CPF Exec Summary

Executive Summary xvii
Executive Summary
North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management
Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are
prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality for each of the seventeen major river basins in the
state. Each basinwide plan is revised at five-year intervals. While these plans are prepared by
the Division of Water Quality, their implementation and the protection of water quality entails
the coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments and stakeholders in the state. The
first basinwide plan for the Cape Fear River basin was completed in 1996.
This document is the first five-year update of the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. The format of this plan was revised in response to comments received during the first
planning cycle. Much of the general information in the first plan was replaced by more detailed
information specific to the Cape Fear River basin. A greater emphasis was placed on identifying
causes and sources of pollution for individual streams in order to facilitate local restoration
efforts.
Comments from three pubic workshops held in the basin were seriously considered during plan
development. While all of the comments may not have been addressed to the satisfaction of the
commentors, this input will help guide continuing DWQ activities in the basin.
Goals of the Basinwide Approach
The primary goals of DWQ’s basinwide program are to:
• identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters;
• identify and protect high value resource waters;
• protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth;
• develop appropriate management strategies to protect and restore water quality;
• assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers; and
• improve public awareness and involvement in the management of the state’s surface waters.
Cape Fear River Basin Overview
The Cape Fear River basin is the state’s largest river basin. The river basin is located entirely
within the state’s boundaries and flows southeast from the north central piedmont region near
Greensboro to the Atlantic Ocean near Wilmington.
The Cape Fear River is formed at the confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers on the border of
Chatham and Lee counties, just below the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir dam. From there, the
river flows across the coastal plain past Fayetteville through three locks and dams to Wilmington
before entering the ocean. The Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers are blackwater systems
that meet the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County.
Executive Summary xviii
The basin includes four coastal Outstanding Resource Waters (Stump Sound, Middle and Topsail
Sounds, and Masonboro Sound) and one inland ORW (a portion of the Black River basin).
Over one-half of the land in the river basin is forested. Statistics provided by the US Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), indicate that during the 10-year
period from 1982 to 1992, there was a significant increase in the amount of developed land
(43%). The basin contains 54% of the state’s swine operations, and swine populations in the
basin have increased 90% between 1994 and 1998.
There are many different aquatic ecosystems in the Cape Fear River basin with a wide variety
commercial and recreational fisheries. Wetlands, estuaries, blackwater rivers and rocky streams
support 30 endangered species in the basin.
The most populated regions of the basin are in and near the Triad area (Greensboro-Burlington-
High Point), the Durham-Chapel Hill area and Fayetteville. The overall population density is
160 persons per square mile compared to a statewide average of 139 persons per square mile.
The percent population growth over the 7-year period from 1990 to 1997 was 13.2% compared to
a statewide increase of 12.0%. Estimated water usage in the basin is expected to increase nearly
95% (193 MGD in 1992 to 376 MGD by 2020).
Assessment of Water Quality in the Cape Fear River Basin
Waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a waterbody
supports its designated uses is an important method of interpreting water quality data and
assessing water quality. This determination results in a use support rating. The use support
ratings refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life
protection and swimming) are fully supported, partially supported or not supported. For
instance, waters classified for fishing and water contact recreation (Class C) are rated as fully
supporting if data used to determine use support (such as chemical/physical data collected at
ambient sites or benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications) did not exceed specific criteria.
However, if these criteria were exceeded, then the waters are rated as partially supporting or not
supporting, depending on the degree of exceedence. Streams rated as either partially supporting
or not supporting are considered impaired.
Twenty percent of the monitored waters in the Cape Fear River basin are rated as impaired
according recent data (Table 1). Most of the impaired stream miles are located near urbanized
areas. Approximately 34% (2,037.1 miles) of the named freshwater streams in the basin are
monitored.
Executive Summary xix
Table 1 Use Support Summary Information for All Monitored and Evaluated Streams in
the Cape Fear River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams
Monitored
Streams Only
Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 4295.6 71 1647.3 81
Impaired 403.2 7 389.8 19
Partially Supporting 285.8 5 276.2 13
Not Supporting 117.4 2 113.6 6
Not Rated 1349.3 22
Total Miles 6048.1 2037.1
Jordan Reservoir
Nutrient over enrichment is a continuing potential source of impairment to the waters in the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir watershed. The Clean Water Responsibility Act (House Bill 515) was
enacted in 1997 to further address ongoing problems associated with waters classified as NSW.
The Act sets limits for nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) discharges to NSW waters. The
limits apply to facilities discharging more than 0.5 MGD and that were in operation or had
authorization to construct prior to July 1, 1997 and all facilities issued authorization to construct
after that date.
Senate Bill 1366 granted extensions to compliance dates in watersheds affected by House Bill
515. The extension includes conditions that the dischargers must meet, including development
of a calibrated nutrient response model. The municipalities of Greensboro, Mebane, Reidsville,
Graham, Pittsboro, Burlington, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority requested compliance
extensions from the nutrient limits, primarily because of nitrogen. Compliance extension
requests were received by DWQ prior to the statutory deadline of January 1, 1999. South
Durham, Durham RTP and Cone Mills did not apply for the extension. Triangle J and Piedmont
Council of Governments are administering the project and have to hired a consultant to perform
the modeling tasks. They will report to the EMC two times a year.
Randleman Reservoir
In November 1998, waters in the proposed Randleman Reservoir watershed were reclassified to
WS-IV CA. Rules have been adopted (15A NCAC 2B .0248 through .0251) to help prevent
potential water quality problems in the proposed reservoir. The rules address point source
discharges by not allowing new or expanding discharges into the watershed except for High
Point Eastside WWTP. This facility will have to meet phosphorus limits established to protect
water quality standards. The rules also address nonpoint source pollution in the Randleman
Reservoir watershed with management strategies that maintain and protect riparian areas and
require urban stormwater programs to be developed by local governments having land use
authority in the watershed.
Executive Summary xx
Highpoint Eastside WWTP will have to relocate its discharge point 1.5 miles downstream and
establish effluent limits for phosphorus at a monthly average of 0.5 mg/l at a maximum flow of
26 MGD. Also, the facility would have to involve the EMC in any future decisions that might
increase phosphorus above mass loading at 26 MGD and 0.5 mg/l.
Local governments are required to develop ordinances or modify existing water supply
ordinances to protect riparian areas and implement stormwater management plans by January 1,
2000. All of the affected local governments have submitted their revised ordinances to meet the
specifications set forth in the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Nutrient Management
Strategy (15A NCAC 2B .0248 through .0251) for approval by the EMC’s Water Quality
Committee.
Recommended Management Strategies for Restoring Impaired Waters
The long-range mission of basinwide management is to provide a means of addressing the
complex problem of planning for increased development and economic growth, while protecting
and/or restoring the quality and intended uses of the Cape Fear River basin’s surface waters. In
striving towards its mission, DWQ’s highest priority near-term goals are to:
identify and restore impaired waters in the basin;
identify and protect high value resource waters and biological communities of special
importance; and
protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth.
Impaired waters in the Cape Fear River basin and recommended strategies are summarized
briefly in Table 2. For information on each stream segment refer to Section B.
Water quality problems are primarily attributed to nonpoint source pollution (NPS) and include
urban runoff and sedimentation (resulting primarily from land clearing activities, loss of riparian
vegetation and stormwater surges). However, some streams are degraded by point source
pollution. For these streams, the plan presents a management strategy to reduce that pollutant
source.
The task of quantifying nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for
these impaired waters is very resource intensive. It is overwhelming, given the current limited
resources of DWQ, other agencies (e.g., Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments. Therefore, only
limited progress towards restoring waters that are impaired by nonpoint sources can be expected
during this five-year cycle unless substantial resources are put toward solving NPS problems.
DWQ plans to further evaluate impaired waters in the Cape Fear River basin in conjunction with
other agencies that deal with nonpoint source pollution issues and develop management
strategies for a portion of these impaired waters for the next Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan.
Executive Summary xxi
Table 2 Impaired Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin*
Subbasin Name of
Stream
Miles Rating Major
Source*
Management
Strategy
03-06-01 Haw River 7.7 PS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate extent of nonpoint source impacts
from agricultural land uses.
03-06-01 Haw River 20.1 PS NP
03-06-01 Troublesome Creek 15.6 PS NP
03-06-01 Little Troublesome Creek 3.3 PS NP DWQ will monitor implementation of Phase II stormwater program.
03-06-01 Little Troublesome Creek 5.0 NS NP Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and stormwater program.
03-06-02 Haw River 19.2 PS NP Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and monitor to determine
extent of nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-02 Brush Creek 5.6 PS NP Continue to monitor streams to evaluate implementation of
Greensboro stormwater program.
03-06-02 Horsepen Creek 6.1 PS NP
03-06-02 Horsepen Creek 1.6 PS NP
03-06-02 Reedy Fork 8.6 PS NP, P Monitor to evaluate implementation of TMDL and Greensboro
stormwater program in Buffalo Creek watershed.
03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek 8.7 NS NP, P Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and Greensboro
stormwater program.
03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek 8.1 NS NP, P Develop TMDL to address ammonia and Greensboro stormwater
program.
03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek 14.8 PS NP Greensboro stormwater program.
03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek 3.3 NS NP
03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek 4.0 NS NP Develop TMDL to address ammonia and Greensboro stormwater
program.
03-06-03 Little Alamance Creek
(Alamance County)
12.3 NS NP DWQ will monitor implementation of Phase II stormwater program.
03-06-04 Marys Creek 9.7 PS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate extent of nonpoint source impacts
from agricultural land use.
03-06-04 Robeson Creek 5.6 PS NP, P Develop TMDL to address nutrients. Local initiatives needed to
address nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-04 Robeson Creek 0.6 PS NP,P
03-06-05 New Hope Creek 0.5 PS NP Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and Durham stormwater
program.
03-06-05 New Hope Creek 24.5 PS NP, P
03-06-05 Northeast Creek 2.6 PS NP, P Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and Durham stormwater
program.
03-06-05 Northeast Creek 5.8 PS NP, P
03-06-06 Little Creek 5.4 NS NP DWQ will monitor implementation of Phase II stormwater program.
03-06-06 Bolin Creek 1.0 PS NP
03-06-06 Booker Creek
(Eastwood Lake)
3.6 PS NP
03-06-06 Booker Creek 1.2 PS NP
03-06-06 Booker Creek 0.8 PS NP
03-06-06 Little Creek 0.7 PS NP
03-06-06 Morgan Creek 4.5 PS NP, P
03-06-06 Meeting of the Waters 1.4 NS NP
03-06-06 Morgan Creek (including
the Morgan Creek Arm
of New Hope River Arm
of Jordan Reservoir)
0.6 PS NP, P
03-06-07 Kenneth Creek 3.7 NS NP, P Local initiatives needed to address nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-07 Kenneth Creek 3.6 NS NP, P
Executive Summary xxii
Table 2 Impaired Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin* (con’t)
Subbasin Name of
Stream
Miles Rating Major
Source*
Management
Strategy
03-06-08 East Fork Deep River 6.5 PS NP Monitor to evaluate continued implementation Greensboro
stormwater program and evaluate nonpoint source impacts.
03-06-08 East Fork Deep River 0.6 PS NP
03-06-08 DEEP RIVER 1.3 PS NP
03-06-08 DEEP RIVER 0.9 PS NP
03-06-08 DEEP RIVER 2.0 PS NP Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and management strategy
to address turbidity.
03-06-08 DEEP RIVER 6.8 PS NP
03-06-08 Richland Creek 6.4 NS NP Develop TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and High Point
stormwater program.
03-06-08 Richland Creek 2.6 NS NP,P
03-06-09 Haskett Creek 5.9 NS NP DWQ will monitor implementation of Phase II stormwater program.
03-06-09 Haskett Creek 1.3 NS NP
03-06-10 Cotton Creek 2.2 NS P DWQ will work with Star WWTP to evaluate and eliminate toxicity
and determine extent of nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-10 Cotton Creek 3.9 PS P
03-06-12 Rocky River 10.6 PS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate extent of nonpoint source impacts
from agricultural land use.
03-06-12 Loves Creek 2.8 PS NP Local initiatives needed to address urban nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-12 Loves Creek 0.5 NS NP, P
03-06-14 Crane Creek
(Crains Creek)
28.3 PS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate extent of nonpoint source impacts
from agricultural land use.
03-06-15 Cross Creek
(Big Cross Creek)
9.0 NS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate continued implementation of the
Fayetteville stormwater program.
03-06-15 Cross Creek
(Big Cross Creek
0.5 NS NP
03-06-15 Cross Creek
(Big Cross Creek)
3.5 NS NP
03-06-15 Little Cross Creek 7.0 PS NP
03-06-15 Little Cross Creek 0.5 PS NP
03-06-15 Little Cross Creek 0.3 PS NP
03-06-16 Browns Creek
(Cross Pond)
8.5 NS NP Local initiatives to address nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-17 CAPE FEAR RIVER 3.8 PS P, NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate source of impairment.
03-06-19 Stewarts Creek 15.0 PS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate recovery from hurricanes.
03-06-21 Northeast Cape Fear
River
3.3 NS P DWQ will continue to monitor impacts of discharges.
03-06-22 Muddy Creek 14.0 PS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate recovery from hurricanes.
03-06-22 Rock Fish Creek
(New Kirk Pond)
5.3 PS NP, P DWQ will monitor to evaluate recovery from hurricanes and
desnagging operations.
03-06-22 Rock Fish Creek
(New Kirk Pond)
3.4 PS NP, P
03-06-23 Burgaw Creek 9.5 NS NP, P DWQ will monitor to evaluate nonpoint source pollution.
03-06-23 Burnt Mill Creek 4.8 NS NP DWQ will monitor to evaluate nonpoint source pollution.
Key: NS = Not Supporting PS = Partially Supporting
NP = Nonpoint sources P = Point Sources
+ = Only limited progress towards developing and implementing NPS strategies for these impaired waters can be
expected without additional resources.
* = These waters are also on the 303(d) list, and a TMDL and/or management strategy will be developed to remove the
water from the list.
Executive Summary xxiii
Addressing Waters on the State’s 303(d) List
For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a DWQ priority. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states
to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses.
(The waters in the Cape Fear River basin that are on this list are discussed in the individual
subbasin descriptions in Section B.) States are also required to develop Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed waters to address impairment. EPA
issued guidance in August 1997 that called for states to develop schedules for developing
TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list within 8-13 years.
There are approximately 2,387 impaired stream miles on the 303(d) list in NC. The rigorous and
demanding task of developing TMDLs for each listed water during a 13-year time frame will
require the focus of many resources. It will be a priority for North Carolina’s water quality
programs over the next several years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters. This task will
be accomplished through the basinwide planning process and schedule.
Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements
To achieve the goal of restoring impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to work
more closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The
costs of restoration will be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration
efforts. These programs include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the NC Agricultural
Cost Share Program, the Wetlands Restoration Program, and the federally funded Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program.
With increased development occurring, there will be significant challenges ahead in balancing
economic growth with the protection of water quality. Point source impacts on surface waters
can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning process. Nonpoint sources of
pollution can be identified through the basinwide plan, but actions to address these impacts must
be taken at the local level. Such actions should include: development and enforcement of local
erosion control ordinances; requirement of stormwater best management practices for existing
and new development; development and enforcement of buffer ordinances; and land use planning
that assesses impacts on natural resources. This basinwide plan presents many water quality
initiatives and accomplishments that are underway within the basin. These actions provide a
foundation on which future initiatives can be built.