20111013 Ver 2_Public Comments_20130412 (5)

Strickland, Bev
From: Karoly, Cyndi
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 7:23 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Vanceboro Quarry Application
Attachments: Blounts Creek Monitoring 201206 - 201303 - 2013- 04- 12_Full.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: 'Bean, Eban" <[e-mail]>
To: "Karoly, Cyndi" <[e-mail] >, "Belnick, Tom" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Heather" <riverkeeper@ptrf org>
Subject: Proposed Vanceboro Quarry Application
Ms. Karoly and Mr. Belnick,
Attached is a preliminary report on our monitoring of Blounts Creek since between June 2012
and March 2013. Monitoring is expected to continue in the near future. These data are still being
analyzed and a final report being developed. I am submitting it as comments on the proposed
Vanceboro Quarry Application for a 401 Water Quality Certification and Application for New
NPDES Discharge Permit for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me to discuss. This document supplements comments my
comments and the data summary submitted by the Pamlico Tar River Foundation on March 14,
2013
Thank you,
Eban
Eban Z. Bean, PhD
Assistant Professor
East Carolina University
Department of Engineering, 208 Slay
Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, 246 Flanagan
Greenville, NC 27858
[e-mail]
252.328.9722

Blounts Creek Monitoring
DRAFT PRELIMINARY REPORT
June 7, 2012 - March 11, 2013
Eban Z. Bean, Ph.D.
Department of Engineering
Institute for Coastal Science and Policy
East Carolina University
April 12, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF FIGURES .................................................................................. ............................... iv
TABLEOF TABLES ...................................................................................... ..............................v
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ ...............................
1
Blounts Creek Background ...................................................................... ...............................
1
Physical Characterization ..................................................................... ...............................
1
Water Quality Classification ................................................................. ...............................
2
Climate.................................................................................................... ...............................
5
Proposed Vanceboro Quarry Mine .......................................................... ...............................
5
WaterQuality Data ............................................................................... ...............................
7
OtherRecords ..................................................................................... ...............................
7
Objectives............................................................................................... ...............................
7
METHODS.................................................................................................. ...............................
9
MonitoringPlan ....................................................................................... ...............................
9
UpstreamSite ...................................................................................... ...............................
9
DownstreamSite ................................................................................... .............................10
WaterDepth .......................................................................................... .............................10
Temperature......................................................................................... .............................11
Conductivity and Salinity ....................................................................... .............................11
DissolvedOxygen ................................................................................. .............................11
Turbidity................................................................................................ .............................11
SondeMaintenance .............................................................................. .............................11
Water Quality Grab Samples ................................................................. .............................12
WeatherData ........................................................................................... .............................12
WaterQuality Surveys .............................................................................. .............................13
RESULTS.................................................................................................... .............................14
PrecipitationTotals ................................................................................... .............................14
WindSpeeds and Direction ...................................................................... .............................15
MonitoringResults .................................................................................... .............................16
DataGaps ............................................................................................. .............................16
WaterDepths ........................................................................................ .............................17

Atmospheric and Subsurface Temperatures ......................................... .............................20
SpecificConductivity ............................................................................. .............................20
DissolvedOxygen ................................................................................. .............................22
Turbidity................................................................................................ .............................26
pH......................................................................................................... .............................26
UpstreamFlow Rates ............................................................................... .............................29
WaterQuality Surveys .............................................................................. .............................30
Survey: July 18, 2012 ........................................................................... .............................30
Survey: October 9, 2012 ....................................................................... .............................30
Survey: November 15, 2012 .................................................................. .............................31
Survey: February 14, 2013 .................................................................... .............................31
DISCUSSION............................................................................................... .............................32
Current Characterization of Blounts Creek ............................................... .............................32
Upstream Site and Headwaters ............................................................ .............................32
Downstream Site and Tidally Influenced Reach .................................... .............................33
Potential Impacts of Mine Operation ......................................................... .............................34
Stream Geomorphic Changes ............................................................... .............................34
Flooding................................................................................................ .............................35
pHChange ............................................................................................ .............................36
SalinityChanges ................................................................................... .............................36
AquaticHabitat Changes ...................................................................... .............................37
SUMMARY.................................................................................................. .............................38
REFERENCES............................................................................................ .............................39
APPENDIX A: MONITORING DATA ........................................................... ...............................
1
WaterLevels ........................................................................................... ...............................
1
Atmospheric and Subsurface Temperatures ............................................. .............................11
SpecificConductivity ................................................................................ .............................21
DissolvedOxygen .................................................................................... .............................31
Turbidity................................................................................................... .............................41
APPENDIX B: NEARBY DAILY WEATHER DATA ...................................... ...............................
1
Daily Precipitation Totals ......................................................................... ...............................
1
Average Daily Wind Direction and Speed ................................................ ...............................
6
APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY SURVEYS ............................................. ...............................
1

Water Quality Survey:
July 18, 2012 .............
Water Quality Survey:
October 9, 2012 ........
Water Quality Survey:
November 15, 2012...
Water Quality Survey:
November 15, 2012...
........................................ ............................... 1
........................................ ............................... 5
........................................ ............................... 9
......................................... .............................13

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Blounts Creek watershed divided into two 12 -digit USGS Hydrologic Units .................
2
Figure 2.
Land cover within the Blounts Creek watershed ........................... ...............................
3
Figure 3.
Dominant soil series within the Blounts Creek watershed ............. ...............................
5
Figure 4.
LIDAR elevation map with proposed mine location, and CZR water quality sampling
locations on 12 and 13 April 2011 .................................................... ...............................
6
Figure 5.
Locations of monitoring sites on Blounts Creek ............................ ...............................
9
Figure 6.
Daily rainfall totals for Washington, NC and New Bern, NC weather stations .............14
Figure 7.
Average daily wind speed and direction for Washington, NC and New Bern, NC
weatherstations ............................................................................... .............................15
Figure 8.
Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) depths during the monitoring period .....................18
Figure 9.
Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) atmospheric and submerged temperatures ..........
21
Figure 14.
Cross - section survey at Upstream monitoring location on October 25 and November
8,
2012 ............................................................................................. .............................29
iv

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Fish kills in Blounts Creek since 2001 ........................................... ............................... 4
Table 2. Monthly averages for Washington, NC .......................................... ............................... 5
Table 3. Sampled (12 and 13 April 2011) water quality parameters from CZR survey ................ 7
Table 4. Dates of grab sample collections .................................................... .............................12
Table 5. Monthly precipitation totals (in.) during monitoring and historical averages for reference
weather stations (NCDC, 2013). Stations for monthly normal precipitation (1981- 2010):
New Bern, USW00093719; Washington, USC00319100 .................. .............................15
Table 6. Upstream and Downstream sonde extraction dates and durations . .............................17
v

INTRODUCTION
Blounts Creek Background
Physical Characterization
Blounts Creek is a third -order stream located in Beaufort County in eastern North Carolina
(Figure 1). It flows north approximately 14 miles, where it meets Blounts Bay, which is located
11 miles downstream of the US 17 Pamlico River Bridge. Three transportation crossings over
Blounts Creek are the Norfolk Southern Railway, immediately upstream of the confluence with
Poundpole Swamp Branch, Tripp Road, a half mile downstream of the railroad crossing, and NC
33, another 0.8 miles downstream
The Blounts Creek watershed is approximately 89 square miles and is nearly entirely within
Beaufort County, except for about 0.7 square miles within Craven County. The watershed is
delineated by two 12 -digit hydrologic units, referred to as Headwaters Blounts Creek
(030201040106;-65 miz) and Outlet Blounts Creek ((030201040107; —24 miz) by the US
Geological Survey and shown in Figure 1.
Blounts Creek is fed by several first and second order tributaries including (upstream to
downstream) Herring Run, Nancy Run, Sheppard Run, and Yeats Creek (Figure 1). While the
main branch of Blounts Creek drains the south - central quarter of the watershed, multiple
tributaries contribute to Blounts Creek along its flow path. Herring Run drains most of the
eastern areas of the watershed and joins Blounts Creek just north of NC 33. Nancy Run drains
the western most areas of the watershed and converges with Blounts Creek less than a mile
downstream of Herring Run. Between Herring Run and Nancy Run, Blounts Creek widens from
approximately 40 ft. just upstream of Herring Run to about 150 ft. downstream of Nancy Run.
The watershed has remained largely undeveloped, with most residential housing located near
the Creek, downstream of Herring Run (Figure 2), including the community of Cotton Patch.
Agriculture is the largest developed land use within the watershed. The headwaters are Area
residents have noted diurnal tidal fluctuations of one to two feet each day downstream of
Herring Run. However, the most extreme tide driven water levels result from winds out of the
south or west (falling water levels) and out of the north and east (rising water levels).
The watershed is dominated by pine forest, scrub, and cropland. Development is primarily
limited to residential water front homes along the most downstream reach of Blounts Creek.
Cotton Patch Landing is a privately owned boat launch facility that anglers commonly use for
accessing the water. The uppermost headwaters of Blounts Creek have been ditched and
drained for pine forest silviculture. The most western parts of the watershed are former
wetlands, drained for pine plantations.
The most common soil textures within the watershed are loams and sandy loams, with Bayboro,
Leaf, Lenoir, and Pantego soil series dominating the watershed. Soil series surrounding water
bodies are primarily Lenoir, followed by Winton, Lynchburg, and Craven. Immediately adjacent

r ° - tnouns
Cr k =
Craven County
Figure 1. Blounts Creek watershed divided into two 12 -digit USGS Hydrologic Units.
to Blounts Creek is primarily Winston above Herring Run, and Donovan, Winston, and other
series below Herring Run.
Water Quality Classification
Blounts Creek is characterized as a coastal, blackwater stream. The pH of coastal blackwater
streams tends to also be more acidic, with values around the range of 5.0 to 6.0, but as low as
4.3. These systems have also been shown to be sensitive to nutrient inputs resulting in algal
blooms under certain conditions (Mallen et al. 1997; Mallin et al. 2001). These streams typically
have lower dissolved oxygen concentrations due to exposure to organic content contributed
from floodplain wetlands (Meyer 1992; Mallin et al., 2002), which can lead to hypoxia.
2
Beaufort
Qa,
County
-
-
CYe
�
•.Fa
-- _ - �' a.
_ r
---r--
�} r�
Faun`
-_
,
Her v
n
r ° - tnouns
Cr k =
Craven County
Figure 1. Blounts Creek watershed divided into two 12 -digit USGS Hydrologic Units.
to Blounts Creek is primarily Winston above Herring Run, and Donovan, Winston, and other
series below Herring Run.
Water Quality Classification
Blounts Creek is characterized as a coastal, blackwater stream. The pH of coastal blackwater
streams tends to also be more acidic, with values around the range of 5.0 to 6.0, but as low as
4.3. These systems have also been shown to be sensitive to nutrient inputs resulting in algal
blooms under certain conditions (Mallen et al. 1997; Mallin et al. 2001). These streams typically
have lower dissolved oxygen concentrations due to exposure to organic content contributed
from floodplain wetlands (Meyer 1992; Mallin et al., 2002), which can lead to hypoxia.
2

= 90rt*+C0,00
0 HM +a wrr«ra
Figure 2. Land cover within the Blounts Creek watershed.
Table 1 lists fish kill events reported and investigated by NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
around Blounts Creek from 2001 through 2012. Mortality rates have ranged from as low as 41 to
at least 83,900, with Menhaden being the most common species among the 12 events. Nearly
all events were attributed to depletion of dissolved oxygen levels, mostly due to decaying
organics from runoff events or algal bloom decay.
Assessments of nearby Palmetto Swamp and Durham Creek were determined not to be
impaired. Blounts Creek and its tributaries have yet to be assessed for impairment by the NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). However, all waters within the Pamlico River basin,
including Blounts Creek are designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters by NCDWQ. The nutrient
sensitive waters (NSW) designation is a supplemental designation reserved for water bodies
that require additional nutrient management since they are subject to excessive growth of micro-
or macroscopic vegetation.
3

Table 1. Fish kills in Blounts Creek since 2001.
Date Location Mortality Species Cause
9/28/2001
Near Elizabeth Chapel
8/7/2002
Below Hwy 33 Bridge
8/23/2002
Near Cotton Patch Landing
8/2/2006
Near mouth of Blounts
100,000
Creek
8/11/2007
Above Cotton Patch Landing
1/2/2008
5/5/2008
6/23/2008
8/1/2008
6/10/2009
Cotton Patch Landing;
Nancy Run Confluence
Near Cotton Patch Landing
Crisp Landing
Cotton Patch Landing
Near Blounts Bay
6/26/2009 Blounts Bay
8/23/2009 Above Cotton Patch Landing
470 Unspecified
50 Catfish
13,024
Unspecified
13,220
Juvenile Spot &
83,900
Croaker
50,000-
Multispecies
100,000
Spot
176
Catfish
41
Grizzard Shad
730
Bream
83,900
Menhaden
54,500
Menhaden &
Spot
5,000
Croaker
220
Multispecies
http:/ /portal. ncdenr. orp /web /wg1ess /fishkills
Negative for Pfisteria
DO depletion; high salinity
DO depletion; high salinity
DO depletion
DO depletion; algal blooms
DO depletion; organics
decay
DO depletion
DO depletion
DO depletion
DO depletion; algal blooms
DO depletion; algal blooms
DO depletion; algal blooms
Herring Run is recognized as the point of transition on Blounts Creek between upstream
freshwater and downstream tidal saltwater. The NCDWQ's upper threshold for chloride in
freshwater is 500 mg1l, approximately corresponding to 4.0 mS /cm or 2.0 Practical Salinity Units
(PSU, ppt). Above Herring Run, Blounts Creek is classified as Class C, swamp (Sw) and
nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). The class C designation is for waters that are protected for
secondary recreation uses, such as wading, and boating, which result in infrequent or incidental
human contact, as well as fishing and fish consumption, wildlife, aquatic life, and agriculture.
The swamp waters designation is used to indicate water bodies with low velocities and other
natural characteristics that are different from adjacent streams, such as significantly lower pH
and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Above Herring Run, Blounts Creek is classified as Class
C swamp waters (NCDENR, 2012). Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation
(wading, boating, or infrequent human body contact), wildlife habitat, biological integrity, and
agriculture. Swamp waters are characterized by low velocities and may have lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations and pH values may be as low as 4.3. (Turbidity threshold: 50 NTU).
Below Herring Run, the NC Division of Water Quality classifies Blounts Creek as Class SB,
nutrient sensitive waters. The SB designation refers to tidal salt waters that are protected for
primary recreation activities that result in human contact frequently occur, such as diving, and
water skiing. Below Herring Run, Blounts Creek is classified as class SB waters. Class SB
waters are tidal salt waters protected for primary recreation (swimming, diving, or frequent
human body contact), wildlife habitat, biological integrity, and agriculture. (Turbidity threshold:
25 NTU) Middle and lower reaches of Blounts Creek are frequently used by fisherman.
0

MW +7 rmowr
® awr ww rw boo . r , own" rwr
®.raw. r.w....w r...
� •w.«son
MMM
=OmmamNPOVr urwrrrOnow
r-
ILL ,
Climate
Figure 3. Dominant soil series within the Blounts Creek watershed.
Table 2 includes monthly average weather observations from monitoring stations near
Washington, NC. Average precipitation for the nearby area, including Blounts Creek watershed,
is 49.3 inches per year, with 20.9 inches occurring between June and September.
Temperatures are highest in July, when the average maximum is 89.5 F and minimum is 72.5 F.
Temperatures are lowest in January, with a maximum of 53.8 and a minimum of 34.2. Average
monthly evapotranspiration ranges from 1.3 inches in December, to 4.4 inches in June and July,
with an annual total of 34.7 inches. Winds average between 6.8 miles per hour in July and
August and 10.6 miles per hour in March and April. Winds are typically out of either the north or
northeast, or the south or southwest.
Table 2. Monthly averages for Washington, NC
Monthly Average
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Total Precip.(in.)
3.9
3.3
4.2
3.1
4.1
4.4
5.5
5.2
5.8
3.3
3.2
3.3
49.3
Max. Temp. (F)
53.8
56.9
63.8
72.8
80.5
87.3
89.7
88.3
83.2
74.1
65.6
56.8
72.8
Avg. Temp. (F)
44.0
46.7
52.9
61.6
69.9
77.9
81.1
79.6
74.3
63.8
55.1
46.3
62.8
Min. Temp. (F)
34.2
36.4
41.9
50.3
59.3
68.5
72.5
70.9
65.4
53.5
44.5
35.7
52.8
Total ET (in.)
1.4
1.8
2.8
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
3.6
3.2
2.1
1.5
1.3
34.7
Wind (mph)
9.3
9.3
10.6
10.6
9.3
8.1
6.8
6.8
8.1
9.3
9.3
9.3
8.9
Wind Dir.
N
N
SW
SW
S
SW
SW
SW
NE
NE
NE
N
ESE
Proposed Vanceboro Quarry Mine
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM) has proposed to build a surface mine aggregate mine
near Vanceboro, NC, referred to as "the Vanceboro Mine" or "the Vanceboro Quarry" and
5

referred to in this report as "the Mine" here after (Figure 4). In 2010, MMM received a mining
permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section for a proposed a surface mine to be located
approximately 8 miles northeast of Vanceboro, NC, along the border between Beaufort and
Craven Counties. The delineated area labeled "Proposed Mine Site ", is predominantly pine
forest plantation managed by Weyerhaeuser Company.
Figure 4. LIDAR elevation map with proposed mine location, and CZR water quality sampling locations on 12 and 13
April 2011.
As a part of the Mine operation, the surficial aquifer must be locally depressed. The displaced
dewatered water will be comingled with process wastewater and stormwater (MMM, 2012).
Comingled water will be used in process and maintaining water levels in ditches surrounding the
mining pit. Surplus comingled water will be discharged into one of two possible unnamed
tributaries within Blounts Creek headwaters (NPDES permit). The Mine's discharge permit
application is for a maximum monthly average of 9 million gallons per day (mgd), with a
maximum of 12 mgd on any day.
Two consulting firms, Kimly Horn and Associates (KHA; engineering consulting firm), and CZR
Inc. (CZR; an environmental consultant), were hired by MMM to assess potential physical and
ecological effects from the Mine discharge on Blounts Creek. Results of their investigations
have been submitted to NCDWQ and made publicly available.
A

Water Quality Data
CZR evaluated water quality (temperature, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH) at
seven sites (WQ1 - WQ7) within the headwaters of Blounts Creek on April 12 and 13, 2012
(Figure 4). The most recent rainfall prior to this date was nearly a week before with a depth of
0.2 to 0.3 in. The conditions were concluded representative of low - baseflow conditions.
In general, headwater pH values increased from upstream to downstream from 4.54 to 5.86.
Low pH values were attributed to naturally occurring tannic acids produced from organic matter
decomposition that are retained in low flow swamp streams. Temperatures ranged from 19.1 °C
to 25.5 °C, while salinity ranged from 0.01 PSU to 0.05 PSU. As a measure of water clarity,
Secchi depths were measured and except for the two furthest downstream locations (WQ1 and
WQ2), Secchi depths were limited by the channel depth. The two downstream sites had Secchi
depths of at least 37.0 in. Water quality values were generally within NC fresh surface water
quality standards for class C, swamp waters according to NCDWQ Surface Water and Wetland
Standards (NCDWQ, 2007).
Table 3. Sampled (12 and 13 April 2011) water quality parameters from CZR survey
Parameter
WQ1
WQ2
WQ3
WQ4
WQ5
WQ6
WQ7
Set
Retrieval
Set
Retrieval
Set
Retrieval
Set
Retrieval
Temperature ( °C)
22.6
21.6
23.2
19.1
19.4
20.1
18.9
19.5
25.5
20.8
18.6
Conductivity (µS)
108.7
109
33.9
88.4
90.3
119.2
112.4
71.7
72.9
99.1
94.4
Specific Conductivity (µS)
114
116
35
100
101
132
127
80
71
108
107
Salinity (psu)
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
DO (mg /1)
5.26
4.59
6.62
6.71
6.15
5.47
4.52
6.91
6.22
8.18
7.42
DO (%)
61.7
52.6
77.8
72.6
67.2
60.2
49.0
75.4
70.0
91.7
79.4
pH
5.86
5.56
5.56
4.72
4.70
4.37
4.40
4.85
4.83
4.60
4.54
Depth (inches)
83.50
61.00
27.25
12.00
15.00
26.00
25.75
20.00
20.00
13.25
11.75
Secchi depth (inches)
41.50
37
>27.25
>12.00
>15.00
>26.00
>25.75
>20.00
>20.00
>13.25
>11.75
Other Records
Although water quality values measured by MMM's consultants were typically within expected
ranges for the respective NC DWQ classifications, no other water quality records for Blounts
Creek are available. A record of water quality on Blounts Creek would have provided context as
to whether values were representative of year round or seasonal fluctuations. In addition, a
water quality record could offer validation to assumptions made in evaluating the impacts of
stream discharge. Potentially most important would be a record of water quality before
discharge began to compare with if the Mine does open and discharge begins.
Objectives
The overall goal of this study was to evaluate Blounts Creek existing water quality. To achieve
this goal, the following objectives were identified:
1. Establish a record of water quality over monitored duration.
2. Characterize water quality of Blounts Creek under existing conditions.
3. If possible, estimate potential impacts to water quality from changes in flow patterns and
or quality.
7

The work included here was not intended to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed
Vanceboro Mine operation to Blounts Creek. However, developing a water quality record of may
improve estimates of the impacts and validate or invalidate assumed values.
A

METHODS
Monitoring Plan
Monitoring on Blounts Creek was conducted at two sites, referred to as Upstream and
Downstream (Figure 5). Sites were monitored from June 7, 2012 to March 11, 2013. Monitoring
equipment at each location was protected by a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) housing that allowed
water to freely flow around sensors.
Figure 5. Locations of monitoring sites on Blounts Creek.
Upstream Site
The upstream site was located approximately one half mile east of Norman Road, immediately
upstream of the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway crossing of Blounts Creek. At this location,
Blounts Creek is divided into two channels that intersect downstream of the bridge. This location
is approximately 8 miles upstream from the mouth and is located near CZR's WQ1 water quality
sampling location. This location was the furthest upstream and accessible location. Due to the
close proximity to the NS Railway crossing and culvert, flow conditions were expected to be
minimally affected by downstream conditions or backwater effects. Thus, measured values
should be influenced greatest by nearby upstream water quality. The site was also the furthest
upstream location on Blounts Creek, accessible without using private roadways. The site was
accessible by foot via the NS Railway.
9

An YSI 6920 -V2 -1 sonde (Upstream sonde) was programmed to record data measurements at
30- minute intervals. An Onset Hobo U20 Water Level Data Logger (referred to as pressure
logger here after) was deployed along with the Upstream sonde. The Upstream sonde and
pressure logger were housed in a PVC housing that was secured to the streambed with rebar
and heavy gauge wire. Another pressure logger was suspended from a nearby tree branch
under shade to record atmospheric pressure. The pressure loggers were programmed to collect
data every 15 minutes.
Downstream Site
The Downstream monitoring site was located approximately 4,400 feet downstream of Herring
Run and approximately 300 feet upstream of Nancy Run on Blounts Creek. The PVC housing
was mounted to a pylon support of a private dock (permission granted for monitoring). This site
was selected due to its downstream proximity to Blounts Creek's confluence with Herring Run,
while being located upstream of the Nancy Run confluence. Due to the access agreement, this
site was only accessible for monitoring via Blounts Creek.
An YSI 6920 -V2 -2 Sonde (Downstream sonde) was installed at this site and programmed to
record data measurements at 30- minute intervals. The sonde installation was approximately 4.5
to 5 feet above the streambed. A pressure logger was attached to the PVC housing cap to
record atmospheric pressure and programmed to record data at 15- minute intervals.
Water Depth
The Hobo U20 Water Level Data Loggers do not directly measure water levels. Instead it
measures and records absolute pressure and temperature of the surrounding environment,
which can be used to calculate water depth.
The absolute pressure below a water surface (P) is the sum of the atmospheric pressure (Po)
and the hydraulic pressure of the water, atmospheric pressure must be subtracted from
absolute pressure to determine the hydraulic pressure. The hydraulic pressure is directly
proportional to water depth (D), which can be calculated by:
D _ (P —Po)
P9
where P is the submerged absolute pressure, Po is the atmospheric absolute pressure, p is the
density of water, and g is the gravity constant. Densities were calculated from water
temperature and salinity measurements using standard equations (McCutcheon et al, 1993).
Only an atmospheric pressure logger was required for determining Downstream water levels,
since the Downstream sonde included a built in pressure sensor. However, the Upstream sonde
did not include a pressure sensor, and therefore two pressure loggers were required to record
water level data. Downstream data were initially (June 7 through 11) assumed to be suitable for
estimating Upstream atmospheric pressures and determining water depths. However, the
pressure differences were found to be significant and an Upstream atmospheric pressure logger
was deployed on June 21. Subsequent water depths referenced the Upstream atmospheric
pressure data.
10

Upstream flows were intended to be estimated from a rating curve developed from multiple flow
surveys for the Upstream location. However, with depths up to 2.2 ft., all flow velocity
measurements were less than 0.3 feet per second. Due to low Upstream velocities and flow
rates, flow could not be directly determined based on water level fluctuations. Flow at the
Downstream monitoring site was not measured during this study due to a lack of available
monitoring equipment that could account for downstream and upstream flows.
Temperature
Each sonde was equipped with an YSI Conductivity /Temperature probe (6560) for recording
water temperatures at 30- minute intervals. In addition, the U20 pressure loggers also recorded
temperature measurements at 15- minute intervals, providing atmospheric temperatures at both
locations and a secondary Upstream submerged temperature data record.
Conductivity and Salinity
The YSI Conductivity /Temperature (CT) probe measured water temperature and resistance
which were used by the sonde to calculate conductivities, specific conductivities, and salinities.
The CT probe directly measures resistance and temperature of the sampled water volume. The
sonde calculates conductance (mS /cm) as the inverse of resistance. Since conductance varies
based on solution temperature, the sonde calculates the solution's specific conductivity (µS /cm),
or the equivalent conductance for the solution at 25 °C. This allows for temperature independent
measures of ion concentration. Salinity is a metric used for classifying water bodies that
quantifies the amount of salt in a solution (ppt). The sonde calculates specific conductivity and
salinity from conductance values and temperatures using standard methods (Rice et al., 2012).
Dissolved Oxygen
Each sonde used an YSI Rapid Pulse Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Sensor (6562) for measuring
dissolved oxygen (mg 0/1). The DO sensor measures the electrical current required to reduce
oxygen that has diffused through a Teflon membrane into a potassium chloride solution. This
electrical current is proportional to the DO concentration of the solution outside of the
membrane. The sonde auto calculates the percent DO saturation from water temperature,
salinity, and atmospheric pressure at calibration.
Turbidity
Each sonde used an YSI Turbidity Sensor (6136) for measuring turbidity (NTUs). The optical
turbidity sensors measure the amount of light emitted by the sensor that reflects off suspended
particles and back to the sensor. Since the sampling volume for these sensors are very small,
large particles can occasionally produce non - representative values that can be orders of
magnitude greater than previous and subsequent values. Outlier values, those an order of
magnitude or greater than adjacent values, were replaced by the average of the previous ( -30
minute) and subsequent ( +30 minute) measured turbidity values.
Sonde Maintenance
Data were downloaded from the sondes and pressure loggers approximately every three to six
weeks. All data were collected and stored and backed up on ECU network space. The sondes
were extracted from their housings at these times for cleaning and sensor recalibrations at
ECU's Coastal Water Resource Center. Calibrations were performed with standard solutions
11

and following procedures outlined in the YSI User Manual (YSI, 2011). To inhibit bio- fouling, an
anti - microbial paste (Desitin®) was applied to the sonde guard after each calibration. In
addition, sonde bodies were wrapped in plastic wrapping, except around pressure sensor
openings on the downstream V2 -2. Sondes were then redeployed as soon as feasible, typically
within one to three days.
Water Quality Grab Samples
Water quality grab samples were collected approximately twice per month at the Upstream and
Downstream sites (Table 4). Environment 1, Inc., an analytical laboratory in Greenville, NC,
provided sealed coolers and sealed containers for sample collection. Samples were collected
near the surface of the water column. Samples were placed in the cooler, iced, and delivered to
Environment 1, where they were released to the lab for analysis. All samples were delivered to
Environment 1 on the same day as collection, except for July 18 samples. Samples were
collected on July 18, but could not be delivered to Environment 1 before close of business.
Samples remained on ice and in the possession of the ECU student collector until the samples
were delivered the following morning (July 19).
Table 4. Dates of arab sample collections.
Month
Day
June
25
July
2, 12, 18
August
6
September
7, 30, 27
October
25
November
1, 27
December
13
Samples were analyzed for Turbidity (NTU; NEMI: 2130B), and Conductivity (µS /cm; NEMI:
2510B) for validation of monitoring data. Samples were analyzed for pH (unitless; NEMI: 4500 -
H+B) and Total Suspended Residue (mg /I; NEMI: 2540D) since these parameters are
significant indicators of overall water quality and were not continuously monitored. While values
for pH were not to be used for reporting, they are included as a reference in this report. To
supplement Environment 1's data, ECU began measuring pH using a Hanna Instruments pH
meter during each site visit after September 19. Beginning on November 8, a local volunteer
also began measuring pH every one to two weeks at each monitoring site.
Weather Data
Daily precipitation totals (Global Summary of the Day) during the monitoring period were
retrieved from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) website for the two closest weather
stations to the study area, Washington, NC: 10.5 ESE (US1 NCBF004) and New Bern, NC:
Craven County Regional (USW00093719). The Washington station was approximately 8 miles
northeast of the Downstream site, while the New Bern station was approximately 24 miles
south - southwest of the Upstream site. Normal monthly rainfall depths were also downloaded
from NCDC for these sites.
12

Hourly wind data (velocity and direction) were also collected from the New Bern station (USAF
WBAN ID: 72309593719). Warren Field (Washington, NC; USAF WBAN ID: 74692503741), is
approximately 13 miles northwest of the Downstream site and provided hourly wind data for the
monitoring period. Hourly wind speeds were averaged for each day to determine the daily
average wind speed. Average wind directions were calculated as the speed weighted average
of the hourly wind directions values for each day.
Water Quality Surveys
Four water quality surveys were performed during the monitoring period. For each survey, the
Downstream sonde was extracted from its housing, the data sampling interval was changed to
one minute, and the internal clock was synchronized with a Garmin hand -held Global
Positioning System (GPS) unit that logged the position each minute. The sonde was submerged
alongside a boat and towed over a length of the creek. Water quality data were then geo-
located using the corresponding coordinates and time stamps from the GPS unit.
13

RESULTS
Precipitation Totals
Daily precipitation totals are shown in Figure 6, while monthly totals and normal monthly totals
are listed in Table 5. Precipitation totals for June 1, 2012, through March 11, 2013, were 41.3 in.
for the New Bern station (1.3 in. below normal, 42.6 in.) and 32.5 in. for the Washington station
(6.8 in. below normal, 39.3 in.), with most rainfall occurring before September 1. While the New
Bern precipitation record was 100% complete, the Washington record does not include data on
108 of 284 days (62% complete). July and August were a combined 5.1 to 6.4 in. above normal
while June, September, and November through March were a combined 6.5 to 10.8 in. below
normal.
From October 28 to 30, outer bands from Hurricane Sandy brought winds and rain to most of
Eastern North Carolina. The New Bern station reported total rainfall of 2.3 in. for the storm,
while the Washington site 1.5 in. October totals would have been over 1.7 in. below average
without Hurricane Sandy precipitation.
3.50
■ Washington, NC. 10.5 ESE jGHCNO.USINCSF004j
+O New Bern, NC: Craven County Regional Airport {GHCND -.USW00D93719)
3A0
c
C
O
G
O
T
O
H
li
8/1 9/1 1011 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1
Date MM /D/YY)
Figure 6. Daily rainfall totals for Washington, NC and New Bern, NC weather stations.
14
4/1

Table 5. Monthly precipitation totals (in.) during monitoring and historical averages for reference weather stations
(NCDC, 2013). Stations for monthly normal precipitation (1981- 2010): New Bern, USW00093719-1 Washington,
USC00319100.
Month
New Bern, NC (in.)
2012 -13 Hist. Avg. Difference
2012 -13
Washington, NC (in.)
Complete Hist. Avg.
Difference
June (2012)
2.5
4.6
-2.1
2.4
87%
4.4
-2.1
July
11.2
6.2
5.0
8.3
77%
5.5
2.9
August
7.2
6.7
0.5
9.0
84%
5.2
3.8
September
4.3
5.9
-1.6
2.9
53%
5.8
-2.9
October
4.0
3.3
0.7
2.3
52%
3.3
-1.0
November
0.9
3.4
-2.5
0.4
40%
3.2
-2.8
December
5.0
3.4
1.6
3.3
39%
3.3
0.0
January (2013)
1.8
4.0
-2.2
0.9
55%
3.9
-2.9
February
4.3
3.7
0.7
2.7
68%
3.3
-0.6
March (1 -11)
0.1
1.6
-1.5
0.4
73%
1.5
-1.1
Total
41.3
42.6
-1.3
32.5
72%
39.3
-6.8
Wind Speeds and Direction
Average daily wind speed and direction from New Bern and Washington weather stations during
the monitoring period are presented in Figure 7. Wind direction is reported as the direction that
wind is blowing from. Washington wind data were not available for most of July and from early
August through mid - November. However, New Bern wind data records were complete over this
period. When data were available for both sites, wind speeds and directions typically within 1.2
mph and 27 degrees of the other station.
Date (M /D/M
Figure 7. Average daily wind speed and direction for Washington, NC and New Bern, NC weather stations
15
■5jMd CW6AN *3741) ❑Speed (W$AN:937191 ■ Direcbm IWBAN.03741j ■ Direction (W9AN:93719}
4k a
HE 45
■ -- ■ ■ - ate■ - -■ f ■
A
- : A■ + ,
i f 90
■ ■ ■
M a a
d
• ■ • 4 n
se
d
6
• ■ • A, +
A 6 ■ ■
a a
■ e
5E 135
w ■
8
n d
• a n n n
n
•
5 1 SO
• y "
e x° n
n
E■ • ••
a
■ a� ■ ■ ■' o
cam•
• a
•e "° s• P nn� ° n�
3
ea■t
°
$W225
ms a •
•i i •■ • e
dL
41
+nc
w270
• a A ■ n a
A A
n a s ►• ■ a❑ °
■■ ■..
■ e
+ •tl Ap • . y
a • s
A AA a
a a' ee. n ► }
NW 375
■
n
AIC 0A
■ a
• a a •
u h 350
r ■
0 ■ -° f■ a 3 20
15
3
20
kLa Alil
5
a
r
.1111,
o
fl
[.l1I17 1/1/11 - .• . 9/1/11 10/1111 IIIIAT
I/3/13 311J13 .1 �1
Date (M /D/M
Figure 7. Average daily wind speed and direction for Washington, NC and New Bern, NC weather stations
15

From early June through mid - September, winds were primarily out of the south or southwest at
between five and ten miles per hour. This corresponded closely with long term average values
of southwest winds with average speeds between 6.8 and 8.6 miles per hour. From mid -
September through late- October, wind directions varied from northeast to out of the west with
speeds ranging between two and eight miles per hour. Long term average wind speeds and
direction for this period were eight to ten mph out of the northeast. Hurricane Sandy produced
abnormally high daily wind speeds, up to twenty mph, between October 26 and November 2.
Over the remainder of the monitoring period (November through early March), wind speeds
ranged from nearly calm to just over 15 mph with winds mostly out of the southwest to the
northwest.
While Hurricane Sandy affected the study area, eastern North Carolina is typically affected
annually in some way by a tropical system. In addition, daily rainfall totals were recorded over
the summer than rainfall contributed over several days from Hurricane Sandy. Although daily
winds between September and December deviated from normals, weather observations during
the monitoring period were reasonably representative of climate normals.
Monitoring Results
All data from each monitoring location were imported into Microsoft Excel and compiled into
spreadsheet files to produce complete records of each parameter at each location. Within this
section, each data plot includes all data points collected during the monitoring period. In
addition, monthly plots are included in Appendix A. Incremental data points were supplemented
with 24 -hour averaged time series ( +/- 12 hours). Multi -day and weekly trends were observed
more clearly for multiple data sets in the 24 -hour averaged time series. Grab sample results
were also included in data plots for comparison with monitored data.
Data Gaps
Gaps in data occurred for multiple reasons. The most common and unavoidable reason was for
extractions for calibration of the sensors and downloading data or water quality surveys
(downstream only). Sondes were extracted from their housing and transported to ECU's Coastal
Water Resources Lab. Sondes typically were redeployed within the next three days, depending
on ECU student availability (Table 6). The Downstream sonde had the longest extraction
duration of six days (October 24 - 30), due to replacement of a broken sensor port plug. As a
result, the Downstream sonde was not deployed while outer bands of Hurricane Sandy passed
over the Downstream monitoring site between October 27 and 30.
The Upstream sonde was not deployed initially (June 7, 2012) with fully charged batteries.
While the sonde was extracted on June 11 for recalibration and battery replacement, it was not
redeployed until June 21. As a result, the Upstream sonde data records did not effectively begin
until June 21. Since the submerged pressure logger was extracted with the sonde (connected
by chain), no water level data was collected during this extraction period.
The Upstream sonde also did not record monitoring data between October 5 and December 4.
The internal memory reached capacity and the sonde was not programmed to begin overwriting
the oldest data. While the Upstream sonde was extracted on October 24 for download and
16

calibration, the missing data were not observed until the following extraction on December 4.
However, the Upstream pressure sensors were not affected and continued to record data
throughout the monitoring period.
Table 6. Upstream and Downstream sonde extraction dates and durations
Upstream Sonde
Downstream Sonde
Extraction Date
Duration (Days)
Extraction Date
Duration (Days)
14 -Jun
7
13 -Jun
< 1
12 -Jul
< 1
21 -Jun
4
6 -Aug
< 1
12 -Jul
< 1
27 -Aug
3
18 -Jul
< 1*
25 -Sep
2
6 -Aug
< 1
27 -Aug
3
25 -Sep
2
9 -Oct
< 1*
24 -Oct
6#
15 -Nov
< 1*
"Extracted for water quality surveys; all other extractions for calibration and downloading.
Upstream data gaps also occurred when sensors were not submerged due to low water levels.
While the sonde would continue to record sensor measurements, these data were not valid for
the water quality in the column. Low water levels (< 0.1 ft. depth above submerged pressure
logger) resulted in Upstream data gaps from June 30 to July 11 and from September 25 to
October 27.
Downstream water levels fell below the submerged pressure sensor on eight occasions
(December 21, 22, January 31, February 1, 8, 17, 20, and March 6 -7). On each occasion,
average daily winds from between 225° (SW) and 360° (N) at a speed of at least 7.5 mph at
both weather stations. On four occasions these conditions occurred while the submerged
pressure sensor remained submerged. However, this was due to either a high tide coinciding
with the strongest winds or winds increasing the high tide before shifting during a falling tide.
Each Sonde was installed at a fixed distance relative to the channel bottom. However, water
quality tends to vary by depth, depending on the parameter. Thus, there is some uncertainty
associated using point location measurements as representative of all water quality within a
cross - section or over a stream reach. While pre- cautions were taken to limit uncertainty, it may
have been unavoidable in some cases when data anomalies occurred or grab sample values
were significantly different from monitored values.
Water Depths
Upstream and Downstream water depth records are shown in Figures 8a and 8b, respectively.
Upstream water depths ranged from below the submerged pressure sensor (< 1.4 ft.) to a peak
measurement of 5.9 ft. on July 24. Depth fluctuation patterns indicate that Upstream flows were
strongly driven by precipitation events, with no significant indication of tidal influence during the
monitoring period at this location. Abrupt water level rises corresponded closely in time and
relative magnitudes to daily rainfall totals from Washington and New Bern weather stations
17

7.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
A
S
3.00
a
7
2.00
1.00
4.00
7.00 —
b
6.00
v 5.00
r
3 4.00
E
q
C
3.00
2.00
1.00
OAo
611112
Depth: Raw
• Depth: 24 h ave-
u ,
t � f
it
MINIMUM MEASUREABLf WATER LEVEL: 3.0 ft.
711112 $11112 $131/12 16/1112 10/31/12 12/1112 12J31112 1131113 3/2113
Date W/D/W)
Figure 8. Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) depths during the monitoring period.
18

(Figure B1 in Appendix B). Water level peaks were followed by slow declines, lasting up to 10
days for water levels to fall below 1.8 ft. Frequent rainfall events maintained measurable water
levels from July 11 through September 25 and from October 27 through March 11 (2013). The
October 29 water level spike resulted from Hurricane Sandy precipitation (October 28 through
30 totals: New Bern, NC: 2.36 in.; Washington, NC: 3.92 in.). Upstream water levels gradually
rose steadily from 1.8 ft. following Sandy, to 2.5 ft. by mid - November, and remained relatively
constant through the first two weeks of December. The relative lack of rainfall during this period
(New Bern: 0.94 in.; Washington: 1.04 in.) suggests that the water level rise was caused by
reduced evapotranspiration due to vegetation entering dormancy adjacent to the stream, rather
than precipitation within the watershed. As a result, base flows would have increased in
response to elevated groundwater levels.
Downstream water levels typically ranged from below the sonde pressure sensor (< 3.0 ft.) to
5.5 ft. with a maximum depth of 6.1 ft. that occurred on November 18. Below Herring Run (near
the Downstream monitoring site), Blounts Creek is classified by NC DWQ as tidal salt waters
(Class SB), which is affected by level and quality of the Pamlico River. High and low water
levels were observed twice daily, at the Downstream monitoring site, corresponding with lunar
tide cycles (See monthly plots in Appendix A for diurnal water level cycles). The typical tidal
range was slightly less than one foot (0.87 ft.), slightly less than area resident estimates (1 to 2
ft.). Residents also reported noticeable wind tides along Blounts Creek, with water levels
changing by at least one foot. As noted earlier, wind tides were the cause of water levels falling
below the submerged sensor on various occasions when winds were primarily out of the WNW,
corresponding to the downstream direction of the Pamlico River, at a speed of at least 7.5 mph.
Declining water levels from mid -June through mid -July also coincided with steady 5 to 10 mph
southwest winds and sparse rainfall. Lower water levels in late November and early December
likely resulted from a lack of rainfall during much of November combined with winds generally
out of the southwest from mid - November through early December. Declining water levels
between early and late January resulted from a lack of rainfall and strong westerly winds.
In turn, strong winds generally out of the ENE, correspond with rising water levels, backing
water up and into Blounts Creek. Northeast winds produced elevated Downstream water levels
observed on June 16, August 22 and 23, and November 18. Aside from daily rainfall events
between July 10 and July 13 that produced temporarily elevated water levels, average water
levels gradually declined by approximately 1.5 ft. until events occurring on July 20 — 22.
During the monitoring period, Downstream water levels did not noticeably fluctuate in response
to individual precipitation events. Elevated water levels from precipitation events were typically
undetectable within the 24 -hour average time series. However, a rapid water level rise (1.2 ft.
rise in 24 -hour average level over 50 hours) between July 20 and 22 coincided with one of the
highest daily rainfall totals (New Bern: 2.44 in.; Washington: 4.83 in.) during the monitoring
period. Indicating that downstream water levels can be affected by event depths within this
range. Spikes in average (24 hour) water levels from precipitation events were most notable
from late June and through the end of August.
19

Atmospheric and Subsurface Temperatures
Upstream and downstream atmospheric and submerged temperature measurements are shown
in Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. Hobo U20 loggers recorded atmospheric temperatures at
each site, while sondes recorded subsurface water temperatures measurements from
Conductivity /Temperature probes. The Upstream submerged Hobo U20 also recorded
subsurface water temperatures; these measurements were used to replace missing sonde
measurements before June 22 and from October 5 to December 6.
Upstream atmospheric temperatures ranged from 17 °F (- 8.2 °C) on February 2 to 103 °F
(39.5 °C) on September 1, while submerged temperatures ranged from 92 °F (33.4 °C) on June
30 to 36 °F (1.9 °C) on January 25. Atmospheric temperatures typically varied by 30 °F to 40 °F on
most days, while water temperatures typically varied by 5 °F, and up to 10 °F during low water
levels or precipitation events. At low water levels, the thermal gradient that extends below the
water surface intercepts the sonde closer to the surface, where the water column is the
warmest. Subsurface temperatures only rose above 85 °F in late June and mid -July, due to low
water levels (< 1.0 ft.). Subsurface temperatures remained above 60 °F from June 7 through the
end of September, and above 70 °F for July and August. After October 29, temperatures fell
below 60 °F through the end of monitoring, while only falling below 40 °F in late January.
The Downstream atmospheric recorded temperatures ranged from 24 °F (- 4.5 °C) on November
29 to 121 °F (49.6 °C) on June 30, while submerged temperatures ranged from 50 °F (10.0 °C) on
November 25 to 90 °F (32.2 °C) on July 20. Downstream atmospheric temperatures rose above
110 °F on seven days between June 25 and July 2. Downstream atmospheric temperature
readings during this period may be inaccurate since outside of this period, temperatures only
rose to 103 °F and were only slightly greater ( -5 °F) than upstream temperatures. Downstream
atmospheric temperatures were likely greater than upstream due to greater heat buildup within
the Downstream housing compared to the Upstream atmospheric sensor that was under shade
and suspended in open air which allowed for greater air flow. Beginning on June 20, Upstream
water temperatures rose above 80 °F and remained close to (> 75 °F) or above that until
September 8. During this period, subsurface temperatures never rose above 90 °F. Subsurface
temperatures recordings were all above 70 °F from the initial deployment (June 7) through
September 25, but remained between 40 °F and 60 °F beginning on November 13 through the
end of monitoring (March 11), except for a period in late January.
Specific Conductivity
Upstream and Downstream specific conductivities are shown in Figures 10a and 10b. Salinity
fluctuation patterns were identical to those shown for specific conductivity recordings at both
locations. Upstream specific conductivities did not exceed 0.2 mS /cm. By comparison the
NCDWQ freshwater threshold for chloride is 500 mg /I (equivalent to about 4.0 mS /cm). SC
values were fairly constant between 0.03 and 0.13 mS /cm for measured, and up to 0.16 mS /cm
for grab samples. Although these values may have under - estimated, since grab samples were
0.04 to 0.08 mS /cm higher. Sharp declines in Upstream SC values corresponded to rainfall
events, as would be expected due to flushing and dilution.
20

130
a
120
110
100
I
� 70
E x•
s0
as
30
20
10
130
b
110
100
y
e
f
` 7
D
ti
?0
F i
c W
ti
50
LrIj
30
20
i:l
Fl
ej
Upstream Surface tHobol
Upstream Subsurface !NOW
Upstream 54bsurface f5arrdel
pownstrrsR+ Swlrte tNrbOT
Dowmtream Subsurface tSM&I
� e
Ile
� �
fr; _ !
J1:�
10 '
WV 12 7 /1l 12 all/ L2 W1112 101/1/17 iW3i112 1713112 17/31/12 1131/13 3M13
Dare P4 WM
Figure 9. Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) atmospheric and submerged temperatures.
21

Downstream SC values ranged from 0.05 mS /cm on July 24 to 18.7 mS /cm on December 26.
Although Downstream SC values varied significantly during the monitoring, grab samples
agreed very well with monitored values, except for the final grab sample. Abrupt declines in
Downstream SC values were observed following large rainfall events (June 26, July 12, 21,
August 20, 24, September 19, and October 28 (Hurricane Sandy).
As noted under with water level data, Blounts Creek is also influenced by diurnal and wind
driven tides at the Downstream monitoring site. Changes in Downstream SC values can indicate
migration up or downstream of the fresh - brackish transition zone. Between 1999 and 2008,
Pamlico River surface specific conductivities at Blounts Creek have ranged from 0 to
approximately 7.7 mS /cm between June and March, with approximate average minimum of 1.1
mS /cm and maximum of 4.5 mS /cm (NCDENR, 2012).
The effect of wind tides at the Downstream site can be observed in September and October,
when Southwest winds shifted to more variable, which allowed brackish water to migrate
upstream. Sharp declines in downstream SC on September 19 and October 28 (TS Sandy)
were primarily driven by precipitation events, in addition to Sandy's westerly winds. Any
remaining displacement or dilution effects were negligible after two to three days.
Strong westerly winds and rainfall in mid -late December displaced nearly all salt water below
the downstream monitoring station through the first half of January (2013) as shown by SC
values dropping from over 18 mS /cm to less than 1 mS /cm. Declines in Downstream SC values
on December 21 and 22 likely resulted from stratification (freshwater overlying saltwater) that
resulted from strong winds pushing the water surface downstream. Once winds shifted, SC
values rebounded within a few days.
With sufficient upstream fresh water flow, southwest winds would be expected to produce lower
specific conductivity values. However, when southwest winds are coupled with low rainfall, as
occurred between mid -June and mid -July, there can be insufficient freshwater flow to displace
brackish water, when winds would be expected to drive brackish water down and out Blounts
Creek and allow fresh water to fill in. Low flow may have not have allowed as much flushing.
Aside from rainfall on four days in late June and on July 1, no rainfall occurred during this
period. This, combined with high evaporation and evapotranspiration, allowed brackish water to
remain within the Blounts Creek channel.
Dissolved Oxygen
Water solubility of oxygen is highly dependent on the water temperature, atmospheric pressure,
and salinity. At a pressure of 101.7 kPa (14.8 psi; median downstream atmospheric pressure
recorded), oxygen solubility ranges from 14.6 mg1l at 32 °F (0 °C) to 7.2 mg1l at 92 °F (33 °C)
(USGS, 2010). While oxygen solubility is also dependent on salinity of the water, the difference
between salinities of 0 and 11 PSU is estimated to be 0.0044 %, and therefore negligible within
this study.
Upstream and downstream dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations during the monitoring period
are shown in Figures 1 l and 11b, respectively. Until January 18, the Upstream DO
concentrations ranged from below 0.20 mg1l on June 30 and July 22 to 7.71 mg1l on August 3.
22

U0
a
0.13
D.la
•
-90.14
E
0.12
0.10
0.09
E
1006
0.04
0.02
099
20.00
18.00
b
15.00
F 14,00
z
} 12.00
U
14.00
E a.00
5.00
4.00
200
0.00
6 /1112
� 1
,3
• Downstream Speafk Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Downstream Specft Conductivity [flaw]
• Downstream Wciflc Conductivity 124 h avp,l
711/12
• Upstream SpecAlc Conductwrty 1Grab Samples)
OF #ream Spewsfic ConductnrKy 1Rawi
• upstream Specific ConductrV ty 124 h avg.)
r.
' t
Z r
•
Br1, +:2 9131112 1011/12 101131/12 12/1/12 12/31/12 1131/13 3!2!13
Date (M /D[M
Figure 10. Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) specific conductivities.
23

Averaged (24 -hour) Upstream DO concentrations ranged from 0.39 mg /I on January 18 to 5.40
mg /I on September 22 and typically ranged between 3.0 and 5.0 mg /I through January 18.
Downstream DO concentrations ranged from less than 0.20 mg /I on multiple dates to 9.77 mg /I
on June 16, while average (24 hour) downstream DO concentrations ranged from below 0.20
mg /I on multiple dates to 7.04 mg /I on June 20, with an average of 2.06 mg /I.
Upstream and Downstream DO concentrations typically fluctuated inversely of SC and
increased following large precipitation events. This is likely a paired result of increased
upstream freshwater flow with elevated DO levels displacing downstream higher salinity waters
with lower DO concentrations.
Daily cyclical fluctuations in DO concentrations were observed at the Upstream and
Downstream sites from June through late October. This was likely driven by microbial activity
that would increase DO during the day through photosynthesis and become dormant or die
overnight. Subsequent decomposition of dead cells can deplete DO concentrations further as
decomposition proceed.
The steady decline of Upstream DO (less noticeable at the Downstream location) during the
January likely resulted from a lack of runoff producing events in the watershed. January rainfall
totals at the Washington and New Bern weather stations were at least 2 inches below normal. In
addition, cold water temperatures and a lack of day light hours were not conducive to oxygen
producing microbes that are typically active during warmer periods between spring and fall.
Though Upstream water levels fluctuated slightly when events occurred, water levels remained
fairly constant in January. Stagnant waters with a sufficient organic material availability would be
expected to produce this DO concentration pattern, a result of oxygen consumption resulting
from decomposing organic matter. Steep, steady declines of DO concentrations were also
recorded at Upstream and Downstream sites during early December. Similar patterns were also
observed at both sites following rainfall events in February and early March.
Beginning on January 29 and through March 11 (as indicated by the shaded region and
adjusted vertical scale in Figure 12b), Downstream DO concentrations ranged between 10 and
20 mg DO /I. By comparison, the maximum oxygen saturation concentration for conditions during
this period was estimated to be 12.8 mg /I, assuming an atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa and
a salinity of 0 ppt. Since the phenomenon was observed at two locations and began after
calibration, it was unlikely that both sensors had malfunctioned, but more likely that an error
occurred during calibration or replacement of the membrane. The error was confirmed by the
`DO gain' calibration constant recorded on the Downstream sonde. The DO gain value was
1.75, compared to normal value of 1.00. Values may have merely been inflated by this scaling
factor, since scaling values down by the DO gain value produced reasonable values between
mostly 6 and 11 mg DO /I.
Upstream DO concentrations were also noticeably higher during this period (indicated by
shaded region and adjusted vertical scale in Fig. 12a). However, nearly all values were below
the maximum oxygen saturation for the conditions and the DO gain calibration constant was
0.71. Never the less, this issue has yet to be corrected for both sondes. While data from both
24

10 -00
a
8.D0
E
f COO
r
X
0
F 4.DD
2.00
0.00
1D. 00
b'
i•
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h ave.l
J
r
3
'r
Down stYeam Dissolved OxVgen IRaw)
• Downstream Dissolved Oxvgen (2a h avg.I
8 -00 :
at f
1
no -
E
m 6 -00 i
Q
o �•N
B • 1
v 400 i
�• i j 4 j i
II Yih i - �. x •�
2.00
D.DO ► 1 i ��;
511112 711112 611112 8131112 1011/12 10/3V 12 1211112 12/31/12 t
Date (M1DIYy)
Figure 11. Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) dissolved oxygen c
25
1
1
1 �
oncentrations.
16x00
1400
1200
1000
goo
6 -00
4.01}
2.00
0.00
2SM
MK IC*
. j •.0
oC
Xu
►14X ,
R
tr �
•�
' 1 r
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h ave.l
J
r
3
'r
Down stYeam Dissolved OxVgen IRaw)
• Downstream Dissolved Oxvgen (2a h avg.I
8 -00 :
at f
1
no -
E
m 6 -00 i
Q
o �•N
B • 1
v 400 i
�• i j 4 j i
II Yih i - �. x •�
2.00
D.DO ► 1 i ��;
511112 711112 611112 8131112 1011/12 10/3V 12 1211112 12/31/12 t
Date (M1DIYy)
Figure 11. Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) dissolved oxygen c
25
1
1
1 �
oncentrations.
16x00
1400
1200
1000
goo
6 -00
4.01}
2.00
0.00
2SM
MK IC*
. j •.0
oC

sondes have reasonable fluctuations based on earlier patterns, recorded values have a high
degree of uncertainty.
Turbidity
Upstream and Downstream turbidity measurements are shown in Figures 12a and 12b,
respectively. Upstream turbidity ranged from less than 1 NTU to over 1100 NTUs, but was
typically less than 30 NTUs. Upstream turbidities generally had good agreement with grab
sample data after July.
Turbidity spiked during or shortly after rainfall events and then declined asymptotically to a
baseline typically below 10 NTUs. This was likely a result of runoff transporting material from the
watershed and resuspension of streambed material during increased stream flow, followed by
settling of particles out of the water column.
Negative turbidities were occasionally recorded at the Downstream site. The manufacturer
notes that in very low turbidity waters, negative values can occur due to ambient light interfering
with the calibration. To correct this, an offset was added to each data series between
calibrations, such that the minimum value was between 0 and 1 NTU. The offset values ranged
from 1.0 to 7.8 NTU. After offsets were added, measured turbidities also corresponded closer to
grab sample turbidity values and improved continuity between measurements before extractions
and following redeployment. With offsets, the Downstream turbidity ranged from less than 1
NTU to over 150 NTUs, but were typically between 1 and 10 NTUs.
Since microbial growth likely contribute a significant portion of turbidity at the Downstream
location, turbidity measurements were expected to decline as temperatures dropped, as seen in
early November when water temperatures fell below 60 °F. However, the range of turbidities
following the December 5 calibration were noticeably lower than previous data. Upon further
investigation, the calibration values were found to be out of tolerance through March 11 (shaded
period in Fig.13b), likely due to an invalid calibration setting on the Downstream sonde. The
mis- calibration caused turbidity measurements to be downscaled by a factor of about eight.
While the relative pattern of turbidity fluctuation may be representative of actual fluctuations, the
actual values are not valid. The calibration standard has been replaced and sensor recalibrated
since this period.
pH
Upstream and Downstream pH measurements are shown in Figure 13. The pH values were
measured by three different entities. Upstream and Downstream grab samples were analyzed
by an analytical laboratory 11 different times between June and December. An ECU graduate
student took field measurements with a handheld pH meter at six different times between
September and December. A local volunteer took 17 field measurements with a handheld pH
meter between November and March.
The DWQ's swamp waters (SW) classification is for slow moving waters that may have lower
DO concentrations and pH values as low as 4.3. The swamp waters classification applies to
Blounts Creek above Herring Run, which only includes the Upstream monitoring site; the
Downstream site is below Herring Run and the swamp waters classification does not apply to
26

am
a • Upomom Twb.day ]crab Saeriphtil
Upwom Tw Wav tAswi
Uponom TurWdRv 124 R ft-avt 1
Iwo f+ •
to � • . f
ti3
1 _
0.
1000
b
100
j
z
T i
? 10
E
N •
i
• Downstream Turbidity (Grab Samples)
Downstream TurbdRy iRaw)
Downstream Turbidity (24 h avg.)
fr i
4 '
w
611/17 7/1/12 811112 8131112 1011112 10/31/12 1211/1; 12131/11 1131113 3/2113
Date R M /DIYYI
Figure 12. Upstream (a) and Downstream (b) turbidities.
27

this section of Blounts Creek. As a result, Upstream waters were expected to have pH values of
less than 7.0 and potentially as low as 4.3. However, grab samples from Upstream were
reported to have pH values over 7.0 for eight of eleven samples, and all eleven Upstream pH
values were greater than Downstream pH values on the same day. This discrepancy between
expected and reported pH values raised concerns about the validity of these data and additional
measurements were conducted by an ECU student and local volunteer. The student and
volunteer pH measurements were comparable and within expected ranges for Upstream and
Downstream values. As a result, the grab sample results were not included in determining the
range of pH values at the Upstream and Downstream sites.
O Upstream: Grab Sams
* Upstream: ECU
• Upstream: Volunteer
0
* Downstream: Grab Sample
■Downstream: ECU
■ Downstream: Volunteer
a
G
C
4
—��— — - -0 ------ - - - - --
Downstream pH Range ■ • • ■ •■ •
........... ............................ ... . .... i ♦ ■........
13 ■ i ■ ■ ♦■
o
Upstream pH Range
................................... r............................. ...............................
5.0
6/1/12 7/1/12 8/1112 8/31/12 1011 /12 10/31/12 12/1/12 12/31/12 1/31/13 3/2/13
Date (M /D/YY)
Figure 13. Upstream and Downstream pH values.
From Figure 13, the Upstream pH ranged from 5.3 on September 20 to 6.5 in on December 13
and again on January 31. The Downstream pH ranged from 5.8 on January 3 and 10 to 6.7 on
February 21 and March 7. In addition, Upstream pH was greater than the Downstream pH for
each pair of measurements collected by the ECU student and volunteer.
Upstream pH values were lowest during periods with sparse rainfall (November and January),
and higher during periods with more total and frequent rainfall (December). Extended periods
with little or no rainfall in the Upstream portion of Blounts Creek may produce stagnant
conditions, allowing for tannins and organic acids to leach into the water column, causing
acidification. More regular precipitation events would flush stagnant reaches and recharge the
28

surficial aquifer, which would increase groundwater discharge into the stream and increase the
stream pH closer to that of the more neutral groundwater. While similar fluctuations were
observed at the Downstream monitoring site from October through January, a noticeable
divergence occurred in February. Near normal rainfall throughout the month corresponded to
elevated Downstream pH, but Upstream pH declined during February. While the Upstream
decline may have resulted from increased transport of organic material from the watershed into
the stream, which may have compensated for groundwater pH, the pH dynamics at the
upstream and downstream sites remain as yet undefined.
Upstream Flow Rates
Two cross - section surveys were conducted at the Upstream site as part of efforts to measure
flows at different stages to develop a discharge rating curve for the location (Figure 14).
However, due to non - detectable velocities (< 0.3 fps), could not be determined during these site
visits which were intended to estimate flows. Cross - section surveys were used to estimate the
threshold for detectable flow rate based on the cross - sectional area and minimum detectable
velocity. The lower flow rate being 5.2 cfs (17.3 ftz), and the highest being 20.7 cfs (68.9 ftz) for
the two stream surveys. These values actually over estimate flow rate, by not accounting for
velocity profile and not all velocities simultaneously equal to the minimum velocity.
•10
-is
3
& .20
PV
mber 8, 201
ctober 25, 2
;{� n I. � In Rn n nr•
Station ITt.)
Figure 10. Cross - section survey at Upstream monitoring location on October 25 and November 8, 2012.
In addition, KHA estimated a flow rate of 25 mgd near Herring Run as low baseflow. Baseflow at
the Upstream site was estimated by downscaling baseflow at Herring Run by the ratio of
29

Downstream to Upstream watershed areas (47.6 miz to 15.1 miz, respectively). The estimated
baseflow discharge is about 8 cfs. The proposed discharge of 12 mgd is equivalent to 19 cfs.
Therefore, the baseflow discharge at the upstream monitoring station could increase by 130 %.
Water Quality Surveys
Four water quality surveys were conducted on July 18, October 9, November 15, and February
4. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and turbidity data from each survey were geo-
located by pairing values with GPS coordinates at corresponding times. Result maps for each
survey and parameter are included in Appendix C. The initial survey (July 18) sampled a 1.1
mile section of Blounts Creek extending' /4 mile upstream of Herring Run to approximately 1/8
mile downstream of Nancy Run, including the downstream 1/8 mile of Herring Run. The three
remaining surveys were performed between Herring Run and Blounts Bay (5.2 miles).
Survey: July 18, 2012
The lowest recorded downstream water levels during the summer occurred between July 18
and 21, resulting from wind driven tides and sparse rainfall during most of the previous month.
Water temperature increased steadily downstream from 82 °F (28 °C) to 94 °F (34 °C). Upstream
of Herring Run, where the channel and canopy are narrower, water temperatures tended to be
cooler than below Herring Run where the channel widens. The canopy along this reach reduces
the amount of sunlight hitting the water surface. Below, a greater portion of the water surface is
fully exposed, allowing for greater heating to occur. Salinity increases from near 0.00 to 3.22
ppt. Low water levels allowed brackish water from downstream to migrate upstream. Dissolved
Oxygen concentrations increased steadily from less than 3.0 mg DO /I at the upstream end of
the survey to above 4.0 mg /I at the downstream end. Turbidity measurements were typically
less than 10 NTU, with a few spikes up to a maximum of 66.5. This corresponded closely to
Turbidity measurements recorded since July 1.
Survey: October 9, 2012
Water levels at the Downstream site were near normal during the week prior to the survey,
despite steady 5 to 10 mph winds from the south or southwest and less than one inch of rainfall.
During this period, salinities at the Downstream monitoring site increased steadily since October
1 from below 3.0 ppt to just near 4.0 ppt on October 9. Surveyed temperatures increased from
less than 67 °F (20 °C) at Herring Run to 73 °F (23 °C) approximately 1.8 miles downstream of
Herring Run. Temperatures then declined steadily to below 68 °F (23 °C) at Blounts Bay. Salinity
increased steadily from less than 3.0 ppt at Herring Run to just over 7.0 ppt at Blounts Bay.
Dissolved oxygen was below 2.0 mg /I near Herring Run, but steadily increases for 1.3 miles to
over 6.0 mg /I, before declining over the next 0.6 miles to 1.8 mg /I. Over the remaining 3.3 miles,
DO concentrations increased steadily to over 6.6 mg /I near Blounts Bay. Turbidity survey
measurements tended to be below 5 NTUs over the length of the survey, except for the 0.3
miles downstream of Herring Run, which was consistent between 6.0 and 9.0 NTUs. As with the
previous survey, intermittent Turbidity spikes were also recorded, with a maximum of 26.8 NTUs
near Cotton Patch landing.
30

Survey: November 15, 2012
Less than one inch of rain in the prior two weeks since TS Sandy and average daily wind
velocities were less than 5 mph. Water levels at the Downstream site were generally steady
near 5.0 ft. over the prior two weeks, water temperatures were consistently between 57 °F and
60 °F, and salinities were consistently around 6.0 to 6.5 ppt. Except for the first 0.25 miles
downstream of Herring Run, surveyed water temperatures steadily decreased from over 55 °F
(13 °C) at Jenny Run to 53 °F (11.5 °C) at Blounts Bay. Salinity increased from 4.8 ppt near
Herring Run to 8.9 ppt at Blounts Bay. Dissolved Oxygen concentrations varied from 3.8 to 5.4
mg1l between Herring Run and Nancy Run. Downstream of Nancy Run, DO increased steadily
to 5.9 mg1l at Blounts Bay. Turbidity measurements were below 5.0 NTUs over the 2.5 miles
downstream of Herring Run. Turbidities were consistently higher, with two spikes over 100 NTU,
over the next 1.3 miles and then declined down to 2.8 NTUs at Blounts Bay.
Survey: February 14, 2013
Over one inch of rainfall occurred during the week prior to the February 14 survey. Winds were
between 5 and 10 mph over this period, but direction was variable. Due to rainfall events the
Downstream water levels had fluctuated significantly and but depth was slightly less than 5.0 ft.
(near normal) at the time of the survey. Salinity dropped significantly from over 6.0 ppt to less
than 1.0 ppt during the previous week around February 9, and remained at that level through
the survey. Water temperatures ranged from 50 °F (10.3 °C) to 53 °F (11.5 °C). Water
temperatures fluctuated across the full range over the first 2.5 miles, but then stabilize and
increased from 51 °F (10.6 °C) to 53 °F (11.5 °C) near Blounts Bay. Salinities increased steadily
from 0.1 ppt to 4.5 ppt at Blounts Bay. Turbidity and DO measurements were determined to be
inaccurate for this survey due to sensor and calibration concerns and are not reported.
31

DISCUSSION
Current Characterization of Blounts Creek
The goal of this study was to evaluate Blounts Creek water quality under existing flow
conditions. Monitoring records (15 -30 minute intervals) were created at two sites, one within the
upstream fresh headwaters and one within the downstream tidally affected waters, beginning
June 7, 2012 through March 11, 2013. In addition, water quality surveys complimented
monitoring data by indicating spatial distribution of water quality parameters. Ideally, water
quality monitoring would be conducted for multiple years under various hydrologic conditions.
While these data span less than a complete year, they provided the most complete record of
water quality for Blounts Creek.
Total precipitation during this period was just below the long term average precipitation at New
Bern. Washington totals were further below average precipitation totals, which was primarily due
to missing records (28 %). While the Blounts Creek watershed was affected by Hurricane Sandy,
the impacts were minimal compared to other historic tropical cyclones. Rainfall totals at New
Bern and Washington weather stations were 2.4 and 1.5 in., respectively, which did not exceed
maximum single day totals during the monitoring period of 3.0 and 2.4 in., respectively.
Upstream Site and Headwaters
Monitoring data collected through this study will help to characterize Blounts Creek. At the
Upstream monitoring site, Blounts Creek is classified as Class C, swamp waters (Sw). Although
flow was not continuously measured at the Upstream site, it was observed that water levels
were most affected by precipitation events over short periods and most likely evapotranspiration
by vegetation within the watershed and resulting groundwater levels. No wind or lunar tide effect
was observed. Fluctuations of water quality parameters (DO, turbidity, and pH) with water levels
and failed attempts to measure flow at this location indicate that the stream has periods with
very low flow rates at this location, which typically corresponded to decreased DO, decreased
turbidity, and decreased pH. Periods with little or no flow may be more common at the Upstream
site than other locations within the upper reaches of Blounts Creek, due to the proximity to the
NS railway and 72 in. culvert passing under the railway that constricts the floodplain and
channel. Measured DO was commonly below 4.0 mg1I threshold and pH measurements ranged
from 5.5 to 6.5. Upstream water temperatures only exceeded 89.6 °F (32 °C), the temperature
threshold for Piedmont and Coastal Plain streams, on one day (June 30) during the monitoring
period.
Precipitation events increased turbidity values at the Upstream site. The NCDWQ turbidity
threshold for non -trout waters lakes and reservoirs is 25 NTUs. Turbidities only exceeded this
threshold following daily rainfall totals of greater than 1.0 inch (more commonly greater than
2.0). Turbidities typically returned to baseline values (below 5.0 NTU) within three to four days.
Upstream DO concentrations typically declined following large precipitation events, below 2.0
mg1I on multiple occasions. This was likely due to inputs of oxygen depleted waters from
adjacent wetlands and transport of organic material into the stream. During the summer months,
DO typically rebounded to a baseline, commonly around 4.0 mg /I, after three to four days. This
32

was not observed during the late fall and early winter, when water temperatures were not
conducive to microbial activity. In addition, daily oscillations of DO observed between June and
September, were much lower in magnitude, suggesting a strong microbiological driver for DO
rebounding. As a result, cool season DO concentrations declined during periods of low flow or
stagnation, most notably during the latter half of December
The primary influence affecting Upstream pH was likely groundwater inputs to the stream.
Wetter periods generally corresponded to elevated pH measurements at the Downstream site,
while drier periods corresponded to lower pH values. Since groundwater the local groundwater
has a near neutral pH (MMM, 2012) and swamp waters are typically characterized by low pH
values, precipitation events that recharge the surficial aquifer and increase baseflow are the
most likely indicator of stream pH values.
Downstream Site and Tidally Influenced Reach
Water levels at the Downstream site were most affected by wind driven tides, diurnal tides, and
precipitation events. Declining wind tides, produced by steady westerly winds of at least 10
mph, were the most significant driver for decreasing water Downstream water levels. Wind
speed and alignment with the Pamlico River decreased water levels by pushing water
downstream and allowing greater discharge from Blounts Creek into Blounts Bay and the
Pamlico River. In addition, these wind tides also pushed brackish water from the Pamlico River
downstream on Blounts Creek, allowing fresh water to fill in further downstream. This was
observed in late December and February when rapidly declining Downstream water levels
coincided with steady westerly winds and sharp declines in SC and salinity. Declining wind tides
also tended to increase DO concentrations as upstream freshwater replaced lower DO brackish
waters. While rising wind tides were observed at times, the effects were less noticeable than
declining wind tides.
Diurnal tides caused water levels to fluctuate typically by approximately one foot over the course
of a day. Increased specific conductivities and turbidities and decreased DO concentrations
corresponded to high tides and the opposite fluctuations corresponded to low tides. The
consistency of these data indicate a twice daily upstream and downstream migration stream
flow (plug), although diffusion and mixing also likely significant drivers in Downstream water
quality fluctuations.
Precipitation patterns significantly affect Downstream water levels, although generally to a
lesser degree than wind and diurnal tides. Large precipitation events ( >2 in.) displaced brackish
water below the Downstream monitoring station, as observed when Downstream salinities
declined sharply to near zero following these types of events. This likely resulted primarily from
upstream freshwater, typically with higher turbidity following precipitation events, displacement
of brackish water down Blounts Creek.
Downstream DO concentrations were observed to both increase and decrease following
precipitation events. Similar to Upstream fluctuations, this may have resulted from the amount of
organic material transported into the stream as well as whether oxygen depleted waters from
adjacent wetlands was flushed into the stream. The DO dynamics within these type of system
33

are complex, and are potentially dependent on such factors as precipitation intensity, total
volume, stream flow, and availability and accumulation rates of organic material. .
Extended periods without precipitation also affected Downstream water quality, as brackish
water migrated upstream during these periods. This may be due to cumulative effects that
decreased baseflow from the depleted surficial aquifer, rather than from a lack of consistent
precipitation events that contribute runoff and interflow to Blounts Creek.
A fish kill event was reported on July 13 in the Blounts Creek area below the Downstream
monitoring station. Downstream DO concentrations fell to near zero on the evening of July 10
until the morning of July 12 and may have contributed to the fish kill. No rainfall was recorded
between July 2 and July 8, allowing brackish water to steadily move upstream, reaching an SC
of over 9.0 at the Downstream station. However, 2.8 and 3.0 inches of rainfall fell between July
10 and 13, which nearly displaced the brackish water entirely below the Downstream station.
Concentrations of DO continued to decline during and after subsequent rainfall events, possibly
due to flushing of the floodplain wetlands of low DO waters.
Potential Impacts of Mine Operation
As part of operation of the Mine, MMM has applied for an NPDES permit to discharge a monthly
average of 6 mgd and up to 9 mgd on individual days. This discharge will primarily consist of
groundwater, along with stormwater, and process water and is proposed to occur in unnamed
tributaries to Blounts Creek. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) evaluated the channel
stability and potential water quality changes within the headwaters areas resulting from Mine
discharge (MMM, 2012).
Stream Geomorphic Changes
Discuss erosion and head waters and difference between existing shear and expected shear.
No quantification was given for volume of sediment potentially produced by erosion. Could have
estimated erosion by estimating stream geometry required for future flows to have same shear.
Sediment deposition at upstream monitoring site is likely to occur due to debris accumulation,
channel constriction through the NS culvert, and backwater effects slowing velocities. This could
cause the western branch of Blounts Creek to enter the eastern branch upstream of the railroad,
which is a larger channel.
The analysis consisted (summarized in Table 3 -4 of Vanceboro WQ Technical Memo) of
estimating stream velocities, and shear stresses for low flow and low flow with an additional 18
cfs (above the NPDES applied discharge of up to 9 mgd). While shears and velocities are
expected to increase, they are not generally expected to exceed maximum permissible values
based on modeling results and erosion and channel deformation are anticipated to be minimal.
However, there are several issues with this analysis. Although flow rates in this analysis
increase by more than 100 fold, erosion is expected to be minor. It seems implausible that this
significant increase in baseflow would produce essentially negligible changes to channel
geometry. Given two alternate soils to use as an acceptable threshold, a more conservative
analysis would use the lower threshold of the two available rather than an intermediate point.
Increases in expected shear are typically between 3 and 5, while increases in velocities are
34

expected to double or triple. Additionally, if flow rates increase by a factor of 100, but the
average flow velocity increases only by a factor of two to three, then the cross sectional area
must increase by a factor of 33 to 50. This increase would likely put the cross - section out of the
stream banks for the expected baseflow. Again, it seems implausible that this type of consistent
baseflow would not cause significant channel instability. If the discharge does not carry a
bedload into the stream, scour and downcutting of the channel will be more likely to occur.
Furthermore, the analysis does not attempt to quantify potential channel erosion resulting from
Mine discharge. Over time the stream would be expected to adjust to the new flow regime by
enlarging. Using current shear as the value that must be conserved once discharge begins, the
adjusted channel geometry could be estimated. The difference in cross - section areas integrated
along the stream reach would be a reasonable estimate of potential erosion volume.
Enlargement of the main channel could potential create nick points that initiate headcuts within
tributaries, further destabilizing upper headwaters.
Blounts Creek flows through a natural corridor until crossing under the NS Railway. The corridor
constriction at this location due to a 72 inch culvert, would likely slow high flows, causing
sediment deposition in this area. This could lead to modification of hydraulics and creation of a
convergence with the adjacent channel upstream of the Railway. The adjacent channel crosses
under a bridge structure. Scour could occur if increased flows are directed under this bridge
without sufficient bedload.
Based on Upstream monitoring data, there seem to be significant sediment transport occurring
following precipitation events as indicated by spikes in turbidity that decline within a few days.
The low flow, stagnant characteristic of this channel allows for sediments to be transported and
progressively through the channel, such that the net gain and net losses do not destabilize the
stream channel. Continuous flow will prevent smaller, and highly organic, particles from being
able to settle out on the stream bed. This continual flushing of organic material from the channel
would be expected to dilute the available organic material, and minimizing potential for
acidification that occurs in stagnant waters as organic acids leach into the water column (also
impacting stream pH).
However, a program for monitoring discharge effects on the UTs as flows gradually increase
with mining operations was included within the memo's conclusions, so that any corrective
action could be taken. If discharge is permitted, the receiving channel stability should be closely
monitored throughout the mine operation.
Flooding
KHA also evaluated the potential for increased downstream flood risk, specifically around
Cotton Patch community (MMM, 2012). A HEC -RAS analysis indicated that the additional
discharge to Blounts Creek would not significantly affect water level elevations (< 0.02 ft. rise)
downstream of Herring Run for events up to the 100 -year, 24 -hour return period storm event
(10.5 in.). Therefore, the risk of downstream flooding of residential areas resulting from the
proposed Mine discharge is negligible.
35

pH Change
Since pH can affect essential fish enzymes, KHA modeled potential pH changes above Herring
Run resulting from the proposed Mine discharge (MMM, 2012). Blounts Creek receiving head
waters were conservatively assumed to have a pH of 4.0, below the lowest reported field
measurement by CZR of 4.40 on April 13, 2012 (CZR, 2012). The Mine discharge was assumed
to have a pH of 6.94, based on analysis of groundwater quality. The modeled pH of receiving
waters could increase to between 6.33 and 6.89 for respective volumetric ratios between Mine
discharge and stream flow of 1:9 and 9:1. If a higher pH (e.g. 4.40) had been assumed, the
modeled pH range would increase only slightly and without exceeding the groundwater pH of
6.94. While the pH below Herring Run will likely be minimally affects, the pH upstream of
Herring Run is expected to increase from 4.0 — 5.5 to 6.3 — 6.9. The headwaters' pH would no
longer correspond to NC DWQ's Swamp Waters classification (pH: 4.3 — 6.0). It was
acknowledged that the model did not account for buffering from organic acids, the model also
does not account for dilution of organic acids that would likely result from continuous flow.
Salinity Changes
Salinity measurements were collected by KHA on April 4th, 13th, and May 31 st of 2012. The April
4th measurements occurred three days after 0.5 to 1.0 inches of rainfall fell in the area and were
assumed to estimate moderate baseflow conditions (32 mgd (50 cfs) at Herring Run). The April
13th measurements occurred nearly a week after only 0.2 to 0.3 inches of rainfall fell and were
assumed to estimate low baseflow conditions (16 mgd (25 cfs) at Herring Run). The May 31 st
measurements were collected the day following an approximately 3.5 inch event (Tropical Storm
(TS) Beryl) and were used to estimate high flow conditions (520 mgd (800 cfs) at Herring Run).
By comparison, the 1 -year, 24 -hour rainfall depth for the Blounts Creek area is 3.35 in (NOAA,
2013). The flow resulting from TS Beryl was 43 times the maximum proposed Mine discharge
flow (12 mgd; 18 cfs).
Salinities at low and moderate base flow ranged from 2.03 to 5.65 PSU near Cotton Patch
Landing. After TS Beryl, salinities dropped to 0.05 PSU in this location, indicating that saltwater
was nearly completely displaced downstream. KHA developed a volume displacement model to
model the expected effects of Mine discharge on downstream (below Herring Run) salinity in
Blounts Creek (MMM, 2012). KHA used the difference in salinity values between low and
moderate base flows measured at Herring Run (25 cfs) as an estimate of the proposed Mine
discharge rate to Blounts Creek (18 cfs). The displacement model was run for low and moderate
baseflow conditions. Moderate flow results, assumed to be representative of Mine discharge,
were compared to three salinity data points collected on April 4, 2012, which predicted salinity at
Herring Run at a depth of three feet of 1.5 PSU, compared to a sampled salinity of 0.07 PSU.
The remaining two salinity measurements were taken near Cotton Patch subdivision at three
and eight feet below the water surface (2.0 PSU and 4.4 PSU, respectively). By comparison, the
modeled salinities were 3.0 PSU and 5.0 PSU, respectively for the same location and depths.
While the low baseflow model values were close to measured data, the discharge simulation
over predicted downstream salinities by up to 1.4 PSU, compared to measurements during
representative flow. Therefore, the discharge would likely further displace brackish water below
modeled results. In addition, the modeled results also do not account for the effect of tides,
which may further reduce downstream salinities.
36

Aquatic Habitat Changes
KHA concluded that the increased pH would correspond to optimum ranges of freshwater fish
found in Blounts Creek (6.5 — 8.5). Increased pH is also expected to reduce solubility of
aluminum and associated toxicity, although aluminum concentrations in Blounts Creek
headwaters were not reported.
Blounts Creek headwaters are characterized as slow- moving and may become stagnant at
times, especially during periods of drought. The proposed Mine discharge would cause Blounts
Creek to flow continuously. KHA calculated the maximum discharge velocity for the 1 -year event
in the upper headwaters as 2.8 fps.
CZR noted that adding water with elevated dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration would increase
DO for lower DO receiving waters. This could contribute to invalidating the swamp waters
classification. However, the DO measurements taken by CZR on April 12 and 13, 2012, were all
above 4.0 mg /I, with a maximum of 8.2 mg /I. Therefore, the Mine discharge likely would not
increase DO. In turn, if the Mine discharge does not have higher DO concentration, then stream
DO concentrations may decline.
Aquatic habitat assessments were also performed at four locations (Figure 4, sites WQ4 - WQ7)
and was assessed to be moderately stressed based on NCDWQ Bioclassification Site scores.
Based on data collection and analysis, CZR concluded that no significant detrimental effects are
expected as a result of the Mine discharge.
Discharge would increase flow through channel (entire length of Blounts Creek between
discharge and Blounts bay), thereby increasing water levels. Pressure gradient betweer
groundwater and stream would reduce, reducing groundwater discharge, and raising water table
adjacent to stream, and adjacent to tributaries immediately upstream from confluence. Flow
velocities would decrease for tributaries flowing into Blounts Creek, due to higher water levels in
the main channel reducing the downstream gradient.
37

SUMMARY
Monitoring data collected on Blounts Creek has begun to establish a valuable water quality
record that will improve understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes along
the length of Blounts Creek. This monitoring is expected to continue into the future to expand
this data set. In general, the upstream (swamp waters) and downstream (tidal) classification of
Blounts Creek are representative of the conditions observed during this monitoring study.
However, accounting for seasonal variability is a significant aspect of understanding the
dynamics of this stream system. As for the proposed Mine, several concerns about stream
stability, water quality, and the respective analyses were raised, mostly associated with
continuous flow in the upstream sections of the stream.
38

REFERENCES
NCDENR Classifications http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /csu /classifications
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c/ document_ library / get_ file ?uuid= f9ff405a -f51 c- 42a3 -aa12-
3c48567a5634 &groupld =38364
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. NOAA Atlas 14: Precipitation -
Frequency Atlas of the United States. Volume 2. Version 3.0.
Rice, E. W., Bridgewater, L., American Public Health Association., American Water Works
Association., & Water Environment Federation. (2012). Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. Washington, D.C: American Public Health
Association.
USGS. 2010. Correction factors for oxygen solubility and salinity. National Field Manual for
Collection of Water - Quality Data: Section 6.2.4.
YSI. 2011. 6- Series Multiparameter Water Quality Sondes User Manual.
39

Water Levels
6.00
S.00
sJ
c
S 400
g
3.00
is
2.00
1.00
000
7.00
6.00
5.00
4-OD
E
R
L
G
0 3.DD
7.00
100
D.OD
6/1
APPENDIX A: MONITORING DATA
Depth: D6 servea
• Devth, 24 h ass.
•
1 1 N _
r
1
1MRMIMUM K*ASMEAKE WATER LEVEL:10ft.
6/6 6111
6116
Hate IIWD/M
A -1
6 /21 6/26

7.00
6.00
5.00
+ 4.00
ro
E 3.00
R
7.00
1.00
0.00
7.00
6.00
d .t
° 4.00 Yr
I
3.00
2.00
1100
0.00
7/i
r Depth: 24 h M
f1'III'1 I WrVIY11Y1 L M 3Un EARL L WMILR LLVLU J.Ll 11.
716 7111 7116 7121 7/26 7/31
Date (MID1YY)
A -2

7.00
5 -00
5 -00
4.00
II
v
E 3.00
CL
CL
2A0
1.00
MINIMUM MEA513REABLE WATER LEVEL: 1.4 it.
Depth: Observed
• Depth: 24 h avg.
0.00
7.00
Depth: (Xmrved
■ Duch: 24 h 8vt
5.00
r
op
4.00
E
3.00
MINIMUM MEASUREAOLE WATER LEVEL: 3.0ft.
2.00
1.00
0.00
811 815 8/11
8/16
Date I WDIYY)
A -3
8121 8/26 901

7.00
6.00
5.00
r
r
EL 4.00
`m
ro
m 300
2.00
1.00
0.00
TDO
2.00
1.00
0.00
911
9/6 9111 9116 9121 9126
Date (MID^
A -4
Depth: Observed
• Depth; 24 h avq
6,00
5.00
Sjt"
m 400
A
y
3.00
g
MINIMUM MEASUREA$LE WATER LEVEL• 3.0fL
2.00
1.00
0.00
911
9/6 9111 9116 9121 9126
Date (MID^
A -4

7.00
6.00
5 -00
r_
r
rrx 4.00
7
3.00
2.00
1 -00
0.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
E
z
v
u.
c
3
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
t
MINIMUM MEASURE ABLE WATER LEVEL: 3 -0 ft.
0.00
1011 1016 10/11 10116
Dale iM /d/YYl
A -5
10/21
Depth: Observed
• Depth: 24 h avg.
10126

7.00
6.00
5,00
r
4.00
to
fo
E 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
7.00
Coo
5.00
y�
O
w
COO
E
v
c
3
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Depth: Observed
• Depth: 24 h avg.
� r
jP
1 �[ r r ; • ti
MINIMUM MEASII REAR E WATER LEVEL: 3.0 it.
1111 1116 11111 11116
DaU (M /D/vvl
m
'1-'21 1 V26

700
6.00
5 -00
4.00
s
3
F
� 3 -OU
❑
200
1 -00
0.00
7.00
6.40
Dept,: observed
• L►epth: Observed
• Depth: 24 h av=.
r
Date (M /D /M
A -7
As
'
a
4.40
E
4
YI
`
3.00
MINIMUM MEASUREAI3LI WATER IEVEI: 3.0 ft.
2.00
1.00
0.00
12J 1
12%6 13./ 11
12116
12/21
12/26 17131
Date (M /D /M
A -7

700
5 -00
S 00
r
Y
is {.00
ij
3
2300
6
7
2.00
1 -00
0.00
7.00
Depth: Raw
• Depth: 24 h avg.
isxo
A
4 -00
c
3 -00
PA INIMUM MEASLIREABLE WATFR LEVEL: 3.0 h.
r �a
1.00
D.DD
1I 1113 1,15113 1121113 1115113 1!21123 1!25/13 1/31
Date i WD/")

7-OD
6 -00
5.00
s
Y
OD
aaffi
300
2.40
100
0.00
7.09 —
• Depth: Raw
• Depth: 24 h svg.
6 -00
e.
_ a P-j 5.00 s
kt
4.00
15
-
MINIMUM MEASUREABLE WATER LEVEL: 3.0 ft.
2.00
1.00
0A0
211113 2/6113 2111/13 2116113
Date (MIOIYY)
2/21113 2/26/13

7.00
6 -00
5.00
c
A 00
93,00
3.00
S
2.00
1m
o.Fa
7.00
Depth: Raw
• Depth: 24 h avg-
6.00
Depths Dbwtyed
YL
m
4.00
E
a
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
3,11/13
mlrvlmum nnrAWMAMt WAItM LtvtL: ISM R.
3/6113 3111113 3/16/13 3/21/13 3126/13 3/31113
Date IM /DM)
A -10

Atmospheric and Subsurface Temperatures
40
t`
a
m
80
E
70
E
d
60
a
50
40
30
20
130
120
110
100
a � .
r
s0 .
E
E
@ 70
3
8 50
50
40
30
20
6/1/12
F '
c a I
6/6/12 6/11/12 6/16112
Date 1M /D /YY)
A -11
6/21112
Upstream Surface (Hobol
Upstream Subsurface lHobol
upstream Subsurface 15onde)
ti.
1
Downstream Surface (Hobo)
Downstream subsurface 45ondej
� i •
4
'y. F
6/26/12

134
120
I10
IOQ
94
k,
a
n �
E
." 70
E
R
v
60
50
40
30
�-0
130
Downstream) Surface (Hobo)
Downstream Subsuriase ISonde)
120
110
100 t i
go
yQ -.
N
C
3
40
30
20 —
711/12 7/6112
7111/32 7116/12
Date (M /DJYY}
A -12
7/21/12 7/26/12 7/31/12

134 Upstream Surface IHoho)
Upstream 5udsurfate IHoho)
120 Upstream Subsurface (Sonde)
IN
100
90
m 80
70 ev
a
CV; 60
SO
40
30
20
130
Dowrstrearn Surface (Matto)
Downstream 50surface (Sonde)
120
110
140
p
d 90 • _ P i i. t 7 f. _�
r
64
50
40 .
i
30
20
VIM 8/6/12 8/11/12 8116/12 8121/12 SP6 /12 8A1112
Date; M /D/W)
A -13

130 Upstream Surface (Hobo)
Upstream Subsurface (Hobo)
120 upstream Subsurface (Sonde)
114
100
90
l
m
� g0
yR
70 0" I �.
ta; 60
y 55w
so
40
30
20
130
Downstream Surface (Hobo)
Downstream Subsurf are Son de)
120
110
100
r
� F ►: r ti r !� � r
a 70
60
T � r
�.
30 —
20
9/1/12 916112 9/11112 9116/12 9/21112 9/26112
Date (M /D /'+Y)
A -14

130 Upstream Surface lHoboj
Upstream Subsurface lHoboj
Upstream Subsurface (Sonde)
1211
110
100
90
m
5
70 '.
E
CL
1
40
30
20 -
I30 -
Downstream Surface IHobo)
Downstream Subsurface 15ondel
120
110 —
100 -
_ a
40
a
so
70 i , Rr • j� ti - f
in 60
so
20
10/1112 106/12 10/11/12 1(V16/12 W21112
Date fWD/YY)
A -15
10+25112 10131/12

130
120
110
140
90
a
E
,Lv 70
E
a
a
60
7
50
40 - -- -
i' � W
30
20 -
130
120
110
100
90
R
8A
E' 70 -•- - f
tx
50
30 [
20
1111112 1116112 11/13/12 11/16/12
Date iM /DM7
A -16
Downstream Surface IHoho)
Downstream Subsurface [Sonde)
Ir '
tv
11121/12 WWII

130
120
110
100
90
a
3 80
m
E
70
E
m
a
K 60
So
40
ti
30
20
130
120
110
100
90
R /
Ca� $o
►6' t
a 70
a6o
so
,0
30
20
12%1112
Y �
� Y
Upstream Surface (Hobo)
Upstream Subsurface (Hobo)
Upstream Subsurface (Sonde)
1 :y
Li
• �l
❑own stream Surface {Hobo]
Downstream Subsurface (Sonde)
w
5112 12/11112 121151 12 12/21/12 12125112 12131112
Date (WONY)
A -17

130
Upstream Surface ;Hobo]
120 Upstream Subsurface IHoboj
upstream Subsurface ISonde)
110
100
w
a 60
n
i 70
E
v
60 = -
a
n
30
20
ID
330
120
110
300
� yQ
d �
80 i
E 70 1
L
N 60 _ • Y f .
3
$
so -- - }, —� ►w
40 vi 1.
30
20
10
1/1113 116113 1/11113 1115/13
Date IMIDJYY)
A -18
Cownstreim iurlate (Hobo)
Downstream 5uNurftae � Sonde I
1121113 3126/13
yY
3131/13

130
120
110
i00
90
w
$ 70
E
Al
E 60
7
50
40
30
20
10
130
120
110
100
Downstream Surftce (Hobo)
Downstream 5uNurfam (Sonde)
1: 90
V
3
0.
E r
70 f ; f • i
ol
7 60 ION
3 ti r •� I ! i._ Ik
20
10
2/1113 46113 2/11/113 2/1693 2/21113 2/26/13
Date (MIDI")
A -19

130
Upstream Surface lHobo)
120 Upstream Subsurface (Hobo)
Upstream Subsurface (Sonde)
110
300
90
v �
ro
70
E
a.
E 60
so
u
40 ,.
20
10
130
Downstream Surface {Hobo)
124
D�ownstresm Subsurface (Sonde)
� -
110
100
LL 90
d
� ^
4 p e
E ,
ti 70
E �' f
c 64 R ;
44 • . : ,
34 - -�
20 — -
10
3/1/13 3/W13 3112113 3/16/13 3121113 3/26/13 3/31113
Die I WD/01
A -20

Specific Conductivity
Dig
016
E 0.14
4
0 -12
7
A
b
C
UO 0 10
Y
OAS
E
6
0.06
004
0.02
0.00
20.00
. Downstr
Down -W
18.00
- Downser
16.00
E 14.00
E
T
12.00
v
r
u
10.00
z
E 8.00
A
N
G
3z 6.00
8
4.00
2.00
0.00
611112
. Upstream 5petAit Conductivlty IGrab samplesl
Upstream S pet >fit Conduttiviiy (Raw)
Upstream Speahc Canductimy (24 h ar6 -i
z
WWI, 6111112 6116112 6121112 6126112
Date (MIDIWI
A -21

0.20
0.18
0.16
E 0.14
U
vt
E
f 0.12
V
0.10
0.08
/
A 0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20.00
• Downstream Specific Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Downstre am Specific Conductivity IRawj
18.00
• Downstream Specific Conductivity (24 h avg.)
MOO
t
l
14.00
a _
A
E
�.
12.00
V
c
, •
L9 MOD
• Upstream Specific Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Rb Fir r' ► �
E 8.01D
6.00
Q '
4.00 --
C
2.00
• L
0.DO
?1/12 7/6/12 7/11/12 7/16/12
Date IWDM)
A -22
7/21112
ti
7126112 7/31/12

a10
0.18
0.16
E 0.14
U
E
0.12
v
C
u
v
m
�n 0.08
E
m
m
� OZ6
O -D4
0.02
0.00
20.DD
• Upstream Specific Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Upstream Specific Conductivity (Raw)
• Upstream Specific Conductivity (24 h avg,)
`u3
S
r 4 ~
T
12-00
V
7
100 ,
• Downstre am Specific Conductivity {Grab Samples}
1600 Downstre am Specific Conductivrty (Raw)
•
Dovm stream Specific Conductivity 124 h avg.)
1600
14.00
`u3
S
T
12-00
V
7
100 ,
E 8-00
6.00 .. •►, a
4.00
2.00
0 -00
811112 8/6112
8111112
8/16112
Date IMIDNY)
A -23
i
.i�• sa ice'
8121112 8/26112 !131/12

0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
E
0,12
a
Sr
O.aB
E
4
0.06 ,
0.04
0.02
0,00
20.00
• Downstream Specific Cvnductnrrty {Grab Samples)
18 -00 Downstream Specific Ccnducttvrty {Raw)
• Downstream Specific Conductivity 124 h avII -)
16 -00
14.00
E
t
12.00
u 10.00
Y
E 8.00
a
A 6,00
4.00
2.00 -
,� i! i
0.00
911112 916112
r Upstream Spec &c Cnnductrvmty IGrah Samples}
Upstream specific Conductwity )Raw)
Upstream SpecrFlc CcnductrvRy 124 h avg- I
9/11112 9116112 9/21112 9/26/12
Date (WD/rr)
A -24

0.20
0.18
O.1fi
E 0.14
v
E
0.12
v
c
0.10
_V
x.
0.08
E
w
V
♦ 1lpmeam Specific Conductivity IGrab Samples]
Uvstream 5Wvflc Conductivity I Raw l
• Uostream Specific Conductwity 124 h avA, j
0M NO MONITORING DATA COLLECTED:
LOW WATER LEVELS AND EQUIPMENT ERROR
0.04
0 -02
0.00
2000
0
A -25
• Downstre am Speofic Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Downstream Specdc Conductivity (ftawj
18.00
• Downstre am Speofic Conducdrnty 124 h av8.y
16.00
E 14.00
E
r
nI-;
�•'
8-00
ii { •
1_ 1
E
5.00
' R
�
4.00
;
Ojoo
1011/12 1016/12 10/11/12 10/16/12
30!21112 10/26112
10/31/12
�0, iM. V. NN
A -25

0.20
0.18
0.16
E0,14
E
0.12
a
a
c
u 0.10
U
U
�+ 0.08
E
v
in
Da 0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
20.00
ZS -00
16 -00
E 14.00
ur
E
12.00
C
o
u
10.00
E 8.00
R 6.04
4.00
2 -00
0.00
11/1112 1115112 11/11/12 11/16/12 11/21/12 11/25/12
^ate ?14 .Vvy)
A -26
• Upstream Specific Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Upstream Specific Conductivity (Raw)
• Upstream Specific Conductivity (24 h avg.)
NO MONITORING DATA COLLECTED:
LOW WATER LEVELS AND EQUIPMENT ERROR

0.20
0.18
0.16
E 0.14
s
E
0.12
G
a
v
c
u 0.10
L
r 0.08
C
7 0.06
0,04
0.02
0.00
20LOO
18.00
t
16 "00
14 -00
E • Downstream 5
}
12.00 • Downstream 5
c • Downstream 5
a
v 10.00
u
A
E 8.00
2
9
b.00
4.00
2 -00
0.00
12/1/12
1216/12 12/11/12 12/16/12
Date (M/DM)
A -27
? i• s
4
i"
1.
- y
� T
i -
3
12/2111Z 1 7 13 411 1 2
17/33/12

0.20
0.18
0.16
E 0.14
E
0.12
n
u° 0.10
u
QU4i
vC 0.08
G
N
a
a 0.05
D.04
0.02
0 -b0
20.00 • Downstream SpecifkConductivlty (Grab Samples)
• Downstream Specific Conductivity (Raw)
18.00 • Dawn stream Specific Conductivity (24 ti avg.�
16.00
5 14.00
E
T
12.00
u
a
10.00
V
!J
8.00
A
x
fi 00
4.00
t 1 .. •
it
2.00
+ Upstream Specific Conductiv+ty ;Grab Samples)
Upstream Spscdlc Conductivity ;Rawl
Upstream 5pecrfic Conductrvrty ;2Q h avg.)
a.00
111113 1�6!I3 1!11!1_ 1116113 l Wla 1125!13
Date JMID1YY)
A -28
f
1131113

0.20
0.18
0,16
0.14
D,1D
,t
10.08
E
O.D6
E
V
E
i
Z;
e
u°
u
u
d
3
G•i
004
0.02
0.00
20.00
moo
1600
• Downstream Specific Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Downstream Specific Conductivity(Raw)
• Downstream Spenfic Conductivity [24 h av6,}
14.00
� } r
t �
12-00
10.00 t _
8.00
6.00 -
i
. 1
4.00 {
2.00 t
0.00 -
211113 2/6/13 2/11113 V16/13 2/21/13 2/26/13
Date [M /D /n`I
A -29

020
0.18
0 -16
E 0.14
u
E
0.12
0.10
V
10-08
E
T
G1
7 0 -06
0 04
0.02
0 -00
20 -OD
• Downstream Specific Conductivity (Grab Samples}
Downstream 5peafic Conductivity {Raw)
MOO - Downstream 5pecifcConductrvrty (24 h avg.)
16.00
AOD
Or
E
r.;
12_M
G
v
C
a
i' 10.00
k
E 8.00
m
r
c
6.00
4.00
2,00
i_
0.00
3/1/13 3/6/13 3111113 3/16/13
Date (M /D /YY}
A -30
r Uvstmrn 5peclRc Conductivity (Grab Samples)
Upstrearrt Specific Conductivity (Raw)
Upstream Specfic Co nductivity (24 h avg.)
3/21/13 3/26/13 3/31/13

Dissolved Oxygen
4.00
8.00
7.00
E
6.00
�i
a
_ S.00
d
E 4.00
it
3.00
2.00
1.40
0.00
12.00
10.00
8.04
a
0
6-00
E
`; 4.00
2.00
0.00
6jl /12 6.16117
Upaleam Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
upstream Dissolved Oxygen 124 h avg.)
i
�y Y • `4 i
ti
Downstream 015solved Oxygen 4Raw)
Downstream D;ssolved Oxygen (24 h avg.1
t
s. . � R•ti . t
r•
'i
6111117 6/16/12 6.71'I?
Date (MID/rr)
A -31
1,
x
6/26/13

10 -00
9100
8.00
7 00
a8
E
d GM
0
O
E 4.00
2
3.00
2 -00
1 -00
000
12.00
10.00
E 8 -00
x
0
6 5.00
E
m
m
3 4M
C3
LIM
a
7
upstream Dissolved Oxygen 1Raw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen 124 A avg.j
s ,
•L .
4
Downstre am Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
• Downstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h a vg.)
%
•f n .3 ; J •'N
/. r
/> 7A/12 7/11/12 _ = '12 7121/12
A -32
7/26/12
7/31/12

10.00
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (Raw}
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h avg.)
9 -00
goo
_ 7.00
S
1
E
6.00
O
5.00
= i r, •ii �
- -.L -•
� •i .s
i
� i �.
- :
r
.
}
E 4.00
CL
2.00
7'
1.00
T
0 -00
12-OD
10-00
8.00
Pr°
5 6.00
N
N
p
E
Z
c
4.00
2.00
.fly
r
4.00 '! r : e v. —
811112 8/x112
T ti�
8%11112
Downstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h avg
1
8116112 8/21/12 845112 8131112
Date [MID/Yy)
A -33

10.00
9.00
8.00
E
C 6.00
x
5.00
0
a
E 4.00
m
7 300
LOU
1.04
0.00
12.00
10.00
E 8-00
❑
6 5.00
N
�C
C
L
3 4 -00
C3
2.{10
0-00
9/1/12 9MI2 9 /II/12 9115112 3121112 9/26AZ
pate [Mlofm
A -34
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h avgf
4 �
9/1/12 9MI2 9 /II/12 9115112 3121112 9/26AZ
pate [Mlofm
A -34

AM
9.00
8.00
7.00
E
C 6.00
as
x
a
0
0
E 4.00
2
a
3.00
2.00
1.Q0
D.4D
12,17
law
8.00
x
�0
n 6.00
N
o
E
N '
4G DD
I
�
4
fi
'
2.00
I
0.00
1011/12
1416112
Downstream 0Issahred Oxygen (Raw)
Downstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h avR -)
10/11/12 10/16/12 10/21/12
Date IM /D /►'1'1
A -35
10126/12 10/31/12

10.00
4.00
5.00
700
m
r
a
5.00
E 4 "00
a
Z 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1200 .
10.[70
E 8.00
C
L
q
7
0
3600
�F
O
E
2
c
-14.00
18
2.00
0.0D 'r
1111112
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h avg )
NO MONITORING DATA COLLECTED:
LOW WATER LEVELS AND EQUIPMENT ERROR
;01, - 44"�
1115112
r-
W�m '
11/11112 11116/12
Date (MIDIYY}
A -36
Downumam Dfssofved Oxygen {Raw(
• Downstre am DIssotved Oxygen 124 h avg.j
1112]/7..2 11J21W12
P

OIND-oi
9w
Moll
T D
E
c600
�c
O
5 -00
s
0
E 4.00
d
3.00
2M
1 -00
0.00
12 00
10 -00
E 8'D0
c
m
m
1 6.00
N
fl
E
K
ol
c
4.D0
� � k
2.00 A
i
r
0.00 -
1vlA2
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen IRaw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen 124 h av&)
Downstream Dissolved Oxygen IRaw]
Downstream 01=lved oxygen 124 h avg.I
12/6/12 12/11/12 12116/12
Date {M10fyyl
A -37
12/2 V 12 1212012 12/31/12

16.00
14.40
12.04
m
10.00
c
m
w
k
1 8.00
c5
E
d 6.00
n
a
4.00
2.00
0 -00
14 -00
12.OD
1x.40
F
E
Upstream Dissolved Oxveen (Raw)
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen 124 h avg.}
Downstream Dissolved Or
• Downstream Dissolved Oi
c
m
r
v 8.00 -
a
N
A
E 6.00 IF
4.00
2.00
0.00
1/1113 116113 1/11/13 1/16/13 1121113
Date (MIDIW)
A -38
1/26/13 1/31A3

16.00
14.00
t y
12.00 v ;.
10.00 a 000 y . .
8.0n
a
e
6,00
4.00
2.00
❑M
14.00
12.00
10.00
m
c
a
O 8.00
c
N
N
E &00
2
c
3 i
2.00
0100
211/13
Upstream Dissolved Oxygen IRaw)
• Upstream Dissolved Oxygen 124 h avg.)
r;
{ r
t ` �►
s i R
�re:z3 zr1u13 2115x13
Oatr ! h11p1YYl
A -39
Downstream Dissolved Oxygen (Raw)
• Downstream Dissolved Oxygen (24 h kftj
21z1r13
2/25113

16.00
14.00
1.2-00
od
a
E 1x00
0
r
T
x
Q
v
r
O
E
a &W
4
7
COD
2.00
0.00
14.00
12.03
30.00
E ¢
a 8.00 +
o
n
E 6.00
4.00
2 -00
0.00 1 -
3/1/13 3/6/33 3111/13
3/16/13
Date jM /Df")
WM
Up%"-&++ Wsolved Oxygen iRawI
• upstream Wsdre•d Oyygrn (24 h av=.)
Downstream Dissolved Oxygen (Rawl
• Downstream Dissolved Oxygen 124 h avg.)
3/21/13 3/26/13 3/31/13

Turbidity
..d
z
140
E
A
R
E
m
30
1
0.1
Sow
100
N
r,
4
Z
10
E
3
1
Ol
611112
. _ pstream Turbidly (Grab Samples)
Upstream Turbidly (Rawl
Upstream TurbrdPty (24 h av4.]
1•
• Downstream 7urbldRy 1Grab Sam pin)
Dawn stye am Turbidly jRaw1
• Downstream 7urbldrty 124 h an }
616/12 6/11112 6116/12
Date JMID/YYI
A -41
6171112 6/26/12
• Downstream 7urbldRy 1Grab Sam pin)
Dawn stye am Turbidly jRaw1
• Downstream 7urbldrty 124 h an }
616/12 6/11112 6116/12
Date JMID/YYI
A -41
6171112 6/26/12

IDDW
10DO
N
7
z 10D
a
a
E
m
lD
CL
m
0.1
10D0
100
E
r
c
3
is
10
D.1
711/12 7/6/12 7111112 7116/12 7/2V12 7/25112 7/31/12
Date (M /D /YYI
A -42

10000
• Upstream Turbidny (Grab Samples)
Upstream Turbidity (Raw)
• Upstream Turbidity (24 h avg.)
I000
w
100
r
c
a
3
E ik
a 10
1
0.1
1000
• Downstream Turbidity {Grab Samples)
Downstream Turbidity {Raw)
• Downstream Turbidity 124 h an.)
100
m vy. „,tip r
U.
I
0.1
sit /u
8/6/11 8/1 IM 8/16/12 V21/12 8/26/I2 8/31/12
Date IM /O/Yyl
A -43

10000
1000
N
2 100
A
F
E
a
10
1
0.1
1000
1D0
e
rr
M
M
10
1
• Upstream Turbidity (Grab Samples)
• Upstream Turbidity (Raw)
• Upstream Turbidity (24 h avg.)
r
5
}
OOA
DA
9/1112
915112 9/11112 9115112 V211/12 9126112
Date (M /D /YY]
A -44

10000
♦ Upstream Turbidity (Grab Samples)
Upstream Turbidity (Rawl
Upstream Turbidity (24 h avg.)
1000
N
100
T
p
7
r
4p
m
i IV
0.1
1000
NO MONITORING DATA COLLECTED:
LOW WATER LEVELS AND EQUIPMENT ERROR
e
Do" strearn Turbldlty {Grab Samples}
Downstream Turbidity (Raw)
• Downstream Turbidity (24 h an.)
100
3
I8 r
P.
1 .
0.1
1011112 10/6112 10/11/12 10/16/12 10/23117 10126/12 10/31/12
Date JWDM)
A -45

10000
• Upstream Turbidity (Grab Samples)
Upstream Turbidity (Raw)
Upstream Turbidity (24 h avg )
1000
N
SOD
r
a
E
10
D
3
0.1
1000
100
r'
T
n
A
�? 10
d
N
3
Fa
1
.t
'F.
0.1
11/1112
NO MONITORING DATA COLLECTED:
LOW WATER LEVELS AND EQUIPMENT ERROR
• Downstream Turbidity (Grab Samples)
Downstream Turbidity (Rawl
• Dawnstream Turbidity 124 h arg.1
1116!12 13/11/12 11/16112 11121/12 11/26/12
Date 1 hlWDI")
A -46

10000
1000
a
a 100
r
V
a
`a
r
E
v
a
10
0.
n
0.1
1000
100 -
w
Z
t
X10
E
m
3
0.1
1211112
12/8112 12/11/12 12/16/12 1212V12 12/26/12 12/33112
Date (M /D/YY➢
A -47

10000
1000
N
100
_T
H
E
7
V
10
D
QZ
1000
L00
N
7
N
Z
_T
F 10
E
m
N
C
aJ
n
0 -1
1/1/13 IN13 I/LIM 1/16/13 !A21113 1/26113 1/31/13
Date (M DMI
..;

1GDOO
1000
N
IOU
T
A
7
qE
N
10
7
1
0.1
1007
100
N
r
T
10
E
w
x
c
9
0
1
• Upstream Turbidity (Grab Samples]
Upstream Turbidity (Raw}
Upstream Turbidity (24 n tog -avg I
I
• Downstream TurbidRy (Grab Samples)
- Downstream Tur Wit y (Raw)
• Downstream Turbidity 124 h ayg.l
}
0.1 --1116�.
2!1!1_i brl_ 2/11113 2/16/13
Date IM F D1vy}
MM
2!21113
zlzell3

10DD0
Iwo
D 1DD
}
a'
E
w
m
10
1
D.1
1000
100 1
r
z
T
t'
II
a 10
E
�v
a
c
3
311,`:3 3 b`13 3/11113 3116113
Date IMT /D /1r'i)
A -50
• Upstream Turbidity (Grab Samples)
Upstream Turbidity (Raw)
Upstream Turbidity (24 h be -avg.)
• DDwnstream Turbidtyy (Grab Samples)
Downst +ram Turbidtyy (Raw)
• Downstream Turbidity (24 ti avg.)
3/21113 3/26113 3/31113

Daily Precipitation Totals
J.w
c
_ CO
�S
a
S
7 ] Sil
O
I
0.50
0.00
611/12
3.50
3.00
LSD
X 10O
a
V
6
3 1 -50
1.00
050
0.00
WN12 6111112 611wi2 6/21112 SIM
0M (MM/Dfm
,.E. '-
7.,I6r12 VI V12 7.QW12 7%31/12
Date {MM /❑ /YYI
B -1

a!
3.00
2.50
c
c
6
2.00
C
u
d
r
m 1.50
a
m
1.00
0.54
4,04
811}12
W12 8{11{12 8116112 8121113 8126112 8131112
DateRMMJDfM
3 Sa
■Washinitan, NC: 1D -6 ESE SGHCIID:U5INCBPOOdi 1
Resew Bern, NC Craven County Itel onal A.rnort {G HCNp.USW0009371%
3,00
z.so
C
r.ao
.r
0
:.00
❑ 50
911,ili2 9r15f12
PAIR [MMID/VY ]
MIA

3 5
3.00
2 50
E
T
S 1
K
Y
a
t6
_s
4
0
is
3AO
0.50
0.00
10!1112 10/5112 k0r11/12
3.50
3.00
2.50
% 2,00
d
0
1.50
1.00
050
0.00
11/1112
10115,+12
Dale IMMIOIYY]
1012 v 12
Ia 11 f I 10/31/12
11/5112 11/11/12 11/16/12
Pet* (MMII)I►ryl
MN
13/2111:
11/25/12

3.56
3.00
2.50
r
c
.2 1.00
y
a
t6
1 SO
ro
is
1 7C
0.50
6.06
1211112
3.50
3.06
2_SD
C
C
2.00
a
a
}
m 1.50
O
1.00
r,j
c.uc
121G112 12/11/12 12/16/12 17/23/12 12aW12 11/31112
Hate [MM /D/VYI
1/25/13 1/11113 1116/13 1/21113 Lf25j13 WIM
144 (Mm /0iey)
B -4

3.50
MOO
250
2m
1.50
O
1.00
0.50
0_d0
2}1}13
3.50
3.00
2.50
C
C
6
a
a
0
9
1.00
0.50
0.00
3W13
2MI3 V11113 ZIL5113 2121 13 2f2b113
Date (MMI61YT}
Awn 3111113 3116/n 3}21113 3f25j13 3131113
aae.IMWL31M
B -5

Average Daily Wind Direction and Speed
Datr lMiD.rffj
B -6
■ Speed (WO
El speed �W&M:99719) a Direetlon JMWA:00741]
a oireellan �WRAN:93719�
_
+
`
a s e
a
a i
NIE
f
2
A
y E 9D
Y
Y
0
a
SE 135
'S1
d
a
a 5180
i
• . `
a
+
+ i
• a
L 5 -N225
_
+
a a
m
C
,
a
a
} W170
a
NW 315
w 35D
30
k
' 9
15.
10
�f 1,f12 G/�12
Irjllf 12 4{llrf 1! {if17r72
b/LLfJ2
Dit*jMjD^
■ Speed lVAM:03741]
❑ Speed [WEAN -937190 a DULLchan jWRAM:03741]
+Direction {WBAM.W719F
N D
a
NE 45
a
E w
d
a
� SE 135
y
d
5 ISO
a
t
19
G
' d
a
•
3 3 +
•
SW 225
' e a+ d
a ° d a
+ a
i
8 +
eps
+
N 315
ry MD
24
� a
1D
�
5
�
0
WEI lwu
Pinj t
F{2wu 7f37 {12
Datr lMiD.rffj
B -6

N D
■ Speed (WBAN:O3741)
OS peed (WBAN:93719)
a Direction (WBAN:O3741)
a Direction (WBAN:93719)
e
NE 45
A
e
a E 90
m
m
l l
l l
°
e e
SE 135
C
o
❑
°
ti
a
p 5 180
- ❑ ❑
❑
A
❑ ❑
e
e A .
Qj SW 225
m
❑
�°
e
a
a W 270
T
a
NW 315
e
N 360
a
-
20
a
-
15
m m
m _
-
10
a
-
5
riT
0
0
811112 8/6/12
8/11/12
8/16/12 8/21/12
8/26/12 8/31/12
Date (M/D/YY)
N
■ipmd { W&M- 03741]
❑Speed [WBAN:93719}
a Direction [WBAN-09741j
a Direction [WBAN-93719j
0
a
a +
s
WE 45
a
a
a
i
$ E 9D
F
m
i
a
SE' 135
i
S 1 BO
c i
+
5W225
i a
i
S
G
W N 315
N 360
70
e :
I5
E
5
n
o'
0
/,f,� �Jtd12
�f71ft7
4i7Efll 42112
Aw2
Ofste (M f l3pm
B -7

N 0
NE 45
v E 90
v
SE 135
0
t
m
p
S180
5 W 225
as
a W 270
O
NW 315
N 350
m
a
C
c =
r
d �
a
a
■ Speed (WBAN:03741) ❑ Speed (WBAN:93719) ■ Direction (WBAN:03741) A Direction (WBAN:93719)
e
a
■ +
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
20
15
10
5
0
10/1/12 10/6/12 10/11/12 10/16/12 10/21/12 10/26/12 10/31/12
Date (M /D/YY)
N 4 ■Spud JW9AN:O37411 ❑ Speed (WBAN;937190) + Direction (WMN:03741] a Direction �WBAN :93719)
a a a i ■
NE ■5 A
E 9D
d a
a ■ ■
�+ SE 135 y -
y i 1 -
J 1 W
t
svr 225 +
t
+ +
� WdTO
1° 4
D e
hYJ 1]g ■ ■
a�! N 353
3
a =
E
n
A
0
8
e
i
1 AL
Dale {M{D/rr]
B -8
30
35
10
5
Q

N 0
NE 45
E 90
� 5E 135
18'0
EW225
w2m
X315
N 30
N
L
4 �
E
4
a
a
■ Speed {WRWC 3 7 4 1] 17 Spffd WRAN;9371D) a DirKlion {W 9AHi]37 {3]
a Dutton {W9AH93719]
N ¢
a
1
NE 4%
A
MINE
�
a
a
•
e
t
SE 135
a �
a
a 51W
t
d
�
3
a
11 1 A
+
SW 225
` A
t
y
w 7711
a #
a
f
+
Wh a35
a
� N 3ffl
a
a
�a
a
V
-z:-
_
15
4
� 4
ID
E
1 1 ��
I
{
5
x
■ 1
1 ■■
1
A
1wl ;lw1, layli 1V11l71
'. -=t:I
L ul U.11
0
141*12 72 vil
EImU {MMIP''ti
N 0
NE 45
E 90
� 5E 135
18'0
EW225
w2m
X315
N 30
N
L
4 �
E
4
a
a
IN13 INIJ IAIM3 I fl,4t3 t�211r3
Date ]M f L}tY'1'}
70
is
fto
5
0
tj1W73 �rft3
MINE
I imp
IN13 INIJ IAIM3 I fl,4t3 t�211r3
Date ]M f L}tY'1'}
70
is
fto
5
0
tj1W73 �rft3

N
■ Speed (WBAN:037A1)
❑Speed [W &M.-9371%
+ Direction IW9AN;D3741)
a Di *an [WMN:93719[
nt
NE ;$
i
E
d
d
1
w
`s
w
d
6
SE im
a
o
+
a
Vv 270
i
a
a
a
NW 315
s
+ 4
i �
* •
°
� N 3CO
t
20
a
is
a
y
10
E
5
4
n
a
�
�r �a afW�a
ehil3
:1125113
Date [M {D {YY}
N ¢
■ Spft,J [WBAN:03742)
❑ Speed [WS M.-B3719}
a Direction IW9.4N:03741j
a Dimffmn [WLikN.937191
NE 39
a
` 8 t
E 94
s . . .
. . . . , . .
c SE 135
i
0
'U
t
k
5 190
■
yo
C
S
a
•
m
SW 225
a
a +
d
d
}
m
t
h +
A
+
8 A
b
raw s1s
+
L
a N 367
m
a
b
Z�
k
10
� E
5
d
a
U
3}7}13' 3rN�a
ahllu
3;f76�1� aJalrl -3
�12w>.� a!3'Sfr3
Nte[M /Dtm
B -10

APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY SURVEYS
Water Quality Survey: July 18, 2012
Kilometers Wes N
0 02 0a o 01 02
Olds COgocisd on 0718 O12 Uslnp r$I 69' 20 V.1 Welor 0Lali7y Son do 16 C Equal Intorval9rears�
C -1

11 a
� a �
~- i~ ���f • , R.• ice; ~7
4w
Aw
r{
�OAW
r
0.00-0
� � • .s°'* •.
i I
0 1 i i
a f: r• er
0 �•' y ': _
0 `T _ .L, •:rte .
• 25,% •TP
r`
. t

Kilometers Mikes NN
0 02 0d 0 01 02 �l
Data Co4ected an 071115=12 Using YS1 6420 V2 Woler Oua1!Sv Some f 54 hIG L Equal anierval Breaks, `�1
C -3

Kilometers Miles N
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.1 0.2
Data Colleted on 07118lZ012 Using YS16 920 V2 Water Quality Sande {6.65 NTU Equal Interval Brea ksI
C -4

Water Quality Survey: October 9, 2012
19.44 - 20 24
2023-2053
20.53 - 20 -82
20.82 -21 -11
21.11 - 21.40
2140-21
r ,
21.89. 21 -901
z1 97.22.2
?328 -22.8
1 wo-
KjkxT etara Maus N
0 05 1 0 0.5
Dos "wed on 10094012 tjwng YSJ 0920 Net wars Duamy 5onda ( 29 C Equal Irrierval Breaks)
C -5

2.87 - 3.31
3.31 -3,74
3.74-4.1
4.18-4,61
^y, re
4.t
4.61 - 5.4
_
5.05 - 5.4
5.49-5.9
5 -92 - 6.3
6.36 - 6.7
6-79-7-2
Kilometers Miles N
D 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Data Coilected on M0912012 Using YSI 6920 V2 Water Quality Sande (.44 PPT Equal Interval Breaks)
C -6

Kilometers Mies
0 0.5 1 ❑ 0.5 1
Data Collected on 1010912012 Usinq YSI 6920 V2 Mter Quality Sonde (.55 MG L Equal Interval Breaks)
C -7

o *� '
Y Ilk _ 4 •_ ion
711N.
- Y •�S age 1 4 a • .
• se - •rS a ■
}.7
;_
117
• 36.17
• ;' .� 51.3 s
�� ry � r •33 7 s'�
■ Sa y. J
4P4 6 *ft
ma 'Gil
l r
4 1.7 / 1 a"SI
■ �� go* lkY
+ 4i• •
• 054 ~ ~
]4
• 4451 } • r
s • .7 _
4 •17 .
2 0 1 *1 i• •
•
t 54 0 i
..�
1030 1 5 i 7 +!1
� f •
T - �� 1 • 1
_ X1`,7 y
•2_s •
� .` 11•+1761. A1� •
t. J1
S • • to"
1.
6

Water Quality Survey: November 15, 2012
Kilometers Miles N
0 1 2 0 0.5 1
❑ata Collected on 1 trt5.2012 Usrng Y31 5924 V2 VOater Quality Sonde (.22 C Equal interval Breaks
C -9

8.52-8-94
Kilometers Miles N
0 1 2 0 0 -5 1
Data Collected on 11/1512012 Using YSI 6920 V2 Water Quality Sonde t -42 PPT Equal Interval Breaks) J�
C -10

A i,
398 -4.22
w
4,22-4.46 �i••
4.46-4.71
Kdorneters Miles N
0 1 2 0 0.5 1
Data Collected an 11115"2012 Using Y5l 6920 V2 Mter Quality Sonde 1.24 MG L Equal IMemel Weeksy III VVV
C -11

S.. • - f Y r. •`� .
2.6 IL .1.-
/ 14-�
/ 18.3
66 1
` '`�+ ; •Y "'!'•: • 74.4
■ 7-7 -4
/
' \
X94.6
914-9
63
/39.8
�•',Y 12at�{'
„� � �S� 19.8 �.� •*+'� -.
313
s • B -8
0 116
35.5 `ti
'• -- y ■ 159.7 Ap, i
r "°b`° /12.7 4 -
65.1
w / 523.4.
• , *tip �.. !z -?
- ' 2'3 r� ■0 Ali. 1n i
■
2.,/2 pa'
1.4/ Turbidity
11.7 -
�..�... ■3 -5 ■ 1-20- 1705
2210 2.32.20 0 I 90
/ ■/■ °°
1.a1.s2 ■■ �
# 1.8■ of
1. y
• 12 2.3 / • .1
i.B1.41.2 1.7
4 •-1.692.7
/ 3.1 ■ :1 96,30
1.9 Oil ■ 2.8 9K7 1�
3,2 k
3.2+ /'2. / .2 ■ 96.30
3.9 ■11 23
L t "
• 12800
AL -.1

Water Quality Survey: November 15, 2012
10 fib - 10.77.x+
10.78 - 10.90'
10.91 - 11.02 '
11 03 - 11.14'
11 15. 1126
11 27-11 39
11.40 - 11.51
Kiiomelers Mies N
a 0.5 1 0 05 1 !I'y
Data Co4I4K!ve on 02114r`'013 U" YSI 6920 V2 WOW Ove ter 5onoa ( +: C E"I tnWvW &veld)
C -13

a
4,18-4.63
Kilometers Miles N
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Data Ccaected on OVI4i1G13 Using YS16 920 V'Z Water Qualdy Sande { 45 PPT Equal Interval Brooks I
C -14