CPF Chapter B-11

Section B: Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 178
Chapter 11 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11
Includes the Deep River, Big Buffalo Creek and Cedar Creek
11.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains the lowermost reach of the Deep
River prior to its confluence with the Haw River. The
sedimentary geology and poor groundwater recharge
capacity of these streams result in 7Q10 values of zero for
all but the largest watersheds. A map of the subbasin,
including water quality sampling locations, is presented in
Figure B-11.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-11. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for two streams in this subbasin. Refer to
Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters
and use support ratings.
Much of the land use within this subbasin is forest,
although pasture, cultivated crops, and urban and built-up
land uses also account for significant portions of the
subbasin. Chatham County has high numbers of certified
animal operations, primarily cattle and poultry.
There are 7 permitted discharge facilities in this subbasin,
and only two facilities have permitted flow greater than 1
MGD: Sanford WWTP and Golden Poultry.
Two Deep River locations have been sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrates in this subbasin. Declines in water quality were found at both locations
(Good in 1993 to Good-Fair in 1998) suggesting impacts other than the Sanford WWTP. This 5-
year decline in water quality was not evident at the next most upstream Deep River location in
Moore County.
Tributary streams within this subbasin have physical characteristics that are typical for the
geology of the Triassic Basin. These characteristics, which include zero 7Q10 values and poor
instream habitat, produce streams that are difficult to rate using current DWQ classification
criteria for benthic macroinvertebrates.
Subbasin 03-06-11 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 133
Land area: 132
Water area: 1
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 22,221 people
Pop. Density: 111 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 83.8
Surface Water: 1.2
Urban: 3.2
Cultivated Crop: 2.2
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 9.5
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 74.0 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 55.4 mi.

Section B: Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 180
Table B-11 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 Deep River Lee SR 1007 Good (s) Good-Fair (s)
B-4 Little Pocket Creek Lee NC 42 Not Rated (w) Not Rated (w)
B-5 Cedar Creek Chatham SR 2142 Not Rated (w) Not Rated (w)
B-8 Georges Creek Chatham SR 2150 Not sampled Not Rated (w)
B-9 Deep River Lee US 15/501 Good (s) Good-Fair (s)
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Cedar Creek Chatham SR 2145 Fair no sample
F-2 Big Buffalo Creek Lee SR 1403 Fair Poor
(w) Winter collection, (s) Summer collection
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].
11.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Little Pocket, Cedar, Georges and Little Buffalo Creeks were identified as impaired
in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. 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. There are no
streams currently rated as impaired according to recent DWQ monitoring. Waters with other
issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 11.4.
Little Pocket Creek
Current Status
Little Pocket Creek (12.4 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. This stream is
currently not rated (NR). 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.
Section B: Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 181
Cedar Creek
Current Status
Cedar Creek (7.9 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Instream habitat
degradation associated with runoff from a clay pit mine is a potential source of impairment. The
clay pit mine has BMPs in place as required in the general permit; however, there are indications
that the BMPs are not protecting water quality. 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.
Georges Creek
Current Status
Georges Creek (8.7 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
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.
Little Buffalo Creek
Current Status
Little Buffalo Creek (9.8 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. Pollutants associated with
urban runoff from the City of Sanford are a potential cause of impairment. Sanford will be
required to address stormwater issues as part of Phase II of the NPDES stormwater program.
NPDES stormwater permit applications must be received by DWQ by March 1, 2003. Refer to
Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.2 for a description of riparian buffers being established on Buffalo
Creek.
11.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are no stream segments in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year 2000
303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). For information on 303(d) listing requirements and
approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
11.4 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 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 182
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.
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.
Big Buffalo Creek (Sanford)
New biological information from Big Buffalo Creek 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). Pollutants
associated with urban runoff from the City of Sanford are a potential cause of impairment.
Sanford will be required to address stormwater issues as part of Phase II of the NPDES
stormwater program. NPDES stormwater permit applications must be received by DWQ by
March 1, 2003. Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.2 for a description of riparian buffers
being established on Buffalo Creek.
Recommendations for Deep River Point Source Discharges
1996 Recommendations
Because assimilative capacity had been exhausted between Carbonton dam and the Haw River, it
was recommended that no new discharges should be permitted, and the expansion request by the
Town of Sanford WWTP would be carefully considered in light of the possibility for increased
regionalization.
Current Status
The Town of Sanford WWTP discharge remains at 5 MGD. There have been no new or
expanding discharges in this segment of the Deep River.
2000 Recommendations
No new or expanding discharges should be permitted in this segment of the Deep River.