CPF Chapter B-10

Section B: Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 171
Chapter 10 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10
Includes the Deep River, Bear Creek and McLendons Creek
10.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin includes the middle section of the Deep
River in Moore County. The Deep River here is classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW) from Grassy Creek to NC
42, where Moore, Chatham and Lee counties meet near
Carbonton. Cedar Creek, Scotchman Creek and Lick
Creek are also HQWs. The towns of Robbins and
Carthage are in this subbasin. Most of the land is
forested, but there is some agriculture. A map of the
subbasin, including water quality sampling locations, is
presented in Figure B-10.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-10. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for one stream in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix
III for a complete listing of monitored waters and use
support ratings. See Section A, Chapter 3, Table A-31 for
a summary of lakes and reservoirs use support data.
Good bioclassifications were found using benthos data at
Cabin Creek, Mill Creek, Wet Creek, Bear Creek and
Buffalo Creek in 1998. Compared to 1993 data, this
indicated a slight decline in water quality for Mill Creek,
an improvement for Bear Creek and Buffalo Creek and no
change for Cabin Creek and Mill Creek. Very low flows
occurred here during the summer of 1998, with
McLendons Creek, Richland Creek and Big Governors
Creek reduced to pools of water between dry streambed.
These streams have low flows due to underlying geologic
formations (Triassic Basin) and could not be rated. The
federally endangered Cape Fear shiner was collected in Falls Creek along with 25 other species
of fish, the most for any Cape Fear basin fish samples.
For more detailed information on water quality in this subbasin, refer to Basinwide Assessment
Report – Cape Fear River Basin – June 1999, available from DWQ Environmental Sciences
Branch at [phone].
Subbasin 03-06-10 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 448
Land area: 446
Water area: 2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 21,107 people
Pop. Density: 47 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 80.0
Surface Water: 0.9
Urban: 0.4
Cultivated Crop: 0.9
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 17.9
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 205.6 mi.
Partially Supporting: 6.2 mi.
Not Supporting: 2.2 mi.
Not Rated: 133.1 mi.
Lakes:
Carthage City Lake -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 173
Table B-10 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 Cabin Creek Moore SR 1400 Good Good
B-8 Mill Creek Moore nr SR 1275 Excellent/Good Good/G-F
B-9 Wet Creek Moore NC 24 Good Good
B-10 Bear Creek Moore NC 705 Good-Fair Good
B-11 Falls Creek Moore SR 1606 Fair Not Rated
B-12 Buffalo Creek Moore NC 22 Good-Fair Good
B-16 Big Governors Creek Moore SR 1625 Poor Not Rated
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-2 Cabin Creek Moore SR 1275 no sample Good
F-4 Falls Creek Moore SR 1606 no sample Good
F-5 McLendons Creek Moore SR 1210 no sample Fair
F-6 Richland Creek Moore SR 1640 Poor Poor
F-7 Indian Creek Chatham SR 2306 no sample Good-Fair
10.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Cotton Creek, Falls Creek, McLendons Creek, Richland Creek, Indian Creek and Big
Governors Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Portions of Cotton Creek are currently rated as impaired according to recent DWQ
monitoring. Current status of each of these streams is discussed below. Prior recommendations,
future recommendations and projects aimed at improving water quality for these waters are also
discussed when applicable. 303(d) listed waters are summarized in Part 10.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 10.4.
Cotton Creek
1996 Recommendations
Cotton Creek (6.6 miles from source to Cabin Creek) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. The creek is a very low flow (zero 7Q10 and 30Q2) stream that receives a 90% industrial
wastewater flow from the Star WWTP. It was recommended that the facility meet advanced
tertiary treatment limits.
Current Status
The 0.5 miles above the Star WWTP had no discernible flow in 1998 and could not be rated.
Star WWTP has been meeting permitted limits except for toxicity. The Town of Star has signed
a special order of consent (SOC) to meet toxicity limits by January 2001. From the Star WWTP
Section B: Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 174
to Lick Creek (2.2 stream miles), Cotton Creek is currently not supporting (NS) according to
recent DWQ monitoring. The remaining 3.9 miles of Cotton Creek are currently partially
supporting (PS). The stream has a biologically impaired benthic community. The Star WWTP
discharge comprises 100% of the flow in this segment of Cotton Creek much of the year and is
believed to be the cause of impairment. Agricultural and urban nonpoint source pollution may
also be sources of impairment to Cotton Creek. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d)
list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Cotton Creek is a zero flow stream. It is necessary for Star WWTP to maintain the highest
quality effluent possible to reduce impacts to downstream segments of Cabin Creek and
minimize adverse effects in Cotton Creek. DWQ will continue to monitor the toxicity of
discharge from this facility. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and
chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
Falls Creek
Current Status
Falls Creek (11.6 miles from source to Deep River) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. The stream is in a forested watershed with good instream habitat. The Fair benthos
community may be indicative of very low summer flows. More fish species were collected at the
site on Falls Creek than at any other site in the basin. The stream is currently not rated (NR) and
not on the 303(d) list.
McLendons Creek
Current Status
McLendons Creek (20.1 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. This stream is in
a watershed with a large amount of agricultural land uses that have the potential to degrade
instream habitat. Streambank erosion has also been noted in this stream. New biological
information has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size
of the stream and the low summer flow conditions characteristic of Triassic Basin streams. This
stream is currently not rated (NR) and no longer on the 303(d) list.
There is currently a study on McLendons Creek to evaluate water quality benefits of agricultural
BMPs. Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.2 for more information on this project.
Richland Creek
Current Status
Richland Creek (12.8 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. New biological
information has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size
Section B: Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 175
of the stream and the low summer flow conditions characteristic of Triassic Basin streams. This
stream is currently not rated (NR) and no longer on the 303(d) list.
Indian Creek
Current Status
Indian Creek (8.2 miles) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. New biological information
has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size of the stream
and the low summer flow conditions characteristic of Triassic Basin streams. This stream is
currently not rated (NR) and no longer on the 303(d) list.
Big Governors Creek
Current Status
Big Governors Creek (9.5 miles) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. New biological
information has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size
of the stream and the low summer flow conditions characteristic of Triassic Basin streams. This
stream is currently not rated (NR) and no longer on the 303(d) list.
Cabin Creek
Current Status
A portion of Cabin Creek (2.3 miles) was not sampled during recent DWQ monitoring, but is
impaired based on data collected in 1995. This stream is impacted by low quality effluent from
Star WWTP.
2000 Recommendations
For recommendations, see Cotton Creek in above. The 303(d) list approach for this stream will
be to resample to obtain updated use support information.
10.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (8.9 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Portions of Cotton Creek and Cabin Creek are
discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to
Appendix IV.
10.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
The following surface water segments are rated as fully supporting using recent DWQ
monitoring data. However, these data revealed some impacts to water quality. Although no
action is required for these surface waters, continued monitoring is recommended. Enforcement
Section B: Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 176
of sediment and erosion control laws will help to reduce impacts on these streams and lakes.
DWQ encourages the use of voluntary measures to prevent water quality degradation. Education
on local water quality issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to
promote restoration efforts. For information on water quality education programs, workshops
and nonpoint source agency contacts, see Appendix V.
Bear Creek is in an agricultural area, and streams in this watershed are subject to erosion and
habitat degradation. Implementation of agricultural BMPs would reduce potential adverse
impacts to these streams.
Approximately 2% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution. All
the waters of the subbasin are affected by nonpoint sources. DENR, other state agencies and
environmental groups have programs and initiatives underway to address water quality problems
associated with nonpoint sources. DWQ will notify local agencies of water quality concerns in
this subbasin and work with these various agencies to conduct further monitoring, as well as
assist agency personnel with locating sources of funding for water quality protection.
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
The Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA) is starting to sample 45 sites in the
upper Deep and Haw River watersheds. The data will be analyzed to support various studies and
will be used with DWQ data to develop use support ratings for waters in the Cape Fear River
basin during the upcoming basinwide cycle.
Deep River Dams
Impounded segments of the Deep River (near Carbonton) are slower flowing and can be
periodically affected by low dissolved oxygen (DO) associated with algal blooms. Nutrients
from upstream sources can potentially cause algal blooms. Regionalization of small discharges,
advanced treatment by larger upstream facilities, and addressing nonpoint sources of nutrients
will reduce potential for algal blooms in these impoundments.
Removal of impoundments and restoration of natural flow on the Deep River would also reduce
the potential for algal blooms. Further monitoring of this segment is recommended to assess the
severity of low dissolved oxygen (DO) and identify sources of nutrients that increase the
potential for an algal bloom in slow moving segments behind dams.
General Recommendations for the Deep River Point Source Discharges
1996 Recommendations
This segment of the Deep River was not identified as impaired in the 1996 plan. Because of low
dissolved oxygen (DO) behind dams downstream of High Point in the Deep River, the following
limits were recommended for facilities between High Point Lake and the Carbonton dam:
Section B: Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 177
New and expanding discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l, TP = 1mg/l
New and expanding discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 15 mg/l, NH3-N = 4 mg/l
New and expanding discharges <1 MGD and 0.5 MGD: TP = 2mg/l
For smaller (<1 MGD) new and expanding discharges, regionalization of wastewater treatment
was encouraged. If connection to a regional WWTP was not possible, an alternatives analysis
was to be completed to determine if alternatives other than surface discharge were feasible.
Current Status
The Town of Robbins has recently completed an upgrade to the WWTP. DWQ will continue to
monitor this segment of the Deep River.
2000 Recommendations
Efforts to regionalize wastewater treatment in this subbasin should continue. Water quality
behind the dams will continue to be monitored to assess impacts from upstream point and
nonpoint sources. Increases in discharges of nutrients from point sources and increases in
nutrients associated with development and agriculture should be carefully considered in light of
past algal blooms in impoundments on the Deep River. Limits from the 1996 plan will continue
to be recommended with the exception that new and expanding discharges 1 MGD will be
given limits of BOD5 = 5 mg/l and NH3-N = 1mg/l. This is now considered BAT in North
Carolina for this discharger category. Recommended limits for other facilities are as follows:
New and expanding discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1mg/l, TP =1mg/l
New and expanding discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 15 mg/l, NH3-N = 4 mg/l
New and expanding discharges <1 MGD and 0.5 MGD: TP = 2mg/l