Upper Middle Creek Watershed Action Plan

Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.tjcog.org
4307 Emperor Blvd., Suite 110
Durham, NC, 27701
Prepared By:
Maya Cough-Schulze – Water Resources Planner
4307 Emperor Boulevard Suite 110 | Durham, NC 27703
[phone] | [e-mail]
Report Date:
August 27, 2020
Upper Middle Creek
Watershed Action Plan
Wake County, NC
USGS HUC 030202010901
2
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES _____________________________________________________ 4
LIST OF FIGURES ____________________________________________________ 5
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ____________________________________ 6
Executive Summary ____________________________________________________ 7
1.0 Introduction and Purpose _____________________________________________ 8
2.0 Watershed Description _______________________________________________ 8
2.1 Hydrology_______________________________________________________12
2.2 Water Classifications_______________________________________________13
2.3 Soil Type________________________________________________________13
2.4 Significant Natural Heritage__________________________________________15
2.5 Land Cover and Land Use___________________________________________17
3.0 Watershed Condition, Stressors, and Sources (Element 1)_____________________19
3.1 Watershed Condition________________________________________________19
3.1.1 Benthic Community Health ............................................................... 21
3.1.2 Fish Community Data ........................................................................ 26
3.1.3 Stakeholder Concerns Regarding Water Quality ............................... 27
3.2 Water Quality Data and Potential Stressors_______________________________32
3.2.1 pH ....................................................................................................... 34
3.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen .............................................................................. 35
3.2.3 Nutrients ............................................................................................. 35
3.2.4 Total Suspended Solids ...................................................................... 36
3.2.5 Specific Conductivity ......................................................................... 37
3.2.6 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ..................................................................... 38
3.3 Potential Sources Contributing to Watershed Impairment____________________39
3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Issues ...................................................................... 39
3.3.2 Potential Point Sources ...................................................................... 44
3.3.3 Summary of Nonpoint Source Impacts .............................................. 45
4.0 Watershed Restoration and Conservation Plans, Policies and Projects____________46
4.1 Overview of Watershed Restoration Needs_______________________________46
4.2 Existing Plans, Policies and Projects____________________________________46
4.2.1 Existing Plans and Policies ................................................................ 46
4.2.2 Existing Watershed Restoration and Conservation Projects .............. 48
4.3 Prioritized Watershed Improvement Projects_____________________________50
4.3.1 Prioritized Agricultural BMPs (Includes Elements 2, 3, 4, 6) .. …….51
3
4.3.2 Prioritized Stream Restoration Projects (Includes Elements 2, 3, 4, 6)………. 54
4.3.3 Interim Milestones and Criteria to Determine Progress (Elements 7 and 8)….57
5.0 Recommendations for Plan Implementation __________________ ___________59
5.1 Recommendation 1: Expand Monitoring (Element 9)_____________________60
5.1.1 Expand Monitoring Regarding Watershed Impairment……………60
5.1.2 Monitor/Evaluate Planned Restoration Project Effectiveness……..61
5.2 Recommendation 2: Increase Education/Outreach (Element 5)______________61
5.3 Recommendation 3: Collaborate for Regional Stormwater Management_______61
5.4 Recommendation 4: Preserve Critical Areas to Prevent Degradation__________62
5.5 Recommendation 5: Comprehensive Oversight of Sediment and Erosion Control_63
5.6 Recommendation 6: Build on Partnerships for Funding and Technical Assistance (Element
4)_________________________________________________________63
6.0 Conclusion________________________________________________________66
7.0 References________________________________________________________67
8.0 Appendices________________________________________________________71
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Major Soil Types and Characteristics ....................................................................................... 14
Table 2: 2016 Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ........................................................ 18
Table 3: Impaired Waters in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed Per 2018 303(d) List ....................... 20
Table 4: Biological Assessment Results and Benthic Community Impairment ..................................... 22
Table 5: Fish Community Trends at Station JF34 on Middle Creek ...................................................... 26
Table 6: Fish Community Trends at Station JF35 on Terrible Creek ..................................................... 26
Table 7: LNBA Water Quality Monitoring Data Summary, 2005-2018 ................................................ 34
Table 8: Agricultural Best Management Practice Timeline, Costs and Load Reductions ..................... 52
Table 9: Stream Restoration Project Timeline, Costs, and Load Reductions ......................................... 55
Table 10: Criteria for Determining Progress/Success ............................................................................ 58
Table 11: Stressors, Sources, Targets and Management Measures ........................................................ 59
Table 12: Sources of Financial Assistance for Plan Implementation ..................................................... 63
Table 13: Sources of Technical Assistance for Plan Implementation .................................................... 65
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overview Map ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: 2020 Planning Jurisdictions in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ...................................... 10
Figure 3: Upper Middle Creek Watershed Circa 1993 and 2017 ........................................................... 11
Figure 4: 2016 Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ....................................................... 12
Figure 5: Major Soil Types in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ....................................................... 15
Figure 6: Important Natural Areas in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ........................................... 17
Figure 7: 2016 NLCD Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ........................................... 19
Figure 8: Impaired Stream Segments in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ....................................... 21
Figure 9: Current and Historic Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Stations in the Watershed ....... 23
Figure 10: 1974 Aerial Photograph of Upper Middle Creek Watershed (credit: Wake Soil and Water
Conservation District) ............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 11: Current and Historic Fish Community Monitoring Stations ................................................. 27
Figure 12: Proposed "Complete 540" Path through Wake County ........................................................ 28
Figure 13: Clearing land for bridge foundations near I-40 and U.S. 401, December 2019 ................... 29
Figure 14: “Complete 540” – Proposed Expressway Route Options, October 2013 ............................. 30
Figure 15: Selected “Complete 540” Expressway Route ....................................................................... 30
Figure 16: Sediment deposition from Middle Creek into Sunset Lake .................................................. 32
Figure 17: Lower Neuse Basin Association Monitoring Stations .......................................................... 33
Figure 18: pH Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018 ...................................................................... 34
Figure 19: Dissolved Oxygen Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018 ............................................. 35
Figure 20: Total Nitrogen Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018 ................................................... 36
Figure 21: Total Phosphorus Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018 ............................................... 36
Figure 22: Total Suspended Solids Data in Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018 ....................................... 37
Figure 23: Specific Conductivity Data, 2005-2018 ................................................................................ 38
Figure 24: Fecal Coliform Data, 2005-2018 ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 25: Hydrograph at USGS Gage Downstream of Upper Middle Creek Watershed Outlet .......... 40
Figure 26: 2016 Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ..................................................... 41
Figure 27: Distribution of Impervious Surface in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ........................ 42
Figure 28: Proposed “Complete 540” Path Through Upper Middle Creek Watershed .......................... 43
Figure 29: Potential Point Sources of Pollution ..................................................................................... 45
Figure 30: Projects Proposed in 2014 Associated with the Complete I-540 Project .............................. 47
Figure 31: Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site at Pepperwood Farm on Terrible Creek ............................. 48
Figure 32: Conservation Priorities Identified by NCNHP in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed ....... 49
Figure 33: Bottomland Floodplain Forest Along Middle Creek (credit: Michael Schafale, NCNHP) .. 50
Figure 34: Prioritized Agricultural Practices (Yellow) and Stream Restoration Projects (Green) ......... 51
Figure 35: Prioritized Site 3 For Grassed Waterway and Filter Strip ..................................................... 53
Figure 36: Prioritized Site 2 for Cattle Exclusion .................................................................................. 53
Figure 37: Pond Exclusion Needed Due to Bank Destabilization at Site 4 ............................................ 54
Figure 38: Upper Middle Creek in Holly Springs near Creekvista Drive .............................................. 56
Figure 39: UT to Upper Middle Creek near Estes Drive ........................................................................ 57
6
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies
AU Stream assessment unit used for 303(d) list
BO Biological Opinion
CFU colony forming units
CWEP Clean Water Education Partnership
CWMTF Clean Water Management Trust Fund
DMS North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPT Pollutant-sensitive insects that live in streams
HSG hydrologic soil group
HUC hydrologic unit code
IBI Index of biotic integrity
mg/L milligrams per liter
mL milliliters
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDWR NC Division of Water Resources (falls within the above)
NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Water
Plan Upper Middle Creek Watershed Action Plan
SCM Stormwater Control Measure
SR State Route
TJCOG Triangle J Council of Governments
ULC Urban Land Complex
USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Upper Middle Creek watershed is an important resource for species and habitats, outdoor recreation,
flood mitigation, and protection of downstream water quality; however, various drivers and inputs,
primarily those related to nonpoint source pollution from stormwater runoff, continuously degrade its
water quality. Ongoing and increasing development in the urban areas within this watershed region will
further this trend over time without intervention. This Watershed Action Plan outlines the current state
of the watershed as well as steps that should be taken to mitigate the impacts of development on water
quality, as organized by the EPA’s Nine Minimum Elements of a Watershed Plan. Partnering
organizations including Wake Soil and Water Conservation District and local governments in the
watershed have identified specific prioritized projects to help minimize loading to the watershed from
primary pollutants of concern including sediment, fecal coliform pollution, and other pollutants
associated with runoff from urbanized areas. This Plan is intended to be a living document and a
springboard for local government partners to begin implementing projects to improve and preserve
surface water quality and habitat. Ongoing collaboration will be essential to meaningfully improve water
quality and ecosystem health in this urbanizing watershed.
8
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The purpose of this watershed plan is to guide restoration efforts and improve water quality in the Upper
Middle Creek watershed of Wake County, North Carolina. A major driver for the development of this
plan was the 2018 designation of two stream segments in the watershed as “impaired” by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) due to benthic macroinvertebrate
community being rated as “Poor”. Local government stakeholders also cited the “Complete
540” expressway project construction as an important driver for assessing baseline watershed
condition and restoration needs of this rapidly growing area. The goal of this document is to identify
pollution sources which have degraded water quality and watershed habitat resulting in benthic
community declines and provide a roadmap for project partners and other stakeholders to improve
conditions, with the ultimate result of "impaired" stream segments removal from the impaired
waters list. Per the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)’s Nine Minimum
Elements, this document outlines current watershed conditions, priorities for future conservation and
restoration projects, benchmarks for measuring success, and recommendations for ongoing
improvement. This plan is intended to be updateable as further information becomes available,
so that it will continue to be useful to future stakeholders as the watershed changes over time.
2.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
The Upper Middle Creek watershed is a rapidly developing, 57 square mile (147 square
kilometer) watershed (USGS 12-digit HUC 030202010901) located in the south-central Wake County,
NC. It is the upper-most watershed in a sequence of three sub-watersheds that combine to form the
Middle Creek Watershed, located within the Neuse River Basin, as shown in Figure 1 below. The
Upper Middle Creek watershed extends north from above Highway 1 in Apex, to below Highway 401
in Fuquay-Varina to the south. This area encompasses major portions of Fuquay-Varina and Holly
Springs, moderate portions of Apex and Cary, and a large portion of unincorporated Wake County, as
shown in Figure 2.
In 2014, Wildlands Engineering completed a regional watershed plan for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (now North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services) for the
USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit 03020201 which encompasses the Triangle region and the Upper
Middle Creek watershed. This plan was developed to “identify and prioritize potential mitigation
projects to offset ecological impacts related to development throughout the Neuse 01
subbasin,” (Wildlands Engineering, 2014). According to this report, agriculture has been a major land
use in the region since the 18th century and continuing through recent times. In the 1700s, the region
produced cotton and tobacco; through the early 1900s, major agricultural products included cattle,
swine, timber, and turpentine. Current agricultural production in the watershed focuses on tobacco,
soybeans, wheat, and cattle; there are also several horse boarding facilities in the watershed.
9
Figure 1: Overview Map
The construction of Research Triangle Park (RTP) in 1959 initiated job growth in the region, driving the
expansion of Raleigh and Cary in the second half of the 20th century. Apex, Holly Springs, and Fuquay-
Varina did not expand rapidly until the 1990s, when these towns grew by 250 to 300%. Between 2000
and 2015, these three towns continued to grow by over 100%. The completion of I-540 is expected to be
a driver of continued development along its corridor (Wildlands 2014), detailed further in section 3.1.3.1.
10
Figure 2: 2020 Planning Jurisdictions in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
Given this growth, over the past few decades, agricultural and forestlands in the greater Raleigh area
have increasingly been converted to low to medium density (suburban) residential use (Wildlands 2014;
see also historic aerial photograph in Figure 3). The Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan found the Upper
Middle Creek watershed to have the highest increase in urban and impervious areas relative to its
neighboring watersheds in the Neuse River Basin (Wildlands 2014). NCDEQ’s Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan for this subbasin stated that “the increased volume of stormwater runoff is
contributing to instream habitat loss and sedimentation. With the projected increase in population growth
for this area, this trend is likely to continue unless we take steps now to improve stormwater controls
and preserve critical areas against further development,” (NCDEQ 2009.)
11
Figure 3: Upper Middle Creek Watershed Circa 1993 and 2017
According to the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), between 2001 and 2016, developed areas
increased by 14%, while forestlands decreased by 9% and agricultural lands decreased by 5% (NLCD
2019.) Land use and land cover in the Upper Middle Creek watershed are pictured in Figure 4, below.
12
Figure 4: 2016 Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
The following sections outline specific watershed characteristics that are important to understand to
prioritize and implement water quality improvement projects in the Upper Middle Creek region.
2.1 Hydrology
The Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (Wildlands 2014) prioritized compensatory mitigation sites
within the Upper Neuse River basin Hydrologic Unit 03020201 of which Upper Middle Creek was one
of twelve Target Local Watersheds. They characterized the hydrology of the Upper Neuse basin and
nested Upper Middle Creek watershed as follows:
“In general, soils in the Neuse 01 RWP area are highly erodible and are underlain by fractured rock formations that have limited water storage capacity. Streams in this area tend to have low summer flows and limited ability to assimilate oxygen-consuming wastes (WRC, 2005).
The…Upper Middle Creek subwatershed…[is] near a transitional area between the poorly
drained soils of the Triassic Basin and the moderately drained soils weathered from granitic rocks underlying most of the other subwatersheds. Therefore, streams in these subwatersheds are even more susceptible to periods of interrupted flow, particularly in the upper reaches, which
13
have almost no potential for sustained 7Q10 low flow discharge – the minimum average discharge for a 7-consecutiveday period occurring, on average, once in 10 years discharges (Weaver, 1998). The natural susceptibility of these watersheds to experience periods of very low,
to interrupted flow is further compounded by anthropogenic factors such as water withdrawals
and urbanization.”
2.2 Water Classifications
All surface water segments within the Upper Middle Creek watershed described in this section are
classified as C; Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Class C waters are defined by NCDEQ as those
protected for secondary recreation purposes such as fishing, boating, and other uses where full-body
contact with the water is deemed incidental (full definition: “Waters protected for uses such as secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and
maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner” (NCDEQ Classifications, n.d.)
NSW is a “supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due
to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.” Due to nutrient-related
pollution, the Neuse Stormwater Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0235 and .0240, 1998) laid out a “nutrient
strategy” which seeks to reduce nutrient levels delivered to the Neuse Estuary. As part of this rule and
strategy, sectors are required to reduce their nitrogen loads including municipal stormwater dischargers
over a given size threshold, agricultural producers and point source dischargers. The Neuse Rules
required that Wake County and the Town of Cary prevented stormwater runoff for the 1-year, 24-hour
storm from yielding a net increase in peak flow leaving a site as compared to predevelopment conditions,
and required that they cap nitrogen loading in stormwater runoff to 3.6 pounds/acre/year, or meet a
portion of this load reduction by funding nutrient management offsite through NC Division of Mitigation
Services or another approved entity (15A NCAC 02B .0235, 1998). Agricultural operations in the basin
were mandated to collectively reduce their nitrogen loading by 30% (15A NCAC 02B .0238 and .0239)
by implementing nutrient management plans and fertilizing at rates recommended by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS).
Updated Neuse New Development Stormwater Rules were adopted in April 2020, during the writing of
this Plan. Per these rules, when local implementation begins, new development and redevelopment that
Apex, Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina approve will be required to adhere to nitrogen loading
requirements. Local implementation of this rule for these new local governments likely will begin no
earlier than January 2023 (Patricia D’Arconte, personal communication) though this timeline is subject
to change. At the time of writing, local governments and TJCOG staff were participating in initial
workgroup meetings to learn about next steps for implementation and implications for nutrient
management in stormwater runoff.
2.3 Soil Type
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey tool, the Upper Middle Creek watershed is comprised
of 46 different soil types. Characteristics of the 10 soil types which make up a majority (>65%) of the
land area are described in the table below. 50% of the soils in the watershed are considered prime
farmland; 10%, prime farmland if drained; and 40% are not considered prime farmland. 67% of soils in
the watershed are classified as well- or moderately-well drained, i.e., promoting higher infiltration
14
rates and producing less runoff. The predominant hydrologic soil group in the watershed is A (sands,
loamy sands, or sandy loams), which typically have high infiltration potential and low runoff. Soils in
the floodplain are typically more poorly drained due to greater clay content or other layers that impede
infiltration. Note also that the web soil survey classifies 13% of the watershed as urban, defined as
“impervious layers over human-transported material,” (NRCS 2019).
Table 1: Major Soil Types and Characteristics
Soil Type
Name
Watershed
area (%)
Slope
(%)
Natural
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Prime
farmland?
Urban land 13.10% NA N/A N/A No
Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils 8.40% 0-2
Somewhat
poorly drained B/D If drained
Pacolet sandy
loam 7.90% 10-15 Well drained B Yes
Cecil sandy
loam 6.90% 2-6 Well drained A Yes
Cecil ULC 6.20% 2-10 Well drained A No
Fuquay loamy
sand 5.70% 0-6 Well drained A Yes
Dothan loamy
sand 5.00% 2-6 Well drained C Yes
Cecil sandy
loam 4.20% 6-10 Well drained A Yes
Gritney sandy
loam 4.20% 6-10
Moderately
well drained D Yes
Bibb sandy
loam 4.00% 0-2 Poorly drained A/D No
All other soil
types (36 types) 34.4%
15
2.4 Significant Natural Heritage
The Upper Middle Creek watershed supports a range of threatened and endangered species, whose
continued viability depends upon the presence of adequate water quality. Additionally, due to its position
in the headwaters, protecting ecosystems and habitats in this watershed is important to ensure that
downstream ecosystems are protected. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) has
identified the Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat, Bluffs and Floodplain shown in Figure 6, below, as
important natural areas which support rare species and ecosystems in An Inventory of Significant Natural
Areas in Wake County, NC (2003) and subsequent documents.
Figure 5: Major Soil Types in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
16
2.4.1.1 Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain
The Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain Natural Area is identified by the NCNHP as supporting high‐
quality Piedmont Bottomland Forest (NCNHP 2003). Unimpacted Piedmont Bottomland Forests
support various wetland canopy tree and plant species. This site, like most in Wake County, has been
degraded by sewer lines and logging; however, it remains one of the best examples of this natural
community in the area, supporting an “unusual mix of montane and coastal plain” species (NCNHP
2003).
The Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain support rare natural communities including Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Slope variant), Dry Oak‐Hickory Forest, Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath Bluff,
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, Floodplain Pool, and Piedmont/Mountain
Semipermanent Impoundment.
Protection of the forest and wetland communities in the Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain area is
essential to maintain adequate habitat for both rare and common riparian species. Forest cover shades
the stream, maintaining temperatures favorable for aquatic species, and contributes woody debris and
organic matter to the in-stream habitat and food web. Conserving this forest community is important to
protect both habitat and water quality from the impacts of stormwater runoff and pollutants it contains,
as well as prevent streambank erosion and associated sedimentation in the creek. Conservation of the
forest and wetland communities of the Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain Natural Area and adjacent
floodplain and forestland will help to protect this high quality, rare natural community from impacts as
the watershed continues to develop.
2.4.1.2 Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat
Another NCNHP‐identified important area, the Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat, originates at the Sunset
Lake Dam in the Upper Middle Creek watershed and extends into Johnson County 22 miles to its
confluence with Swift Creek. The stream is particularly important for its diversity of freshwater
mussels (2003, 2020), including the US Fish & Wildlife Service proposed Federal Threatened Atlantic
Pigtoe, Fusconaia masoni. Other freshwater mussel species including the Triangle Floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata)
and Creeper (Strophitus undulates) have been documented from the Upper Middle Creek watershed
(NCNHP 2020.) While maintaining adequate water quality is important for all aquatic species, it is
particularly important for freshwater mussels which are particularly pollution intolerant (EPA 2008.)
Freshwater mussel species typically require well‐oxygenated stream habitat with minimal in‐stream
sedimentation (NatureServe Explorer, n.d.) NCNHP staff report that sedimentation and bank instability
have compromised instream habitat for many freshwater mussel populations to the point that they are
near‐extirpated. Additionally, freshwater mussel larvae require specific host fish species, on whose
gills they must live to progress to the juvenile stage; thus, ecosystems that supports host fish species
are necessary to ensure these mussels’ viability (USFWS 2019.)
Other rare species that have been found in Middle Creek include the North Carolina Spiny Crayfish
(Orconectes carolinensis), last reported in 2001 (NCNHP 2020); this species endemic to the Neuse and
Tar‐Pamlico River Basins typically lives under rocks in clear, shallow, perennial streams with little
visible flow (NCWRC 2020.) The Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), another species endemic to
the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basin, was historically found in the Upper Middle Creek watershed
but has not been observed there in the last 20 years (NCNHP 2020). This species is proposed for
17
federal listing as Threatened by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Protecting water quality and instream
and riparian habitat quality in the Upper Middle Creek watershed will help to protect rare aquatic
species and habitats, preventing their continued decline or extirpation. (As the map below shows,
Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat prioritized by NCNHP extends into the less‐developed downstream
portion of Middle Creek farther from the Triangle region.)
Figure 6: Important Natural Areas in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
2.5 Land Cover and Land Use
The Upper Middle Creek watershed is significantly developed; considered together, low-, medium-, and
high-density developed land comprises over 40% of the watershed. Most of the developed land lies in
the headwaters, where the downtown areas of Apex and Holly Springs are located. All partners have
reported that development is converting what was mostly farm or forested areas into residential land
18
uses. As shown in Figure 7 below, the majority of currently forested and agricultural land lies in
unincorporated Wake County. Local governments have taken steps to alleviate the impacts of
development on water quality through implementing watershed protection overlays and making efforts
to increase tree protection, outlined further in section 4.2.1.2.
Table 2: 2016 Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
2016 Land Cover Class
Area
(acres)
Area
(%)
Developed, Open Space 8,084 22.3
Mixed Forest 5,274 14.5
Developed, Low Intensity 4,702 12.9
Deciduous Forest 4,306 11.9
Evergreen Forest 3,324 9.2
Hay/Pasture 3,052 8.4
Cultivated Crops 1,744 4.8
Woody Wetlands 1,664 4.6
Developed, Medium Intensity 1,633 4.5
Herbaceous 1,151 3.2
Open Water 485 1.3
Developed, High Intensity 399 1.1
Shrub/Scrub 328 0.9
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands 124 0.3
Barren Land 54 0.1
19
Figure 7: 2016 NLCD Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
3.0 WATERSHED CONDITION, STRESSORS,
AND SOURCES (ELEMENT 1)
3.1 Watershed Condition
Three impaired stream assessment units (AUs) in the Upper Middle Creek watershed were placed on
NCDWR’s 2018 303(d) list of impaired waters due to biological sampling that showed the reaches had
only “fair” quality benthic macroinvertebrate communities. NCDWR conducts fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring and uses this data to develop index of biological integrity scores which
result in the assignment of AUs one of five categories: Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, and Poor.
Biological monitoring showed benthic communities in the watershed to be impaired. Data collected at
fish monitoring stations from 2004-2015 indicated that the fish communities met biological criteria as
of the 2018 303(d) list; this data is summarized in section 3.1.2.
20
Table 3: Impaired Waters in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed Per 2018 303(d) List
As shown in Figure 8, below, the first impaired stretch of Upper Middle Creek composed of directly
connected AUs 27-43-15-(1)b1 and 27-43-15-(1)b2) begins at a pond adjacent to the Apex Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) and extends 5.3 miles downstream to the backwaters of Sunset Lake. The
second impaired stretch is on Terrible Creek; AU 27-43-15-8-(2) begins at Johnson’s Pond Dam and
extends 3.9 miles downstream to the confluence of Terrible Creek and Middle Creek (approximately 0.6
miles upstream of Old Stage Rd.)
Of note, Upper Middle Creek below the dam at Sunset Lake (AU 27-43-15-(4)a1) was listed as impaired
for fish community as of the 2016 303(d) list, but was delisted in 2018.
Assessment
Unit Description Reason for
Rating Parameter Year Listed
27-43-15-(1)b1
From 0.9 miles south of US
1 to UT on UT on west of
creek 3.0 miles downstream
Fair
Bioclassification
Benthic
Community 2005
27-43-15-(1)b2
From UT on west side of
creek 3.0 miles downstream
to backwaters of Sunset
Lake
Fair
Bioclassification
Benthic
Community 2010
27-43-15-8-(2)From dam on Johnsons
Pond to Middle Creek
Fair
Bioclassification
Benthic
Community 2010
21
Figure 8: Impaired Stream Segments in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
3.1.1 Benthic Community Health
Benthic macroinvertebrates such as aquatic insects and crustaceans are used as indicators of stream water
quality. Macroinvertebrate species in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Tricoptera (“EPT”
species) require cleaner water to survive than less pollution-sensitive benthic macroinvertebrates like
worms and snails. Thus, the presence of “EPT” species indicates higher water quality; the presence of
more pollutant-tolerant taxa indicates lower water quality. Waterbodies with high water quality will also
typically contain more diverse species assemblages that remain so over time.
Species diversity, presence of pollutant tolerant species, and a range of other metrics related to both
species and habitat are incorporated into ‘indices of biological integrity,’ (IBIs.) NCDWR’s Biological
Assessment Branch uses these bioclassifications to assess point and nonpoint source impacts to the
waterbody, document changes over time and space, and completement other water quality and habitat
22
data. For each waterbody where data is collected, NCDWR uses IBI scores to assign bioclassifications
of Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor. Rating of Fair or Poor puts the waterbody on the 303(d)
list of impaired waters. The waterbody will not be removed from this list until newer data collected on
the given stream or waterbody assessment unit results in a bioclassification of Good-Fair or above. Thus,
many waterbodies (or rather, assessment units) remain on the 303(d) list for an extended period.
The table below shows the results of indices and bioclassifications developed based on current and
historic benthic macroinvertebrate data collected in the watershed. These stations are also shown in the
map in Figure 9. Current data collection stations JB295 and JB330 on Middle Creek and station IB329
on Terrible Creek are shown in red because the most recent EPT biotic indices developed based on data
collected at these stations reflected impaired benthic macroinvertebrate community health on that stream
assessment unit. Current station JB68 is shown in black text because data collected at this station has
resulted in this AU being classified as meeting criteria. Historic data indicated by bolded dates are
discussed further below.
Table 4: Biological Assessment Results and Benthic Community Impairment
Red text indicates impaired stream segments. * Upper Middle Creek below the Sunset Lake Dam is not 303(d)
listed based on these historic data because more recent monitoring at JB68 on the same stream assessment unit
reflects a Good-Fair bioclassification (and monitoring at stations JB067 and JB199 was discontinued.)
EPT biotic indices suggest that water quality has varied over time and space rather than showing clear
temporal or spatial trends. However, indices are an aggregated way of investigating water quality and
benthic community health; data on species richness and abundance provides a more detailed picture, as
discussed below. (EPT species richness is defined by the number of types of EPT species present at a
site; abundance, by the overall number of species present that fall into these taxonomic groups.)
Station ID Location
Description
Most Recent
Assessment
Year
EPT Biotic
Index
NC Biotic
Index
Most Recent
Bioclassification
JB330
Middle Creek at
Holly Springs Road
(SR 1152)
2010 6.03 --Fair
IB329
Terrible Creek at
Hilltop Road (SR
2751)
2010 5.64 --Fair
JB068 Middle Creek at SR
1375 2015 4.96 6.08 Good-Fair
JB067 Middle Creek below
Sunset Lake 1986 5.95 6.88 Fair*
JB199 Tallicud Road 1986 5.96 6.87 Fair*
JB247 Terrible Creek at SR
1301 1990 5.14 6.38 Good-Fair
JB200 Middle Creek at US
401 1986 4.87 6.17 Good
JB295 Middle Creek at
Sunset Lake Road 2005 5.85 6.44 Fair
23
Identifying the cause of a benthic impairment is difficult because benthic community health can be
affected by many factors, including sedimentation, habitat loss and chemical pollution. Pollution
sensitive benthic macroinvertebrates also require high dissolved oxygen, neutral pH, and cold water.
Much of the near-stream environment of the upstream impaired stretch of Middle Creek is forested; this
intact canopy may be providing adequate shade to help keep stream temperatures cool and oxygenated
and provide adequate organic matter inputs to support aquatic food web systems. Water quality data
discussed in section 3.2 corroborates that dissolved oxygen and pH data fall within ranges supporting
pollution-sensitive species. This suggests that high, flashy stormwater flows and associated sediment are
likely causing the impairment by degrading benthic habitats.
Figure 9: Current and Historic Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Stations in the Watershed
3.1.1.1 Recent Benthic Data: Upper Middle Creek Mainstem
In 2005 at station JB295 in Apex, there were 12 types of EPT species, whereas in 2010, at JB330 in
Holly Springs, there were 8 types of EPT species. This 33% decrease in EPT species richness between
24
the two stations could be due to change over time or reflect some pollutant input between the upstream
and downstream station that affected the EPT species. The total EPT abundance also declined between
2005 and 2010 between these two stations (see Appendix II for species data sheets.)
At JB330 in 2010, specific conductivity was measured at 482 µS/cm, while at JB295 in 2005, specific
conductivity was measured at 319 µS/cm. Specific conductivity reflects the presence of “inorganic
dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate,” as measured by the ability of these
ions to pass an electric current (EPA Web Archive, 2012.) The EPA does not place numeric limits on
specific conductivity in wastewater discharges; however, “studies of inland fresh waters indicate that
streams supporting good mixed fisheries have a range between 150 and 500 µhos/cm [equivalent to
µS/cm],” (2012), indicating that observed conductivity levels have approached the higher end of the
range suitable for fish habitat.
Habitat data collected at the time of benthic sampling was also evaluated for its potential impact on
benthic community health. 90% canopy cover was observed at JB330 in 2010, relative to 70% at JB295
in 2005. JB330 also showed a higher percentage of cobble and gravel substrate relative to sand and silt
than JB295. Higher canopy cover and gravel substrate are more optimal habitat for pollution intolerant
EPT species. Overall, total benthic habitat scores (as measured by ten habitat components including
substrate and canopy cover) were better at JB330 than at JB295 (see Appendix III for habitat data sheets).
However, Upper Middle Creek’s channel was wider and deeper at JB330 in 2010 than at JB295 in 2005.
JB330 also had slightly worse channel modification and in-stream habitat scores than JB295 (see
Appendix III for habitat data sheets). The habitat metrics observed at JB330 may be due to its watershed
position (approximately 2 miles downstream from JB295), channel form evolution, or both. Potential
drivers of channel form evolution could include stormwater runoff from impervious surface scouring out
the streambed by bypassing buffers via concentrated overland flow or outfalls to the creek.
Within the unimpaired downstream portion of Upper Middle Creek shown in Figure 9, station JB068
has consistently shown higher EPT richness and abundance over the period of record (1986-2015) than
at stations JB295 and JB330 on the impaired segments upstream. Specific conductivity measured at
benthic sampling dates every five years from 2000 – 2015 ranged from 220 to 393 µS/cm at JB068.
NCDEQ staff in August 2010 noted that this was likely indicative of upstream point and nonpoint source
pollutants, including potentially the upstream Cary WWTP discharge (NCDEQ 2010.) Benthic habitat
metrics at JB068 reflected less optimal bottom substrate and riffle habitat than upstream stations JB295
and JB330, as well as greater percent of silt as compared to station JB330 upstream.
3.1.1.2 Historic Benthic Data: Upper Middle Creek Mainstem
Historic (1986) benthic macroinvertebrate data were available for several stations where monitoring was
later discontinued. In 1986, historic station JB200 at the watershed outlet had a bioclassification of
“good” due to an EPTBI of 4.87. This sample yielded 26 total EPT taxa and an EPT abundance of 105,
likely reflective of less-developed condition of the watershed at the time. Due to this station’s location
at the watershed outlet, it is not possible to discern any specific tributaries or upstream contributing areas
that may have contributed to this bioclassification. However, the watershed as a whole was less impacted
at the time. (Water quality parameters and habitat data were not available at historic NCDEQ benthic
stations.)
25
1986 data were available both for historic station JB199 and current station JB068, two miles apart on
the mainstem of Upper Middle Creek. Both stations showed similar EPT abundance; JB199 had slighty
lower total EPT abundance and slightly higher EPTBI than JB068. This part of the watershed was largely
forested and agricultural land in the 1980s and prior, as shown in the historic aerial photograph below:
Figure 10: 1974 Aerial Photograph of Upper Middle Creek Watershed
(credit: Wake Soil and Water Conservation District)
Historic station JB067, just below Sunset Lake, is approximately 1.5 miles downstream of current station
JB330, for which there only exists one sample collected in 2010. Despite the spatial distance and 32-
year timespan, these stations had similar EPT richness and EPTBI. JB330 had higher EPT abundance in
2010. While ratings suggest benthic community health at current station JB330 in 2010 was similar to
historic station JB067 in 1986, the presence of the Sunset Lake impoundment between these two stations
makes it hard to draw conclusions about why, as impoundments affect benthic habitat by changing
sediment and streamflow dynamics, nutrient cycling, water temparature, and aquatic organism passage
(Poulos et al 2019).
3.1.1.3 Recent and Historic Benthic Data: Terrible Creek Tributary
The Terrible Creek tributary, which joins Upper Middle Creek just before the watershed outlet, is
impaired based upon a single 2010 special study sample collected at IB329, which yielded a “fair” rating
due to an EPTBI of 5.64. The most recently available Neuse Basinwide Water Quality Plan
recommended in 2009 that this benthic monitoring be conducted due to upstream wastewater treatment
plant discharge violations at the time yielding higher total ammonia and biochemical oxygen demand
than permitted, as well as due to the presence of upstream development (NCDEQ 2009).
26
Historic station JB247 on Terrible Creek was last sampled in 1990, and receved a rating of “Good-Fair”
due to an EPTBI of 5.14. This historic station is approximately 3.5 miles upstream of IB329 on Terrible
Creek, and the Johnson Pond fishing impoundment lies between the two. The sample taken at this station
in 1990 yielded 16 EPT taxa and an abundance of 75. The 2010 benthic macroinvertebrate survey at
IB329 yielded 12 EPT taxa and an abundance of 54 individuals. This 25% decrease in EPT richness and
28% decrease in EPT abundance may be due to increasing development in the watershed, change in
other conditions over time, reflect impacts of IB329’s position downstream of an impoundment, or a
combination of all the above.
3.1.2 Fish Community Data
Fish monitoring data indicated that all portions of Upper Middle Creek met biological criteria for fish
community health per the 2018 303(d) list. However, the segment of Upper Middle Creek below
Sunset Lake (AU 27-43-15-(4)a, currently meeting all criteria) was listed as impaired in 2016 due to a
“Poor” fish community rating. The current determination that fish communities in the watershed are
meeting biological criteria is based on 2015 fish data from Upper Middle Creek yielding a “Good”
rating and from Terrible Creek yielding a “Good-Fair” rating. DEQ data summary sheets (in Appendix
IV) show that fish species diversity and fish NCIBI scores (and thus bioclassifications) at these stations
have fluctuated since 2004. The tables below show the changes over time of total species and NCIBI
score/rating at the two recently sampled fish community stations, JF34 on Middle Creek and JF35 on
Terrible Creek.
Table 5: Fish Community Trends at Station JF34 on Middle Creek
Sample
Date
Species
Total
NCIBI
Score
NCIBI
Rating
5/21/2015 20 48 Good
6/2/2011 21 40 Good-Fair
4/21/2010 20 44 Good-Fair
7/20/2004 27 54 Excellent
Table 6: Fish Community Trends at Station JF35 on Terrible Creek
Sample
Date
Species
Total
NCIBI
Score
NCIBI
Rating
3/30/2015 14 44
Good-
Fair
4/21/2010 17 52 Good
4/8/2005 14 50 Good
Historic station JF83 on Middle Creek is included on the map in Figure 10, but no data sheet was
available for this station. Its bioclassification of Excellent in 1995 was reported on NCDEQ’s Wadeable
Streams Fish Community Assessments webmap.
27
Figure 11: Current and Historic Fish Community Monitoring Stations
3.1.3 Stakeholder Concerns Regarding Water Quality
3.1.3.1 “Complete 540” Expressway Impacts
Local government staff have expressed concern about potential impacts of the “Complete 540” route
on water quality resulting from increased development which will impact the watershed. The selected
route skirts municipal downtowns but cuts across Upper Middle Creek and many of its tributaries, as
shown in the map below.
28
Figure 12: Proposed "Complete 540" Path through Wake County
Michael Baker International’s Indirect and Cumulative Effects Memorandum states that because
growth is expected to be so rapid in this area, additional impervious surfaces created by the 540
extension are projected to increase greatly between the 2010 Baseline and 2040 No-Build scenarios
regardless of whether the project happened (Michael Baker International, 2017They modeled changes
in water quality between 2040 Build and No-Build scenarios, finding >1% increase in impervious
surface in the Upper Middle Creek watershed between the 2040 Build and No-Build scenarios. They
also concluded that increased degradation of water quality was “likely to occur with or without
construction of the Complete 540 project” (2017.)
This document further stated that the “ultimate impact of new development on water quality will be
shaped by development and conservation practices [and] existing local stormwater regulations and
specific best management practices (BMPs) that further limit impervious surfaces and/or encourage
stormwater retention and treatment methods,” (2017.)
29
Figure 13: Clearing land for bridge foundations near I-40 and U.S. 401, December 2019 (photo: Spectrum News Staff)
Groundbreaking for the first phase of this project began in December of 2019 (Spectrum News staff,
2019.) Several routes, shown below, were considered for the project, which has been in consideration in
some form for 20 years (Sorg 2018.) The route that NCDOT ultimately selected is projected to have
lesser impacts on rare species than some of the routes initially considered. The “Complete 540”
expressway route that NCDOT ultimately selected did not cut across the important Middle Creek Bluff
and Floodplain habitat, outlined in Section 2.4. The Blue-Purple-Lilac route shown in the map below,
considered in 2013, would have cut through these sensitive habitats (H.W. Lochner, Inc, 2015). The
route alternatives considered and the selected alternative are shown below (US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2018).
30
Figure 14: “Complete 540” – Proposed Expressway Route Options, October 2013
Figure 15: Selected “Complete 540” Expressway Route
While the Expected Effects of the Preferred Alternative states that there will be no environmental justice
impacts (NCDOT 2018), other sources have suggested this may not fully encompass the impacts of the
expressway extension. Per a 2018 NC Policy Watch article, the selected route will displace residents of
31
Blue Skies Mobile Home Park near Apex. Additionally, as the extension will be a toll road, those who
cannot afford the toll are expected to use other roads, which could increase congestion there (Sorg 2018.)
3.1.3.2 Limited Public Land, Funding, and Incentive for Watershed
Restoration
Local government staff have reported limited public land on which to complete watershed restoration
projects due to the largely suburban residential nature of land use in their jurisdictions. Other barriers to
more widespread implementation of watershed restoration projects include lack of funding or other
incentives for private landowners or homeowners’ associations to implement projects not required by
regulation, or upgrade existing, older, privately owned SCMs that may not provide as many benefits as
newer stormwater treatment practices.
3.1.3.3 Specific Pollutant Concerns
Holly Springs staff have identified erosion and sedimentation as issues of concern in the watershed. As
can be seen in the photo below, upstream sediment loads have created a delta at the mouth of Middle
Creek as it flows into Sunset Lake. Carried by stormwater to the lake, this sediment likely originates
from significant streambank erosion due to concentrated stormwater flow as well as copious new
development in the watershed. Holly Springs staff report that the Sunset Lake Homeowners’ Association
(HOA) wants to dredge this sediment, and that this will probably occur due to increasingly little available
land to implement stormwater control measures (SCMs) in the watershed. Both Apex and Holly Springs
staff cite as a challenge significant area developed prior to current stormwater or sediment and erosion
control regulations, which are thus built out without SCMs. Given this and the reality of rapid
development, stream restoration to prevent further streambank erosion and urban tree and buffer
preservation to absorb stormwater and sediment before it reaches streams are more likely to be feasible
than SCM implementation in the near term in the Upper Middle Creek watershed
In addition to erosion and sedimentation, nonpoint source nutrient pollution may be a concern as Upper
Middle Creek lies within the nutrient-sensitive Neuse River Basin. Municipal staff from multiple
jurisdictions expressed concerns about the nutrient loads exported from their older developments given
their regulation under the new Neuse Nutrient Strategy.
An NCSU study incorporating data from the upstream Falls and Jordan Lake watersheds found that land
urbanized before 1980 exported more than double the total nitrogen and phosphorus of either agricultural
land or urban land developed after 1980 (Miller 2019.) While this study and associated report did not
evaluate data in the Upper Middle Creek watershed, characteristics of pre-1980 development including
“legacy effects (e.g., older wastewater infrastructure, scoured or buried stream networks, lack of best
management practices (BMPs)), or merely…increased imperviousness associated with high-density
areas,” (Miller 2019) may be reasons for increased export from older development in the Upper Middle
Creek watershed as well.
32
Figure 16: Sediment deposition from Middle Creek into Sunset Lake (photo: Maya Cough-Schulze, June 2019)
3.2 Water Quality Data and Potential Stressors
The goal of this section is to characterize data that may be related to or inform the benthic impairment
described in previous sections, as well as to describe other pollutants of potential concern such as
nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria. Physical, chemical and bacterial water quality data were reviewed
at three stations with a recent multiyear record (2005-2018, as Station J4868000 has only been sampled
since 2005.) Two stations lie within the Upper Middle Creek watershed, while one is at the outlet just
outside the watershed, as shown in Figure 17 below. Parameters of interest are described below for these
three stations for the period of record.
NCDEQ does not currently perform regular ambient water quality monitoring at any stations in this 12-
digit HUC. The data presented here were collected by the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA), a
coalition of wastewater dischargers who collect data on end-of-pipe and in-stream water quality as a
component of compliance with their NPDES permits. NCDEQ uses this data to monitor potential
discharge violations and indications of degradation of water resources. The wastewater dischargers that
comprise the LNBA monitor water quality data on a monthly basis at the stations shown below.
33
Figure 17: Lower Neuse Basin Association Monitoring Stations
It is typical of this monitoring to collect samples during non-storm conditions, so the data presented
represent primarily baseflow conditions rather than the impacts of large rain events. This suggests that
monitoring coalition data may not fully represent the impact of nonpoint source pollutants (such as
sediment) in this watershed, which may play a larger role in degrading benthic habitats during and
immediately after large storms. Table 7, below, summarizes the water quality parameters evaluated from
the available data:
34
Table 7: LNBA Water Quality Monitoring Data Summary, 2005-2018
Red text indicates exceedance of EPA concern level of 200cfu/100mL for primary recreation (1976)
No clear overall increasing or decreasing trends were observed at these sites over the last 15 years; all
parameters are discussed further below.
3.2.1 pH
Pollution-intolerant benthic macroinvertebrates (EPT species) require clear, cold, neutral pH water to
thrive. pH values typically fell in the neutral range, indicating that pH is not a likely to be a current
stressor of pollution intolerant benthic macroinvertebrates.
Figure 18: pH Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018
Station Parameter DO Temp pH SpC TSS Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
Fecal
Coliform
J4690000 Median 7.1 20 6.9 224 5.7 2.03 0.35 250
Max 13 28.2 8 598 277 15.01 8.46 6000
Min 4.4 3.1 6.3 80 1.5 0.82 0.05 17
J4868000 Median 7.1 21.6 7.1 156 8.7 1.47 0.23 170
Max 12.8 28.6 7.6 519 245 4.6 2.98 6100
Min 4.4 3.2 6.6 72 2 0.49 0.05 2
J4980000 Median 7.2 20.4 7 164 10.5 1.33 0.17 147
Max 12.7 28.4 7.8 494 295 7.04 2.99 5200
Min 4.8 1.2 6.3 69 1.7 0.48 0.04 2
Recommendation
or standard >4 mg/L 6.0 - 9.0 <200cfu
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20Upstream- J4690000 Mid-reach- J4868000 WS Outlet- J4980000
35
3.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen
As shown below, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels have occasionally fallen below the minimum water
quality standard for aquatic life of 5mg/L, indicating that oxygen stress may be contributing to benthic
community impairment, particularly in summer when oxygen levels are lower. As the watershed
continues to develop, DO should continue to be assessed for the potential of future impacts on benthic
macroinvertebrate health.
Figure 19: Dissolved Oxygen Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018
3.2.3 Nutrients
Upper Middle Creek lies within the Neuse River Basin, which is classified as a nutrient-sensitive water
(NSW). Thus, nutrient data were evaluated to investigate whether this watershed could be contributing
significant nutrient loading to NSW waters downstream, or if water quality trends could help explain
benthic community impairment. High nutrient levels are correlated with algae growth, organic matter,
high suspended solids, and other conditions that do not provide optimal habitat for pollution-intolerant
macroinvertebrates (EPA, n.d.) High algal biomass can also harm pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrates
by physically blocking sunlight, compromising stratification in the water column, and potentially
releasing cyanotoxins, depending on the species.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus levels have fluctuated over the available 15-year data period in the
watershed without showing a clear overall trend. NCDEQ’s most recent Neuse Basinwide Water Quality
Plan reported bluegreen algal mats in 2009 in the segment of Upper Middle Creek below Sunset Lake
(currently meeting all criteria per the 2018 303(d) list.) No other DEQ monitoring data reported algal
mats in Upper Middle Creek; however, as the 2009 Basinwide Plan noted that these indicated high
nutrient loads from NPDES dischargers and nonpoint source runoff at the time, nutrients associated with
point and nonpoint source pollution should continue to be assessed to avoid any future concerns about
eutrophication which could impact both aquatic ecosystems and drinking water.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20mg/LUpstream- J4690000 Mid-reach- J4868000 WS Outlet- J4980000
36
Figure 20: Total Nitrogen Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018
Figure 21: Total Phosphorus Data for Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018
3.2.4 Total Suspended Solids
Total suspended solids (TSS) data were also evaluated as a potential stressor for benthic
macroinvertebrates and because stakeholders identified sediment and erosion as a concern. As shown by
the very high maxima in Table 7 above and Figure 22 below, occasional high total suspended solids
(TSS) measurements indicate that sedimentation or other suspended pollutants may be impacting benthic
life. Sources of TSS can include sediment, vehicle exhaust emissions and other vehicle-related debris,
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20mg/LUpstream - 4690000 Mid-reach - 4868000 WS outlet - 4980000
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20mg/LUpstream - 4690000 Mid-reach - 4868000 WS outlet - 4980000
37
construction debris, road paint, leaf litter, and atmospherically deposited particles (Minnesota
Stormwater Manual 2018.)
Figure 22: Total Suspended Solids Data in Upper Middle Creek, 2005-2018
Monitoring data is typically collected during non-storm conditions, and thus may not fully reflect storm-
event driven impacts of suspended solids on water quality and benthic health. More frequent monitoring
of conditions sooner after storms might help inform stakeholders as to the degree to which sediment and
other suspended solids are affecting streams in the watershed.
NCDEQ assigns impairment based on turbidity rather than TSS. None of the stream segments in question
are currently impaired for turbidity, but Upper Middle Creek below Sunset Lake (currently unimpaired
AU 27-43-15-(4)a1) was impaired for turbidity in 2008, 2010, and 2012. NCDEQ’s most recent Neuse
Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicated that elevated turbidity levels were likely due to the impacts of
rapid growth upstream (NCDEQ 2009.) It can be inferred that sediment and other suspended solids may
continue to be pollutants of concern as rapid growth continues.
3.2.5 Specific Conductivity
Specific conductivity data were evaluated as a general measure of stream water quality. Specific
conductivity reflects the geology through which water flows as well as impacts of pollutant discharges
to streams (EPA Web Archive 2012.) High specific conductivity levels (Figure 9) may reflect the
presence of sediment from clay soils, wastewater discharges, metals, or other point or nonpoint source
pollutants that could stress benthic communities.
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20mg/LUpstream - 4690000 Mid-reach - 4868000 WS Outlet - 4980000
38
Figure 23: Specific Conductivity Data, 2005-2018
Section 3.1.1.1 outlines the NCDEQ observation of high specific conductivity at benthic site JB068 the
time of benthic sampling, likely associated with an upstream WWTP outfall. Benthic station JB68 has
not been impaired since 1990, suggesting that specific conductivity does not conclusively point toward
a source of benthic impairment.
3.2.6 Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform data were evaluated as part of this plan because impaired AU 27-43-15-(1)b2 immediately
upstream of Sunset Lake received a “data inconclusive” rating at the last sampling for this parameter in
2016. NCDEQ’s 2018 Integrated Report Assessment Procedure manual states that this rating is assigned
to fecal coliform monitoring results when “data do not meet the 5 samples in 30 days requirement needed
to determine if this parameter is meeting or exceeding criteria,” (NCDEQ n.d.) NCDEQ methods specify
that five fecal coliform samples must exceed criteria within a consecutive 30-day period for a waterbody
to be “impaired”. In practice, NCDEQ staff capacity generally limits the ability to collect five samples
in 30 days, so waters rated “inconclusive” could be impaired for fecal coliform. NCDEQ’s most recent
Neuse Basinwide Water Quality Plan confirms this, referencing “data inconclusive” fecal coliform
ratings and elevated fecal coliform levels at several segments of Upper Middle Creek in the mid-early
2000s (NCDEQ 2009).
Recent LNBA fecal coliform data shown below frequently exceeded the EPA concern level of 200
cfu/100 mL for primary recreation (EPA 1976)—sometimes by orders of magnitude. This indicates that
fecal coliform bacteria are a concern not just for water quality, but for recreation and human health in
the watershed. This also suggests significant fecal coliform sources exist in the watershed that are not
reflected by the current monitoring frequency and “inconclusive” impairment status. Sources could
potentially include leaks from aging wastewater lines or septic systems, pet waste, or others.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20uS/cmUpstream- J4690000 Mid-reach- J4868000 WS Outlet- J4980000
39
Figure 24: Fecal Coliform Data, 2005-2018
3.3 Potential Sources Contributing to Watershed Impairment
3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Issues
3.3.1.1 Urban Stormwater Volume, Flashiness, and Associated Pollutants
Stormwater runoff volume in this increasingly developed watershed, as well as the pollutants carried by
stormwater, appear to be a major pollutant source contributing to benthic community impairment. While
there are no USGS flow gages within the Upper Middle Creek watershed, as shown in Figure 25, the
nearest gage approximately 8 miles downstream on Middle Creek shows over an order of magnitude
variation in daily discharge throughout the year. Flashy stormwater-driven hydrology is characteristic
what Walsh et al. (2005) have called “Urban Stream Syndrome,” in which increased stormwater volume
running off from impervious areas carves out deep, canyon-like stream channels that become
disconnected from their floodplains and deliver pollutants from impervious surface to streams. Low
baseflows, too, affect pollutant concentrations and benthic habitat, contributing to less rich and diverse
aquatic species assemblages. The interactions between streamflow, benthic habitat and pollutant
concentrations was outside the scope of this project, but would be a useful area for further hydrologic
study as relevant data allows.
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
4800
5200
5600
6000
Jan-04Jan-05Jan-06Jan-07Jan-08Jan-09Jan-10Jan-11Jan-12Jan-13Jan-14Jan-15Jan-16Jan-17Jan-18Jan-19Jan-20cfu/100mLEPA Concern level Upstream - 4690000 Mid-reach - 4868000 WS outlet - 4980000
40
Figure 25: Hydrograph at USGS Gage Downstream of Upper Middle Creek Watershed Outlet
Development has greatly increased throughout the watershed over the last two decades, bringing with it
increased stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. According to the National Land Cover Dataset
(2016), between 2001 and 2016 the watershed lost over 3,000 acres of forest and 1,500 acres of
agricultural land, while gaining 5,000 acres of developed land, a 13% increase. Increasing development
in the watershed subsequently increases the amount of impervious surface in the watershed. This
impervious surface associated with development in urban centers and along road corridors contributes
significant stormwater runoff downstream, which picks up pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, and
bacteria, scours prime aquatic habitat, and causes channel and bank erosion which contributes further
sediment to the stream and can smother potential aquatic habitat. Additionally, much of the developed
land in the watershed is low-density or developed open space, which includes single-family residential
plots and golf courses. These land use types may contribute the pollutants mentioned above as well as
excess pesticides and fertilizers used for lawn care and landscaping. During construction of any new
developments, imperfect sediment and erosion control practices may also be contributing to the
occasionally high observed total suspended solids data LNBA measured in Upper Middle Creek,
outlined in section 3.2.4. As the pace of development continues to increase, these changes underscore
the need for protection of existing forest and wetland areas, as well as projects to restore water quality.
Municipalities in the watershed are using various policy and planning tools to try to mitigate the effects
of rapid development on increased stormwater runoff and associated pollutants, further outlined in
section 4.2.1.
41
Figure 26: 2016 Land Cover in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
Estimates of the threshold above which impervious cover begins to degrade water quality range from 4-
5% (May et al 1997) to 12% (Klein, 1979). Figure 27, below, indicates that much of the upper portion
of the watershed in Apex and Holly Springs is comprised of over 12% impervious surface, increasing
the risk of degraded water quality from associated stormwater runoff in Upper Middle Creek. The
presence of buffers and other best management practices in Apex and Holly Springs which aim to
“disconnect” impervious surface from the stream allow some stormwater flowing over impervious
surfaces to infiltrate and be treated before it reaches the stream. However, concentrated, high-velocity
surface flows and piped flow through a stormwater system may bypass buffers. Thus, in an increasingly
impervious watershed such as Upper Middle Creek, any practices that might help slow, spread out, and
encourage infiltration of water prior to discharge to the stream should be incentivized. This may include
large-scale regional stormwater control measures (SCMs) as well as many distributed smaller-scale
SCMs (such as rain gardens) on public or private land. Section 5.0 details recommendations regarding
SCM implementation to capture and treat runoff in the watershed.
42
Figure 27: Distribution of Impervious Surface in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
Realtor.com named the Town of Apex the fastest-growing suburb in the U.S in July 2018. Apex’s
interactive development map shows that there are multiple new multifamily subdivisions approved or
under construction in the headwaters of the Upper Middle Creek watershed in southern Apex (Town of
Apex, n.d.) Fuquay-Varina’s ETJ expanded by over 9,000 acres in December 2020, reflecting the
projected continuation of the development boom in this Raleigh bedroom community.
Land clearing and construction for the “Complete 540” project will cross the northernmost impaired
segment of Upper Middle Creek and add 10 miles of new highway to the watershed. Construction began
in December of 2019; the first phase of this project will run 18 miles from NC Highway 55 Bypass in
Apex to I-40 south of Raleigh (Olson 2020.) Impacts to Upper Middle Creek are likely as the expressway
route will cross an already-impaired segment of Upper Middle Creek’s headwaters. According to the
USFWS Biological Conference Opinion developed as part of the Complete 540 project, “the most
common contaminants in highway runoff are heavy metals, inorganic salts, hydrocarbons, and suspended
solids that accumulate on the road surface as a result of regular highway operation and maintenance
activities,” (2019); these contaminants can reasonably be expected to increase with highway
construction. Litter from roadway traffic may also increase. Additionally, over the longer term, this
43
highway extension may incentivize development of current forested and agricultural land along the
highway corridor.
Figure 28: Proposed “Complete 540” Path Through Upper Middle Creek Watershed
3.3.1.2 Agricultural Runoff
The total portion of agricultural land use in the watershed decreased by 4.5% between 2001 and 2016
and continues to decrease as agricultural lands are frequently converted to development. However, where
cattle have access to streams on farms remaining in the watershed, they contribute to streambank erosion
can deliver sediment, nutrients, and bacteria to streams. Runoff from current and historic agricultural
lands may also be contributing pesticides to Upper Middle Creek. Wake Soil and Water Conservation
District has identified many projects to address nonpoint source agricultural pollutants, outlined in
Section 4.3.1. No land application of sludge or CAFOs were identified in the watershed.
Agricultural producers are currently satisfying the regulatory requirement outlined in the Neuse Nutrient
Strategy of collectively reducing nitrogen loss from fields by at least 30% per State-approved nutrient
44
reduction estimation methods. Despite targets being met, more information would be helpful to fully
characterize the impact of current agricultural fields in production on nutrient, bacteria and sediment
loads, as well as the impact of historical agricultural lands contributing legacy pollution.
3.3.1.3 Leaking Septic, Sewage, and Other Waste
The Upper Middle Creek watershed includes a high density of houses with septic systems, which when
functioning improperly can yield nutrient and fecal coliform pollution to waterbodies. The Septic and
Onsite Wastewater section of Wake County’s Water Quality Division provides information and outreach
to county residents about septic systems and their maintenance. Between 2011 and 2017, 191 out of 8979
permitted parcels in the Upper Middle Creek watershed were reported to have failing septic systems.
This 2% failure rate suggests that leaking septic systems are unlikely to be a major cause of nonpoint
fecal coliform pollution in the watershed. However, as these are only reported failures, the number of
malfunctioning septic systems could be higher.
While any systems that are not well maintained have the potential to contribute contamination to the
watershed, the actual contribution of septic systems to surface or groundwater in the watershed is more
complicated. When septic systems malfunction and release nutrients to the environment, this does not
always contribute nutrient loading to surface or ground water in the watershed. (Nutrient models to
estimate the amount of loading associated with both functioning and malfunctioning septic systems do
not always consider variables that affect loading rates to surface water.) Variables that affect nutrient
loading associated with malfunctioning septic systems include soil type, distance to surface waters,
vegetation, and type of failure (surface vs. subsurface effluent). Wake County has a required offset of
50 ft from streams, and vegetation/buffers along surface waters provide attenuation of nutrient loads
prior to entering surface waters, which should be considered in any nutrient load calculations.
Other pollution sources that could be contributing to the elevated fecal coliform levels seen in LNBA
data include illicit discharges, sanitary sewer overflows, and flashy stormwater flows carrying pet waste
or naturally occurring bacterial sources to streams. The impacts of these potential fecal coliform
pollution sources were not explored in detail due to a lack of available data or information.
3.3.2 Potential Point Sources
Figure 29 below depicts locations of regulated dischargers that may contribute point source pollution to
the watershed (NPDES and landfill data from NCDEQ Open Data page.) As shown below, several
industrial facilities have stormwater discharge permits upstream of the impaired segment in the
headwaters of Upper Middle Creek, where they may contribute to high flows that alter benthic habitat.
Two large municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges are also located along the impaired
stream segments. Additionally, three pre-regulatory landfills are located near the upstream impaired
segment of Upper Middle Creek and may contribute contaminants to the creek via surface or subsurface
flow or leaching from groundwater if not properly managed.
Other potential point sources for which data were not available may include illicit discharges and sanitary
sewer overflows, potentially abetted by stormwater entering any old, leaky sanitary sewer lines. Proper
management of point source pollution cannot completely eliminate loading to the stream, and typically
affords fewer opportunities for water quality improvement; therefore, recommendations in this report
focus on viable nonpoint source pollution reduction or mitigation strategies.
45
Figure 29: Potential Point Sources of Pollution
3.3.3 Summary of Nonpoint Source Impacts
The land use and water quality information discussed in section 3 suggests that flashy stormwater flows
and associated sediment are likely main contributors to the impairment of benthic communities in the
watershed. Fecal coliform bacteria were also flagged as a potential pollutant of concern to water quality
and potentially recreation or health. To that end, section 4 below outlines plans, policies, and projects to
help restore and protect the watershed from impacts of stormwater and agricultural runoff.
46
4.0 WATERSHED RESTORATION AND
CONSERVATION PLANS, POLICIES AND
PROJECTS
4.1 Overview of Watershed Restoration Needs
The mix of agricultural and developed lands and channelized streams in the watershed would benefit
from broader implementation of agricultural best management practices, stream restoration projects
and stormwater control measures. This is widely understood by watershed stakeholders; however, due
to the pace of development, local government staff have limited time to focus on implementing
projects beyond those that are required under stormwater permits and nutrient management strategies.
Additionally, staff noted that it is difficult to find public land on which to site stormwater control
measures, as most of the developed land in the watershed is privately-owned residential development.
Section 4.2 below outlines existing plans, policies and projects which municipalities are already
implementing to try to reduce the impacts of nonpoint source pollution within their jurisdictions.
Section 4.3 outlines the agricultural and stream restoration practices that local government staff
prioritized at the time of writing to further reduce nonpoint source impacts on water quality.
In addition to the specific project outlined below, municipal government staff in the watershed
recommended exploring other stream restoration and SCM projects (whether new or retrofit), to
address increasing stormwater volume and sediment pollution going forward. Wake County staff also
expressed support septic system repair, replacement and education if leaking septic systems were
discovered to be impacting water quality in future.
4.2 Existing Plans, Policies and Projects
4.2.1 Existing Plans and Policies
4.2.1.1 Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan
In 2014, Wildlands Engineering completed the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed plan for NC Division of
Mitigation Services. Their GIS-based prioritization of potential compensatory mitigation sites yielded
five high-priority project sites in the Upper Middle Creek watershed: BMPs 1, 18, 24, and 35, as well as
removal of the Johnson Pond Dam.
47
Figure 30: Projects Proposed in 2014 Associated with the Complete I-540 Project
BMP18 cited in the Project Atlas would involve retrofitting an existing dry pond near Apex Middle
School as a wet pond or wetland; Apex staff sounded intrigued by the possibility as it is difficult to find
retrofit opportunities in older subdivisions. This site will lie near to the right of way for the widening of
55; staff indicated that this may pose a design challenge to implement, but it could still be a possibility.
Wake County staff noted no current plan to implement BMP24 and questioned whether the site was still
suitable for SCM construction given its proximity to Highway 401/Fayetteville Rd. BMP1 and BMP35
are located at the site of the Town of Fuquay-Varina High School. In 2019, the Town approved
demolition and rebuild of the Fuquay-Varina High School, currently under construction at the time of
writing. Per Town stormwater regulations, the new school will construct a bioretention facility that will
treat stormwater in an area that previously had no treatment. The Town did not have any current plans
for Johnson Pond.
Rapid growth and redevelopment pose challenges to implementation of some sites prioritized in the
Neuse 01 plan five years after Wildlands identified them; however, others remain possibilities. This
underscores the need to rapidly implement prioritized restoration projects ahead of new development in
the watershed.
4.2.1.2 Apex Tree Canopy Study
In 2018, the Town of Apex contracted with the Green Infrastructure Center, Inc. to study Apex’ canopy
extent, determine possible planting areas, estimate impact of increasing tree canopy on decreasing
stormwater runoff, review existing codes and ordinances, and provide recommendations. The study
recommended creating a stormwater utility and fee to cover maintenance of stormwater infrastructure,
which includes trees. Another recommendation relevant to stormwater management was to incorporate
measures into Apex’ Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to set parking requirements as minimums
and maximums, with the possibility of requiring developers who exceed parking maximums to plant
48
trees. Many of these recommendations are being considered at the time of writing. At the time of writing,
Apex had declined to fund the stormwater utility fee, but the Apex Sustainability Team is currently
developing a Green Revolving Fund which could aid in implementing these recommendations.
4.2.1.3 Stormwater Utilities
Stormwater utility fees provide revenue that a local government may be able to use for stormwater
infrastructure maintenance or green stormwater infrastructure project implementation. Holly Springs is
the only municipality in the watershed that currently has a Stormwater Program Management Fee,
where fees may be used for watershed restoration projects.
4.2.2 Existing Watershed Restoration and Conservation Projects
4.2.2.1 Existing Watershed Restoration Projects
Since 2013, the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has held a permanent conservation
easement which protects five unnamed tributaries to Terrible Creek on the 12.6-acre Pepperwood Farm
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site (DMS 2018). The Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report for this
site describes how prior to restoration, “riparian areas were cleared of native forest vegetation, heavily
degraded by livestock grazing and hoof shear, maintained for hay production, and subject to raw
manure fertilization. Streams were straightened, routinely cleared, and subject to storm water runoff
from boarding facilities,” (DMS 2018.) Riparian buffer restoration goals include eliminating
agricultural activities and associated nonpoint source pollutants in riparian areas and establishing
hardwood vegetated stream buffers. Water quality and habitat benefits of these practices include
reduced erosion, filtering of any pollutants from the landscape, improved aquatic habitat due to
increased shade and natural detritus, and a terrestrial wildlife corridor in a largely developed
watershed. Per 2018 monitoring of species composition and density, vegetation at the site appeared to
be establishing successfully (DMS 2018.)
Figure 31: Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site at Pepperwood Farm on Terrible Creek
49
This project is a good example of restoration at a strategic location (on an impaired stream, protecting
several tributaries) protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.
4.2.2.2 Existing Conserved Lands
Conservation, coupled with restoration, will help prevent waterways from being further impaired.
Figure 32, below, shows in pink crosshatch eco- and hydrologically important areas identified by the
NCNHP within the watershed. Note that the riparian corridor along Middle Creek is largely
unprotected. NCNHP staff report that this land is too wet to develop but some parts of the area have
been clear-cut in recent years. Mature bottomland floodplain forest in this area (pictured in Figure 33,
and further discussed in section 2.4) should be protected in perpetuity.
Figure 32: Conservation Priorities Identified by NCNHP in the Upper Middle Creek Watershed
50
Figure 33: Bottomland Floodplain Forest Along Middle Creek (credit: Michael Schafale, NCNHP)
4.3 Prioritized Watershed Improvement Projects
At the time of writing, Wake County Soil and Water Conservation District and Town of Holly
Springs staff proposed nine agricultural and stream restoration projects shown in Figure 34
below, all of which are short- to medium-term priorities. Wake Soil and Water and Holly Springs
staff and consultants identified these projects based on field site condition assessments and
communication with landowners, and it is expected that they and other project partners will continue to
identify additional projects as time goes on. This "menu" of shovel-ready projects addresses both the
benthic macroinvertebrate community impairment and other observed pollution issues, which as
outlined in previous sections include fecal coliform bacteria and sedimentation. In addition to the
nine practices outlined below, SCM implementation is also recommended to reduce runoff volume and
associated pollutants when and where possible (project partners had not identified specific SCM
implementation project sites at the time of writing.) Tables 10 and 11 include other potentially
beneficial types of projects.
The number of restoration practices that will be needed to delist impaired segments of Middle and
Terrible will depend on the actual types of practices ultimately implemented from this menu of
options. Given the cost of land, stream restoration and retrofitting existing development, the overall
cost of restoration of impaired waters in this watershed is likely to exceed $10 million. The behavioral
BMPs and other recommendations outlined in sections 4.3.3 and section 5 serve as the medium- and
long-term priorities which should be taken as complementary to and pursued concurrently with the
specific projects prioritized in below.
51
Figure 34: Prioritized Agricultural Practices (Yellow) and Stream Restoration Projects (Green)
4.3.1 Prioritized Agricultural Best Management Practices (Includes Elements 2, 3, 4, 6)
Runoff volume and sediment from agricultural lands in the watershed are likely to be negatively
impacting benthic macroinvertebrates by scouring out and/or depositing fine silt into microhabitats.
Additionally, as mentioned in section 3.2.6, fecal coliform levels may be a concern in the watershed.
52
Agricultural best management practices outlined below have been prioritized by the Wake Soil
and Water Conservation District to reduce crop and pastureland erosion and cattle access to streams
to help alleviate loading of these pollutants to Upper Middle Creek and its tributaries.
Wake SWCD staff prioritized the following agricultural BMPs based on proximity to the impaired
segment of Terrible Creek (all are ~0.5 miles from the AU), need for specific BMPs associated with
current crop rotation, and feasibility, as defined by available parcels in production and long-term
relationships with individual farmers. Wake SWCD staff have visited the sites outlined below and
landowners have expressed interest in implementing the identified BMPs depending on the availability
of funding assistance.
Table 8: Agricultural Best Management Practice Timeline, Costs and Load Reductions
Site BMP
Implementation
Timeline
Estimated
Cost
Sediment
Load
Reduction*
(tons/year)
Nitrogen
Load
Reduction*
(lbs/year)
Phosphorus
Load
Reduction*
(lbs/year)
1
Pond/creek
exclusion
(cows) 2 years $20,000.00 9.3 22.8 7.3
2
Pond
exclusion
(cows) 2 years $18,200.00 3.4 12.0 3.2
3
Filter
Strip,
Grassed
Waterway 1 year $22,000.00 399.4 579.8 221.1
4
Pond
Exclusion 3 years $6,800.00 167.0 317.5 119.1
5
Stream
Exclusion 3 years $17,300.00 42.0 179.5 38.1
6
Grassed
Waterway 1 year $2,500.00 47.0 77.2 28.9
*Estimated using EPA STEPL tool
The following sites were identified based on known environmental issues and producer requests. The
BMPs identified are common in Wake County and have a high acceptance and success rate
with producers. Implementation of livestock exclusion projects in the watershed are increasing as cattle
access to streams affects surface water quality and animal health. Grassed waterways are common
on tilled cropland and are increasingly needed due to increasing stormwater runoff in the county.
Sites 3 and 6 are conventionally tilled crop fields. Agronomic practices including grassed waterways,
filter strips, and cover crops are needed to prevent headcuts and channelized water flow and reduce the
nutrient and sediments loads to adjacent water bodies. These practices serve to slow the rate of water
movement and collect sediment moving off crop fields. These projects are ready to implement in the
short term given funding assistance.
53
Figure 35: Prioritized Site 3 For Grassed Waterway and Filter Strip
Pastureland BMPs (sites 1, 2, 4, 5) are focused on excluding cattle from ponds and streams. At the sites
listed, cattle currently utilize surface waters as a drinking source, resulting in destabilization of banks
and degraded water quality. Livestock exclusion systems involve installing fences to prevent cattle
access to water bodies and reliable, clean water source to replace the surface water source. Bank
stabilization measures may be required at some sites. When funding becomes available, these projects
will be ready to implement within 2-3 years.
Figure 36: Prioritized Site 2 for Cattle Exclusion
54
Figure 37: Pond Exclusion Needed Due to Bank Destabilization at Site 4
Terrible Creek is currently listed as impaired based on a single 2010 special study sample collected at
IB329 (see section 3.1.1.3 and benthic station map, Figure 9.) While it is difficult to estimate the
number of practices that will be required to fully recover the benthic macroinvertebrate community of
Terrible Creek and delist this AU, the segment Upper Middle Creek below Sunset Lake was removed
from the 2016 303d list based on a benthic macroinvertebrate rating of Good-Fair at JB068. With
concerted effort to implement restoration projects in conjunction with other recommended practices
and policies outlined in section 5.0, Terrible Creek’s benthic community can likewise recover.
4.3.2 Prioritized Stream Restoration Projects (Includes Elements 2, 3, 4, 6)
Prioritized stream restoration projects outlined below are intended to stabilize streambanks and
reconnect stream and floodplain in areas where high stormwater flows from the (sub)urbanized
headwaters are impacting benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality in Upper Middle Creek.
Current impacts of urban stormwater on this upper reach include bank erosion, channelization
disconnecting the stream from its floodplain, and reduced sinuosity. Given the pace of development in
Holly Springs, there exists a need to manage increasing stormwater runoff volume and its impacts to
streambank erosion. Stream restoration projects outlined below have been prioritized by Town staff to
reduce sediment loading stemming from streambank erosion (as referenced in section 3.1.3.3.), and to
help slow and infiltrate stormwater before it reaches the stream, preventing it from scouring out and/or
depositing fine silt in microhabitats which benthic macroinvertebrates need to survive.
Holly Springs staff prioritized the following stream restoration sites based on locations with known
bank erosion, proximity to Upper Middle Creek (one is directly on Middle Creek, two are on
tributaries), and feasibility as defined by land ownership and access. Holly Springs staff have visited
the sites outlined below and landowners have expressed at least initial interest in implementing the
projects depending on the availability of funding.
The three stream restoration sites prioritized are shown in the table and discussed below. Estimated costs
include survey/easements, delineation/permitting, geotech, design (field data collection, modeling, TM,
55
90%, 100%, and bid documents @ $100/lf), construction, and construction administration for full stream
channel restoration. Listed load reductions were estimated using BANCS methodology (Chesapeake Bay
Program, n.d.) and NCSU erosion rate curves (unpublished) and confirmed by Freese and Nichols who
conducted a bank erosion rate study for the Town of Holly Springs (Ian Jewell, personal communication,
2020.) These methods solely quantify the sediment load reduction due to avoided bank erosion, as Holly
Springs staff identified bank erosion as a major sediment source and motivation for implementing stream
restoration projects. Improved buffer and reconnection to the floodplain will also reduce nutrient and
sediment loading from the larger watershed which have not been quantified due to lack of existing NC-
based data/models or funding to collect field data at the time of writing. Field data collection as part of
funded engineering design can be used to update load reduction estimates in future.
Table 9: Stream Restoration Project Timeline, Costs, and Load Reductions
*4’-5’ bank height x lengths listed above x 0.15 – 0.2 ft/yr erosion rate derived from NC Piedmont
streambank erosion curves using BEHI/NBS per Freese and Nichols/Town of Holly Springs
**Per Chesapeake Bay Protocol default concentration of 1.05 lb/ton P, 2.28 lb/ton N in soil volume
above (Stantec, n.d.)
TJCOG staff visited two of the proposed Upper Middle Creek stream restoration sites with Holly Springs
staff on 6/26/19. Below, Upper Middle Creek near Creekvista Drive is a prioritized stream restoration
site impacted by historical practices of water and sewer installation removing buffers, lack of buffer
regulations during development, as well as upstream development occurring prior to current stormwater
control regulations. The channel shows visible signs of degradation and bank instability. The channel
length shown needs varying degree of rehabilitation and stabilization and the primary impediment to
restoration is currently financing and full access for construction. Holly Springs staff have met with the
homeowners’ association at this site, and the HOA is amenable to the possibility of bequeathing the
property to the Town as the land is not useable and is seen as a potential liability due to erosion and
NSW designation.
Site Location
description
Land
ownership
Estimated
implementation
timeline
Estimated
cost
Sediment load
reduction*
Nitrogen load
reduction**
Phosphorus load
reduction**
7
8
9
125 lbs/yr P
Hillspring Lane
Tributary (950 LF)Private 3-5 years $988,650 118 tons/yr 269 lbs/yr N 124 lbs/yr P
Creekvista Drive
Outfall (1,600 LF)
HOA (may
bequeath to
town)
3-5 years $1,647,100 119 tons/yr 271 lbs/yr N
286 lbs/yr PEstes Lane Outfall
(2,200 LF)
Public/utility
easement 2-3 years $2,251,600 273 tons/yr 622 lbs/yr N
56
Figure 38: Upper Middle Creek in Holly Springs near Creekvista Drive
The second site that Holly Springs staff have prioritized for stream restoration is on a tributary of Upper
Middle Creek that flows to Bass Lake. This site off Estes Drive, pictured below, has been impacted by
similar historic development, buffer and water/sewer line installation practices as the Creekvista Drive
site. This tributary is on public property associated with a nearby park and is a priority site for stream
restoration, possibly combined with a future greenway. The primary current impediment to restoration
is financing and granting of increased access easement from private owners (it is necessary to walk
across private property to access this reach.)
57
Figure 39: UT to Upper Middle Creek near Estes Drive (Looking Downstream)
Finally, Holly Springs staff have prioritized a stream restoration on another tributary which leads to Bass
Lake, off Hillspring Lane. Conditions are very similar to the Estes Drive reach pictured above. The
channel shows visible signs of degradation, loss of sinuosity and bank instability. Holly Springs staff
have had preliminary conversations about this potential project with several homeowners along the
Hillspring Lane reach; the current main impediment to restoration is financing, granting of increased
easement from private owners and potential loss of “usable” property for affected owners.
It will be challenging to restore benthic macroinvertebrate community health on this AU of Upper
Middle Creek given that the headwaters are already developed, ongoing development is proceeding
rapidly, and most of the land is privately owned. However, this makes it all the more important to take
the opportunity, in advance of further buildout, to implement stream restoration projects in conjunction
with other recommended practices and policies outlined in section 5.0.
4.3.3 Interim Milestones and Criteria to Determine Progress (Elements 7 and 8)
Interim, measurable milestones that can be met in advance of full agricultural and stream
restoration project implementation include (but are not limited to) those outlined below:
•Detailed pre-project photo-documentation and/or monitoring
•Implementation of agricultural best management practices by Wake Soil and Water Conservation
District on willing landowners’ properties
•Contract between Town of Holly Springs and selected engineering firm for planning/engineering
of urban stream restoration projects
58
•Agricultural BMP project permanence for the first five years per contract between landowner
and Wake Soil and Water Conservation District
•Prioritized stream restoration project implementation
•Any local governments in the watershed consideration or adoption of behavioral best
management practices or adoption of enhanced public education and involvement efforts
•Any local government in the watershed consideration or adoption of novel, effective funding
mechanisms for watershed restoration, such as a stormwater utility or watershed protection fee
•Any local government in the watershed consideration or adoption of ordinance and programmatic
changes that support, enforce, or enhance recommendations in this plan
•Allowance for consideration of regional stormwater management approaches by the appropriate
regional, state or federal entities
The table below outlines target criteria that can be used to determine interim progress toward achieving
improved water quality, load reductions and habitat in Upper Middle Creek.
Table 10: Criteria for Determining Progress/Success Pollutant
Source Management Action Target Criteria
Streambank
erosion
-Streambank
restoration
-Riparian area
revegetation
-Livestock exclusion
fencing
-LF of streambank stabilized
-Acres of riparian area revegetated
- Riparian plant survival at various yearly intervals
-LF of stream exclusion fencing
-(Ultimately) macroinvertebrate community rating of Good-
Fair or above
Fecal
coliform
pollution
-Stream exclusion
fencing in agricultural
production areas
-Wastewater utility
line leak detection or
septic repair (if
applicable)
-Pet waste pickup
stations/education
- Number or LF of stream exclusion fencing
- Length of utility line leaks repaired; modeled or measured
pollution reduction resulting from wastewater line leak
repair
- Number of failing septic systems repaired/replaced;
estimated N/P reduction due to replacement
- Number of pet waste stations built; estimated pollution
reduction from pet waste prevention
Sedimentation
-Reconnection of
stream to floodplain
-SCM
implementation
-Effective
construction site
practices and their
enforcement
-Modeled or measured sediment reduction in stormwater
sampled at sites of stream/floodplain reconnection
- Number/treatment area of SCMs built; modeled or
measured sediment reduction at SCM implementation sites
- Documented compliance with construction site practices,
especially during high flows
-(Ultimately) macroinvertebrate community rating of Good-
Fair or above
High flows
-Large-scale and/or
widespread small-
scale SCM
implementation
-Number/treatment area of SCMs built; measured or
modeled flow reduction as a result
-Effective impervious area reduction due to SCM
implementation
-(Ultimately) macroinvertebrate community rating of Good-
Fair or above
59
Section 5.0 outlines further watershed management recommendations including non-structural practices.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Implement of recommendations outlined in the Section 5 will complement specific prioritized practices
outlined in Section 4 to restore the watershed over the long term. Implementing the restoration plan in
full will address the issues identified in Section 3 and help address ongoing water quality issues in the
watershed. The table below summarizes the stressors and sources discussed in Section 3 and offers
management targets and potential approaches to reaching those target goals. Although the stressors
identified below may not all directly relate to the current benthic impairment, all can be expected to be
potential stressors of concern in any rapidly urbanizing watershed, as shown by the source column.
Table 11: Stressors, Sources, Targets and Management Measures
Stressor Sources Management Target
Primary Recommended
Management Measures
Sediment
•Stormwater runoff
•Impervious
surfaces
•Erodingstreambanks
•Development and
land disturbance
•Benthos Rating =Good-Fair
•Identify and complete stream
and floodplain restoration and
urban SCM projects
•Enforce sediment and erosioncontrol guidelines onconstruction sites
Urban
channelization
•Development and
land disturbance
•Stormwater runoff
and/or stormwater
management
efforts
•Benthos Rating =Good-Fair
•Identify and complete urbanSCM and stream restorationprojects
pH
•Low flows (urban
channelization)
•Excessive organic
material input
Between 6.0 and 9.0 •Identify and complete stream
and habitat restoration projects
Fecal
coliform
bacteria
•Stormwater runoff
•Cattle access to
streams
•Pet waste
•Possible septicsystem discharges
<200 CFU
•Livestock exclusion from
streams on agricultural land
•Septic repair program for low-income homeowners if applicable
Dissolved
Oxygen
•Excessive nutrients
•Suspendedsolids/sediment
Daily average >5.0,
never <4.0 at any time •Stream and buffer restoration
•SCM implementation
60
Stressor Sources Management Target
Primary Recommended
Management Measures
•Urban
channelization
•Land conservation in riparian
corridor
Litter and
Trash
•Stormwater runoff
•Humancarelessness
•Visual observations
show reductions
•Reduction inflooding due to trashblockage in
stormwater system
•Implement and/or expand litter
reduction and cleanup programs
•Expand community educationand outreach efforts witheconomy-of-scale program
(eg. CWEP program)
Nutrients
•Stormwater runoff
•Cattle access tostreams
•Fertilizers
•Pet waste
•Benthos Rating =Good-Fair
•Identify sites for and implement
green stormwater infrastructureand/or retrofits
•Implement agricultural bestmanagement practices to reduce
nutrients
•Expand community educationand outreach efforts witheconomy-of-scale program
(eg. CWEP program)
5.1 Recommendation 1: Expand Monitoring (Element 9)
5.1.1 Expand Monitoring Regarding Watershed Impairment
This plan recommends more frequent long-term monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates and water
quality parameters to provide a clearer baseline status and to show changes to water quality over time as
the watershed urbanizes. Specifically, continuous benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring at the same
stations would aid comparisons over time. In particular, as Terrible Creek is currently listed as impaired
based on a single 2010 special study sample collected at IB329 (see section 3.1.1.3 and benthic station
map, Figure 9), the Terrible Creek subwatershed cannot be delisted until continued benthic data
collection occurs on AU 27-43-15-8-(2). In addition, performing benthic bioassays throughout the creek
would also help identify where any of the sediments are toxic to or unable to support benthic life.
As sediment was identified as a pollutant of concern, more frequent monitoring of total suspended solids
is recommended to better capture the impacts of high flows. LNBA, DWR, local governments or another
entity could potentially complete this monitoring, depending on staffing, capacity, etc.
Fecal coliform data characterized in section 3.2.6 suggests that more frequent fecal coliform monitoring
at LNBA stations J4690000, J4868000, and J4980000 might show Upper Middle Creek to be impaired
for fecal coliform bacteria levels. If Division of Water Resources staff completed a “5 in 30” study (five
samples in 30 days) this could help elucidate whether the fecal coliform data observed to exceed EPA
recommendations for primary recreation would also classify Upper Middle Creek as impaired using
DWR methodology.
61
5.1.2 Monitor/Evaluate Planned Restoration Project Effectiveness
The following methods are recommended to evaluate project effectiveness before load reductions have
been fully achieved:
•Before/after photos documenting project permanence and/or vegetation establishment at stream
restoration and agricultural BMP sites 5-10-15 years in future
•Documented improvement in BEHI and NBS measurements and bank erosion rates on impacted
stream reaches at stages of stream restoration project maturity
•Benthic community data downstream of restoration projects 10-15-20 years in future
•Metrics for stormwater education recipients such as correctly answering pre/post assessment
questions about behaviors that can reduce personal impact on stormwater pollution
5.2 Recommendation 2: Increase Education/Outreach Participation in
the Watershed (Element 5)
Effective education, outreach and public involvement is important to increase the public’s understanding
of how they impact watersheds and how watersheds impact them, as well as to solicit input on potential
restoration projects and to promote behaviors that protect water quality. As local governments in the
watershed consider projects outlined above for implementation, an “open house” / Q&A session will
help increase public understanding of and interest in these projects. Open houses should follow best
practices to ensure anyone who wants to can attend, and listen closely to attendees’ concerns, as
environmental issues often disproportionately affect poorer and/or minority communities.
Apex, Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina participate in the Clean Water Education Partnership (CWEP),
which uses education and outreach to teach the public how our individual and collective behaviors can
improve water quality. Wake County is not currently a member of CWEP; joining would help citizens
who reside in unincorporated Wake County in the Upper Middle Creek watershed learn about how they
can affect water quality. CWEP teaches the public in participating communities about common
stormwater pollutants via in-depth education and mass media (including via TV, radio, and digital video
plays; Spanish-language newspaper graphics and high-quality educational materials/giveaways which
local government staff can share widely in their jurisdictions.)
CWEP’s Education and Outreach Coordinator conducts in-depth education for children and adults at
schools (virtual or in person), libraries, and festivals, as well as via social media and a dedicated website.
Municipal staff participating in the development of this plan have taught school-aged children about
stormwater alongside the Education and Outreach Coordinator, whose lessons teachers or stormwater
staff can also use on their own and tailor for their needs. CWEP can also provide tools such as app-based
citizen science efforts and by train youth to implement Stream Watch programs, which Scouts or other
groups could do in the Upper Middle Creek watershed.
5.3 Recommendation 3: Collaborate for Regional Stormwater
Management
Lack of available, affordable land is a challenge in this rapidly urbanizing watershed; thus, creative,
collaborative solutions must be found to secure land, funding, and support for stormwater control
measures to reduce peak stormwater flows that degrade Upper Middle Creek habitat. Holly Springs is
currently the only local government in the watershed that implements a Stormwater Program
62
Management Fee. Apex proposed a Stormwater Utility Fee in June 2019 which the Town Board declined
to fund as of August 2020. Stormwater utility fees can provide a sustained funding source for SCM
implementation, and thus are an important tool for local governments in the watershed to implement
whenever possible.
All partners cited limited available public land on which to site SCMs. Where possible, larger scale
SCMs maintained by municipal staff would help to retain and treat the increasing volume of stormwater
runoff that this rapidly urbanizing watershed generates. Additionally, local governments could expand
efforts to incentivize more widespread implementation of small, distributed green infrastructure projects
on private property. Wake and Durham Soil and Water Conservation District CCAP programs, Ellerbe
Creek Watershed Association’s Creek Smart program, and City of Durham’s Rain Catchers program are
all excellent local models that municipalities in the Upper Middle Creek watershed could follow.
A regional approach to stormwater management is currently somewhat limited in that local governments
are prohibited from spending funds on stormwater management in other jurisdictions. If a “One Water”
approach to stormwater management becomes possible in future, local governments could consider
partnering to fund and implement SCMs in beneficial locations for the watershed across jurisdictional
boundaries.
5.4 Recommendation 4: Preserve Critical Areas to Prevent Degradation
In addition to watershed restoration projects, preserving land to prevent future degradation is an
important preventive action to take in designated critical areas, as well as wherever possible given the
rapid pace of growth. The Neuse River Basin Water Quality Plan stated that “Local governments, land
trusts and watershed groups need to work together to protect and preserve sensitive lands within this
watershed,” (NCDEQ 2009.)
Specifically, action should be taken to permanently protect the Significant Natural Areas shown in Figure
6 identified by NCNHP in the Upper Middle Creek watershed. Conserving Upper Middle Creek’s
floodplain and instream habitat will protect ecosystems composed of threatened, endangered or rare
species, as well as species that may be declining which are not yet rare. Parts of important Middle Creek
Bluffs, Floodplain and Aquatic habitat identified by NCNHP are privately owned. These sites could be
prioritized for conservation acquisition by Triangle Land Conservancy or other conservation
organizations. Protecting the Middle Creek Bluffs, Floodplain and Aquatic Habitat would not only
protect high-quality habitats for rare species, but also serves to store and filter stormwater runoff before
it enters the stream, helping to stabilize streambanks and preventing erosion. This is just one example of
how riparian ecosystem conservation provides many benefits ranging from flood protection to improved
habitat to improved water quality.
More broadly, jurisdictions in the Upper Middle Creek watershed could follow the model the Upper
Neuse Clean Water Initiative (UNCWI) has taken to collaboratively invest in preserving land for
watershed protection. While the majority of UNCWI protected sites are in the Falls Lake watershed,
several sites are in the Swift Creek watershed adjacent to Upper Middle Creek and could serve as
examples.
Additionally, continued tree canopy protection is recommended as the municipalities and the I-540
corridor develops. Apex could share its tree protection policy as a model for other municipalities. The
63
USFWS’ 2019 Biological Opinion put forth as part of the Complete 540 environmental impact
assessment process recommends “protection of riparian corridors and leaving sufficient canopy cover
along banks” to protect the endangered Atlantic Pigtoe mussel species. Continued riparian tree protection
would help protect not only threatened mussel species but the whole watershed ecosystem by shading
the stream to reduce temperatures, maintaining bank stability/decreasing bank erosion, and providing
woody debris and habitat. Tree canopy throughout the watershed, beyond the riparian zone, should also
be pursued whenever possible, as trees serve as green stormwater infrastructure.
USFWS’ 2019 Biological Opinion recommends “moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals
to maintain natural flow regimes; increased use of stormwater management and reduction of stormwater
flows into the systems; and reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.” This underscores how preventing further degradation
of this watershed will require a holistic approach including strategic conservation, restoration and
stormwater management; innovative local and regional policies, funding mechanisms, and adequate
staffing to implement them; and consideration of the relationship of groundwater to streamflow and
surface water quality.
5.5 Recommendation 5: Work with State Regulators to Enable
Comprehensive Oversight of Sediment and Erosion Control and IDDE
The Neuse 01 Preliminary Findings report recommended more stringent enforcement of erosion and
sediment control programs (Wildlands 2014). Local programs are delegated by the State and the
Sedimentation Control Commission and NC DEMLR has oversight. Local government staff in this
rapidly growing region face the challenge of constantly having more and more potential pollution
sources to oversee; further conversation with state government staff on appropriate staffing levels for
local programs would be beneficial. Similarly, illicit discharge detection and elimination may fall
under an NPDES Permit, another state rule such as a Nutrient Management strategy, or local ordinance
and may likewise be challenging to comprehensively enforce given current staffing levels and the pace
of development.
5.6 Recommendation 6: Build on Partnerships to Secure Funding and
Technical Assistance to Implement Prioritized Projects (Element 4)
The practices outlined in section 4.3 and recommendations in section 5.1 - 5.5 largely require funding
and technical expertise to implement; potential sources of both are outlined below. Local government
staff have expressed interest in pursuing 319 grants and other funding to implement projects prioritized
in this plan or others that would address the identified pollutants of concern. This document is intended
to be a resource for these ongoing efforts.
Table 12: Sources of Financial Assistance for Plan Implementation Funding
Source Deadline Funding Purpose Website
NCDWR 319
Program May
Projects to restore watersheds
impaired by nonpoint source
pollution
www.deq.nc.gov/abou
t/divisions/water-
resources/planning/no
npoint-source-
management/319-
grant-program
64
NCDWR Water
Resources
Development
Grant
June,
December Stream restoration, land acquisition
https://deq.nc.gov/abo
ut/divisions/water-
resources/water-
resources-
grants/financial-
assistance
National Fish
and Wildlife
Foundation
Five Star and
Urban Waters
Restoration
Grant Program
January
Restoration, education and training to
support stewardship and restoration
of coastal, wetland and riparian
ecosystems across the country
https://www.nfwf.org/
programs/five-star-
and-urban-waters-
restoration-grant-
program?activeTab=ta
b-2
NC Clean
Water
Management
Trust Fund
February Stream restoration, land acquisition,
innovative stormwater projects www.cwmtf.net
USEPA
Environmental
Education
Grants
Variable
Promote environmental awareness
and stewardship and help provide
people with the skills to take
responsible actions to protect the
environment
www.epa.gov/educati
on/environmental-
education-ee-grant-
solicitation-notice
NC Division of
Soil and Water
Community
Conservation
Assistance
Program
Variable
Installation of various best
management practices on urban,
suburban and rural lands not directly
involved with agriculture production
http://www.ncagr.gov/
SWC/costshareprogra
ms/CCAP/index.html
USDA NRCS
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
March
Financial and technical assistance to
implement structural and
management conservation practices
that optimize environmental benefits
on working agricultural land
https://www.nrcs.usda
.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
main/nc/programs/fin
ancial/eqip/
USDA NRCS
Conservation
Reserve
Program
February
In exchange for a yearly rental
payment, farmers enrolled in 10-15-
year contracts through this program
agree to remove environmentally
sensitive land from agricultural
production and plant species to
improve water quality, prevent
erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife
habitat
https://www.fsa.usda.
gov/programs-and-
services/conservation-
programs/conservatio
n-reserve-program/
Stormwater
utility fees N/A
Municipalities who have a
stormwater utility in future can use
fees collected by this utility to fund
green infrastructure projects
N/A
65
Table 13: Sources of Technical Assistance for Plan Implementation Name Organization Role Expertise Email
Maya Cough-
Schulze
Triangle J
Council of
Governments
Project
Manager
Watershed plan
development [e-mail]
Jen Schmitz
Triangle J
Council of
Governments
Grant
Applicant/
Advisor
Grant proposal
development,
watershed plan
review
[e-mail]
John Beck
Wake Soil
and Water
Conservation
District
Primary
Project
Partner
Agricultural
best
management
practices and
outreach
[e-mail]
Abigail
Haselton
(originally
Justin
Hynicka)
Wake Soil
and Water
Conservation
District
Project
Partner
Agricultural
best
management
practices, soil
science
[e-mail]
Daniel
Colavito
Town of
Holly Springs
Project
Partner
Stream
restoration,
stormwater
management
[e-mail]
Nancy Daly Wake County Project
Partner
Watershed
restoration [e-mail]
Jennifer
Mitchell
Town of
Fuquay-
Varina
Project
Partner
Stormwater
management/
engineering
[e-mail]
Jessica Bolin Town of
Apex
Project
Partner
Stormwater
management/
engineering
[e-mail]
Other programs which may be able to provide technical assistance for plan implementation include:
•NCDWR Basinwide Planning for direct knowledge of conditions of the Neuse River Basin
•NC Cooperative Extension Service for backyard rain garden training and established
relationships throughout the counties they serve
•NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation
66
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Upper Middle Creek watershed faces similar challenges to many watersheds in the burgeoning
Triangle region. Downstream, agriculture and forestland predominate; rapid, ongoing (sub)urban
growth over the last several decades has developed much of the headwaters. Local governments in the
watershed implement some protective stormwater and agricultural projects and policies, but hold little
public land on which to implement watershed restoration projects and have limited time to implement
restoration projects above and beyond those required by regulation. Despite these challenges, Upper
Middle Creek’s dedicated local government staff and other stakeholders are committed to stormwater
management and watershed restoration. As the watershed continues to grow and change, proactive
restoration and conservation practices and policies will be important to preserve ecosystems and water
quality in this watershed.
67
7.0 REFERENCES
15A NCAC 02B .0711, NEUSE NUTRIENT STRATEGY: STORMWATER
15A NCAC 02B .0731, TAR-PAMLICO NUTRIENT STRATEGY: STORMWATER
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2013. Appendix B Protocol 1 Supplemental Details for Final Draft
Recommendation of Expert Panel on Stream Restoration.
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/19137/tracked_appendix_b_protocol_1_supplemental_d
etails_030113_lfm1.pdf
Conservation Fund. (n.d.) “Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative.”
https://www.conservationfund.org/projects/upper-neuse-clean-water-initiative
Christopher J Walsh, Allison H Roy, Jack W Feminella, Peter D Cottingham, Peter M Groffman and
Raymond P Morgan, “The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure,” Journal
of the North American Benthological Society 24, no. 3 (September 2005): 706-723.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. An Introduction to Freshwater Mussels as Biological Indicators
Including Accounts of Interior Basin, Cumberlandian, and Atlantic Slope Species.
Environmental Protection Agency. Welcome to STEPL and Region 5 Model. http://it.tetratech-
ffx.com/steplweb/.
Gregory, J.H., M.D. Dukes, P.H. Jones, and G.I. Miller, “Effect of urban soil compaction on infiltration
rate”, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61, no. 3 (May/June 2006): 117-124.
H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2015. “Community Impact Assessment for Administrative Action Environmental
Impact Statement, Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension.” Prepared for North
Carolina Department of Transportation / North Carolina Turnpike Authority.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Complete540/reports/C540_CIA_0615.pdf.
Johnson, David. 2019. “DOT Site Inspection Report.”
https://connect.ncdot.gov/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=070%2D003#k=092-020.
Michael Baker International. 2017. “Indirect and Cumulative Effects Memorandum (Quantitative ICE
Assessment Memo #4).” Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Documents/indirect-cumulative-effects-december-
2014.aspx
Miller, Jonathan, Kimia Karimi, Sankar Arumugan, and Daniel Obenour. December 2019. “Jordan Lake
Watershed Model Report.” Prepared for North Carolina Policy Collaboratory.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/NPU/Nutrient%20Scientific%20Advisory%20B
oard/Watershed-Model-Jordan-NCSU_Miller.pdf
68
Minnesota Stormwater Manual. 2018. “Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in Stormwater.”
https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Total_Suspended_Solids_(TSS)_in_stormwater.
National Land Cover Database. 2019. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium.
https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil
Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
NatureServe Explorer. n.d. https://explorer.natureserve.org/.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) “2018 Integrated Report Category
Assignment Procedure.” https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/IR-Assessment-
Process-2018.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments “303(d)
List” Final. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d--
List-Final.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (2009.) “Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan.” https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-
plans/neuse-2009
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (2010.) “Benthos Site Details.”
https://www.ncwater.org/?page=672&SiteID=JB068
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) “Biological Assessment Branch.”
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-
page/biological-assessment-branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) “Classifications.”
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) NCDWR Wadeable Streams Fish
Community
Assessments.https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=671b917c256c4d16a5
a224f09e32bafd
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. n.d. “Division of Mitigation Services Map.”
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/dms-web-map.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services. October 2018.
“Year 5 (2018) Annual Monitoring Report – Pepperwood Farm Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site.”
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) “Neuse Nutrient Strategy.”
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-
strategies/neuse.
69
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Open Data. 2019. http://data-
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/
North Carolina Department of Transportation and North Carolina Turnpike Authority. 2018.
“Expected Effects of the Preferred Alternative.” https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-
540/Documents/expected-project-impacts.aspx.
North Carolina Department of Transportation and North Carolina Turnpike Authority. 2013.
“Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Public Information Meeting Brochure.”
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Documents/Oct2013PublicMeetingHandout.pdf.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2003. “An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas in Wake
County, North Carolina.” https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/p249901coll22/id/191033.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2020. Geographic Information System (GIS) data.
NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC. Available at www.ncnhp.org. (Accessed: 4.23.2020).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2020. Natural Heritage Data Explorer [web
application]. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC. Available at www.ncnhp.org. (Accessed: 4.1.2020).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2020. “Upper Middle Creek - Element Occurrences.”
Custom report generated at www.ncnhp.org (Accessed: 4.3.2020).
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2020. https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/.
Olson, Eric. 2020. “First Phase Under Way to Finally Complete Raleigh’s Triangle Expressway.”
January 27, 2020. https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/first-phase-under-way-to-finally-
complete-raleighs-triangle-expressway/47175.
Poulos, Helen M., Kate E. Miller, Ross Heinemann, Michelle L. Kraczkowski, Adam W. Whelchel and
Barry Cherno, “Dam Removal Effects on Benthic Macroinvertebrate Dynamics: A New England Stream
Case Study (Connecticut, USA),” Sustainability 11, no. 2875: (May 21, 2019):
Saunders, Heather. n.d. “A Simplified Guide to Writing Watershed Restoration Plans In North Carolina.”
Prepared by TJCOG staff in partnership with NCDEQ Nonpoint Source Planning staff.
Sorg, Lisa. 2018. “A Tollway’s Toll: Human, Environmental Impact of 540 Expansion Loom Large in
Southern Wake County.” NC Policy Watch. http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2018/02/23/tollways-toll-
human-environmental-impact-540-expansion-loom-large-southern-wake-county/.
Spectrum News Staff. 2019. “I-540 Extension Not Popular with Some Homeowners.”
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2019/12/12/i-540-extension-not-popular-with-some-
homeowners.
70
Stantec. (n.d.) “Nutrient Concentration in Stream Bank Soils.”
https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/24811/attach_b2_appendix_a1._stream_restoration_desi
gn_example.pdf
Three Oaks Engineering. 2017. “Aquatic Species Survey Report- Complete 540 Triangle Expressway
Southeast Extension.” https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Documents/aquatic-species-
survey-report.aspx. Prepared by Three Oaks Engineering for NCDOT.
Town of Apex. n.d. “Interactive Development Map.”
http://apexnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=fa9ba2017b784030b15ef
4da27d9e795.
Wake County Open Data. 2019. http://data-wake.opendata.arcgis.com/
Wildlands Engineering and The Catena Group. 2014. “Neuse 01 RWP Preliminary Findings Report”.
Prepared by Wildlands for NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (now NC Division of Mitigation
Services.)
Wildlands Engineering and The Catena Group. 2014. “Neuse 01 RWP Preliminary Project Atlas”.
Prepared by Wildlands for NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (now NC Division of Mitigation
Services.)
US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and North Carolina Turnpike Authority. 2018. “Complete 540 Record of Decision.”
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Documents/record-of-decision.aspx.
US EPA Office of Water. 2011. “Recovery Potential Metrics Summary Form.”
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/rp2wshedimperv1109.pdf.
US EPA Web Archive: Water: Monitoring and Assessment. n.d. “5.9
Conductivity.”https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/vms59.html.
US EPA Web Archive: Water: Monitoring and Assessment. n.d. “Chapter 4 Macroinvertebrates and
Habitat.” https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/vms40.html
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. “Biological/Conference Opinion - Revised - Complete 540,
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension in Wake and Johnston County, North Carolina.”
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Documents/biological-conference-opinion-october-
2019.pdf.
71
8.0 APPENDICES
Appendix I: NCDEQ Benthic Metrics at Current vs. Historic Sites
Appendix II: NCDEQ Benthic Species Data
Appendix III: NCDEQ Benthic Habitat Data
Appendix IV: NCDEQ Fish Community Data
Benthic Community TableUpstream(Most recent only‐ have data back to 1986)Downstream Terrible Creek tributary dataStreamMIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR TERRIBLE CR TERRIBLE CRSite LocationSR 1301 AB SUNSET LAKESR 1152SR 1301 BE SUNSET LAKETALLICUD RD SR 1375 US 401 SR 2751 SR 1301CountyWake Wake Wake Wake Wake WakeWake WakeSite IDJB295 JB330 JB67 JB199 JB68 JB200 IB329 JB247Collection date7/25/2005 7/13/2010 5/29/1986 5/30/1986 8/24/2015 6/2/1986 6/10/2010 9/5/1990BAU sample number9665 11009 3760 3762 11965 376410955 5492Sample methodFull Scale EPT Full Scale Full Scale Full Scale Full Scale EPT Full ScaleCriteriaSummer/ PiedmontSummer/ PiedmontSpring/ PiedmontSpring/ PiedmontSummer/ PiedmontSummer/ PiedmontSummer/ PiedmontSummer/ PiedmontRichnessEphemeroptera5556 6 13 5 6Plecoptera0020 0 6 1 2Trichoptera7324 7 7 6 8Odonata711568 12Megaloptera02103 2Coleoptera99941010Chironomidae1120 23182724non-Chironomidae Diptera15514 5Oligochaeta43445 3Mollusca44836 4Other taxa42747 5Total taxa richness5265 72539681Other biological metricsTotal EPT128 9 10 13 26 12 16 Seasonal EPT00 Corrected EPT910EPT abundance77 50 36 36891055475EPT Biotic Index5.85 6.03 5.95 5.96 4.96 4.875.64 5.14NCBI6.44‐‐‐6.88 6.87 6.08 6.17‐‐‐6.38 Seasonal Correction0.20 0.20 Corrected NCBI7.08 7.07BioclassificationFair Fair Fair Fair Good‐Fair GoodFair Good‐FairData in this summary table copied by Maya Cough‐Schulze from data sheets shared by Eric Fleek, Biologist Supervisor, NCDEQ Water Sciences Section‐ Biological Assessment BranchHighlights and header notes added by Maya for reference onlyAppendix I: NCDEQ Benthic Metrics at Current vs. Historic Sites
JB 295 MIDDLE CRSR 1301 Wake COUNTY25 Jul 2005Ephemeroptera
Baetidae Baetis flavistriga A
Baetis intercalaris A
Labiobaetis propinquus R
Heptageniidae Maccaffertium modestum A
Isonychiidae Isonychia spp R
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp A
Hydropsyche (H.) betteni/depravata A
Hydroptilidae Hydroptila spp R
Leptoceridae Oecetis nocturna C
Oecetis persimilis A
Oecetis sp A R
Triaenodes ignitus A
Odonata
Coenagrionidae Argia spp C
Enallagma spp C
Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster maculata R
Corduliidae Epitheca spp R
Gomphidae Progomphus spp R
Libellulidae Libellulidae C
Macromiidae Macromia spp R
Hemiptera
Corixidae Corixidae C
Coleoptera
Dryopidae Helichus fastigiatus C
Dytiscidae Hydrovatus pustulatus R
Neoporus spp R
Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus A
Dubiraphia spp A
Macronychus glabratus A
Microcylloepus pusillus R
Stenelmis crenata A
Psephenidae Psephenus herricki C
Diptera, chironomids
Chironomidae Cryptotendipes spp R
Microtendipes spp C
Natarsia spp R
Polypedilum flavum C
Polypedilum halterale gr R
Appendix II: NCDEQ Benthic Species Data
Polypedilum scalaenum gr R
Procladius spp A
Tanytarsus sp 10 R
Tanytarsus sp 2 C
Thienemannimyia gr R
Tribelos jucundum A
Diptera, other
Tipulidae Tipula spp A
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae Enchytraeidae R
Megadrile Megadrile oligochaete C
Tubificidae Ilyodrilus templetoni R
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri A
Crustacea
Cambaridae Procambarus (O.) acutus acutus C
Gastropoda
Lymnaeidae Fossaria spp R
Planorbidae Helisoma anceps R
Viviparidae Campeloma limum C
Bivalvia
Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea A
Other
Glossiphoniidae Placobdella papillifera C
Planariidae Cura foremanii A
JB330 MIDDLE CRSR 1152Wake COUNTY13 Jul 2010Ephemeroptera
Baetidae Baetis flavistriga C
Baetis intercalaris C
Callibaetis spp
Cloeon spp
Labiobaetis propinquus R
Caenidae Caenis spp
Heptageniidae Maccaffertium modestum A
Maccaffertium terminatum A
Stenacron interpunctatum
Isonychiidae Isonychia spp
Plecoptera
Perlidae Eccoptura xanthenes
Perlesta spp
Perlinella ephyre
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp A
Diplectrona modesta
Hydropsyche (H.) betteni/depravata A
Leptoceridae Oecetis nocturna
Oecetis persimilis
Triaenodes ignitus C
Odontoceridae Psilotreta frontalis
Philopotamidae Chimarra spp
Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax spp
Uenoidae Neophylax oligius
Neophylax spp
MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY30 May 1986MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY25 Jul 1991MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY11 Aug 1995MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY21 Aug 2000MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY25 Jul 2005MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY12 Aug 2010MIDDLE CRSR 1375Wake COUNTY24 Aug 2015EphemeropteraBaetidae Baetis flavistriga C RBaetis intercalaris A AAAAACentroptilum spp (dubious) C RLabiobaetis propinquus A C A C A RProcloeon sppRPseudocloeon spp (dubious) RCaenidae Caenis sppREphemerellidae Eurylophella temporalis gr RTeloganopsis deficiens RHeptageniidae Maccaffertium exiguum R C C AMaccaffertium modestum A A AAAAAMaccaffertium terminatumCStenacron interpunctatum R CIsonychiidae Isonychia spp C A C C A R ALeptohyphidae Tricorythodes sppCAAAPlecopteraPerlidae Perlesta placida (dubious) ATrichopteraDipseudopsidae Phylocentropus spp RHydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp C A AAAAAHydropsyche (H.) betteni/depravata R A C A A A CHydropsyche (H.) rossiCHydropsyche (H.) sppRHydropsyche (H.) venularis CLeptoceridae Ceraclea maculata RNectopsyche candidaCNectopsyche exquisitaRAA
Nectopsyche pavida ROecetis persimilis C C A A A COecetis sp DRTriaenodes ignitus R A CAAAALimnephilidae Pycnopsyche guttifer RPycnopsyche scabripennis RPhilopotamidae Chimarra spp R C COdonataAeshnidae Basiaeschna janata CBoyeria vinosa R A C C C RCalopterygidae Calopteryx spp R R C RCoenagrionidae Argia spp C C C A C A AEnallagma spp C R R CCorduliidae Epicordulia/Tetragoneuria sppREpitheca princepsRREpitheca spp R CNeurocordulia obsoleta RNeurocordulia spp C RGomphidae Dromogomphus spp RGomphus spp A R CHagenius brevistylusRProgomphus spp R RStylogomphus albistylus/sigmastylus RStylurus sppRLibellulidae Libellula spp RPerithemis spp CMacromiidae Macromia spp C A C RHemipteraNepidae Ranatra spp RMegalopteraCorydalidae Corydalus cornutus C RNigronia serricornis R CNigronia spp RSialidae Sialis spp A A C
ColeopteraDryopidae Helichus basalisRHelichus fastigiatusRHelichus sppCCCCDytiscidae Dytiscus spp AHydroporus spp (dubious) C A RLaccophilus spp RNeoporus sppRElmidae Ancyronyx variegatus A A A A A CDubiraphia spp A A A A CDubiraphia vittataAMacronychus glabratus A A A C A A AMicrocylloepus pusillusCStenelmis spp C R R RGyrinidae Dineutus spp CGyrinus spp ADiptera, chironomidsChironomidae Ablabesmyia mallochi R RAblabesmyia rhamphe gr CChironomus spp C RCladotanytarsus cf daviesi R C RClinotanypus spp RCorynoneura spp RCricotopus annulator complex R RCryptochironomus blarina gr CCryptochironomus fulvus CCryptochironomus sppRCCryptotendipes sppCDicrotendipes neomodestusCADicrotendipes spp CEukiefferiella brevicalcar gr RLabrundinia pilosellaRMicrotendipes pedellus grRMicrotendipes spp A
Natarsia sp ARRNatarsia spp R C R CNilotanypus fimbriatusCNilotanypus sppRParacladopelma sppRParametriocnemus spp RParatanytarsus longistylusRPentaneura inconspicua A C C APhaenopsectra obediens gr RPhaenopsectra punctipes gr CPolypedilum fallax/sp A R R CPolypedilum flavum A A C C A CPolypedilum halterale grRCPolypedilum illinoense gr CPolypedilum scalaenum gr A C R A CProcladius spp ARRheocricotopus robacki C RRheocricotopus spp RRheocricotopus tuberculatus RRheotanytarsus spp RRRStenochironomus spp R C CTanytarsus allicis/buckleyiCTanytarsus sp 3RTanytarsus sp 6RTanytarsus spp C R RThienemanniella spp R RThienemannimyia gr CATribelos fuscicorneCTribelos jucundumARCTribelos spp A C RXylotopus parRDiptera, otherCeratopogonidae Atrichopogon spp RBezzia/Palpomyia complex C R
Simuliidae Simulium sppCSimulium vittatum ATipulidae Pseudolimnophila spp RTipula sppRCOligochaetaEnchytraeidae EnchytraeidaeRLumbriculidae LumbriculidaeRCCCACMegadrile Megadrile oligochaeteCANaididae Dero sppRRNais sppRTubificidae Aulodrilus plurisetaCBranchiura sowerbyiCCIlyodrilus templetoni ALimnodrilus hoffmeisteri CCLimnodrilus sppRCTubificidaeCCrustaceaCambaridae Cambaridae C R R R CGammaridae Crangonyx sppRPalaemonidae Palaemonetes paludosus CAPalaemonetes spp R RTalitridae Hyalella spp CGastropodaAncylidae Ferrissia spp RLaevapex fuscus R R RHydrobiidae Amnicola spp RPhysidae Physa sppCCRR RRPlanorbidae Helisoma anceps RMenetus dilatatus R RPlanorbella spp RViviparidae Campeloma limum ABivalviaCorbiculidae Corbicula fluminea C C A C A ASphaeriidae Pisidium sppR
Sphaerium spp A AUnionidae Elliptio complanata CElliptio icterinaRElliptio spp COtherErpobdellidae Erpobdella/Mooreobdella sppCGlossiphoniidae GlossiphoniidaeAPlacobdella papillifera CRPlacobdella parasitica RHydracarina Hydracarina A R C CPlanariidae Dugesia tigrina C R C RPlatyhelminthes TricladidaCSisyridae Climacia spp RTetrastemmatidae Prostoma graecenseR
JB67 MIDDLE CRSR 1301 BE SUNSET LAKEWake COUNTY29 May 1986JB199 MIDDLE CRTALLICUD RDWake COUNTY30 May 1986JB200 MIDDLE CRUS 401Wake COUNTY02 Jun 1986Ephemeroptera
Baetidae Baetis intercalaris R C
Cloeon spp A C R
Heterocloeon amplum R
Labiobaetis propinquus R R
Pseudocloeon spp (dubious) A
Caenidae Caenis spp R C
Ephemerellidae Eurylophella bicolor R
Eurylophella temporalis gr R C
Teloganopsis deficiens A
Ephemeridae Hexagenia spp C
Heptageniidae Maccaffertium modestum R A A
Stenacron interpunctatum R C C
Isonychiidae Isonychia spp C A
Plecoptera
Capniidae Allocapnia spp
Nemouridae Amphinemura spp C
Perlidae Acroneuria abnormis C
Eccoptura xanthenes R
Paragnetina fumosa R
Perlesta placida (dubious) A A
Perlodidae Isoperla davisi/nr transmarina R
Isoperla holochlora-light form R
Taeniopterygidae Strophopteryx spp
Trichoptera
Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus spp C C
Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp A A A
Hydropsyche (H.) betteni/depravata R A
Leptoceridae Mystacides sepulchralis R
Oecetis persimilis R
Triaenodes ignitus R
Limnephilidae Ironoquia punctatissima
Pycnopsyche scabripennis R
Philopotamidae Chimarra spp R
Polycentropodidae Polycentropus sensu lato spp R
Odonata
Aeshnidae Aeshna spp C
Boyeria vinosa R C C
Coenagrionidae Argia spp C C C
Enallagma spp C C C
Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster spp C
Corduliidae Neurocordulia spp R
Somatochlora spp C
Gomphidae Gomphus spp R C A
Progomphus spp R R
Libellulidae Erythemis spp R
Libellula spp
Pachydiplax longipennis R
Perithemis spp C
Sympetrum spp R
Macromiidae Macromia spp R R
Megaloptera
Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus C
Nigronia serricornis R R
Sialidae Sialis spp A A A
Coleoptera
Dryopidae Helichus spp A R A
Dytiscidae Dytiscus spp C C
Hydroporus spp (dubious) A A A
Laccophilus spp C R
Lioporeus spp R
Prodaticus bimarginatus R
Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus A A
Dubiraphia spp C C C
Macronychus glabratus A A A
Stenelmis spp A R
Gyrinidae Dineutus spp C A
Haliplidae Peltodytes spp R
Hydrophilidae Enochrus spp
Laccobius spp R
Tropisternus spp R
Psephenidae Psephenus herricki R
Diptera, chironomids
Chironomidae Ablabesmyia mallochi C C
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gr R C C
Brillia spp C
Cardiocladius spp A
Chironomus spp A A C
Clinotanypus spp R
Corynoneura spp R
Cricotopus annulator complex R R
Cricotopus bicinctus R
Cryptochironomus blarina gr C
Cryptochironomus fulvus C
Cryptochironomus spp R
Dicrotendipes neomodestus C
Dicrotendipes nervosus R
Dicrotendipes spp C R
Eukiefferiella claripennis gr
Hydrobaenus spp
Kiefferulus dux
Labrundinia spp R
Microtendipes pedellus gr C
Microtendipes spp C C
Nanocladius spp R C
Natarsia spp A R
Orthocladius lignicola R
Orthocladius obumbratus gr
Orthocladius robacki
Paracladopelma loganae R
Paracladopelma spp R
Parakiefferiella sp 4 (dubious)
Parametriocnemus spp A A
Paratendipes spp R A
Phaenopsectra obediens gr A
Phaenopsectra punctipes gr R 4
Polypedilum aviceps C
Polypedilum fallax/sp A C R
Polypedilum flavum A
Polypedilum illinoense gr A R
Polypedilum scalaenum gr A R
Procladius spp R A
Rheocricotopus robacki A C
Rheocricotopus spp A
Rheocricotopus unidentatus
Rheotanytarsus spp A C C
Saetheria tylus R
Smittia spp
Stenochironomus spp C C
Tanytarsus spp C A C
Thienemanniella spp R
Thienemannimyia gr A A R
Tribelos spp A A
Tvetenia vitracies R
Zavrelimyia spp
Diptera, other
Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia complex A A C
Culicoides spp
Sciomyzidae Sepedon spp R
Simuliidae Simulium spp A
Simulium tuberosum C
Simulium venustum A
Simulium vittatum R C A
Syrphidae Eristalis spp
Tipulidae Hexatoma spp C
Pseudolimnophila spp
Tipula spp R R A
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae Enchytraeidae
Haplotaxidae Haplotaxis gordioides R
Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae C A
Naididae Nais spp R
Stylaria lacustris R
Tubificidae Branchiura sowerbyi R
Ilyodrilus templetoni A R R
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri A
Limnodrilus spp R R
Crustacea
Asellidae Caecidotea spp
Cambaridae Cambaridae R
Cambarus spp C C
Gammaridae Crangonyx spp
Palaemonidae Palaemonetes paludosus R C
Talitridae Hyalella spp A A A
Gastropoda
Ancylidae Ferrissia spp A R C
Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea columella R
Stagnicola spp
Physidae Physa spp A A A
Planorbidae Helisoma anceps A C
Menetus dilatatus A R
Viviparidae Campeloma limum A A
Bivalvia
Sphaeriidae Pisidium spp R
Sphaerium spp R C A
Unionidae Elliptio complanata C
Other
Glossiphoniidae Desserobdella phalera C
Helobdella triserialis R
Placobdella papillifera C
Hydracarina Hydracarina C C
Planariidae Dugesia tigrina C R
Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma graecense R
JB329 TERRIBLE CRSR 2751Wake COUNTY10 Jun 2010Ephemeroptera
Baetidae Baetis flavistriga C
Baetis intercalaris R
Callibaetis spp
Cloeon spp
Labiobaetis propinquus
Caenidae Caenis spp R
Heptageniidae Maccaffertium modestum A
Maccaffertium terminatum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Isonychiidae Isonychia spp A
Plecoptera
Perlidae Eccoptura xanthenes
Perlesta spp R
Perlinella ephyre
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp A
Diplectrona modesta
Hydropsyche (H.) betteni/depravata A
Leptoceridae Oecetis nocturna R
Oecetis persimilis R
Triaenodes ignitus C
Odontoceridae Psilotreta frontalis
Philopotamidae Chimarra spp
Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax spp
Uenoidae Neophylax oligius C
Neophylax spp
TERRIBLE CR JB247 atSR 1301Wake COUNTY05 Sep 1990Ephemeroptera
Baetidae Baetis flavistriga R
Callibaetis spp C
Cloeon spp C
Heptageniidae Maccaffertium modestum A
Stenacron interpunctatum C
Isonychiidae Isonychia spp C
Plecoptera
Perlidae Eccoptura xanthenes A
Perlinella ephyre R
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp A
Diplectrona modesta R
Hydropsyche (H.) betteni/depravata A
Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus R
Odontoceridae Psilotreta frontalis C
Philopotamidae Chimarra spp C
Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax spp A
Uenoidae Neophylax spp C
Odonata
Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa C
Calopterygidae Calopteryx spp A
Coenagrionidae Argia spp A
Enallagma spp A
Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster fasciatus R
Corduliidae Epitheca spp R
Gomphidae Dromogomphus spp R
Progomphus spp R
Stylogomphus albistylus/sigmastylus C
Libellulidae Libellula spp R
Pachydiplax longipennis R
Perithemis spp C
Megaloptera
Corydalidae Nigronia serricornis A
Sialidae Sialis spp C
Coleoptera
Dryopidae Helichus spp R
Dytiscidae Hydroporus spp (dubious) C
Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus A
Dubiraphia spp A
Macronychus glabratus C
Microcylloepus pusillus C
Optioservus spp A
Stenelmis spp A
Haliplidae Peltodytes spp C
Psephenidae Psephenus herricki A
Diptera, chironomids
Chironomidae Ablabesmyia mallochi A
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gr C
Chironomus spp C
Cricotopus annulator complex R
Cryptochironomus spp C
Cryptotendipes spp A
Dicrotendipes modestus A
Dicrotendipes nervosus C
Labrundinia spp A
Nanocladius downesi C
Nanocladius spp A
Nilotanypus spp R
Paratendipes spp C
Phaenopsectra obediens gr A
Polypedilum flavum A
Polypedilum scalaenum gr C
Procladius spp A
Rheotanytarsus spp C
Saetheria tylus R
Synorthocladius spp R
Tanytarsus sp 2 A
Thienemannimyia gr A
Tribelos spp C
Xylotopus par C
Diptera, other
Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia complex C
Rhagionidae Atherix lantha R
Simuliidae Simulium spp R
Tabanidae Tabanus spp R
Tipulidae Hexatoma spp C
Oligochaeta
Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae R
Naididae Stylaria lacustris A
Tubificidae Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri C
Crustacea
Talitridae Hyalella spp A
Gastropoda
Physidae Physa spp C
Planorbidae Menetus dilatatus C
Bivalvia
Sphaeriidae Pisidium spp R
Unionidae Elliptio complanata C
Other
Glossiphoniidae Helobdella triserialis R
Placobdella papillifera C
Hydracarina Hydracarina C
Planariidae Dugesia tigrina R
Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Table - JB295
Stream MIDDLE CR
Site Location
SR 1301 AB SUNSET 
LAKE
County Wake
Site ID JB295
Collection date 7/25/2005
BAU sample number 9665
Habitat Scores
Channel modification (5)5
In-stream habitat (20)12
Bottom substrate (15)13
Pool variety (10)9
Riffle habitats (16)7
Bank erosion (7)2
Bank vegetation (7)2
Light penetration (10)7
Left riparian (5)5
Right riparian (5)5
Total Habitat (100)67
Other Habitat
Average stream width (m)5
Average stream depth (m)0.3
Canopy (%)70
Substrate (%)
Boulder 0
Cobble 15
Gravel 20
Sand 50
Silt 15
Other
description
Physicochemical
Temperature (ºC)24.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)5.9
Specific conductance (μmhos/cm)319
pH 6.8
Appendix III: NCDEQ Benthic Habitat Data
Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Table
Stream MIDDLE CR
Site Location SR 1152
County Wake
Site ID JB330
Collection date 7/13/2010
BAU sample number 11009
Habitat Scores
Channel modification (5)4
In-stream habitat (20)11
Bottom substrate (15)8
Pool variety (10)10
Riffle habitats (16)14
Bank erosion (7)3
Bank vegetation (7)5
Light penetration (10)10
Left riparian (5)5
Right riparian (5)3
Total Habitat (100)73
Other Habitat
Average stream width (m)6
Average stream depth (m)0.8
Canopy (%)90
Substrate (%)
Boulder 0
Cobble 45
Gravel 30
Sand 25
Silt
Other
description
Physicochemical
Temperature (ºC)24.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)7
Specific conductance (μmhos/cm)482
pH 7.4
Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Table
Stream MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR MIDDLE CR
Site Location SR 1375 SR 1375 SR 1375 SR 1375
County Wake Wake Wake Wake
Site ID JB68 JB68 JB68 JB68
Collection date 8/21/2000 7/25/2005 8/12/2010 8/24/2015
BAU sample number 8270 9666 11073 11965
Habitat Scores
Channel modification (5)5555
In-stream habitat (20)19 12 15 13
Bottom substrate (15)3396
Pool variety (10)10 5 10 10
Riffle habitats (16)3576
Bank erosion (7)6252
Bank vegetation (7)6274
Light penetration (10)10 6 10 9
Left riparian (5)4544
Right riparian (5)4534
Total Habitat (100)70 50 75 63
Other Habitat
Average stream width (m 97710
Average stream depth (m 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5
Canopy (%)95 80 60 90
Substrate (%)
Boulder 0 0 10 5
Cobble 0015
Gravel 10 15 20 30
Sand 70 75 50 50
Silt 20 10 5 10
Other 5
description CPOM
Physicochemical
Temperature (ºC)22 26.5 29 24.7
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)6.3 5 6.2 5.9
Specific conductance (μm 240 221 299 393
pH 6.8 6.7 6.6 7.2
Mountain/Piedmont Habitat Table
Stream
TERRIBLE 
CR
Site Location SR 2751
County Wake
Site ID IB329
Collection date 6/10/2010
BAU sample number 10955
Habitat Scores
Channel modification (5)4
In-stream habitat (20)12
Bottom substrate (15)8
Pool variety (10)6
Riffle habitats (16)14
Bank erosion (7)3
Bank vegetation (7)5
Light penetration (10)10
Left riparian (5)2
Right riparian (5)5
Total Habitat (100)69
Other Habitat
Average stream width (m)4
Average stream depth (m)0.2
Canopy (%)60
Substrate (%)
Boulder 0
Cobble 20
Gravel 55
Sand 25
Silt
Other
description
Physicochemical
Temperature (ºC)23.7
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)6.66
Specific conductance (μmhos/cm)157
pH 5.7
Amherst WWTPCrooked Creek WWTPCity of Cary's South Cary Water Reclamation Facility
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Reference Site
WAKE 03020201 35.635556 -78.728056 260 No
MIDDLE CR SR 1375 JF34 05/21/15 Good
County 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (≥ 1 MGD or < 1 MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Town of Apex's Water Reclamation Facility NC0064050 3.6
Level IV Ecoregion Drainage Area (mi2)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
Northern Outer Piedmont 35.6 10 0.4
NC0066150 0.117Brighton Forest WWTP
NC0061638 0.053NC00627150.150NC006510216
Wetland Water Barren
1992 61.6 8.0 no data 25.1 no data 3.6
Landuse (%)Forest Developed Impervious Cultivation Grass/Herb/Shrub
1.5 0.2
2001 42.3 29.1 5.6 14.2 9.0 4.4 0.9 0.0
2011 34.1 41.5 9.2 10.5 8.5 4.2 1.1 0.2
Water Quality Parameters 2010 2011 2015 Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)17.5 25.7 22.6
pH (s.u.)6.6 6.4 6.4
Habitat Assessment Scores (max score)2014
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.5 5.5 6.3
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)250 320 288
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)5
Bank Erosion (7)4
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)14
Bottom Substrate (15)3
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)65
Water Clarity Clear/tannic
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Sample Date Sample ID Species Total NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
05/21/15 2015-33 20 48 Good
Substrate: Sand, gravel
07/20/04 2004-131 27 54 Excellent
Watershed -- drains southeastern Wake County, including the increasingly developed cities of Fuquay-Varina, Cary, and Apex and their suburbs; seven NPDES
facilities upstream discharging a total Qw = 19.96 MGD; transitional zone between the Northern Outer Piedmont and the Rolling Coastal Plain; tributary to the
Neuse River. Habitats -- moderate quality habitats, has ranged from 63 to 78 since 2004; Coastal Plain-like with extensive wetlands and bottomlands within
both of the riparian zones; gravel riffle at upper end of reach; deadfalls and coarse woody debris snags; blow-out pools at bends in the creek; Oriental Privet
growing in the riparian zones. Water Quality -- a detectable chlorine odor from the WWTP effluent; greatest specific conductance of any site in the Neuse
Piedmont in 2015, has ranged from 250 µS/cm to 320 µS/cm since 2004. 2015 -- number of fish collected was very low (n = 145) and the Percentage of
Tolerant Fish was relatively high (50%, primarily Eastern Mosquitofish, Redbreast Sunfish, Satinfin Shiner, and Flat Bullhead); an 8-point increase in the NCIBI
Score and a one NCIBI Rating Class increase resulted from the collection of an additional species of darter (Glassy Darter), a very slight decrease in the
Percentage of Insectivores (from 91% to 90% between 2011 and 2015), and a greater percentage of species with multiple age classes (65% in 2015 vs. 48% in
2011); as at other transitional sites, the Percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores was very low (7%) and the Percentage of Insectivores was high (90%); 11 large
specimens (320-453 mm TL) of Notchlip Redhorse and V-lip Redhorse were encountered. 2004-2015 -- community shares faunal similarities with Coastal Plain
and Piedmont fish communities; a very speciose community with 32 species known from the site, including 10 species of sunfish, 7 species of cyprinids, 4
species of darters, 3 species of suckers, and 3 Intolerant Species (Chainback Darter which has not been collected since 2004 and Pinewoods Shiner and
Roanoke Darter); dominant species are the tolerant Redbreast Sunfish (2004-2011) and the tolerant Eastern Mosquitofish (2015); a consistently low number of
fish collected (n = 121-231) along with a high percentage of them being Tolerant Fish (34%-50%), and a skewed trophic structure (~ 6% Omnivores+Herbivores
and ~ 90% Insectivores); NCIBI Scores have varied from 40 to 54 with NCIBI Ratings ranging from a low Good-Fair to a low Excellent. Recommendation --
continue monitoring this transitional ecoregion and basinwide site in 2020 to determine any impacts from the WWTP and the continued suburbanization of its
watershed.
Most Abundant
Species
Eastern Mosquitofish (26,
18%)
Non-indigenous
Species
Bluegill (7) and Redear
Sunfish (1)
Imperiled
Species None
Data Analysis
06/02/11 2011-27 21 40 Good-Fair04/21/10 2010-11 20 44 Good-Fair
2006 36.2 37.6 7.7 12.0 8.6 4.3 1.1 0.3
Appendix IV: NCDEQ Fish Community Data
Watershed -- drains southeast Wake County northeast of the city of Fuquay-Varina, including the US 401 corridor; greatest percentage of its watershed in
grassland/herbaceous/shrub than any other watershed in the Neuse Piedmont in 2015; one NPDES permitted discharger in the watershed (NC0066516,
located ~ 0.3 miles upstream); tributary to Middle Creek. Habitats -- moderate quality habitats, same as in 2005 and 2010 (range 61-69 since 2005); strong,
swift flow; gravel riffles; eroding banks on the left with blowouts; coarse woody debris and deadfalls creating pools; wide bottomland riparian zones in much of
the reach; evidence of past very high water; becoming a more hydrologically flashy stream as its watershed is being increasingly developed. Water Quality -- a
detectable odor of chlorine from the WWTP effluent; specific conductance elevated from the effluent and has ranged from 97 µS/cm in 2005 to 139 µS/cm in
2015. 2015 -- second fewest fish (n = 111) collected from any site in the Neuse Piedmont in 2015, 628 fish were collected in 2010; a 6-point decline in the NCIBI Score and one NCIBI Rating class decrease were attributed to the lower than expected total species richness, fewer fish, the loss of two species of
intolerant darters (Roanoke Darter and Chainback Darter), and the loss of three species of sunfish (Warmouth, Redear Sunfish, and Largemouth Bass);
collectively these metric decreases and the visible appearance of the site indicated that very high water might have scoured out the stream and re-structured
the fish community, in fact between late December 2014 and mid-January 2015 there were two very high flow events (e.g., Middle Creek near Clayton was >
2,500 cfs in one event and ~ 2,000 cfs in the second event while the median flow was ~ 75 cfs). 2005-2015 -- 23 species are known from the site, including 7
species of sunfish, 6 species of cyprinids, 3 species of darters, 3 Intolerant Species (Pinewoods Shiner, Roanoke Darter, and Chainback Darter), and 2 species
of sucker; dominant species are Bluehead Chub (2005) and Redbreast Sunfish (2010 and 2015); community appears to have shifted since 2005 from Bluehead Chub, White Shiner, and Swallowtail Shiner (66% to 42% to 16%) to Redbreast Sunfish (11% to 38% to 35%) with the the Percentage of Tolerant Fish
increasing from 12% to 38% to 43%. Recommendation -- continue basinwide monitoring of this site in 2020 to continue document impacts from the expansion
of the WWTP discharge from 1 MGD to 6 MGD and the increasing suburbanization of the watershed.
Most Abundant
Species
Redbreast Sunfish (39,
35%)
Non-indigenous
Species Bluegill (21)Imperiled
Species None
Data Analysis
04/21/10 2010-10 17 52 Good
04/08/05 2005-18 14 50 Good
03/30/15 2015-02 14 44 Good-Fair
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)68
Water Clarity Slightly turbid/tannic Substrate: Gravel, sand
Sample Date Sample ID Species Total NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)8
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)10
Bank Erosion (7)4
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)14
Bottom Substrate (15)4
pH (s.u.)6.2 6.5 6.3
Habitat Assessment Scores (max score)2014
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.0 7.6 12.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)97 138 139
Water Quality Parameters 2005 2010 2015 Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)17.7 16.0 10.3
2011 26.1 34.6 8.5 21.3 12.6 4.2 1.1 0.4
2001 29.8 23.4 5.2 25.9 14.0 4.3 1.2 0.0
Wetland Water Barren
1992 43.8 7.0 no data 44.7 no data 2.5
Landuse (%)Forest Developed Impervious Cultivation Grass/Herb/Shrub
1.9 0.0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (≥ 1 MGD or < 1 MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Town of Fuquay-Varina's Terrible Creek WWTP NC0066516 6
Level IV Ecoregion Drainage Area (mi2)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
Northern Outer Piedmont 11.0 6 0.4
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Reference Site
WAKE 03020201 35.614444 -78.725000 260 No
TERRIBLE CR SR 2751 JF35 03/30/15 Good-Fair
County 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude Elevation (ft)
2006 26.9 31.2 7.6 22.7 13.3 4.3 1.2 0.1