Table 4
PAGES CREEK
WATERSHED
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL BY
ZONING DISTRICT
AS OF
JULY 23, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I TOTAL
I VACANT I
BUILT
I ACRES I
VACANT
I POTENTIAL
I MAXIMUM
ZONING
I ACRES
I LOTS I
UNITS
I DEVELOPED I
LAND
I UNITS
I BUILDOUT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I R-10
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
R-15
I 1397
I 340 I
995
I 579 I
817
I 2044
I 3039
R-20
I 1295
I 200 I
405
I 267 I
1029
I 1954
I 2359
R-20S
I 280
I 51 I
129
I 141 I
139
I 264
I 393
B-1
( 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
B-2
I 50
I 0 1
14
I 20 I
30
I 0
1 14
I-1
I 25
I 0 1
6
1 13 I
12
I 0
1 6
PD
I 0
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
0&I
I 3
1 0 1
1
I 0 1
2
1 0
1 1
-----------
TOTAL
I
I---------
I 3050
I
I--------- i---------
I 591 I
I I
1550
I--------- I---------
I 1021 I
I I
2029
I---------
I 4262
I
I---------
I 5812
I
PAGES CREEK
WATERSHED
EXISTING AND
VACANT UNITS
BY ZONING
DISTRICT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I SINGLE I
MULTI-
I MOBILE I
COMMER-
I INSTI-
I INDUST- I
OPEN I
TOTAL
I VACANT j
ZONING
I FAMILY I
FAMILY
I HOME
I CIAL
I TUTIONAL
I RIAL I
SPACE I
UNITS
I PLATTED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-10
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
I 0 I
0 I
0
I I
R-15
I 963 I
0
1 26
I 3
1 3
1 0 1
0 1
995
( 340
R-20
I 313 I
25
I 66
I 1
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
405
I 200
R-20S
I 113 I
0
1 5
1 11
I 0
1 0 1
0 1
129
I 51
B-1 (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
0
1 I
B-2 (SITES)
I 5 1
0
1 0
1 8
1 1
1 0 1
0 1
14
I I
I-1 (SITES)
I 3 1
0
1 0
1 2
1 0
1 1 1
0 I
6
1 I
PD
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
l D I
D I
0
I I
0&I (SITES)
I 0 1
0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0 I
0 I
1
1 I
-----------
TOTAL
I --------- I---------
1397
25
I---------
97
I---------
26
I---------
4
I --------- I---------
1 1
I---------
0 1
1550
I--------- I
I 591

, 4 j
;
t
�)
�J
1
;
1 LEGEND
1. 0 Class I Soils
Class II Soils
Class III Soils
J�, - L Class IV Soils
14711
PAGES CREEK WATERSHED Water
Date: August 24, 1993 Scale 1:33,000
Soi I Classification for Septic Tank Suitability
New Hanover County MAPS / GIS

U OTHER CREEKS IN NEW HANOVER COUNTY
E In
addition to the four watersheds examined in this report there are two other creeks,
Bradley Creek and Whiskey Creek, that are included in the estuarine watershed study area.
These creeks are not scheduled for more detailed study until later phases of the program.
(" ' Bradley Creek is the County's most urbanized, with most of the land within the watershed
developed to near capacity. Due to extensive urban development and the location of a large
n marina near the mouth of the creek, water quality is substantially less than that which is found in
I j the other creeks.
This is reflected by the SC classification for the lower half of the creek, which has a more
limited range of uses and does not allow shellfishing. However, the upper portions of the creek
are designated SC-HQW, High Quality Waters, which include some primary nursery areas.
The watershed for Bradley Creek extends into the city limits and includes the UNCW
campus. Due to the unique nature of Bradley Creek a more focused, specialized study may be
Pjrequired.
Whiskey Creek is the County's southern most estuarine creek. The character of the
creek's watershed remains relatively rural with scattered concentrations of older subdivisions.
Although the creek has been closed to shellfishing for a number of years, the creek's waters have
_ been classified SA Tidal Waters which are suitable for shellfishing and a variety of recreational
activities. It is also a primary nursery area.
�j New residential development is occurring within the creek's watershed but at a much
i.t slower rate than that of the other creeks in the county. Recommendations developed from stud-
�j ies of the County's other creeks should be applicable to Whiskey creek.
u The County sewer system has been extended to include the watersheds for both of these
estuarine creeks. Although this could increase the rate of development in Whiskey Creek, it may
also help to eliminate any pollution attributable to septic tanks.
I
i11
it
U -20-

ESTUARINE CREEK REGULATIONS
A review of various agencies regulations for residential development located along or in
proximity to the County's tidal creeks can be found in appendix A.
The summary table provides a comparison of the federal, state and local regulations re-
garding setbacks, impervious surface and drainage. The agencies included are: Army Corp of
Engineers, Division of Environmental Management (DEHNR), Division of Coastal Management
(DEHNR), Division of Environmental Health/Shellfish Sanitation (DEHNR) and New Hanover
County.
(� This summary is intended to provide a general overview and comparison of the agencies
(J requirements but it is by no means all inclusive. The complexity of most of the regulations ad-
ministered by these agencies makes it impossible to provide a simple answer within the confines
(� of a table. The endnotes included are for further information and clarification of the table.
0 While many of these regulations were written to address specific issues related to water
quality it is clear that none focus on the cumulative effects of all development taking place within
the entire watershed.
L'
M
C
C
0
U
L
U -21-

I
H1
U
E
SPECIAL FOCUSED AREA CREEK STUDIES
FUTCH CREEK STUDIES
An environmental analysis of Futch Creek was completed by the UNCW Marine Science
Research Center in April, 1993. Funded by the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy, this study
was intended to develop objective scientific data that could be used to determine the impacts of
development on the creek as well as aid in the development of management strategies for the
watershed.
The study was comprised of both biological and water quality assessments. The details of
the study and its conclusions can be found in the Futch Creek Environmental Analysis Report (see
appendix B). One of the most important findings of the study was that Futch Creek is only
slightly polluted, with the area of pollution concentrated at two locations in the west end of the
south branch of the creek. Based upon this information, additional sampling and creek surveys
have been performed.
A survey of on -site sewage systems was completed in July, 1993 by the Environmental
Health Division of the County Health Department (see appendix Q. While not comprehensive,the
homes that were surveyed revealed no malfunctioning systems or direct discharges to the creek.
However, additional more focused surveys in the vicinity of the pollution "hot spots" are
planned as well as consideration of other potential causes outlined in the report. These could
include stormwater runoff from development, warm blooded animal populations, illegal sewage
dumping and others.
Meetings with participating agencies, field staff and researchers are currently being held to
('y determine follow-up action.
MAJOR ESTUARINE CREEK STUDIES
In July, 1993 New Hanover County and the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy entered
(� into a research agreement with the UNCW Center for Marine Science Research for the first phase
(.j (one year) of a four year study of estuarine water quality (see appendix D).
�j The proposed multi -year study will analyze the physical, chemical and biotic aspects of
11 water quality in four of the county's major creeks; Howe, Bradley, Pages and Hewletts Creeks.
The first year of the study, which began in August, will be focused on Howe and Hewletts
Creeks. Preliminary work will also begin on the other creeks with follow-up sampling taking
place on Futch Creek.
The purpose of these studies is to begin to develop an understanding of the water qual-
ity in each of the estuarine creeks. Researchers will attempt to identify specific sources of pollu-
tion and establish baseline data for future comparisons. An assessment of the effectiveness of
i current management programs and recommendations for both short and long term management
strategies will be developed for each of the creeks.
-22-

{� SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS
U
New Hanover County experienced considerable growth throughout the 1970's and 1980's,
and many of the impacts of this growth are only now being felt. With the current rate of growth
more than double that of the previous decades 1.5%, to 3.7% in 1992, "environmental concerns"
and "water quality" issues will likely be of growing importance.
This will focus additional attention on the importance of the development and implementa-
tion of the Estuarine Watershed Management Program. As the results of the various estuarine
creek studies become available and the management program takes shape, it will hopefully serve
as a sound scientific basis for informed decision making.
The following actions are recommended for the continued development of the Estuarine
Watershed Management Program:
1) Continue Water Quality Research
Follow-up on Futch Creek: focus on identified pollution "hot spots" in the creek; meetings
with agencies, researchers and field personnel; identify pollution source(s); develop watershed
management strategies; adopt and implement watershed management plan.
Monitor Howe Creek & others: review quarterly progress reports; bring agencies and re-
searchers together on a regular basis to discuss findings; seek alternative funding sources and
secure commitments for future phases of the estuarine creek studies.
2) Preliminary data analysis
Continue review and analysis of all existing land use data; provide land use data to re
searchers for use in creek studies.
3) Focus resources and agencies
Ensure continued participation and support by state and local agencies; provide status
reports on a regular basis; develop organizational charts and "responsibility matrix"to iden-
tify contact persons and assign accountability.
4) Refinement of GIS
Continue development and expansion of the Geographic Information System database;
upgrade software system to provide improved graphics and more "user friendly" capability.
a 5) Public educationlinvolvement
Develop an estuarine watershed presentation for use at meetings and speaking engage-
ments; develop an informational video for cable access; publish information for public dis-
semination; encourage and support neighborhood "creek watch" efforts and other public
involvement.
6) Develop Management Strategies
U Develop an estuarine watershed management plan "strategy mix" based upon the results
of the scientific studies and review and analysis of regulatory and other tools for effectiveness;
(� present findings and recommendations to elected officials for consideration; implement upon
u approval.
Q -23-

iv
7) Alternative funding sources
Seek various funding alternatives for continued research, development and implementa-
tion; to include Federal & State grants, private foundation grants, cost share programs, re-
source agency funding and others.
r, 8) Develop a Coastal Area Information Network
u Establish an information sharing network through resource agency contacts; councils of
government; professional associations such as NACO, ICMA, APA; and others like the
j� League of Municipalities and the Institute of Government.
9) Preparing for the 1996 Land Use Plan Update
Objective scientific data on estuarine water quality and the cumulative impacts of develop-
ment will provide a strong foundation for the development of the next Land Use Plan Update;
utilize in the development of technical reports.
10 CAMA & Other Urbanizing Coastal Counties
Promote "information sharing" with other areas facing similar problems to avoid duplica-
tion of efforts and to ensure development and implementation of the best and most effective
management practices.
L1 '
C
U,
III
C
ru
C
U
0 -24-

0
0
0
0
0
0
C
a
0
0
0
M
C
C
E
Appendix
Estuarine Creek Regulations
Futch Creek Environmental Analysis Report
Report of On -Site Sewage Systems Survey in the Futch Creek Area
Analysis of the Physical, Chemical and Biotic Conditions
of New Hanover County's Tidal Creeks
Newspaper Articles
-25-

� Estuarine Creek Regulations
July 1992
it
I
0
0
I
II
0
7
I
SA
Tidal Salt Waters sultable for shelifishing for market purposes, primary recreation, secondary recreation
and flsh/wYdllfe propagation.
ORW
Outstanding Resource Waters
SC
Tidal Salt Waters suitable for fish and wildlife propogation and secondary recreation.
High Quality Waters
HQW
MHW
Mean High Water
AEC
Area of Environmental Concern
COD
Conservation Overlay District
0

hl
. Endnotes
A. New Hanover County's Conservation Overlay District
The County's Conservation Overlay District requires a minimum
75 foot setback for all impervious surfaces from the leading
edge of a protected resource. Protected resources include
primary nursery areas as well as numerous wetland communities.
The only exception to this setback rule is for the encroach-
ment of open decks, provided the encroachment does not exceed
(� six feet into the setback area.
U When developments locate adjacent to protected conservation
Q spaces, the Conservation Overlay District requires a drainage
plan design which captures anywhere between the first .25 inch
and one inch of rainfall. Projects adjacent to primary
nursery areas must retain the first .75 inch of run-off. The
u County does not impose specific impervious surface ratios for
l� developments in these areas. Direct discharge of stormwater
into conservation space is prohibited.
B. North Carolina's Division of Environmental Management
The Division of Environmental Management requires new
development locating adjacent to SA Outstanding Resource
Waters and within 575 feet of the mean highwater line to
comply with the "low density" option specified in their
Stormwater Management Rules. This means the built -upon area
must be less than or equal to 25 percent, or the development
must consist of single-family residences on lots with one-
third of an acre or greater with a built -upon area of 25
percent or less, has no stormwater collection system and
built -upon area is at least 30 feet from surface waters.
Should the development locate adjacent to SA classed waters
not classified ORW and the low density option is not chosen,
then specified stormwater control measures are required.
(� Options include: stormwater infiltration basins and ponds,
L� swales, vegetative filters, and wet detention ponds or
innovative systems if there is a reasonable expectation the
a control measures will be successful. Direct outlet channels
or pipes to SA waters are prohibited and infiltration systems
must be designed to control the run-off from all impervious
surfaces generated by one and one-half inches of rainfall.
Run-off in excess of the -design volume must flow overland
through a vegetative filter with a minimum width of 50 feet
measured from mean high water of SA waters. Infiltration
ri systems shall be a minimum of 30 feet from surface waters and
50 feet from SA waters. Development draining to waters other
than SA, such as SB or SC do not require stormwater control
measures if the built -upon area is 30 percent or less, or it
consists of single-family residences on lots with one-third of

�1]
an acre or greater with a built -upon area of 30 percent or
less, has no stormwater collection system, and built -upon area
is at least 30 feet from surface waters.
C. North Carolina's Division of Coastal Management
aThe Division of Coastal Management establishes procedures for
development in "Areas of Environmental Concern", such as
a marshlands, tidelands, shoreline and waters of the estuarine
systems, beaches, dunes, and ocean inlets and other areas.
Development along estuarine shorelines must comply with "use"
a standards within 75 feet of the mean high water line.
Impervious surfaces shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot
area within the AEC unless that limit allows no practical use
to be made of the lot. All development projects shall limit
the construction of impervious surfaces and other areas
prohibiting natural drainage. No specific standards for
drainage retention are provided. However, the Coastal
a Resources Commission must approve all proposed ditches with
maximum- dimensions greater than six feet wide by four feet
deep. If it is determined that estuarine waters will be
D affected, a major CAMA permit will be required. The
Commission does not require a minor development permit for
single-family residences built within the estuarine shoreline
AEC which are.more than 40.feet from the mean high water mark
and no land disturbance is apparent in the 40 foot area.
D. North Carolina Division of environmental Health - Shellfish
Sanitation
Shellfish and Sanitation classifies actual and potential
a shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Although their determinations may influence how
DEM or DCM reviews a project, they do not impose special
Q regulations for land development as it relates to setbacks,
drainage, or impervious surfaces ratios.
E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Army Corps of Engineers is primarily responsible for
regulating discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters
a of the United States, including wetlands. Like Shellfish and
Sanitation, the Corps does not attempt to establish design
guidelines for developments related to setbacks, drainage, or
a impervious surface ratios. Some activities are exempt from
the Section 404 regulatory provisions, including but not
limited to normal agriculture, silviculture, ranching;
maintenance or reconstruction of certain serviceable
a structures including dikes, dams, causeways, breakwaters or
bridge abuttments; and construction or maintenance of farm or
stock ponds, irrigation ditches or the maintenance of drainage
ditches. However, these may require a permit if their purpose
is to convert an area of. U.S. waters to a use to which it was

not previously subject and if the flow or circulation of such
waters is impaired.
The Corps also has a system of "nationwide" permits that allow
the filling up to one acre for land above headwater areas and
road crossings of wetland areas provided the crossing impacts
no more than one-third of an acre.
creeks.rpt

a

r
Futch Creek Environmental Analysis Report
Prepared by
The Center for Marine Science Research
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Submitted to
The Northeast New Hanover Conservancy, Inc.
Participating Faculty
Dr. Lawrence Cahoon
Dr. Jack Manock
Dr. Martin Posey
Dr. Ron Sizemore
Dr. Joan Willey
Dr. David Webster
Dr. James Merritt, Project Coordinator
Participating Students
Cartier Esham, Graduate Student
Katie Laing, Undergraduate
Mike Howe, Undergraduate
Funded by
Northeast New Hanover Conservancy
and
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

I
I
I
C
aFUTCH CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
0 Prologue
a Futch Creek, a tidal creek watershed in northern New Hanover
County is encountering increasing pressure from residential and
recreational development. This type of coastal development is a
potential threat to the quality and productivity of Futch Creek.
In 1989, New Hanover County adopted a plan for this area with the
stated objective of "preserving the excellent estuarine water -
quality of the creeks and Sound, including the maintenance of open
shellfish areas". Through the efforts of the Northeast New Hanover
Conservancy and with public support, the N.C. Environmental
Management Commission designated Middle Sound waters as an.
Outstanding Resource Water on September 14, 1989. Little is known
about the current environmental conditions of the creek other than
that portions .remain closed to shellfishing. Without scientific
D information it would be difficult to determine the impact
increasing development might have on Futch Creek and more difficult
to institute management strategies that will protect the creek and
watershed.
This report which results from work funded by the Northeast
New Hanover Conservancy and Center for Marine Science Research
(� provides current environmental and biological data. The data
u provided will contribute to better understanding of the
environmental factors affecting the creek, and should be of
assistance to management agencies.
I
r
u
0

I
U q.
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
SECTION I - BIOLOGICAL STUDIES
Composition and population of benthic communities and fish sampling. Dr. Martin
Posey
Monitoring of benthic populations is widely used by state
agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency to assess the
health of estuarine systems. Benthic organisms have the advantage
of being long-lived and confined to a specific place. As a result,
the composition of the benthic community may reflect average
conditions, or the most extreme toxic conditions, that may occur
over a spot. Benthic organisms can also be classified according to
their tolerance to pollutants. Thus, the disappearance of a group
of species, or the predominance of certain species, can indicate
stressed water conditions.
Quarterly sampling at three stations within the creek began in
January 1992, and the last sampling occurred in October, 1992.
Sites were selected in the upper, middle," and lower part of the
creek. The upper site was located just below the old -dike on Futch
Creek (just above the main split in the creek system). The middle:
site was located halfway between the old dike and the mouth of the
creek and the mouth site was located at the mouth of Futch Creek.
Tables 1-2 (Appendix 1) and Fig. 1 summarize results for
bottom animals (benthic infauna) and Table 3 (Appendix 1)
summarizes seasonal fish catches from seines. For bottom animals,
comparisons of abundances between sites (Appendix 1, Table 1) and
between seasons (Appendix 1, Table 2) are made for those species
comprising greater than 1t of the total fauna collected (16 taxa)
using an Analysis of Variance on log -transformed abundances.
The infauna (organisms that live in the sediment) at Futch
Creek are similar to the types found in other estuarine systems
which have been found to be moderately to slightly disturbed.
Dominant infauna included:
Oligochaetes (earthworm group)
Polychaetes (bristieworms)
Aricidea suecica (redworm)
Cagitella ca i at (capitellid threadworm)
Laeonereis culveri (clamworm)
Lumbrineris tenuis (lumbrinerid threadworm)
Mediomastus californiensis (capitellid threadworm)
Neanthes succinea (clamworm)
Polvcirrus haematodes .(parchment worm)
Polydora ligni (mudworm)
2
I

r�-
w
Futch Creek infaunal Abundances
120
100
Total s0
Infauna
60
40
0
■ u
Is M
IM L
January April July October
Fig. 1: Abundances of bottom animals (macro-infauna) at upper, middle, and lower sampling
stations in Futch Creek during January, April, July and October 1992. Bars indicate
total number per 0.01 m2 (+ 1 SE).

I
a Prionospio spp. (tubeworm)
Streblospio benedicti (tubeworm)
Tharvx. annulosus (fringed worm)
(� Bivalves
�j Polymesoda caroliniana (Carolina marsh clam)
Ostracoda (clam shrimp)
Tanaidacea
Leptochelis savignvi
�. As is typical of estuarine benthos, most species reached
highest abundance.during winter or -early spring, with few species
being most common during summer (Appendix 1, Table 2 and Fig. 1).
Nine taxa were most abundant during January and/or
April
samples.
One was most abundant during summer, and three were.most
abundant
during October. Four of the common taxa did not
show
seasonal
variations in abundance. Summer reductions in
generally expected from higher predation.pressures
abundance are
from fish and
crabs during summer.
There was some difference between sites, with 4 taxa reaching
highest abundance in the upper site, 9 taxa having highest
abundance in the middle site, and 3 being most common at .the middle
site. The
species
most common at the upper site are .generally
tolerant of
lower
.salinities
(e.g. Streblopsio and
Polymesoda)
while the
middle
site species are representative
of typical
estuarine benthos.
The mouth
site was sandier than
the other 2
areas, most
likely
explaining
the decline in some taxa from the
middle site
to the
mouth area.
D A total of'18 fish species, one crab, and two shrimp species
were caught in seines at -the three Futch Creek stations. The fish
are characteristic of estuarine areas, with seasonal changes in
aspecies composition from winter through fall (Appendix -1, Table 3 ) .
Conclusion
a In summary, Futch Creek is typical of a slightly to moderately
disturbed estuary. Seasonal and site differences in infaunal and
fish abundances are consistent with observations in other systems.
a Infauna showed higher abundances in winter and early spring and
higher abundances in f ine . sands in middle to lower estuarine areas.
Adult fish were most abundant during late July. The infaunal
community exhibits a typical composition and does not appear
impoverished. However, the community is also not exceptionally
diverse and lacks some of the less common taxa that are generally
found only in low.disturbance areas.-
0

I
B. Top-level carnivores. Dr. David Webster
Many large mammals are top-level carnivores, and as such they
are excellent indicators of habitat health. Healthy habitats have
a relatively diverse biota that support a wide variety of top-level
carnivores, whereas habitats that have been perturbed do not
function properly and they are less densely populated by top-level
carnivores. In coastal North Carolina, healthy aquatic and wetland
communities support relatively large and stable populations of
river otter, mink, and raccoon.
Q In this investigation, top-level carnivores were used to
assess water quality and the overall health of Futch Creek.
Upland, wetland, and estuarine portions of the Futch Creek
watershed were examined for evidence of top-level carnivores. The
relative abundance of each species was estimated on the amount of
spoor encountered and observations reported., These relative
abundance estimates were compared with estimates from other coastal
watersheds using data collected in similar fashion.
Conclusion
aAt the present time, Futch Creek supports relatively meager
populations of otter, mink, and raccoon. The raccoon is the most
abundant and widespread carnivore in the area, but it is not
especially useful in assessing environmental quality because it is
extremely tolerant of human activity. Otter and mink numbers are
low, which is expected because these -species are extremely
territorial and therefore less likely to share a watershed's
special resources with humans; however, the numbers of otter and
mink .in the Futch Creek watershed do not appear to be significantly
less than those found in other semi -developed watersheds in coastal
North Carolina.
D The Futch Creek, watershed continues to be developed, and at
some point the numbers of otter .and mink, and possibly raccoons as
well, will begin to drop as prey items become scarce.
L1 -
SECTION II - WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
A. Fecal Coliform and E. coli Assessment. Dr. Ron Sizemore
Managers of coastal regions are increasingly confronted with
difficult decisions about land and water usage. Land bordering
estuaries and the sea shore are popular sites for residential and
recreational usage. Unfortunately, as more people are drawn to
5
11

a
these areas, traditional uses of the estuaries as a fishery
resource have suffered. Coastal communities and state agencies
have found themselves making difficult decisions concerning
development of water resources and adjacent land. Reclassification
of bodies of water and changes in regulations for water runoff or
tj sewage release have been controversial. Individuals involved in
making -these decisions often suffer from a lack of quantitative and
qualitative data upon which to base their decisions.
a Traditionallymost water quality decisions are made on the
q Y
basis of chemical or bacteriological examination. Chemical
a analysis usually detects industrial pollution and generally
involves analysis of specific chemicals that are suspected to be
present in a particular area. Bacteriological analysis is
generally used to detect fecal contamination and has been used to
examine a wide variety of water sources for potential pathogenic
bacteria. As recently as the middle of this century, bacterial
diseases carried by polluted water were major public health
Qproblems causing epidemics and loss of life. Since that time,
water purification facilities and sewage treatment plants have
greatly improved the health standards for developed countries.
However, bacteria still contaminate water sources in the United
States, and a continuous vigil must be maintained to insure that
water polluted with bacteria does not reemerge as a major public
ahealth -problem.
Routine bacteriological examination of water quality is based
on the concept of indicator organisms. The most serious form of
abacterial pollution is assumed to be human fecal pollution. The
list of diseases transmitted by fecal pollution is extensive and
includes many bacterial and. viral pathogens. Since the list is
(� long and taxonomic identification of each pathogen is complicated,
{j it is impractical, if not impossible to routinely screen water
samples for all potential pathogens. To solve this problem
Gindicator microorganisms are used to detect fecally polluted water.
The bacterial strain, E. coli, has traditionally been used as
the indicator strain for fecal pollution. It is well suited for
a this task as it is the predominate aerobic bacterium in human feces
(an average person excretes between 2 and 200 billion E. coli per
day) and has unique taxonomic, traits which readily distinguish it
a from most other bacteria. Exploitation of these unique traits
allows rapid identification of E. coli and is the basis of most
techniques which measure bacteriological water quality.
Unfortunately, some soil bacteria resemble E. coli and can suggest
fecal contamination where none exists. E. coli and these
taxonomically related soil bacteria are termed coliforms. Coliform
counts are commonly used as water quality measures. However, with
improving technology, better estimates of E. coli counts can be

1
I
I
I
0
made with
counts ar
different
the State
less interference from soil bacteria. These improved
e termed fecal coliform counts and although measured by
techniques, are the standard used by all the agencies in
of North Carolina (eg Shellfish Sanitation and NRCD).
In 1986 the United States EPA proposed new bacteriological
water quality techniques. one technique (mTEC) claims to give E.
coli counts exclusively, eliminating any other bacteria which may
cloud results. This study used 2 techniques (described below) to
estimate the water quality of Futch Creek: the mTEC technique, a
new EPA procedure, and mFC technique used by the N.C. Department of
Environmental Management.
While there are many valid criticisms on the use of either
Q fecal coliform or E. coli counts as an indicator of. fecal
pollution, there is not a more accepted technique. These
techniques continue to be the most widely used indicator of fecal
pollution and in this author's opinion will continue to be used as
a practical tool for at least the short term.
Samples were taken monthly during.1992 from Futch Creek in.New
Q Hanover County, North Carolina. Water was collected in sterile
glass bottles,- iced, transported to the laboratory and typically
analyzed within 4 hours. In addition to water used for
a bacteriological analysis, water was collected at each site for
examination by co-workers in this study. Physical parameters were
measured during collection including salinity determined with a
D refractometer and oxygen and water temperature measured with a YSI
oxygen meter.
Sampling sites collected during this study are shown in Figure
D 2. From January through July samples were collected in a manner
designed to survey the entire creek for trouble areas (Station 1-
10). After examination of the survey samples, a new sampling
(� regime was selected to focus on the small area found to have the
U highest counts during the initial survey. Closely spaced sites
(Station 11-20) were.sampled from August through December 1992.
Two types of bacterial counts were be made: A fecal coliform
count (mFC) and an E. coli count (mTEC). The fecal coliform count
followed the counting procedures used.by state agencies in North
Q Carolina. The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources uses
the mFC technique to enumerate fecal coliform. The protocol is
described in the 15th edition of Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (published by the American
Public Health Association). The new EPA procedures, E. coli counts
(mTEC), were performed following the protocols recommended by the
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agencies, 1985- and
1986).
it

1
1
10.
Futd
Wililliil"
Intracoastal Waterway
scale: 1"=930'
(approximate)
FIGURE 2
1-1

Figure
Fecal Coliform and E. coli Concentrations
140 Futch Creek, New Hanover County, NC
Legend AL
120- - — - - - - - - - - - - - - j�— mTcC------------- '
- �,- mFC -r
i
= 100----------------------------------------�-
'E
0 80--------------------------------------�---
L /
a60------------------------------------ --
0 40----------------------------------- ------
0
U
20-----------------=----------------------
_ I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Station Number
,9.

a -
Figure 4
Fecal Coliform and E. coli Concentrations
2�0
Futch Creek, New Hanover County, NC
200------------------------ ---------------
0 150 L..--------------���------ �t---- - ---
o Agen • ��... -
o L --�- mT�C `•AL
_ /� _ • mFC
N100--------- -1 ---------------------
CD '
o ,L
° 50 ---
r
0
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Station.Number

I
ail
I
I
0
0
a
I
U
I
The raw data collected from this study is attached in Appendix
II. Each count shown on the data sheet represents the mean of
triplicate plate counts. Some samples contained too many bacterial
colonies to count and were recorded as TNTC, to numerous to count.
For the purpose of statistical manipulation TNTC were assigned a
numerical value equal to the highest countable plate taken that
sampling date. plus one. This number should be a conservative
estimate of the actual count.
A summary of the initial survey data is shown in Figure 3.
This figure shows the geometric means of all counts made using the
2 techniques at each station. As a point of reference, the
Shellfish Sanitation Division considers a geometric mean coliform
count (a different, but "related counting technique) of 14
unacceptable.
Figure 4 shows summary data of the same general type at sites
collected during the more intensive sampling of the area showing
high counts during the survey.
Conclusion
Our data provides evidence that Futch Creek is a slightly
polluted creek and its pollution is not evenly distributed. Our
initial survey sampling (Figure 3) shows a clear concentration
gradient with highest levels of counts in the west end of the south
branch of the creek. To further localize this concentration
gradient more closely spaced sampling was done in the west end of
the creek. Data from this sampling (Figure 4) indicates that both
fecal coliforms and E. coli are�hest at site 17 and 20. These
areas are likely sources of t'Fie pollu 1 e�"c g ti'ie creeT
.7IIW%A.L" AJG GAYJ 1Vl=%A .L 11 %AG G. GL-L L
The low levels and localized nature of fecal pollution in
Futch Creek suggests further screening and corrective measures
could bring this creek to higher water quality standards.
LITERATURE CITED
American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater, 15th ed. American
Public Health Association, Inc. Washington, D.C.
North Carolina Administrative Code, Section 15 NCAC 2B4O200.
Effective November 1, 1986.
11
I

1
o
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Test methods
for Eschrerichia coli and enterococci in water by membrane
filter procedure. EPA 600/4-85/076. Cincinnati, Ohio.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient
water quality criteria for bacteria - 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002.
Washington, D.C.
B. Chlorophyll -4 determination. Dr. Larry Cahoon
Chlorophyll a is an indicator of productivity, and in
conjunction with turbidity readings, can be used to indicate
conditions of eutrophication. Samples were taken at the same
sampling locations and dates as was the fecal coliform samples.
Chlorophyll a levels are shown in Tables 1-2 and represent an
average of two samples where available (most cases).
(� Conclusion
u Most of the values recorded appear to be very -normal. In the
winter values less then 1.0 mg/e of Chl a are quite typical.
Summer values .should be about one order of magnitude higher.
Values around 10 or so in .the upper reaches of a tidal creek are
not unusual. However, the August levels of chlorophyll a in the
south branch are quite substantial; the state considers values
greater than 40 mg/e of Chl a to be water quality violations. The
values peak at a site in the middle of the southern fork and tail
6ft--ro—ward the two ends of the fork suciciestinq a pu se .of very
nutrient-ricW water. It is likely that this pulse is a resu t of
aior rain event August 7, preceding the sampling date of August
10.
Chlorophyll a levels this high, when considered against the
background levels observed at other times and places, strongly
a indicate a pulsed nutrient source coincident with the August 7
rainfall event. The magnitude of the pulse, timing, and E. coli
data all suggest a sewer system problem as tha ca
C. Turbidity Levels. Dr. Joan Willey
Turbidity measurements are an indication of the quantity of
suspended particles in water. Turbidity measurements are useful in
assessing excessive sediment loads at one point in time, and also
sometimes to distinguish waters from different sources. Turbidity
is a measure of light- scattering caused by a variety of types of
suspended matter. It will respond to any type of particle that
scatters light, including mineral material or plankton particles,
aso it is not a specific measurement for any particular substance.
..12

TABLE 1
Chlorophyll.a in mg/m3 Levels Futch Creek
Samples from Waterway to Headwaters
January - July 1993
SITE
JAN
FEB MAR APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
Mouth 1
1.45
.43 .48 1.12
1.64
1.75
2.04
2
.76
.22 .44 1.76
1.60
1.73
2.37
3
.41
.33 .76 1.44
2.28
2.10
3.48
4
.59
.26 .60 1.24
2.12
1.71
2.02
'
5
.61
.19 .68 .92
1.52
1.78
2.69
6
.37
.56 .48 .88
1.64
1.75
2.28
7
.43
.56 .32 1.00
1.92
1.94
2.34
8
s1.42
.58 .56 .92
2.44
1.56
2.41
9
1.66
3.52 1.76 1.84
10.36
6.30
11.16
Head 10
1.31
1.28 10.76 1.88
10.52
6.58
7.64
TABLE 2
� mg
Chlorophyll in /m' Levels South Branch
Futch Creek from Fork to Headwaters
August - December
AUG
OCT
NOV
DEC
DSITE
Fork 11
6.68
1.11
.82
.76
12
8.94
1.48
.58
1.45
a
13
12.52
3.55
.53
2.24
14
14.78
2.00
1.11
.69_
65.17
1.74
1.00
1.37
16
.36
2.08
1.39
1.17
17
17.01
3.05
1.58
.53
18
10.89
3.42
1.53
2.34
19
11.77
4.13
1.57
1.92
Head 20
5.45
4.39
1.53
.42
0
0 13
U1

TABLE 3
Turbidity Levels (NTT)
Futch Creek January - July 1992
MONTH
SITE
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
Mouth .1
2.83
1.19
1.63
1.48
*
*
3.86
2
2.58
1.00
1.53
.48
*
*
3.47
3
1.80
1.52
3.37
.25
*
*
2.24
4
1.75
.96
1.08
.50
*
*
3.12
5
1.70
.76
2.06
.43
*
*
3.74
6
1.28
.80
1.69
.23
*
*
3.00
7
1.49
..79
2.51
.18
*
*
2.22
8
1.18
1.02
2.35
*
*
*
2.47
9
1.48
1.51
3.51
*
*
*
18.98
Head 10
3.20
1.75
9.30
*
*
*
6.06
* No NTU
data; however light
absorbance measurements
indicate
that NTU would be
comparable to
previous
month.
TABLE 4
Turbidity Levels (NTU) South Branch
Futch Creek
August - December .1992
MONTH
SITE AUG . OCT NOV DEC
Fork 11
4.25
1.58
1.25
1.49
12
7.76
1.70
1.25
2.13
13
9.95
2.57
1.99
2.80
14
6.88
2.85
1.83
2.20
15
9.97
3.27
1.20
3.20
16
7.30
3.23
1.65
3.05
-17
7.37
3.25
2.03
1.93
18
8.50
3.93
1.63
2.75
19
11.75
4.53
1.70
1.98
Head 20
10.75
3.87
1.99
1.40
14

0
Because it is not a specific measurement, nephelometry readings for
a turbidity cannot be converted into concentration units, like grams per
liter.
Q Water samples were collected at the same sites and dates as the
fecal coliform data. Measurements were made after shaking samples to
resuspend particles. Results are reported in nephelometer turbidity
units (NTU) measured relative to a formazin standard. Turbidity
.readings (the average of two determinations) are shown in Tables 3-4.
The average turbidity reading based -on 85 samples was 2.8 NTU
a (standard deviation=2.4). The maximum monthly average occurred during
August (n=10, average=8.4 NTU, standard deviation=2.2NTU), which also
had the highest chlorophyll a readings. This higher productivity
during the August sampling may have resulted from nutrient input from
a large rain event approximately a week prior to the sampling. The
excess turbidity measured at this time can be explained by the very
high chlorophyll a content in the water samples, and possibly by
Csediment carried in runoff from this -rain event. One unusually high
value was observed during the July sampling (19.0 NTU); this isolated
July reading was from a sample that had high chlorophyll a content as
well. Turbidity readings were slightly higher during the warmer
sampling months, as was chlorophyll a content. Over the course of the
sampling year, there was a significant positive correlation between
chlorophyll a and turbidity (n=85, r=0.801,.P<0.001).
Conclusion
DDuring the first part of the sampling year (Jan. -July), turbidity
readings were higher far up in Futch Creek, where shallow.water would
cause more suspended sediments, and near the waterway, where the
greater current velocities would also carry more sediment. The change
in sampling locations after July.removed the waterway location from the
sampling regime, so the waterway effect was not observed after that
a time. These data indicate that except for the one isolated rain event,
turbidity readings were within the expected range for a tidal creek.
D. Pesticide Assessment. Dr. Jack Manock
Pesticides in.extremely small concentrations are lethal to a large
number of invertebrates and can cause significant loss of productivity.
Increasing development adjacent to tidal creeks may create
opportunities for pesticides to move into the creeks from runoff.
Three sets of aqueous samples from Futch Creek and oyster tissue
samples from two sites collected during the summer were analyzed for
pesticide content. These samples were treated, using a modified EPA
procedure, with solid -phase extraction columns and analyzed on the gas
chromatograph with the electron -capture detector. No pesticides were
15

I
I
(� detected in any of the samples both aqueous and oyster tissue. The
Lf elec ron r will detect, depending upon the pesticide in
question, approximately 80% of the pesticides employed on golf courses
and home lawns to a detection level of less than 10 ppb.
E. Salinity and Dissolved Oxygen
QSalinity
and dissolved oxygen ranges for each month are shown in
Appendix II.
All data ranges were typical for a tidal creek
except for
the dissolved
oxygen data in the south fork for the month
of August.
The low dissolved
oxygen levels were apparently the result
of a bloom
reflected by
the high chlorophyll —a data and u� rbia'i y or the same
month. This
phenomenon was apparently transitory and had
no lasting
a effect because the benthic populations were not affected by the
episode.
I
11
it
II
0
I
16

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
APPENDIX I
Data From Benthic Sampling
Infaunal abundances by site
Infaunal aboundances by time period
Seasonal abundances of fish
17

Table 1
Infaunal abundances at upper, mid, and mouth sites in Futch Creek. Means (± 1 SE) are from
5 cores taken each of 4 seasons. For species comprising > It total fauna, F-values compare
sites and sites with same superscript letter do not differ significantly (Student Newman
Kouls test).
Newman Kouls test).
Futch Creek
Species
upper
Mid
Mouth F
x
(+
1 SE)
X
(+
1 SE)
x
(+
1 SE)
Oligochaeta
0.95
(±
0.59)
0.79
(±
0.27)
10.05
(±
0.05) 2.21
Polychaeta
0
0.16
(±
0.16)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Arabella tricolor
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Aricidea (Allis) suecica
0
0.58
(±
0.22)°b
0.85
(±
0.30)3 3.72*
Armandia maculata
0
0.79
(±
0.36)
0.20
(±
0.16)
Asychis elongatus
0
0.10
(±
0.07)
0
Asychis sp.
0
0.10
(±
0.11)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Axiothella sp.
0
0.42
(±
0.18)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Brania clavata
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Brania sp.
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Capitella capitata
4.55
(±
1.29)°
0.47
(±
0.22)b
1.85
(
0.74)b 9.96*
Ceratonereis irritabilis
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Diopatra cuprea
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Drilonereis spp.
0
0.16
(!'
0.09)
0.05
('±'
0.05)
Eteone heteropoda
0.10
(±
0.07)
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Eteone lactea
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Eurythoe sp.A
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.25
(±
0.20)
Eusyllis lamelligera
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Exogone dispar
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0

Futch Creek
species
upper
Mid
Mouth
F
X
(±
1 SE)
X
(±
1 SE)
%
(±
1 SE)
Flabelligeridae sp.A
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Glycera robusta
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Gyptis spp.
0
0.21
(±.=0.10)
0
Hauchiella sp.A
0
0.11
(±
0.07)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Kinberginereis sp.
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Laeonereis culveri
9.45
(±
1.01)°
2.53
(±
0.59)b
6.95
(±
0.10)`
21.64**
Leitoscoloplos (fragilis)
0.20
(±
0.09)
0.32
(±
0.17)
0.05
(t
0.15)
Leitoscoloplos robustus
0.25
(±
0.25)
0
0.10
(±
0.67)
Leitoscoloplos sp.
0.15
(±
0.08)
0
0.10
a
0.10)
Linopherus sp.
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Lumbrineris tenius
0
3.21
(±
0.81)°
1.05
(±
0.48)b
24.92**
Lumbrineris verrilli
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Lumbrineris sp.
0
0.32
(±
0.32)
0.40
(±
0.23)
Lumbrineris sp.B
0
0042
(±
0.22)
0.35
(±
0.15)
Lysilla sp.B
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.25
(±
0.20)
Maldanidae sp.A
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Marphysa sanquinea
0
0.32
(±
0.11)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Marphysa sp.
0
0005
(±
0.05)
.0
Mediomastus californiensis
13.40
(±
2.20)°
4.21
(±
0.69)b
10.05
(±
1.12)°
9.53*
Melinna maculates
0
0
0.05
(i.
0.05)
Micromaldane sp.
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0'
Myriochele oculata
0
0405
(±
0.05)
0
Neanthes succinea
0.25
(±
0.10)b
1.21
(±
0.39)e
0.40
(±
0.13)b
4.33*

Futch Creek
species
upper
Mid
Mouth
F
X
(±
1 SE)
8
(±
1 SE)
X
(±
1 SE)
Nereis riisei
0
0
0
Paraonidae sp.A
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Paraonidae sp.
0
0.05
(±••0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Pectinaria gouldii
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Polycirrus haematodes
0
1.63
(±
0.67)°
0.10
(±
0.07)b
7.57*
Polydora ligni
1.15
(±
0.52)'
0005
(±
0.05)b
0.30
(±
0.18)b
4.28*
Potamethus sp.
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Potamilla sp.
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Prionospio steenstrupi
0
1.26
(±
0.51)°
0.30
(±
0.15)b
9.35*
Prionospio heterobranchia
0
6.11
(±
1.26)°
0.15
(±
0.11)b
44.95**
Prionospio sp.
0
0.11
(±
0.11)
0
sabellaria beaufortensis
.0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
scoloplos rubra
0
1.00
(±
0.27)
0.05
(±
0.05)
scoloplos tesana
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Sphaerosyllis longicauda
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
spiochaetopterus costarum
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
streblospio benedicti
10.65
(±
2.60)°
0.42
(±
0.18)b
2.60
(±
0.83)b
15.85**
syllidae spp.
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Tharyx annulosus
5.45
(±
1.95)e
2.47
(±
0.61)b
1.65
(±
0.45)b
4.19*
Terebellidae
0
0.16
(±
0.16)
0
Amphicteis gunners
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Cylopoida sp.
0
0.11
(±
0.07)
0
Polydora socialis
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)

'C7 ' C-I C� =7 C7 C.� C-1 C7 C] C-I
Futch Creek
species
upper
Mid
Mouth F
X
(±
1 SE)
x
(±
1 SE)
A
(±
1 SE)
Bivalvia
0
0016
(±
0.16)
0
Anomin simplex
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
sabellaria sp.A
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.
0
Geukensia Sp*
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Bivalvia sp.A
3.00
(±
1.38)
1.00
(±
0.34)
0.95
(±
0.41) 2.49
Bivalvia sp.B
0
0.16
(±
0.11)
0.15
(±
0.11)
Bivalvia sp.0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.16
(±
0.16)
0.20
(±
0.15)
Chione ape
0
0.21
(±
0*10)
0
Mdreenaria spp*
0
0.26
(±
0.13)
0.05
(±
0.05)
POlymesoda
0.85
(±
0.31)a
4.79
(±
1.08)b
3.05
(±
0.56)` 16.69**
Tagelus divisus
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Tagelus plebeius
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0.10
(±
0.07)
Tellina ape
0.15
(±
0.15)
0.11
(±
0.11)
0
Geukensia demissa
0
0.16
(±
0.12)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Veneridae sp.A
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Gastropoda
0
0.11
(±
0.07)
0.20
(±
0.17)
Aoridae ape
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Crepidula ape
0
0.79
(±
0.31)
0
Gastropoda sp.A
0.10
(±
0.07)
0
0
Gastropoda sp*B
.0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Gastropoda sp.0
0
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
Ilyanassa obsoleta
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Neomicrorbis ape
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0

'o' o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 �•
Futch Creek
species
upper
Mid
Mouth F
X
(±
1 SE)
X
(±
1 SE)
8
(#
1 SE)
Copepoda
0
0
0
Ostracoda
0
1.84
(±
0.42)°
1.00
(±
0.19)b 8.15**.
Cumacean
0
0
0
Cyclaspis pustulata
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Tanaidacea
0
-
0
0
Leptochelia savignyi
6.85
(±
0.36)b
4.63
(±
1.07)8
1.00
(±
0.32)b 13.02**
Amphipoda
0
0
0
. Ampelisca spp.
0
O.OS
(±
0.05)
0.10
(±
0.07)
Amphipoda sp.
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.
Corophium bonelli-
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.21
(±
0.16)
0
Corophium insidiosum
0
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
Elasmopus levis
0
0.21
(±
0.12)
0
Gammaropsis palmate
0
6.05
(±
0.05)
0
Hyalidae op.
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Listriella barnardi
0
0.47
(±
0.21)
0.10
(±
0.07)
Listriella clymenella
0
0
0.0S
(±
0.05)
Helita nitida
0
0.32
(±
0.17)
0.10
(±•0.07)
Isopoda
0
0
0
Aoridae sp.A
0
0
0
Cyathura spp.
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.21
(±
0.10)
0
Edotea triloba
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.05
(±
0.05)
Decapoda
0
0
0
Clibanarius vittatus
0
00,05
(±
0.05)
.0

• Q • Q Q C7 G� C7 CQ C7 C7 C7 C] Q C7 CQ CJ G7 Q C] C7
Futch
Creek
Species
upper
Mid
Mouth F
X
(±
1 SE)
X
(± 1 SE)
X (±
1 SE)
Palaemonetes pugio
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Penaeus setiferus
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Upogebia a=finis
0
0.05
•(± 0005)
0
Insecta
0
0
0
Hymenoptera sp.
0.05
(±
0.05)
0
0
Nemertea
0.05
(±
0.05)
0.53
(± 0.19)
0.05 (±
0.05)
Sipuncula
0
0.11
(± 0.11)
0.05 (±
0.05)
Chordata
0
0
0
Symphurus sp.
0
0
0.05 (±
0.05)

Table 2:'
Infaunal abundances during 4 collecting periods
in Futch creek.
Means (t 1 SE) are from 5
cores taken at each of
3 sites during each time period.
For species
comprising > 1%,
F-values
compare time periods and time periods with
the same superscript letter do not
differ
significantly
(Student Newman
Kouts test).
Futch Creek
Species
January
April
July
October F
X
(t
1 SE)
X (t
1 SE)
X (t
1 SE)
X (t 1 SE)
otigochaeta
1.93 (t
0.77)a
0
0.27 (t
0.15)b
0.13 0.0.09)b 5.85*
Potychaets
0
0.21
(t
0.21)
0.07 (t
0.07)
0
Arabetta iricolor
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0
0
Aricidea (Apia) suecica
0.53
(t
0.38)
0.43
(t
0.25)
0.40 (t
0.16)
0.53 (t 0.23) 0.07
Armandis maculate
1.00
(t
0.45)
0
0
0.27 (s 0.18)
Asychis etongatus
0.67
(t
0.07)
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0
Asychis sp.
0
0
0.20 (t
0.14)
0
Axiothetta sp.
0.33
(t
0.13)
0.29
(t
0.22)
0
0
Branca clavata
0
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0
Branca sp.
0.07
(t
0.07)
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Capitetta capitata
0.13
(t
0.09)c
0.71
(t
0.35)bc
2.73 (t
0.99)b
5.60 (t 1.57)8 10.94**
Ceratonereis irritabitis
0.13
(t
0.09)
0
0
0
Diopatra cupres
0
0
0.07 (t
0.07)
0
Dritonereis $pp.
0.07
(t
0.07)
0.07
(t
0.07)
0.07 (t
0.07)
0.07 Cl 0.07)
Eteone heteropoda
0
0.14
(t
0.10)
0.07 (t
0.07)
0
Eteone lactea
0
0
0.07 (s
0.07)
0
Eurythoe sp.A
0
0
0.27 (t
0.27)
0.13 (t 0.09)
Eusyllis lamettigera
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0
0
Exogone dispar
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Ftabettigeridae sp.A
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0
0
Gtycera robusta
0
0
0.07 (t
0.07)
0
Gyptis spp.
0.07
(!
0.07)
0.07
(!
0.07)
0.07 (!
0.07)
0.07 (t 0.07)
Hauchietta sp.A
0.13
(t
0.09)
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Kinberginereis sp.
0.07
(t
0.07)
0
0
0
Laeonereis cutveri
6.13
(t
1.13)b
6.50
(t
1.27)b
3.13 (t
0.94)c
9.73 (t 1.16)a 9.91**
Leitoscoloplos (fragitis)
0.27
(t
0.12)
0.57
(t
0.25)
0.33 (t
0.13)
0.20 (t 0.14)
Leitoscoloplos robustus
0
0.50
(t
0.35)
0
0
Leitoscoloptos sp.
0.07
(t
0.07)
0.29
(t
0.16)
0
0

C7 ' L7 C7 C� C7 C3 CZ C� C7 C7
Futch Creek (continued)
Species
January
April
Juty
October
F
X (t 1 SE)
X (s 1 SE)
X (t 1 SE)
X (t 1 SE)
Linopherus sp.
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Lumbrineris tenius
0
0.29 (t 0.29)c
3.73 (t 0.95)a
1.47 (t 0.64)b.
19.95**
Lumbrineris verrilll
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Lumbrineris sp.
0
1.00 (t 0.50)
0
0
Lumbrineris sp.B
0.80 (t 0.30)
0.21 (t 0.11)
0
0 ,
Lysilla sp.8
•0.07 (t 0.07)
0
.0.33 (t 0.27)
0
Matdanidae sp.A
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Marphysa sanquinea
0.20 (s 0.11)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.20 (t 0.11)
0
Marphyss sp.
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Mediomastus catiforniensis
11.80 (t 2.70)
6.57 (t 1.23)
8.40 (t 1.93)
10.27 (t 1.57)
1.92
Metima mecutata
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Micromatdane sp.
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Myriochete oculata
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Neanthes succinea
0.47 (t 0.17)
0.57 (t 0.23)
0.67 (t 0.21)
0.73 (t 0.47)
0.16
Nereis riisel
0
0
0
0
Paraonidae sp.A
0
0.14 (t 0.10)
0
0
Paraonidae sp.
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Pectinarla goutdii
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Polycirrus haematodes
0.93 (t 0.61)a
1.29 (t 0.71)a
0
0.07 (t 0.07)a
3.46*
Potydora tigni
1.53 (s 0.67)4
0.43 (t 0.25)b
0
0.07 (s 0.07)b
4.97*
Potamethus sp.
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Potamitta sp.
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Prionospio steenstrupi
1.53 (t 0.62)a
0.50 (t 0.23)b
0
0
8.69**
Prionospio heterobranchia
3.40 (t 1.47)a
3.14 (t 1.43)a
0.40 (t 0.27)b
1.20 (t 0.63)b
6.76*
Prionospio sp.
0
0
0.13 (t 0.13)
0
Sabeltaria beaufortensis
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Scotoplos rubra
0.60 (t 0.31)
0.29 (t 0.19)
0.33 (t 0.21)
0.13 (t 0.09)
Scotoplos texana
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Sphaerosyttis tongicauda
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Spiochaetopterus costarum
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Streblospio benedicti
8.53 (t 3.75)a
4.29 (t 1.24)a
2.93 (t 1.06)a
2.73 (t 0.96)a
3.06*
Syllidae spp.
0
. 0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.07 (t 0.07)

r
Futch Creek (continued)
Species
January
April
July .
October
F
X (t 1 SE)
X (t 1 SE)
X (t 1 SE)
X (t 1 SE)
Tharyx aulosus
m
3.46 (* 0.98)b
7.29 (:t2.54)a
1.20 (* 0.39)b
1.13 (* 0.49)b
6.20*
Amphictals gumeri
0
0.07 (s 0.07)
0
0
Terebellidae
0
0.21 (t 0.21)
0
0
Sabellarla sp.A
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Polydora socialis
0
0
0
0.07 (* 0.07)
Geukensla sp.
0 •
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Cylopoida sp.
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0.07 (* 0.07)
0
Bivalvia
0.20 (* 0.20)
0
0
0
Anomia simplex
0
0
O
0.07 (* 0.07)
Bivalvia sp.A
3.80 (:t1.83)a
2.21 (* 0.50)ab
0.20 (t 0.11)b
0.47 (* 0.19)b
3.84*
Bivalvia sp.8
0
0.36 (* 0.26)
0.07 (* 0.07)
0
Bivalvia sp.0
0
0.50 (t 0.25)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Chions sp.
0
0
0.13 (t 0.09)
0.13 (* 0.09)
Hercenaris spp.
0.20 (t 0.11)
0.07 (* 6.07)
0.13 (t 0.13)
0
Polymesods
1.67 (* 0.44)c
3.36 (t 0.86)b
1.33 (t 0.38)c
5.13 (t 1.32)8
10.18**
Tagetus divisus
0.07 (* 0.07)
0
0
0
Tagelus ptebaius
0
0
0.20 (t 0.11)
0
Tellina sp.
0
0.36 (* 0.25)
0
0
Geukensia demissa
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.20 (* 0.14)
Veneridae sp.A
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Gastropods
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.27 (* 0.15)
Aoridae sp'.
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Crepidula sp.
0.07 (* 0.07)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.20 (t 0.20)
0.67 (t 0.36)
Gastropods sp.A
0.13 (* 0.09)
0
0
0
Gastropods sp.8
0
0.07 (* 0.07)
0
0
Gastropods sp.0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Ityanassa obsoteta
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Neomicrorbis sp.
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Copepods
0
0
0
0
Ostracoda
0.67 (* 0.29)
0.86 (t 0.33)
0.66 (* 0.25)
1.53 (t 0.49)
2.74
Cumacean
0
0
0
0
Cyclaspis pustutata
0
0.07 (! 0.07)
0
0

ci aLZI c-3 a a a a a-
Species
January
X (t 1 SE)
Futch Creek (continued)
April July
X (t i SE) X ft 1 SE)
October F
X (t 1 SE)
Tsnaidacea
0
0
0
0
Leptochelia savignyi
3.27 (t 0.76)a
3.00 (t 1.39)a
1.60 (t 0.65)ab
0.67 (t 0.35)b 3.48*
AA01 pods
0
0
0
0
Ampelisca spp.
0.13 (t 0.09)
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Apo ipoda sp.
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
- 0
Corophlum bonelli
0
0
0
0.33 (t 0.21)
Corophlum insidiosum
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Etasmopus tevis
0.20 (1 0.14)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Gammaropsis pelmets
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Hyalidee sp.
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Listriella barnardi
0.13 (t 0.13)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.47 (t 0.23)
6.07 (t 0.07)
Listrlella ctymenella
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
0
Wits nitida
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.47 (t 0.22)
Isopoda
0
0
0
0
Acridae sp.A
0
0
0
0
Cyathurs spp.
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0.20 (s 0.11)
Edoten triloba
0
0.14 (t 0.10)
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Decapoda
0
0
0
0
Clibanarius vittatus
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Palaemonetes pugio
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Penaeus setiferus
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
Upogebia affinis
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
Insecta
0
0
0
0
Hymenoptera sp.
0
0.07 (t 0.07)
0
0
Hemertea
0.20 (t 0.14)
0.21 (t OAS)
0.20 (t 0.14)
0.20 (t 0.14)
Sipuncuts
0
0.21 (t 0.15)
0
0
Chordata
0
0
0
0
Symphurus sp.
0
0
0
0.07 (t 0.07)

L1
Table 3: Seasonal abundances
of
fish
at upper,
mid,
and
lower sampling
location
in Futch Creek.
Numbers are
totals
for
2
seines per sample.
January
June
July
July
(7-15-92)
(7-30-92)
species
L
M
U
L
M U
L
M
U
L
MU
n
�!
Sheephead minnow
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
u
(Cvprinodon varieaatus)
Unid. larva
34
143
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pinfish
0
0
0
21
1
1
0
2
0
29
8
6
(laQodon rhomboides)
Lizardf ish
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Svnodus foetens)
n
Spot
0
0
0
20
0
1
0
0
3
2
0
1
(Leiostomus xanthurus)
Atlantic Menhaden
35
5
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Larval Atlantic Menhaden 0
(Brevootia tvrannus)
0
0
7
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mummichog
0
0
0
0
0
1
64
24
0
0
0
200
(Fundulus heteroclitus)
Rough' Silverside
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
46
110
0
0
(Membras martinica)
aUnid.
sp.A
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
2
13
15
0
26
Planehead Filefish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
(Monoacanthus hispidus)
Mullet
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
43
0
2
1
(Muail sP• )
n
Northern Pipefish
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
�J
(Svnanathus fuscus)
.Barracuda
(Sphvraena barracuda)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Unid. op. B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Larva .sp. C
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
Larva sp. D
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
{�
Blackcheek tonguefish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
�J
(Svmphurus glaciusa)
Mosquitofish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
(Gambusia of i is)
�j
Blue crab
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
2
0
1
(Callinectes:eavidus)
Grass shrimp
0
3
8
0
0
4
0
60
0
2
0
0
(Palaemonetes guoio)
Penaeid shrimp
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
o-
0
0
Appendix II
Data sheets for each sampling period showing salinity, water temp,
dissolved oxygen, and bacterial counts.
18

BACTERIAL
WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS
r1
study
site
Futah Creek
Date Collected 1-25-92
Weather Sunny,
No Wind
Sampler_
Cartier Esham.
Katie Laing
Air Temp. 420F
Bacteriologist*Carter Esham, Katie
Time Collected
11:30 A.M.
Laing
to 3:37 P.M.
DEM
Station
Number
Salinity
Point
Water
Temp.
Dissolved ,Bacterial
Oxygen
Counts Per 100 ml
mFC* mTEC
LJ
L!
1
31.
10
9
0
3
2
.31
9
9
0
2
3
29
8
9
0
0.3
4
30
8
10
0
0
5
30
9
10
1
0
6
28
9
10
0.3
0.3
7
30
8
9
1
0
8
24
8
9
7
.67
9
11
10
11
2
4
10
0
9
10
0
4
NOTE: High tide•until site 3
Date Completed 1-27-92
Verified by: Cartier Esham
"Technique used by the N.C. .Dept. of Natural Resources and
�j Community Development, Div. of Environmental Management.
�J THTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC E. coli counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.

ft
I
.BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Study Sit• Futah Crook
Date Collected
2-21-92
Weather
Overcast
Sampler_ Cartier Esham. Katie Laing
Air Temp.
27°C
Bacteriologist Carter
Esham.
Katie
Time Collected 1:00 P.M.
Laing
to- 3:00 P.M.
DEM
Station Salinity
Water
Dissolved
Bacterial
Counts per 100 ml
n
Number Point
Temp.
Oxygen
mFC"
mTEC
1 30
0.3
1
2 30
1
0.3
3 30
7
3
4 30
13
11
10
.1
5- 30
7
2
n
6 29
14
9
12
8
-7 29
10
5
8 25
15
11
22
10
9 15
15
12
89
56
10 0
16
7
150
122
NOTE: Ebb tide during sampling
Date Completed 2-22-92
Verified by: Cartier Esham
"Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. of Environmental Management.
TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC -.E. coli counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
rj Study Site Futob Creek
Date Collected
3-24-92
Weather Sunny.
Windy.
Sampler Cartier Esham.
Carrie
Thomas
Air Temp. 6011C
Bacteriologist Carter
Esham, Katie
Time Collected1:15-2:30
PM
Laing,
Kevin
Violette
_(creek) 2:40-3:20 PM (land)
L1
"
DEM
Station Salinity
Number Point
Water
Temp.
Dissolved
Oxygen
Bacterial Counts
mFC
per 100 ml
mTEC
Tj
LLJJ
1 30
12
9
1
.0
2 30
.12
10
1
3
3 29
12
9
10
44
4 29
12
9
0
10
5 29
12
9
3
1
6 27
13
9
0
3
7 28
13
9
1
3
8 25
13
9
6
3
9 15
17
9
25
20
.10 0
16
13
ill
148
Date Completed- /�3-25-92
Verified by: C lazz at -
Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. of Environmental Management.
TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. coli counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.
J

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
n Study Site Futah creek
L1
Date Collected
4-29-92
Weather Sunny,
Breeze
Sampler Cartier-Esham.
Anna Bass,
Air Temp. 7001F
Katie Laing
Bacteriologist -Carter Esham, Katie
Time Collected
5:30 P.M.
Laing,
Kevin
Violette
DEM
Station Salinity
Water
Dissolved
Bacterial Counts
per.100 ml
Number Point
Temp.
Oxygen
mFC
mTEC
1 31
17
8
0.3
4
2 31
17
8
0
18
3 30
17
8
.2
35
4 31
17
7
1
41
5 30
17
6
0
6
6 29
18
9
12
12
^
7 31
18
9
41
57
31
18
10
53
12
9 25
20.
8
69
125
10 25
20
9
TNTC
17
Date Completed
-300-92
Verified by:
Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. of Environmental Management.
TNTC - too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. coli counts, and mFC =fecal coliform counts.
0

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS.
Study Site Futch Crook
Date Collected 5-19-92 Weather Cloudy. Breeze
Sampler Cartier-Esham. Katie Laing, Air Temp. 70°F
r} Kevin Violette
Bacteriologist Carter Esham. Katie Time Collected 11:18 A.M.
n Lainq.
DEM
station Salinity
Water Dissolved
Bacterial
Counts per 100 ml
Number Point
Temp. Oxygen
mFC"
mTEC
1 30
21
6
52
22
tJ
2 31
21
7
37
48
3 28
21
6
TNTC
TNTC
4 30
21
6.
93
145
5 28
21
6
0
TNTC
(�
6 26
21
5
98
132
i�
7 30
21
5
157
-78
8 29
21
5
67
TNTC
9 20
20
4
TNTC
TNTC
10 17
19
4
TNTC
TNTC
NOTE: HHT
Date Completed
5-20-92
Verified by: (�7
"Technique used
by the N.C.
Dept.
of Natural Resources and
rj
Community Development, Div. of
Environmental Management.
TNTC — too numerous to count,
0 = no
colonies,
NR = no results,
mTEC - E. coli counts, and mFC
= fecal
coliform
counts.
U1

BACTERIAL
BOATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS
Study Site
Futab Creek
Date Collected 6-22-92
Weather Sunny,
Breeze
Sampler Cartier Esham, Katie
Laing.
Air Temp. 200C
r}
L
Carrie Thomas
Bacteriologist Carter Esham
Time Collected
3:00 P.M.
DEM
Station Salinity Water
Dissolved
Bacterial Counts
per 100 ml
Number Point Temp:
Oxygen
. mFC
mTEC
1 32 25
7
4
96
2 32 26
7
11
3
3 27 25
6
4
19
4 32 25
6'
5
19
5 30 25
6
8
14
6 26 26
7
21
45
{(
7 28 26
6
14
31
u
8 28 26
6
0
TNTC
9 23 29
7
61
TNTC
10 10 28
6
TNTC
TNTC
n
u
n
Date Completed 6-23-92
u
p �
Verified by: ( . L,.
Q
-Techni
ue used b the N.C. Dept.
q Y P
of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div.
of Environmental Management.
to
NR =
TNTC = too numerous count, 0 = no
colonies, no results,
mTEC - E. coli counts, and
mFC = fecal
coliform counts.
J

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
study site Futch creek
Date Collected 7-27-92
Sampler Cartier Esham. Rachel
Crawford, Donna Uguccioni
Bacteriologist Carter Esham
Weather Overcast
Air Temp. 900F
Time Collected 9:30 A.M.
to 12:30 P.M.
DEM
Station Salinity Water Dissolved Bacterial Counts per 100_ml
Number Point Temp. Oxygen mFC" mTEC
1
27
29
NR
2
3
2
27
29
NR
12
2
3
27
29
NR
4
3
4
26
27
NR
1
14
5
20
28
NR
16
7
6
22
28
NR
4
13-
7
20
29
NR
19
5
8
22
29
NR
20
5
9
1
35
NR
300
TNTC
10
0
28
NR
480
TNTC
NOTE: Site 8 taken on right instead of left due to low tide.
.D.O. meter would not read oxygen.
Date Completed 7-28-92
Verified by:--cT./';L
"Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. of -Environmental Management.
TNTC - too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. coli counts, and mFC - fecal coliform counts.

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Study site Futch creek
Date Collected 8-10-92
Sampler Cartier Esham, Rob Toonen,
Rachel Crawford
Bacteriologist Carter Esham
Weather Sunny, Clear
Air Temp. 80OF
Time Collected 8:00 A.M.
to 10:00 P.M.
DEM
Station
Number
Salinity
Point
Water.
Temp.
Dissolved
Oxygen
Bacterial
mFCR
Counts per 100 ml
mTEC
54
63
1J
11
15
29
2
12
18
29
2
55
68
13
12
28
0.4
184
146
a14
12
28
0.4
132
112
15
5
27
2.4
TNTC
590
16
0
26
1
TNTC
460
17
0
25
1
TNTC
840
18
0
25
1
TNTC
920
LJ
19
0
25
1
TNTC
1110
�l
20
0
.25
5
TNTC
1116
Date Completed 88--11--92
Verified by:.�--
'Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div.. of Environmental Management.
TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. coli counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Study Site Futch creek
Date Collected 9-2-92
Sampler Katie Laing, Cartier Esham
Bacteriologist Carter Esham
Katie Laing
Weather Sunny
Air Temp. 80OF
Time Collected 2:00 P.M.
DEM
Station
Salinity
Water
Dissolved
bacterial Counts
per 100 ml
Number
Point
Temp.
Oxygen
mFC*
mTEC
11
27
30
6
12
8
12
23
30
6
21
54
13
22 •
30
7
34
138
14
20
29
6
47
118
15
20
30
7
77
128
16
20
30
7
116
325
Q17
19
30
6
211
467
18
19
_ 30
7
137
156
19
21
30
6
137
191
20
20
30
6
138
228
Date Completed 9-3-92
n Verified by: n "Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
II Community Development, Div. of Environmental Management.
a TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 =. no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. coli counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.
K
0

BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY.ANALYSIS
Study Site Futch Creek
Date Collected 10-22-92 Weather Sunny
Sampler Katie Laing. Cartier Esham Air Temp. 70OF
Bacteriologist Carter Esham Time Collected 4:30 P.M.
Katie Laing to 6:30 P.M.
DEM
Station Salinity
Number Point
11
12
13
14
15
n 16
Imo' 17
18
19
20
Date Completed 10-23-92
Verified by: �f
"Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. -of Environmental Management.
Water Dissolved Bacterial Counts per 100 ml
Temp. Oxygen mFC" mTEC
28
19
8
1
3
28
19
8
1
3
21
19
8
29
.29
21
20
8
5
11
20
•20
8
39
40
21
20
8
30
29
21
20
8
44
46
21
19
8
49
58
21
20
8
59
139
17
20
7
36
44
TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. coli counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.

` dt
BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Study Site- Futch Creek
QDate
Collected 11-18-92
Weather Sunny
Sampler Katie Laing, Scott Miller
Air Temp. 220F
�.
Bacteriologist Carter Esham
Time Collected
3:30 P.M.
_Katie Laing
to 5:30 F.M.
aDEM
Station Salinity Water Dissolved
tacterial Counts
per 100 ml
Number Point Temp. Oxygen
mFC*
mTEC
11 26 13 8
10
9
12 23 14 9
14
17
a13
22 14 8
11
6
14 22 14 8
15
24
15 20 9
12
18
.14
16 22 14 8
330
302
*17 10 12 10
254
.172
j�
U
*18 10 12 10
65
87
19 23 14 8
74
84
20 23 14 8
72
86
Date Completed 11-23-92
,.
.
Verified by:
'Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. Environmental Management.
of
TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no
= E. = fecal
colonies, NR = no
results,
mTEC coli counts, and mFC
coliform counts.
*Back Tracked - Taken when tide was fairly low.

0
BACTERIAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Study Site FuYVh Creek
Date Collected
12-2-92
Weather Sunny,
Windy
Sampler
Katie Laing.
Cartier Esham
Air Temp. 570F
Bacteriologist
Carter Esham
Time Collected
3:00 P.M.
Katie
Laing
to 5:00 P.M.
DEM
Station
Salinity
Water
Dissolved
Bacterial Counts
per 100 ml
Number
Point
Temp.
Oxygen
mFC'
mTEC
11
16
13
10
41
42
12
13
14
10
75
76
13
- 5
13
11
142
138
14
2
13
11
80
85
15
0
15
12
101
104
16
0
15
11
217
192
17
0
13
8
318
192
18
0
10
11
306
197
19
0
10
10
271
284
20
0
10
11
290
327
Date Completed 12-3-92
Verified by:
"Technique used by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Div. of Environmental Management."
TNTC = too numerous to count, 0 = no colonies, NR = no results,
mTEC = E. col counts, and mFC = fecal coliform counts.

REPORT OF ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS SURVEY
F
FLITCH CREEK AREA
BY THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
JULY 1993

0
This study of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal
systems in the vicinity of Futch Creek is a follow-up to the
n .Futch Creek Environmental Analysis Report prepared by The
u Center for Marine Science Research at the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. The environmental analysis found and
reported levels of coliform bacteria that suggested the
discharge of untreated wastewater into the creek.
Residences in the vicinity of Futch Creek, New Hanover
County are served by onsite soil absorption wastewater
treatment and disposal systems (generally referenced as septic
systems). A typical residential septic system of conventional
(� design consists of a 900-1,000 gallon septic tank, where
�J household wastewater is collected and solids settle to the
bottom; a distribution box, into which effluent (liquid) flows
from the septic tank; and nitrification lines, which branch off
the distribution box. The nitrification lines vary in length,
with an average of 60.feet. They are most commonly three feet
wide trenches which contain perforated corrugated pipe and
(1 gravel. Depth of trenches varies with depth at which the
UU septic tank is set (in older systems) and under today's
standards, with depth of the soil wetness condition (one foot_
separation between trench bottom and the soil wetness
condition). The number of trenches also varies; most commonly
two or three serve a dwelling.
aThe table at the end of this report lists the residences
at which onsite septic systems were inspected between the dates
of May 21, 1993 and July 14, 1993, and the approximate distance
D of each septic system (nitrification lines included) to surface
water or wetlands associated with the southern. branch of Futch
Creek. All residential properties bordering or within 300 feet
of the creek or associated wetlands in New Hanover County on
the eastern side of U.S. 17 were visited. Inspections of
septic systems were possible with owners' permission.
d During the study, 55 homes having individual septic
systems were visited, of which 44 were inspected. This figure
represents an 80 percent inspection rate. Vacant properties
were not visited. Inspections routinely consisted of visual
observations of the septic tank and distribution box area,
probing of the nitrification lines, and checks for any
household discharges to the ground surface. A shoreline survey
was conducted on May 28, 1993, which consisted of visual
searches for any discharge pipes to the creek.
Summary and Recommendations
a Of the 44 onsite septic systems inspected,' none were
observed to be malfunctioning. Many of the systems were
recently installed. Some of the older septic systems had been
a

0
repaired.
No direct discharge
of household wastewater to the
ground surface or the creek
and/or associated wetlands was
observed.
It appeared that a
mobile home had been recently
LJ
U
moved from
property fronting
on the creek in- Holy Fountain
Subdivision
(1 Creekwood Road).
The existence of a system on
this particular property was questioned by several
interest
groups from the coi,.munity.
This
property was scrutinized
closely for evidence of wastewater
discharge, and
for the
existence and location of a
system.
As -noted -on the
list, a
system was located on this
property
at approximately
80 feet
from the creek.
�j Parameters which merit further consideration in an effort
u to reach a conclusion as to the cause of high coliform bacteria
counts in Futch Creek include:
o The relationship between high bacteria levels and the
depth and width of the creek.in areas of high counts, as well
as tidal influences, currents, and sedimentation. During the
(1 shoreline survey, we reached the Creekside Subdivision on a
l� rising tide and were able in a flat bottom boat only to
traverse the waterfront of two or three lots.
o Analysis of stormwater runoff patterns --developed lots
in the vicinity of sampling sites recording high bacteria
counts are parts of two relatively new developments (Creekside
and Holy Fountain).
o Warm-blooded animal population studies --most homes had
U at least one dog, and as many as four were observed at one
�J residence. Direct runoff of domestic animal waste as well as
wild animal waste may need to be examined in conjunction with
runoff patterns.
o Height of the seasonal high water table in relation to
depth of the nitrification trench bottoms. This may be
a examined and coordinated - with directional flow groundwater
studies.
o Illegal sewage dumping
o Survey of onsite septic systems in the Futch Creek/Foy
Creek area of Pender County. This area was last surveyed in
March 1993 by the Shellfish Sanitation Branch, North Carolina
Division of Environmental Health. Results are published in the
report of Area B-8 (Topsail Sound Area) dated May 1993.
U -Figures in this report represent a 64 percent inspection rate
�! of properties visited. Contacts with various interest groups
from the community raised questions of malfunctioning systems
a in Pender County. All property specific information was
relayed to Mr. Harry Lewis, Environmental Health. Supervisor,
Pender County Health Department.

B[)TCS CREEK SEBTIC SYSTEM SURVEY
Inspection Address Approximate
Date Distance ,(ft. ) to
Wetlands (W) or
Surface Waters (S)
5/21/93
927
Saltwood Lane
125 S
5/21/93
925
Saltwood Lane
200 S
5/21/93
901
Saltwood Lane
100 S
5/21/93
1005
Creekside Lane
> 200 S
5/21/93
1009
Creekside Lane
200 S
5/21/93
1413
Futch Creek Road
300 S
5/21/93
1427
Futch Creek Road
> 300 S
5/21/93
1431
Futch Creek Road
150 S
5/21/93
1441
Futch Creek Road
200 S
5/21/93
1447
Futch Creek Road
200 S
5/21/93
1513
Futch Creek Road
> 100 S
5/28/93
Lot
1 - 1 Creekwood Road
80 S
5/28/93
Lot
51 - 5 Creekwood Road
170 S
5/28/93
626
Creekwood
Road
300 S
5/28/93
328
Creekwood
Road
150 W
5/28/93
306
Creekwood
Road
.150 W
5/28/93
.238
Creekwood
Road
150 W
Remarks
adjacent to Station
17 of Env. Analysis
Report
8 years old
6 years old
recently installed
vacant mobile home
site at end of
road
no house on lot
recently installed
1 year old system
1

BUTCS CREEK SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY
Inspection
Address
Approximate
Remarks
Date
Distance (ft.)
to
Wetlands (W) or
Surface
Waters
(S)
6/2/93
1605
Futch Creek
Road
> 200
S
6/2/93
1609_Futch
Creek
Road
> 200
S
6/2/93
1625
Futch Creek
Road
50 S
on knoll.
6/2/93
1633
Futch Creek
Road
100 S
6/2/93
1701
Futch Creek
Road
> 200
S
recently installed
6/2/93
1705
Futch Creek
Road
> 200
S
6/2/93
8709
Bald Eagle Lane
70 S
6/2/93
8713
Bald Eagle Lane
50 S
6/2/93
8729
Bald Eagle Lane
50-75
S
6/2/93
8737
Bald Eagle Lane
50-75
S
on knoll above creek
6/2/93
8741
Bald Eagle Lane
50 S
on knoll above creek
6/8/93
1717
Futch Creek
Road
200 S
6/8/93
1729
Futch Creek
Road
50 S
6/8/93
1733
Futch Creek
Road
75 S
6/8/93
1801
Futch Creek
Road
> 200
S
6/8/93
1805
Futch Creek
Road
> 200
S
6/8/93
1809
Futch Creek
Road
> 200
S
6/8/93
1817
Futch Creek
Road
50 S
6/8/93
1821
Futch Creek
Road
50 S
discharge to creek
Bald Eagle Canal
consists of drainage
around pool,
driveway drainage,
and water to air
heat pump
2

S
PUTCS CREEK SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY
Inspection Address Approximate Remarks
Date Distance (ft.) to
Wetlands (W) or
Surface waters (S)
6/8/93 1825"Futch Creek Road 50-75 S discharge to creek
Bald Eagle Canal
consists of fish
cleaning station
and drainage pipe
6/8/93 324 Creekwood Road 50 W house under
construction
6/18/93 522 Creekwood Road 300 W
7/14/93 8705 Bald Eagle Lane 50 S
7/14/93 8704 Market Street >300 W
7/14/93 8624 Market Street 50 V
7/14/93 119 Foys Trail > 300 W
4 hogs kept
2 residences
3

Malfunctioning Septic Systems West Of US Hwy 17/Futch Creek
Occupant/Owner
Address
Phone No.
Lewis Spicer
7957
Stephens
Church
Rd.
686-7957
George Murray
8759
Stephens
Church
Rd.
686-0283
Lucy Brown
8763
Stephens
Church
Rd.
686-7861
Eunice Murray
8785
Stephens
Church
Rd.
686-7651
Maola McDuffy
8787
Stephens
Church
Rd.
686-4174.
William Murray
8791
Stephens
Church
Rd.
?
Harlee Spicer
8811
Stephens
Church
Rd.
686-9709'

�J
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
INTER -OFFICE
TmmMEMO
MEMORANDUM
a
T0:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Dave Weaver, Assistant County Manager
Fax # [phone]
Dianne Harvell,Dnvironmental Health Director
August 4, 1993
Futch Creek Survey
Attached is a report of our survey of onsite sewage
systems in the Futch Creek Community. Cathy Timpy,
Environmental Health Specialist conducted the survey and wrote
the report. We did not find any visible discharges of
wastewater to the ground surface, to surface waters or to
associated wetlands.
Also, I have attached a listing of malfunctioning septic
systems recently documented in the Kirkland Community west of
US Highway 17. John Coble requested that we compile this list
for the Planning Department as it may relate to Futch Creek.
c: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
Fax # [phone]

A
4

n
Analysis of the Physical, Chemical and Biotic Conditions of
{_J New Hanover County's Tidal Creeks
i! Imperative for the Study
{�} New Hanover County has experienced substantial growth in suburban areas during the
�J 1980s. Hundreds of housing developments have been built in this decade. Among many
environmental impacts, these suburban developments have had both direct and indirect effects
on the quality and .quantity of surface water reaching the creeks and other estuarine waters
that nearly surround the county. These effects include increased loadings of coliform
bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, sediment and fresh water.
Previously pristine estuarine waters have been, and continue to be, under the pressure of
population growth in the region. Paradoxically, many new residents cite environmental
quality as a primary reason for their selection of southeastern North Carolina as a home.
The administrative offices of the Cityof Wilmington and New Hanover Count have
g Y
carefully considered the impacts of development on estuarine resources, however, the lack of
data concerning the role of natural processes in the county's estuarine waters and the effects
of some development practices on estuarine environments has made the task of maintaining
undefiled estuarine environments difficult.
Many county citizens including government and business leaders, conservationists,
n and scientists are concerned that unless sound scientific data can be collected to serve as a
U basis for informed decisions, the future productivity and aesthetics of the estuarine waters
will be compromised.
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, through the Center for Marine
Sciences Research (CMSR) proposes a four-year study that focuses on developing an
understanding of water quality in the major estuarine creeks of New Hanover County. This
proposal provides the opportunity for the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, North
Carolina state environmental agencies and nonprofit, watchdog environmental organizations
to cooperate and share resources and information to respond to the rapid population growth
of the county.
Scope of Work
Scientists associated with the Center for Marine Sciences Research will conduct a
study of the physical, chemical and biotic aspects of water quality of four major tidal creeks
next to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, namely, Howe, Bradley, Pages, and Hewletts
creeks. Additionally some follow up sampling will take place in Futch creek. Two major
foci of the study include:
1. Physical, chemical and biotic description of the creeks
0
u

n
{� 2. Analysis of similarities and differences in creek parameters
U The physical, chemical and biotic description of the creeks will be conducted from
1993-1997 with each calendar year providing a framework for collection of baseline physical,
chemical and biotic data for the creeks under study. The first year we will study two creeks
intensively while we will continue some monitoring begun in the first year of the study.
Permanent study sites will be established in each creek for standardized comparison of data
collected between different years. This approach will allow the systematic study of the tidal
creeks yet remain within the defined limits of people and fiscal resources. As this work
progresses, the scientists will focus on assessing the similarities and differences among the
creeks studied and assess the effectiveness of current management guidelines. Emphasis will
be placed on practical, management oriented research that can help maximize the usability of
the creeks for county residents.
Beyond these two general approaches to the study, we will periodically conduct
narrow, focused research while collecting the general creek data. These studies will address
specific scientific questions or management problems related to tidal creeks with an objective
of providing an answer to a question or seeking an appropriate solution to a perceived
problem. We will propose these studies annually based on need and the interest of the
county's environmental managers, the scientists involved, and nonprofit environmental
organizations.
During the first year of this research activity, Howe creek and Hewletts creek will be
studied intensively by all the scientists. The annual objectives described below will be
achieved for these two creeks. In successive years, the researchers will focus on the other
creeks in an order agreed to by all parties.
Objectives for Description of Creeks
1. Describe the physical setting of the tidal creek, including elevations, size, bathymetry,
drainage basin area, tidal range and variations, and water volume measurements at
high and low tides. Characterize the physical environments of the tidal creek and
adjacent environments (wetlands, uplands and waters). Describe the historic and
current patterns of development within and next to the creek. Estimate changes in the
size, shape, volume and shoreline position using various curves for sea level rise.
Determine the rate of sediment accumulation in various parts of the creek. (data as
available will be provided by the County)
2. Determine the pattern of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients and
turbidity variations over tidal cycles, seasons and stochastic events such as hurricanes
or nor'easters. (annually for all creeks)
2

n
3.
Determine coliform bacterial levels in creek waters. Identify the source of the
coliforms (human or nonhuman sources). (first year -Howe and Hewletts creeks; in
future years other creeks)
L
4.
Measure the level of selected organophosphorus and organochlorine pesticides in
aqueous and biotic (oyster) tissue, as well as selected metals in sediment samples.
(annually for all creeks)
5.
Determine the distribution, diversity and quantity of the benthic fauna, primarily
bivalve species as bio-indicators of pollution levels. (one time per creek for all creeks)
Management
Objectives
D1.
Analyze the data collected for the tidal creeks, assess the environmental health of each
creek and identify locations of heavy pollution input.
2.
Compare and contrast the creeks in respect to the physical, chemical and biotic
factors measured. Explain similarities and differences observed among the creeks and
relate to strategies for creek management.
D
3.
Prepare recommendations for short- and long-term management of New Hanover
County's creeks.
DStudies
and Methodologies
Fecal coliform pollution
The bacterial strain, E. coli, has traditionally been used as the indicator strain for
fecal pollution. It is well suited for this task as it is the predominant aerobic bacterium in
human feces (an average person excretes between two and 200 billion E. coli per day) and
has unique taxonomic traits that readily distinguish it from most other bacteria. Exploitation
of these unique traits allows rapid identification of E. coli and is the basis of most techniques
that measure bacteriological water quality. Unfortunately some soil bacteria resemble E. coli
and can suggest fecal contamination where none exists. E. coli and these taxonomically
n related soil bacteria are termed coliforms. Coliform counts were the traditional water quality
�j measures. With improving technology, better estimates of E. coli counts could be made with
less interference from soil bacteria. These improved counts were termed fecal coliform
counts and although measured by different techniques, is the standard used by all the
agencies in the State of North Carolina (APHA 1980).
Recently the United States EPA has put forward a new bacteriological water quality
test (U.S.EPA 1985, 1986). This technique claims to give just E. coli counts, eliminating
�} any other bacteria that may cloud results. This study will use both techniques to estimate the
l.J
3
0

I
0
0
PI
K
L
El
water quality of Howe Creek; the mTEC, a new EPA procedure, and mFC technique used
by the N.C. Department of Environmental Management.
The objective of this study is to carefully sample sites so as to (1) try to identify areas
with high counts which may indicate pollution sources and (2) detect the effect of rain runoff
and tide on bacterial counts. The first objective will be met by first establishing survey data
for the entire creek and then using this data to pick new sampling stations which surround
potential pollution sources. Samples will be collected at time intervals before, during and
after rain events and tidal cycles to achieve objective 2. All samples will be collected in
sterile glass bottles, iced, transported to the laboratory and analyzed immediately upon
arrival (usually within 4 hours of collection). The utilization of the two enumeration
techniques should give more reliable counts and comparison of the techniques will serve as
an internal control.
References Cited
American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 15th ed. American Public Health Association, Inc. Washington,
D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Test methods for Escherichia coli
and enterococci in water by membrane filter procedure. EPA 600/4-85/076.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for
bacteria - 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. Washington, D.C.
Distribution of Benthic Fauna
Benthic fauna have become recognized as an important indicator of long-term
environmental conditions. Unlike many chemical measures of water quality, which may vary
significantly over short time periods, infaunal abundances, size, and species composition
often reflect average conditions over a period of months. This reflects the fact that many
infauna are relatively long-lived and have behavioral mechanisms to withstand short-term
dramatic changes in overlying water conditions (such as salinity changes, chemical inputs, or
anoxia). The type and sizes of infauna present are strongly affected by a variety of physical
factors and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now uses the presence or absence of
many benthic species as assays of environmental conditions. Of particular interest to U. S.
EPA are bivalves, amphipods, and selected polychaete species. The importance of benthos
in assessing environmental quality and trends is also recognized in the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management's Benthic Monitoring Program.
4

In this phase of the study, we propose to examine species composition and sizes of
bivalves and burrowing shrimp at four locations within Howe Creek during two periods to
determine infaunal abundances patterns within this creek and seasonal changes in abundance.
Ten replicate 1 m2 quadrats will be taken at 5 o/oo, 15 o/oo, 25 o/00 and 32 o/oo salinity
areas in Howe Creek during May and September 1993-95 (o/oo equals parts per thousand).
To allow comparisons with other creeks, ten quadrats will also be sampled at 15o/oo and 32
o/oo stations during September 1993-95 in Futch, Page's, Hewlett's and Bradley Creeks.
Epifauna bivalves (oysters) will be collected and then the entire quadrat excavated to a depth
of 0.25 m. All -burrowing shrimp and all bivalves greater than 2 mm diameter will be
collected, the length and width recorded (total length only for burrowing shrimp), and then
saved for later biomass or pesticide analysis (see methodology below). By examining
patterns and changes in the species composition and health (size, biomass, pesticide
accumulation) of these fauna, we will be able to reach tentative conclusions concerning long-
term environmental conditions in Howe Creek and other creeks in New Hanover County, as
well as the suitability of these creeks for selected shellfish resources. The results for each
creek will be compared with what may be considered typical values for a healthy, pristine
creek.
Pesticide Levels and Heavy Metal Presence
Two types of samples will be collected (aqueous and oyster tissue) every three months
and these samples will be analyzed for pesticides and heavy metals. Two sites will be
chosen for the initial study in Howe Creek. These stations will selected in consultation with
county planners and the benthic invertebrate study.
The pesticide analysis will be performed using an electron -capture gas chromatograph;
�} the heavy metal analysis will be performed using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
U Accepted EPA procedures will be followed.
Twelve to fifteen oysters, three sediment samples, and 500 ml of aqueous sample will
be collected at each site. 'These samples will be analyzed by both the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) and UNC Wilmington. This procedure will ensure that
DEM detects any pesticides that cannot be measured with the gas chromatograph (GC)
system at UNC Wilmington. After this initial assessment, DEM will only analyze samples
on an annual basis. The heavy metal analysis will be performed at UNC Wilmington and
periodically, selected samples will be sent to commercial laboratories for confirmation.
Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen and Turbidity
Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and turbidity will be measured on a
regular monthly basis and immediately following events such as hurricanes or
nor'easters. Specific sites in all creeks will be selected so that they correspond.
with other studies in this project.
U
5

0
The temperature and salinity data will be collected using a YSI protable unit;
and dissolved oxygen data will be collected using a YSI portable meter; and the
turbidity data will be collected using a portable turbidimeter. Certain discrete
samples may at times be brought back to the lab for analysis.
These data will compliment and support many of the other studies set forth
in this project. These data also are necessary to characterize the estuary which
will allow comparison with other areas both in North Carolina and beyond.
Special Focus Study for 1993
Effectiveness of stormwater management in New Hanover County's tidal creek
watersheds Principal Investigator: Dr. Lawrence Cahoon
This special focus study is designed to answer the question: Are stormwater retention
ponds effective in reducing the pulsing of nutrients and other pollutants (including fecal
coliform bacteria) via stormwater runoff following rain events?
Methodology
Howe Creek will receive intensive study of the effectiveness of retention ponds at
controlling nutrient (N+P) loading. Relevant data sources, including the New Hanover
County Planning Office and the New Hanover County Soil Conservation Service, will be
�j consulted for information about ponds, drainage systems, and other features of the drainage
�j basin. Based on this survey, several ponds will be studied by means of nutrient
measurements and nutrient limitation assays to identify ponds most likely to receive and
rj discharge significant amounts of N and P nutrients. The N and P contents of these ponds -
iiJJ and their discharges will then be monitored intensively before, during and after several rain
events. Nutrient and bulk volume/flow measurements will be used to calculate relative
nutrient discharges. The results of these calculations will be used to test the hypotheses that
1) retention ponds discharge a large fraction of the nitrogen they receive, 2) the ratio of N:P
in retention pond waters is much lower than in discharged water, owing to P retention and
greater N solubility, and 3) long residence time in a retention pond facilitates denitrification
and N uptake, lowering the relative amount of N lost to discharge. Additionally, samples
will be taken using standard methodology and analyzed for fecal coliform levels.
Nutrient measurements will be conducted according to standard analytical procedures
for nitrate -nitrite, ammonium, total nitrogen (by persulfate digestion), soluble reactive
phosphate, and total phosphate. Nutrient deletion experiments will be used to quantify
relative nutrient availabilities. If substantial rates of denitrification are suspected, subsequent
work will use incubations of pond sediments with. acetylene to measure nitrous oxide
production, a standard method of estimating denitrification rates.
I

0
n Study Products
LI 1. A series of maps depicting the drainage basin, bathymetry, and wetland types will be
prepared. Overlay maps showing tidal ranges, temperature, salinity and turbidity.
i.1 These data could be entered into the New Hanover County GIS system.
2. Reports describing the distribution -of coliform bacteria, levels of organophosphorus
pesticides, and diversity of benthic fauna will be prepared.
3. Based on the results of the year -long study, specific management guidelines for
maintaining or enhancing environmental quality of the tidal creeks will be furnished.
4. A separate report describing the results and interpretations of the special focused
study will be presented.
Timetable
The individual creek study will begin no later than 30 days after this agreement is
signed and continue for 12 months. Data will be collected at intervals determined by the
principal investigators. Quarterly progress reports will be circulated to all parties and an
annual report will be prepared by the project director and submitted to the funding agencies
no later than 14 months following the start of the study.
Principal Investigators
The science team is an interdisciplinary team of researchers from the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington associated with the Center for Marine Science Research. The study
will be coordinated by Dr. James F. Merritt, Director, Center for Marine Science Research.
Preliminary Draft Proposal — February 8, 1993
►iJf
Second Draft-23 February 1993
Third Draft —March 31, 1993
Fourth Draft —May 20, 1993
Fifth Draft —June 9, 1993
Final Draft —July 2, 1993
d A wp wi n\wp fi l es\creeks
NI
tl
a

n
Budget 1993-94 (12 months)
0
�j Pesticides and Heavy Metal Sampling (Dr. Manock)
�J Twelve tissue samples (Quarterly) ............$1200.00
Sedimentation samples for atomic absorption
spectrophotometer analysis .....................$ 400.00
Aqueous Samples (quarterly) ...................$ 400.00
Contracted service(metal analysis,pesticides).$1000.00
Total pesticide costs -------------------- $3000.00
Benthic Sampling (Dr. Posey)
Personnel
2 undergraduate research assistants
at $5.00/hr for 270 hrs. each ....... $2700.00
Fringe (1% on student salaries) ..... $ 27.00
Miscellaneous Supplies ........................$ 600.00
Travel........................I................$ 200.00
Total benthic costs ---------------------- $3527.00
j� Coliform Studies (Dr. Sizemore and others)
Graduate Research Assistant(12 month) ......... $8750.00
Fringe ...................................$ 87.50
Supplies ............................ .........$ 500.00
Total coliform costs -------- -------------- $9337.50
K
I
8
6

0
0
n
0
0
Chemical and Physical Data Sampling, Coliform Sampling and Coordination(TBA)
Temp Research Assistant (12 months) .......... $17400.00
Fringe ....................... ..... ......$ 1600.00
Chemicals and Supplies. ..... oo ... o .... oo ..... $ 450.00
Total chemcial sampling costs ----------- $19450.00
Special Study Focus (Dr. Cahoon)
Graduate Research Assistant(6 months) ........ $ 3240.00
Fringe ...................................$ 195.00
Undergraduate student assistant ..............$ 850.00
Fringe ........................ .......... $ 8.50
Travel .......................................$ 60.00
Supplies ....................... ............... $ 250.00
Total special focus costs --------------- $ 4603.50
Total Budget Summary
Total Salaries, wages, and Fringe ........... $ 34858.00
services ....................................$ 4260.00
supplies ....................................$ 3300.00
Total Costs ............................$ 42418.00
9

D
L1 New Hanover County Contract # 94 - 0038
NORTH CAROLINA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
�} THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this 11fh day of
L1 , 1993, by and between NEW HANOVER COUNTY, a
political subdivision of'the State of North Carolina, -hereinafter
referred to as "County"; and UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT
WILMINGTON, a State University, hereinafter referred to as
L! "Contractor";
W I T N E S S E T H
That the Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter
fully set out, hereby agrees with the County as follows:
1. Performance. Contractor shall furnish all labor,
materials and equipment and shall perform all work, further
described in the Scope of Work, marked Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by reference, for the project generally described as: The
first phase (one year) of a four (4) year study that focuses on
developing an understanding of water quality in the major
estuarine creeks of New Hanover County, identifying pollution
sources, and recommending short and long term management
strategies, so as to respond to the rapid population growth in
New Hanover County.
2. Payment. County agrees to pay Contractor, for
{� services rendered, the sum of Twenty Thousand ($20,000) Dollars
payable in quarterly installments as determined by work
completed.
a ORIGINAL

New Hanover County Contract # 94 - 0038
0 3. Term. Contractor shall commence work thirty (30)
days after this agreement is signed and shall continue for twelve
(12) months. Quarterly progress reports will be circulated to
(� all parties and an annual report will be prepared by the project
director and submitted to the funding agencies no later than
fourteen (14) months following the start of the study.
4. Negligence. Contractor will be liable for acts or
omissions by Contractor, its employees, agents, or
sub -contractors. County will be liable for acts or omissions by
County employees.
5. Independent Contractor. It is mutually understood
and agreed that Contractor is an independent contractor and not
an agent of County, and as such, Contractor, his or her agents
and employees shall not be entitled to any County employment
benefits, such as, but not limited to, vacation, sick leave,
insurance, worker's compensation, or pension or retirement
benefits.
6. Default and Termination. If Contractor fails to
j1 prosecute the work with such diligence as will insure its
[� completion within the contract time, or if Contractor breaches
any one of the terms or conditions contained in this contract and
fails to cure said breach within fifteen (15) days of County's
mailing of Notice of Default, County may terminate this contract
�j forthwith.
�j 7. Entire Agreement. This agreement constitutes the
entire understanding of the parties.
r
a 2 ORIGINAL

rrew nartuver county contract w yq - uu38
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the
execution of this instrument, by authority duly given and on the
day and
(S
AT
first above written.
Clrk to the Board
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT WILMINGTON,
a State University
[SEAL)
Dr. hn J. nock, Director
Resear Administration
This instrument has been pre -
audited in the manner required
by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act. Ap roved as to form:
Cou y Finance Officer County Attorney
NORTH CAROLINA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
I, // ���5 %���. Y1�(d /1 , a Notary Public of the
State and County aforesaid, certify that Lucie F. Harrell
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, and
that .by authority duly given and as the act of the Board, the
foregoing instrument -was signed in its name by its County
Manager, sealed with its official seal and attested by herself as
its Clerk.
a 3 ORIGFRIfAL

New Hanover County Contract # 94 - 0038
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this c_.day of
��LGy , 1993.
My commission ex Tres:
1' , - .s z..- 9 S�
n'
If,
Ul
Ul
B
0
Ul
d�
Im
K
.TIC f:901I7
I,
Notary Public .`(v �N..s.:4'A��i��
s' 1AOT 4%
9y % �• �.
NtO__RTH'C+AROLINA ',��0k' COl1N�y•`��,,,
�IGU) tiGflCTffX COUNTY '''�•,,,�,,,�••`•
a Notary Public of
the State and County aforesaid, certify that DR. JOHN J. MANOCK
personally came before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS .my hand
1993.
My commission expires:
1-0�-as
and official seal, this D-M day of
;I
"otary
Public.
ON NA N'3
NOTg14-
c
AVBLAG c�a
i�"�"Ipl hR, COU;;,
4 ORIGINAL

NI
11
I
M
dl
9
0
8A WILMINGTON MORNING STAR / TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1993
MorninyStar
ESTABLISHED 1867
John A. Lyn^ Ptadw pcbww by
Owbe AL Anderson, ExemOm Eckr 10M S ul S71h S ws Ytc
,oai sa,r, nr, s>�
JWm K Meyer, M magng Eddor Witftbm N.C. 2W 'U
Owrbe W. Nmr, Jr, EdrbM Page Ed & A NEW roar � ca�AJW
Cleaning one creek
might get us started
finally, there's good news
about the pollution of lo-
cal creeks. At least one
might be cleaned up. And
if it can be, just possibly we can
do something about the others.
Futch Creek, which pokes in-
land just north of Porters Neck,
is' relatively clean except in
spots. There's a good chance of
finding what's polluting those
spots and then stopping it.
.The state is on the verge of
closing the whole creek to shell -
fishing. But with a little more in-
vestigation and effort, it might
again be opened.
.If that happens, major credit
will belong to a private organiza-
tion — the Northeast New Han-
over Conservancv — and
U-NCW. The Conservancy;
made up of residents of the
county's northern coast, put up
almost $10,000 for UNCW stu-
dents and professors to study
the creek.
It's a perfect example of how
the university and the communi-
ty can work together for their
common good. Students and
professors have a real -life prob-
lem to study, and the communi-
ty car} use what they discover.
What they discovered in this
case was pollution concentrated
in a fairly smalt area. The trick is
to find its soue.
Most likely it's septic tanks,
animals or rainwater that runs
off the land,.'The county Health
Department ought to be able to
find the coliform culprits if it has
the money. At a meeting last
week, the County Commission-
ers wisely kept $20,000 for
creek studies in the proposed
budget.
It would be money well spent.
The pollution in Futch Creek
is relatively minor and con-
tained. If we can find the source
of that problem and solve it, that
will be good practice for tackling
worse and more complex prob-
lems in other coastal waters.

NTCx CREEK/Health officials to close creek to shellfishing'
UNCW study shows polluted creek can be cleaned
By KIRSTEN B. MITCHELL
Staff Writer
As state health officials prepare to close the county's
northernmost creek to shellfishing, a university study
shows there's still hope for polluted Futch Creek.
Though the headwaters of the creek contain unusual-
ly high amounts of fecal coliform bacteria, the rest of
the creek is fairly healthy, according to a yearlong
study done by researchers at the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington.
"It's a pretty small area. You ought to be able to
locate the source," Ron Sizemore, professor of biol-
ogy, said of the creek's most polluted waters off Creek -
wood and Futch'Creek roads. "That gives us hope to
clean it up."
Fecal coliform exists in the intestinal tracts of hu-
mans and other warm-blooded creatures. Though the
bacteria themselves are not harmful, high levels indi-
cate that harmful substances may be in the water.
Jim Merritt, director of UNCW's Center for Marine
Science Research, said the study results are encourag-
ing.
"This creek is so mildly polluted that, in theory, we
can go in and solve the problem," he said. "Maybe we
can provide data for the appropriate government body
to clean it up."
Futch Creek's headwaters have been closed to; oys-
tering and clamming since 1986, said George Gilbert of
the N.C. Shellfish Sanitation Division.
Fecal coliform counts in the creek's headwaters run
an average of 200 to 250 organisms per 100 milliliters,
or about one cup, the study shows.
But coliform counts in many areas of the two-mile
creek are just over the state shellfishing standard of 14
organisms per sample, according to UNCW and Shell-
fish Sanitation data.
"We're getting ready to make a recommendation that
the entire creek be closed," Mr. Gilbert said. The
FILE
Ron Sizemore (left) and Cartier Esham test the
creek's water temperature in November 1991.
proclamation should come later this week.
Dr. Merritt speculates that faulty septic tanks or
rainwater runoff is causing pollution in Futch Creek.
But it's up to state and county officials to come up with
a plan for cleaning the water.
The study shows that the pollution probably is not
coming from a nearby golf course at Porters Neck. The
golf course has special stormwater holding ponds and
wetlands that are supposed to keep fertilizer and other
chemicals from washing into the creek.
The Futch Creek study found no problem with pollu-
tion by pesticides commonly used on golf courses.
Northeast New Hanover Conservancy was a driving
force behind the water quality study and paid the nearly
$10,000 it cost. Graduate student Cartier Esham did
much of the sampling work with the help of two under-
graduate students. ,
"If we can get those hot spots cleaned up, maybe we
can reopen the creek," said Paul Foster of the conser-
vancy. "This is a good step forward.... It's a very
good beginning."
Conservancy officials hope the Futch Creek study is
the first in a series on the health of the cotnty's creeks.
Staff art HOB

0
I
it
I
I
dl
I
0
Following a report by UNCW researchers that Futch Creek was polluted, state health officials
closed the waterway to shellfishing. The creek is in northern New Hanover County.
County'- checking septic tanks
in searchior pollution source
a
By KIRSTEN B. MITCHELL
Staff Writer A UNCW study showed
A month after state health officials closed New
Hanover Countv's northernmost creek to shellfish-
ing, county health officials are looking for what
caused the ban.
Environmental health workers are starting their
search for a pollution source by checking septic
tanks along the creek.
"We're just going door to door and looking for any
evidence of leaking septic tanks," said Dianne Har-
vell, county environmental health director. "At the
same time, we should be able to look for anything
else that might be a problem."
Though more in-depth checks might be required
later, environmental health workers are looking in
people's yards for septic tank overflow, she said.
"The first thing we wanted to do is identify any
obviously failing septic tanks," she said. "We just
decided to go out there and look around."
A yearlong study completed this spring by re-
searchers at the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington shows that although the headwaters of
the creek contain unusually high amounts of fecal
coliform bacteria, the rest of the creek is fairly
healthy and could be cleaned if a pollution source is
identified.
Fecal coliform exists in the intestinal tracts of
humans and other warm-blooded creatures. Though
the bacteria themselves are not harmful, High levels
indicate harmful substances may be in the water.
unusually high amounts of
fecal coliform bacteria in the
headwaters of Futch Creek.
Jim Merritt, director of UNCW's Center for Ma-
rine Science Research, speculated when the study
was released that faulty septic tanks may be causing
the Futch Creek pollution.
But it's up to county and state officials to come up
with a plan for cleaning the water.
"I got a copy of the report and felt like it was our
obligation to do the work," Ms. Harvell said.
The Health Department issues permits for new
septic tanks but does not regularly inspect them.
"If it's a conventional -type system, we probably
don't see it unless there's a problem and we get a
call on it," she said.
Some houses near Futch Creek were built long
before environmental regulations, Ms. Harvell said.
Northeast New Hanover Conservancy was a
driving force behind the water quality study, paying
the nearly $10,000 it cost. It applauded the Health
Department's efforts.
"We're really glad to see them out there," said
Conrad Lowman, conservancy president. "If we can
clean up Futch Creek ... there might be hope to
clean up other creeks."
III