CPF_2000

CAPE FEAR RIVER BASINWIDE
WATER QUALITY PLAN

July 2000

Prepared by:

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/Planning
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

[phone], ext. 575

This document was approved and endorsed by the NC Environmental Management Commission on July
13, 2000 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality in carrying out its Water Quality
Program duties and responsibilities in the Cape Fear River basin. This plan is the first five-year update
to the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved by the NC Environmental Management
Commission in 1995.

Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................xvii
Section A - General Basinwide Information.................................................................................1
Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning...................................................2
1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?.................................................2
1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.................................................2
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan.....................................................4
1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.............................................4
1.5 How to Get Involved......................................................................................5
1.6 Other References............................................................................................5
1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations......................................6
Chapter 2 - Basin Overview..........................................................................................................8
2.1 General Overview ..........................................................................................8
2.2 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin.......................10
2.3 Surface Water Hydrology.............................................................................11
2.3.1 Major Hydrologic Divisions..........................................................11
2.3.2 Physiography and Geology of the Cape Fear River Basin ............15
2.4 Land Cover...................................................................................................18
2.5 Population and Growth Trends ....................................................................21
2.6 Natural Resources ........................................................................................26
2.6.1 Lakes..............................................................................................26
2.6.2 Fish and Shellfish ..........................................................................27
2.6.3 Wetlands........................................................................................28
2.7 Permitted Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Facilities.......................34
2.7.1 Wastewater Discharges in the Cape Fear River Basin...................35
2.7.2 Stormwater Discharges in the Cape Fear River Basin...................35
2.8 Animal Operations.......................................................................................42
2.9 Water Use and Minimum Streamflow .........................................................49
2.9.1 Local Water Supply Planning........................................................49
2.9.2 Minimum Streamflow....................................................................49
2.9.3 Interbasin Transfer.........................................................................53
Chapter 3 - Summary of Water Quality Information for the Cape Fear River Basin.................58
Table of Contents ii
3.1 General Sources of Pollution .......................................................................58
3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards.......................59
3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Cape Fear River Basin..65
3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates...........................................................65
3.3.2 Fish Assessments...........................................................................69
3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring.........................................................74
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program...........................................................75
3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System Program...........................................75
3.4 Other Water Quality Research .....................................................................79
3.5 Use Support Summary.................................................................................79
3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support...........................................................79
3.5.2 Revisions to Methodology Since 1992-1993 305(b) Report.........80
3.5.3 Comparison of Use Support Ratings to Streams on the 303(d)
List.................................................................................................80
3.5.4 Use Support Ratings for the Cape Fear River Basin .....................81
Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin.........................88
4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................88
4.2 Strategies for Restoring and Protecting Impaired Waters............................88
4.3 Addressing Waters on the State’s 303(d) List..............................................89
4.4 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy for Jordan/Haw River Watershed........89
4.5 Randleman Reservoir...................................................................................90
4.6 Modeling Efforts in the Lower Cape Fear River and Estuary......................90
4.7 Growth and Development............................................................................91
4.7.1 Stormwater Management...............................................................91
4.7.2 Protecting Headwaters...................................................................92
4.8 Biological Monitoring Issues.......................................................................93
4.8.1 Development of Draft Benthic Macroinvertebrate Swamp
Criteria...........................................................................................93
4.8.2 Fish Community Assessment Draft Criteria..................................94
4.8.3 Estuarine Waters Criteria Development........................................94
4.8.4 Fish Advisories Related to Mercury Contamination.....................94
4.8.5 Habitat Degradation.......................................................................95
4.9 Clean Water Act of 1999 (House Bill 1160)................................................95
4.10 Water Supply Watershed Protection............................................................96
4.11 Effects of Hurricanes on Water Quality.......................................................96
4.12 Discharges to Zero Flow Streams................................................................98
4.13 Sedimentation...............................................................................................99
4.13.1 Land Clearing Activities................................................................99
Table of Contents iii
4.13.2 Streambank Erosion and Loss of Riparian Vegetation................100
4.13.3 New Rules Regarding Sediment Control.....................................101
4.13.4 Recommendations........................................................................102
4.14 Issues in the Development of Management Strategies for Coastal
Waters ........................................................................................................102
4.15 Coastal Habitat Protection Plans................................................................107
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section B - Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin.................................................108
Chapter 1 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01
Includes the Haw River, Little Troublesome and Troublesome Creeks................109
1.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................109
1.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................111
Haw River...................................................................................................112
Candy Creek...............................................................................................112
Troublesome Creek ....................................................................................112
Little Troublesome Creek...........................................................................113
1.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................114
1.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................114
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................114
Haw River at WWTP Discharge ................................................................115
Chapter 2 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02
Includes Reedy Fork and North and South Buffalo Creeks...................................116
2.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................116
2.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................119
Haw River...................................................................................................119
North Buffalo Creek ...................................................................................120
South Buffalo Creek ...................................................................................121
Horsepen Creek..........................................................................................122
Town Branch ..............................................................................................122
Brush Creek................................................................................................123
Reedy Fork Creek.......................................................................................123
2.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................124
2.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................124
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................125
Back Creek (Tributaries including MoAdams Creek)................................125
Haw Creek..................................................................................................125
General Recommendations for Buffalo/Reedy Fork Watershed ................126
Table of Contents iv
Chapter 3 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03
Includes Big and Little Alamance Creeks..............................................................128
3.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................128
3.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................128
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington)...........................................................130
3.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................130
3.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................130
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................131
Chapter 4 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04
Includes Cane Creek, Collins Creek and the Haw River.......................................132
4.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................132
4.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................134
Robeson Creek ...........................................................................................135
Marys Creek ...............................................................................................135
Pittsboro Lake ............................................................................................136
4.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................136
4.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................137
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................137
Cane Creek Reservoir ................................................................................137
Chapter 5 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05
Includes New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Jordan Reservoir.......................138
5.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................138
5.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................140
New Hope Creek ........................................................................................140
Northeast Creek .........................................................................................141
Third Fork Creek........................................................................................142
White Oak Creek ........................................................................................142
5.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................143
5.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................143
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................143
Jordan Reservoir ........................................................................................143
Chapter 6 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06
Includes Morgan Creek and Bolin Creek...............................................................144
6.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................144
6.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................146
Meeting of the Waters ................................................................................146
Table of Contents v
Morgan Creek ............................................................................................147
Bolin Creek.................................................................................................147
Booker Creek..............................................................................................148
Little Creek.................................................................................................148
6.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................149
6.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................149
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................149
Chapel Hill Stream Monitoring .................................................................149
Chapter 7 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07
Including Cape Fear River, Parkers and Neills Creeks..........................................150
7.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................150
7.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................152
Kenneth Creek ............................................................................................153
Gulf Creek..................................................................................................153
Neills Creek................................................................................................154
7.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................154
7.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................154
Development in Harris Lake Watershed ....................................................154
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)....................155
Utley Creek.................................................................................................155
Chapter 8 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08
East and West Forks of the Deep River and Richland Creek.................................157
8.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................157
8.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................159
Richland Creek...........................................................................................159
Deep River..................................................................................................160
Hickory Creek ............................................................................................161
East Fork Deep River.................................................................................162
8.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................162
8.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................162
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................163
Muddy Creek ..............................................................................................164
Chapter 9 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09
Includes the Deep River, Polecat Creek and Sandy Creek ....................................165
9.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................165
9.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................168
Flat Creek...................................................................................................168
Table of Contents vi
Hasketts Creek ...........................................................................................168
UT to Polecat Creek...................................................................................168
9.3 303(d) listed Waters...................................................................................169
9.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................169
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................169
General Recommendations for the Deep River Point Source Discharges.170
Sandy Creek ...............................................................................................170
Chapter 10 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10
Includes the Deep River, Bear Creek and McLendons Creek................................171
10.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................171
10.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................173
Cotton Creek ..............................................................................................173
Falls Creek .................................................................................................174
McLendons Creek.......................................................................................174
Richland Creek...........................................................................................174
Indian Creek...............................................................................................175
Big Governors Creek..................................................................................175
Cabin Creek ...............................................................................................175
10.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................175
10.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................175
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................176
Deep River Dams .......................................................................................176
General Recommendations for the Deep River Point Source Discharges.176
Chapter 11 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11
Includes the Deep River, Big Buffalo Creek and Cedar Creek..............................178
11.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................178
11.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................180
Little Pocket Creek .....................................................................................180
Cedar Creek ...............................................................................................181
Georges Creek............................................................................................181
Little Buffalo Creek ....................................................................................181
11.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................181
11.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................181
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................182
Buffalo Creek (Sanford).............................................................................182
Recommendations for Deep River Point Source Discharges.....................182
Chapter 12 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12
Includes Rocky River, Bear Creek, Tick Creek and Loves Creek.........................183
Table of Contents vii
12.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................183
12.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................185
Loves Creek................................................................................................186
Rocky River ................................................................................................186
Bear Creek .................................................................................................187
12.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................187
12.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................187
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association ................................................188
Regionalization Efforts ..............................................................................188
Chapter 13 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13
Includes Upper Little River and Barbeque Creek..................................................189
13.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................189
13.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................191
13.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................191
13.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................191
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)....................191
Chapter 14 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14
Includes Lower Little River, Nicks Creek and Juniper Creek ...............................192
14.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................192
14.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................194
Anderson Creek ..........................................................................................194
Crane Creek ...............................................................................................195
14.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................195
14.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................195
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)....................195
Chapter 15 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15
Includes Cape Fear River, Cross Creek and Rockfish Creek.................................196
15.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................196
15.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................198
Cross Creek................................................................................................198
Little Cross Creek ......................................................................................199
Pedler Branch ............................................................................................199
UT to Bones Creek .....................................................................................199
15.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................200
15.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................200
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)....................201
Table of Contents viii
Cape Fear River from Erwin to Lock and Dam #3 ....................................201
Chapter 16 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16
Includes Cape Fear River, Harrison Creek and Turnbull Creek............................203
16.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................203
16.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................205
Turnbull Creek ...........................................................................................206
Harrisons Creek .........................................................................................206
Browns Creek .............................................................................................206
16.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................206
16.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................207
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................207
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)....................207
Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #3 to Lock and Dam #1 .................207
Suggs Mill Pond Land Acquistion..............................................................208
Chapter 17 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17
Includes Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River ..............................209
17.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................209
17.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................211
Livingston Creek ........................................................................................212
Cape Fear River (near Neils Eddy Landing, International Paper)...........212
The Cape Fear River Estuary ....................................................................212
Other Estuarine Waters in the Subbasin 03-06-17 ....................................213
17.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................213
17.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................213
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................213
Mercury Advisories ....................................................................................214
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................214
Greenfield Lake..........................................................................................214
Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #1 to the lower Cape Fear River
Estuary.........................................................................................214
Coastal Urban and Recreation BMP Demonstration Project ...................215
Chapter 18 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18
Includes the South River and Big Creek................................................................216
18.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................216
18.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................218
South River .................................................................................................218
Black River (Little Black)...........................................................................218
Bay Tree Lake ............................................................................................219
Table of Contents ix
18.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................219
18.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................220
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................220
Mercury Advisories ....................................................................................220
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................220
Black and South River Riparian Protection...............................................220
Chapter 19 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19
Includes the Black River, Six Runs Creek and Great Coharie Creek....................221
19.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................221
19.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................223
Stewarts Creek ...........................................................................................223
19.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................224
19.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................224
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................224
Mercury Advisories ....................................................................................225
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................225
Chapter 20 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20
Includes the Black River, Colly Creek and Moores Creek....................................226
20.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................226
20.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................228
20.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................228
20.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................229
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................229
Mercury Advisories ....................................................................................229
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................230
Chapter 21 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21
Includes the Northeast Cape Fear River and Barlow Branch.................................231
21.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................231
21.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................233
Northeast Cape Fear River and Barlow Branch........................................233
21.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................233
21.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................234
Chapter 22 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22
Includes the Northeast Cape Fear River and Rockfish Creek................................235
22.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................235
Table of Contents x
22.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................237
Goshen Swamp and Panther Creek............................................................238
Herrings Marsh Run ..................................................................................238
Limestone Creek.........................................................................................238
Persimmon Branch.....................................................................................238
Rock Fish Creek .........................................................................................239
Muddy Creek ..............................................................................................239
22.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................239
22.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................240
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................240
Mercury Advisories ....................................................................................240
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................240
Northeast Cape Fear River Riparian Buffer Protection ............................241
Chapter 23 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23
Includes Northeast Cape Fear River and Burgaw Creek........................................242
23.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................242
23.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................244
Cypress Creek ............................................................................................244
Burnt Mill Creek ........................................................................................245
Burgaw Creek.............................................................................................245
23.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................245
23.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................246
The Lower Cape Fear River Program .......................................................246
Mercury Advisories ....................................................................................246
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................246
Chapter 24 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24
Includes Masonboro Sound, Topsail Sound and the Intracoastal Waterway.........247
24.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................247
24.2 Impaired Waters.........................................................................................249
Impaired Estuarine Waters ........................................................................249
24.3 303(d) Listed Waters..................................................................................250
24.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects ...........................................250
Conditionally Approved Open Shellfish Harvest Areas.............................250
1999 Hurricanes.........................................................................................250
Constructed Wetlands for Landfill Leachate .............................................251
The New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Project and City of Wilmington
Watersheds Project ......................................................................251
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents xi
Section C - Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives.........................................................252
Chapter 1 - Current Water Quality Initiatives...........................................................................253
1.1 Workshop Summaries................................................................................253
1.2 Federal Initiatives.......................................................................................254
1.2.1 Section 319 – Base Program........................................................254
1.2.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) – Incremental Program...........255
1.2.3 Clean Water Act – Section 205 (j) Planning Grant .....................255
1.2.4 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program
(EQIP)..........................................................................................255
1.3 State Initiatives...........................................................................................256
1.3.1 NC Wetlands Restoration Program .............................................256
1.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund.........................................257
1.4 Local Initiatives..........................................................................................257
1.4.1 Cape Fear River Basin Associations............................................257
1.4.2 Cape Fear River Assembly..........................................................258
1.4.3 Cape Fear River Headwaters Group............................................259
1.4.4 City of Greensboro Storm Water Services ..................................259
1.4.5 UNC-Wilmington – Center for Marine Science Research ..........260
1.4.6 Haw River Assembly...................................................................260
1.5 Current Initiatives by Major Watershed.....................................................261
1.5.1 Haw River
(Subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06)...............................................261
1.5.2 Deep River Watershed
(Subbasins 03-06-08 to 03-06-12)...............................................263
1.5.3 Upper Cape Fear River Watershed
(Subbasins 03-06-07, 03-06-13 to 03-06-15) ..............................265
1.5.4 Lower Cape Fear River
(Subbasins 03-06-16, 03-07-17, 03-06-20 and 03-06-21)...........266
1.5.5 Black River Watershed
(Subbasins 03-06-18 and 03-06-19) ............................................267
1.5.6 Northeast Cape Fear River Watershed
(Subbasins 03-06-22 to 03-06-24)...............................................268
Chapter 2 - Future Water Quality Initiatives.............................................................................269
2.1 Overall DWQ Goals for the Future............................................................269
2.2 DWQ Compliance and Enforcement Policy Revisions .............................271
Appendices xii
APPENDICES
I NPDES Dischargers and Individual Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin
II Water Quality Data Collected by DWQ
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections
• Fish Community Assessments
III Use Support Methodology
IV 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology
V Cape Fear River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts
VI Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
List of Figures xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (1999 to 2003)........................................................2
Figure A-2 Water Quality Section Organization Structure........................................................6
Figure A-3 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices...........................................................7
Figure A-4 General Map of the Cape Fear River Basin ............................................................9
Figure A-5 General Map of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin ...............................................12
Figure A-6 General Map of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin..............................................13
Figure A-7 General Map of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin...............................................14
Figure A-8 Hydrologic Areas (HA) of Similar Potential to Sustain Base Flows....................16
Figure A-9 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1992 for the Cape Fear River Basin .............20
Figure A-10 Percentages within Major Land Cover Categories in the Cape Fear Basin ..........20
Figure A-11 1990 Population Density by Census Block Group Upper Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................23
Figure A-12 1990 Population Density by Census Block Group Lower Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................24
Figure A-13 Population Growth by Subbasin (1970 to 1990)...................................................25
Figure A-14 Recent Overall Trends in Commercial Landings of Finfish in the Cape Fear
River Basin Coastal Areas by Total Pounds and Total Value Per Year
(1994-1998)...........................................................................................................28
Figure A-15 Recent Overall Trends in Commercial Landings of Non-Finfish in the Cape
Fear River Basin Coastal Areas by Total Pounds and Total Value Per Year
(1994-1998)...........................................................................................................28
Figure A-16 Shellfish Growing Areas in the Cape Fear River Basin........................................29
Figure A-17 Cape Fear River Basin Wetland Draining Projects as of September 1999...........33
Figure A-18 Location of NPDES Permitted Dischargers in the Upper Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................37
Figure A-19 Location of NPDES Permitted Dischargers in the Middle Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................38
Figure A-20 Location of NPDES Permitted Dischargers in the Lower Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................39
Figure A-21 Registered Animal Operations in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin....................45
Figure A-22 Registered Animal Operations in the Middle Cape Fear River Basin ..................46
Figure A-23 Registered Animal Operations in the Lower Cape Fear River Basin....................47
Figure A-24 River Basins Subject to Surface Water Transfers Act ..........................................55
Figure A-25 Interbasin Transfers (>1.0 MGD) in the Cape Fear River Basin ..........................56
Figure A-26 Water Supply Watersheds, Outstanding Resource Waters and High Quality
Waters in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin .........................................................62
Figure A-27 Water Supply Watersheds, Outstanding Resource Waters and High Quality
Waters in the Middle Cape Fear River Basin........................................................63
Figure A-28 Water Supply Watersheds, Outstanding Resource Waters and High Quality
Waters in the Lower Cape Fear River Basin.........................................................64
List of Figures xiv
Figure A-29 The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity for the Cape Fear River Basin
(1997)....................................................................................................................71
Figure A-30 The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity for the Cape Fear River Basin.......72
Figure A-31 Cape Fear River Basin NCTSI Score
(All NCTSI Scores Reflect July 1998 Except for Oak Hollow Lake) ..................75
Figure A-32 Use Support Map of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin........................................85
Figure A-33 Use Support Map of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin.......................................86
Figure A-34 Use Support Map of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin........................................87
Figure B-1 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-01..................................................110
Figure B-2 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-02..................................................117
Figure B-3 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-03..................................................129
Figure B-4 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-04..................................................133
Figure B-5 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-05..................................................139
Figure B-6 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-06..................................................145
Figure B-7 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-07..................................................151
Figure B-8 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-08..................................................158
Figure B-9 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-09..................................................166
Figure B-10 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-10..................................................172
Figure B-11 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-11..................................................179
Figure B-12 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-12..................................................184
Figure B-13 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-13..................................................190
Figure B-14 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-14..................................................193
Figure B-15 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-15..................................................197
Figure B-16 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-16..................................................204
Figure B-17 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-17..................................................210
Figure B-18 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-18..................................................217
Figure B-19 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-19..................................................222
Figure B-20 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-20..................................................227
Figure B-21 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-21..................................................232
Figure B-22 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-22..................................................236
Figure B-23 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-23..................................................243
Figure B-24 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-24..................................................248
List of Tables xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Use Support Summary Information for All Monitored and Evaluated Streams
in the Cape Fear River Basin (1999)....................................................................xix
Table 2 Impaired Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin....................................................xxi
Table A-1 Schedule for Second Round of Basinwide Planning (1998 to 2003)......................3
Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Management
Plan..........................................................................................................................3
Table A-3 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Cape Fear River Basin.........10
Table A-4 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Cape Fear River Basin........................................15
Table A-5 Land Cover in the Cape Fear River Basin by Major Watersheds
(8-Digit USGS Hydrologic Units).........................................................................19
Table A-6 Description of Land Cover Types (1992 NRI - USDA SCS)...............................19
Table A-7 Description of Land Cover Categories..................................................................20
Table A-8 Cape Fear Subbasin Population (1970, 1980 and 1990) and Land Area
Summaries.............................................................................................................22
Table A-9 Estimated Population Statistics for the Years 1990, 1997 and 2010 for Counties
in the Cape Fear River Basin.................................................................................26
Table A-10 Wetland Fill Activities (in Acres) Permitted in the Cape Fear River Basin by
Subbasin and Year.................................................................................................31
Table A-11 Wetland Acreage Impacted by Wetland Ditching and Draining Activities in
the Cape Fear River Basin Separated by Wetland Type (September 1999)..........32
Table A-12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Cape Fear
River Basin (as of April 1999)..............................................................................36
Table A-13 Summary of Individual NPDES Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................41
Table A-14 Cities and Counties Included in State Stormwater Program.................................42
Table A-15 Registered Animal Operations in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of 9/98)............44
Table A-16 Estimated Populations of Swine (1998, 1994 and 1990), Dairy (1998 and
1994) and Poultry (1998 and 1994) in the Cape Fear River Basin.......................48
Table A-17 Population and Water Use for Water Systems in the Cape Fear River Basin.......50
Table A-18 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin..............................51
Table A-19 Minimum Instream Flow Studies in the Cape Fear River Basin...........................52
Table A-20 Water Withdrawal Registrations in the Cape Fear River Basin............................54
Table A-21 Interbasin Transfers in the Cape Fear River Basin................................................57
Table A-22 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications
(Primary classifications beginning with an "S" are assigned to saltwaters)..........60
Table A-23 Biological Ratings for Recent Samplings in the Cape Fear River Basin..............66
Table A-24 Long-Term Changes in Bioclassification in the Cape Fear River Basin ..............68
Table A-25 Scores, Integrity Classes and Class Attributes for Evaluating a Wadeable
Stream Using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity..................................70
Table A-26 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Cape Fear River
Basin......................................................................................................................74
List of Tables xvi
Table A-27 Locations of the Ambient Monitoring Stations.....................................................76
Table A-28 Fecal Coliform Summary Data for the Cape Fear River Basin - 1993 to 1997....78
Table A-29 Use Support Summary Information for All Monitored and Evaluated Streams
in the Cape Fear River Basin (1999).....................................................................81
Table A-30 Cape Fear River Basin Use Support Ratings in Miles for Freshwater Streams
(1999)....................................................................................................................82
Table A-31 Use Support Ratings for Lakes and Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin .....83
Table A-32 Use Support Ratings for Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin
(1994-1998)...........................................................................................................84
Table A-33 Growth Management Elements Applicable to the North Carolina Coast...........106
Table A-34 Growth Management Tools.................................................................................106
Table B-1 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01.................111
Table B-2 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02.................118
Table B-3 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03.................130
Table B-4 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04.................134
Table B-5 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05.................140
Table B-6 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06.................146
Table B-7 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07.................152
Table B-8 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08.................159
Table B-9 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09.................167
Table B-10 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10.................173
Table B-11 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11.................180
Table B-12 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12.................185
Table B-13 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13.................191
Table B-14 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14.................194
Table B-15 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15.................198
Table B-16 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16.................205
Table B-17 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17.................211
Table B-18 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18.................218
Table B-19 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19.................223
Table B-20 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20.................228
Table B-21 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21.................231
Table B-22 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22.................237
Table B-23 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23.................244
Table B-24 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24.................249
Table C-1 319 Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin..........................................................254
Table C-2 Hydrologic Units within the Cape Fear River Basin...........................................255
Table C-3 Cape Fear River Basin Scale Projects.................................................................256
Table C-4 Haw River Watershed Projects............................................................................261
Table C-5 Deep River Watershed Projects...........................................................................264
Table C-6 Upper Cape Fear Watershed Projects..................................................................265
Table C-7 Lower Cape Fear Watershed Projects.................................................................266
Table C-8 Black River Watershed Projects..........................................................................267
Table C-9 Northeast Cape Fear Watershed Projects............................................................268
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.
Section A: General Basinwide Information 1
Section A
General Basinwide Information
Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 2
Chapter 1 -
Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning
1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?
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, as shown in Figure A-1 and Table A-1. Preparation of an individual basinwide
management plan is a five-year process, which is broken down into four major phases as
presented in Table A-2. 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 stakeholder groups in the state. The first round of plans was
completed in 1998. Each plan is now being updated at five-year intervals during round two.
Roanoke
Basinwide Planning Schedule for NC’s Major River Basins (1999 to 2003)
New Roanoke Chowan Pasquotank
Watauga
French Broad
Little Tennessee
Savannah
Hiwassee
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Broad
Catawba
Lumber
Yadkin-
Pee Dee
Cape Fear
White Oak
Neuse
Tar-
Pamlico
Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (1999 to 2003)
1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning
The goals of basinwide management 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.
Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 3
Table A-1 Schedule for Second Round of Basinwide Planning (1998 to 2003)
Basin
DWQ
Biological
Data
Collection
River Basin
Public
Workshops
Public
Mtgs. and
Draft Out
For Review
Final Plan
Receives
EMC
Approval
Begin
NPDES
Permit
Issuance
Neuse Summer 95 3/1997 9/1998 12/1998 1/1999
Lumber Summer 96 4/1998 2/1999 5/1999 11/1999
Tar-Pamlico Summer 97 6/1998 4/1999 7/1999 1/2000
Catawba Summer 97 2/1999 9/1999 12/1999 3/2000
French Broad Summer 97 5/1999 2/2000 5/2000 8/2000
New Summer 98 6/1999 4/2000 7/2000 11/2000
Cape Fear Summer 98 7/1999 4/2000 7/2000 12/2000
Roanoke Summer 99 4/2000 3/2001 7/2001 1/2002
White Oak Summer 99 10/2000 7/2001 10/2001 6/2002
Savannah Summer 99 10/2000 12/2001 3/2002 8/2002
Watauga Summer 99 11/2000 12/2001 3/2002 9/2002
Little Tennessee Summer 99 3/2001 11/2001 2/2002 10/2002
Hiwassee Summer 99 10/2000 12/2001 3/2002 8/2002
Chowan Summer 2000 3/2001 2/2002 5/2002 11/2002
Pasquotank Summer 2000 3/2001 2/2002 5/2002 12/2002
Broad Summer 2000 11/2001 9/2002 12/2002 7/2003
Yadkin Summer 2001 11/2001 11/2002 3/2003 9/2003
Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during Round 1 (1993 to 1998).
Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Management Plan
Years 1 to 3
Water Quality Data Collection
and
Identification of Goals
and Issues
• Identify sampling needs
• Canvass for information
• Coordinate with other agencies and local interest groups to establish
goals and objectives and identify and prioritize issues
• Summarize data from ambient monitoring stations
• Conduct biological monitoring activities
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
Years 3 to 4
Data Assessment and
Model Preparation
• Gather data from special studies to prepare models and TMDLs
• Develop preliminary pollution control strategies
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies
• Develop use support ratings
Year 4
Preparation of Draft
Basinwide Plan
• Develop draft basinwide plan based on water quality data, use support
ratings, modeling data and recommended pollution control strategies
• Present preliminary findings at informal meetings and incorporate
comments into draft plan
Year 5
Public Review and
Approval of Plan
• Circulate draft plan for review
• Hold public meetings after approval by NC Environmental Management
Commission’s Water Quality Committee
• Revise plan after public review period
• Submit final document to Environmental Management Commission for
approval
• Begin basinwide permitting and implementation at end of Year 5
Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 4
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan
The second round of basinwide plans uses a different format from the earlier basinwide plans.
Each plan is subdivided into three major sections. The intent of the format change is to make the
plans easier to read and understand, but still comprehensive in content.
Section A: Basinwide Information
• Introduces the basinwide planning approach used by the state.
• Provides an overview of the river basin including: hydrology, land use, local government
jurisdictions, population and growth trends, natural resources, wastewater discharges,
animal operations and water usage.
• Presents general water quality information including summaries of water quality monitoring
programs and use support ratings in the basin.
Section B: Subbasin Information
• Summarizes recommendations from first basin plan, achievements made, what wasn’t
achieved and why, current priority issues and concerns, and goals and recommendations for
the next five years by subbasin.
Section C: Current and Future Initiatives
• Presents current and future water quality initiatives and success stories by federal, state and
local agencies, and corporate, citizen and academic efforts.
• Describes DWQ goals and initiatives beyond the five-year planning cycle for the basin.
1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning
Several benefits of basinwide planning and management to water quality include:
• Improved efficiency. The state’s efforts and resources are focused on one river basin at a
time.
• Increased effectiveness. The basinwide approach is in agreement with basic ecological
principles.
• Better consistency and equability. By clearly defining the program’s long-term goals and
approaches, basinwide plans encourage consistent decision-making on permits and water
quality improvement strategies.
• Increased public participation in the state’s water quality protection programs. The
basinwide plans are an educational tool for increasing public involvement and awareness of
water quality issues.
• Increased integration of point and nonpoint source pollution assessment and controls. Once
waste loadings from both point and nonpoint sources are established, management strategies
can be developed to ensure compliance with water quality standards.
Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 5
1.5 How to Get Involved
To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and other local stakeholders to participate in the planning process. DWQ offers two
opportunities for the public to participate in the process:
• Public workshops: Held prior to writing the basinwide plans. DWQ staff present
information about basinwide planning and the water quality of the basin. Participants then
break into smaller groups where they can ask questions, share their concerns, and discuss
potential solutions to water quality issues in the basin.
• Public meetings: Held after the draft basinwide plan has been approved by the Water Quality
Committee of the Environmental Management Commission. DWQ staff present more
detailed information about the draft basinwide plan and its major recommendations. Then,
the public is invited to comment and ask questions.
• Public Comment Period: Held after the draft plan has been approved by the Water Quality
Committee of the Environmental Management Commission. The comment period is at least
thirty days in length from the date of the first public meeting.
Citizens seeking involvement in efforts to restore and protect water quality can call the DWQ
Planning Branch at [phone] and ask to speak to the basinwide planner for your river
basin.
1.6 Other References
There are several reference documents that provide additional information about basinwide
planning and the basin’s water quality:
• Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report. June 1999. This technical report presents
the physical, chemical and biological data in the Cape Fear River basin. 420 pages.
• Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. October 1996. This first
basinwide plan for the Cape Fear River basin presents water quality data, information and
recommended management strategies for the first five-year cycle. 238 pages.
• NC Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide.
• NC Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch Website at
http://esb.ehnr.state.nc.us/.
• A Guide to Water Quality in North Carolina. This document will be available soon. The
document will include general information about water quality issues and programs to
address these issues. It is intended to be an informational document on water quality.
• North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program
Description. Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. DWQ Water Quality Section. Raleigh,
NC.
• NC Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin.
DWQ NC Wetlands Restoration Program. Raleigh, NC.

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 6
Anyone interested in receiving these documents can contact the
DWQ Planning Branch at [phone] or the website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/

1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations

The major activities coordinated by DWQ through basinwide planning are listed in
Figure A-2. Information on the location, address and phone numbers for each branch and
regional office are also shown in Figure A-2 and Figure A-3.

Environmental Sciences Branch
(Phone
919-733-9960)

• Biological Monitoring
• Special Chemical Monitoring
• Fish Tissue, Fish Community Studies
• Effluent Toxicity Testing
• Lake Assessments
• Wetlands 401 Certifications • Water Quality Standards/Classifications
• Nonpoint Source Program Planning
• Basinwide Planning, Use Support
• National Estuarine Program
• Modeling/TMDL Development
• Local Government Assistance Unit
Planning Branch
(Phone [phone], ext. 558 or 360)

Point Source Branch
(Phone [phone], ext. 520)

Non-Discharge Branch
(Phone [phone], ext. 556 or 574)

• Non-Discharge Permitting (spray irrigation,
sludge applications, animal waste recycling)
• Wetlands/401 Certifications
• Non-Discharge Compliance/Enforcement
• Operator Certification Training
• NPDES Permits
• Stormwater and General Permits
• Point Source Compliance/Enforcement
• Pretreatment
Regional Offices: Asheville, Raleigh,
Fayetteville, Wilmington, Mooresville,
Washington, Winston-Salem
(See Regional Office map for phone nos.)

• Wetland Reviews, WQ Monitoring
• Permit Reviews, Facility Inspections
• Pretreatment Program Support
• Response to Emergencies/Complaints
• Provides Information to Public
WATER QUALITY
SECTION

Figure A-2 Water Quality Section Organization Structure

INSERT CPF COLOR FIGURE A-3
HERE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 8
Chapter 2 -
Basin Overview
2.1 General 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 (Figure A-4).
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
rivers that meet the Cape Fear River in Brunswick
County.
The basin includes four coastal Outstanding Resource
Waters (Stump, Middle, Topsail and Masonboro
Sounds) and one inland ORW (a portion of the Black
River).
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).
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 that support a wide
variety of commercial and recreational fisheries. Wetlands, estuaries, blackwater rivers and
rocky streams support 30 endangered species in the basin.
Cape Fear Basin Statistics
Total Area: 9,322 sq. miles
Stream Miles: 6,049
Saltwater Acres: 39,200
No. of Counties: 26
No. of Municipalities: 116
No. of Subbasins: 24
Population (1990): 1,465,451 *
Estimated Pop. (2010): 1,992,128 *
% Increase (1997-2010): 17.8
Pop. Density (1990): 160 persons/sq. mi.
* Based on % of county land area estimated
to be within the basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 10
2.2 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin
The basin encompasses all or part of the following 26 counties and 116 municipalities (Table A-
3). Lenoir, Jones and Robeson counties have less than 1% of their land areas and no
municipalities in the Cape Fear basin. Also included in the table are abbreviations for the Lead
Regional Organizations (Councils of Government).
Table A-3 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Cape Fear River Basin
County
% of
County
in Basin *
Council of
Government
Region
Municipalities
Alamance 100% G Alamance, Burlington, Elon College, Gibsonville**, Graham, Green Level,
Haw River, Mebane**, Swepsonville
Bladen 69% N Dublin, East Arcadia, Elizabethtown, Tar Heel, White Lake
Brunswick 45% O Bald Head Island, Belville, Boiling Spring Lakes, Caswell Beach, Leland,
Long Beach, Navassa, Northwest, Sandy Creek, Southport, Yaupon Beach
Caswell 10% G None
Chatham 100% J Goldston, Pittsboro, Siler City
Columbus 11% O Bolton, Sandyfield
Cumberland 98% M Falcon**, Fayetteville, Godwin, Hope Mills, Linden, Spring Lake, Stedman, Wade
Duplin 100% P Beulaville, Calypso, Faison, Greenevers, Harrells**, Kenansville, Magnolia,
Mount Olive**, Rose Hill, Teachey, Wallace, Warsaw
Durham 27% J Chapel Hill**, Durham
Forsyth 2% I Kernersville**
Guilford 97% G Archdale**, Gibsonville**, Greensboro, High Point**, Jamestown, Kernersville**,
Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, Summerfield, Whitsett
Harnett 100% M Angier, Broadway**, Coats, Dunn, Erwin, Lillington
Hoke 57% N Raeford
Johnston 2% J Benson
Lee 100% J Broadway**, Sanford
Montgomery 6% H Biscoe, Candor, Star
Moore 79% H Cameron, Carthage, Pinehurst, Robbins, Southern Pines, Taylortown, Vass,
Whispering Pines
New Hanover 100% O Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, Wilmington, Wrightsville Beach
Onslow 22% P Holly Ridge, North Topsail Beach, Surf City**
Orange 49% J Carrboro, Chapel Hill**, Mebane**
Pender 100% O Atkinson, Burgaw, Saint Helena, Surf City**, Topsail Beach, Watha
Randolph 56% G Archdale**, Asheboro, Franklinville, High Point**, Liberty, Ramseur, Randleman,
Seagrove, Staley
Rockingham 19% G Reidsville
Sampson 99% M Autreyville, Clinton, Falcon**, Garland, Harrells**, Newton Grove, Roseboro,
Salemburg, Turkey
Wake 15% J Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs, Morrisville
Wayne 9% P Mount Olive**
* Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
** Located in more than one county
Key:
Region Name Location
G Piedmont Triad Council of Government Greensboro
H Pee Dee Council of Government Rockingham
I Northwest Piedmont Council of Government Winston-Salem
J Triangle J Council of Government Research Triangle Park
M Region M Council of Government Fayetteville
N Lumber River Council of Government Lumberton
O Cape Fear Council of Government Wilmington
P Neuse River Council of Government New Bern
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 11
2.3 Surface Water Hydrology
2.3.1 Major Hydrologic Divisions
The Cape Fear River basin is the largest river basin in North Carolina, and its watershed is
contained entirely within the state. The mainstem of the river is formed by the confluence of the
Deep and Haw Rivers just downstream of the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir dam. The Deep River
originates near High Point and the Haw River near Greensboro. The mainstem of the river flows
in a southeasterly direction until it empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Cape Fear, south of
Wilmington.
The watershed is divided into 6 major hydrologic areas (8-digit hydrologic units) by the US
Geologic Survey (USGS). These include the Haw River/Jordan Reservoir watershed, the Deep
River, the upper Cape Fear, the Black River, the Northeast Cape Fear and the lower Cape Fear,
and coastal waters. These major hydrologic areas are further subdivided by DWQ for
management purposes into 24 subbasins (Figures A-5 to A-7) denoted by 6-digit numbers (03-
06-01 to 03-06-24). Table A-4 shows the breakdown of USGS hydrologic units and DWQ’s
corresponding subbasins. Maps of DWQ’s subbasins are included in Section B of the basinwide
plan.
The Cape Fear River basin, which has a total land area of 9,322 square miles and 6,049 stream
miles, has an average drainage area of 1.5 square miles per stream mile. A variety of aquatic
systems are represented in the basin as the terrain changes from the piedmont to the coastal plain,
including large freshwater rivers, blackwater swamps and estuaries.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 15
Table A-4 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Cape Fear River Basin
Watershed Name
and Major Tributaries
USGS 8-digit
Hydrologic
Units
DWQ 6-digit
Subbasin Codes
Haw River and Jordan Reservoir
Upper Haw River
Reedy Fork, Stony Creek and Haw River
(middle)
Big and Little Alamance Creeks
Haw River (lower)
New Hope Creek and Jordan Reservoir
Morgan Creek and University Lake
03030002
"
"
"
"
"
"
030601, 030602, 030603, 030604, 030605, 030606
01
02
03
04
05
06
Deep River
Deep River (upper) and Muddy Creek
Deep River (middle) and Richland Creek
Deep River (middle), Cabin Creek and
McLendons Creek
Deep River (lower)
Rocky River
03030003
"
"
"
"
"
030608, 030609, 030610, 030611, 030612
08
09
10
11
12
Upper Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River (upper)
Upper Little River
Little River
Rockfish Creek and Cape Fear River
03030004
"
"
"
"
030607, 030613, 030614, 030615
07
13
14
15
Lower Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Town Creek, Brunswick River and
Cape Fear River (extreme lower)
Topsail, Middle, Masonboro and
Stump Sounds
03030005
"
"
"
030616, 030617, 030624
16
17
24
Black River
South River
Great Coharie Creek, Six Runs Creek
and upper Black River
Black River
03030006
"
"
"
030618, 030619, 030620
18
19
20
Northeast Cape Fear River
Upper Northeast Cape Fear River
Middle Northeast Cape Fear River,
Goshen Swamp, Rockfish Creek
Lower Northeast Cape Fear River
03030007
"
"
"
030621, 030622, 030623
21
22
23
2.3.2 Physiography and Geology of the Cape Fear River Basin
The headwaters of the Cape Fear River are at nearly 1000 feet above sea level in Forsyth County
and drain to sea level in Brunswick County before entering the Atlantic Ocean. The upper Cape
Fear River basin is mostly in the piedmont, and the lower Cape Fear River basin lies in the
coastal plain.
The geology underlying the Cape Fear River basin has an affect on both stream water quality and
water quantity. Ten low flow hydrologic areas (HA1-HA10) were defined for North Carolina by
USGS (Figure A-8). Areas were defined by relating topography, geology, mean annual

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 17
runoff, and other features to low flow frequency characteristics including 7Q10 (annual
minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average, will be exceeded 9 out of 10 years) and
30Q2 (annual minimum 30-day consecutive low flow, which on average, will be exceeded in 1
out of 2 years). The ten HAs typically form a southwest-northeast band across the state and lie
within three physiographic areas – the coastal plain, piedmont and mountains (Giese and Mason,
1993).
In general, the lowest potential for sustaining base flow to streams is in the clay and sandy soils
area of the coastal plain (HA1 And HA2) and the eastern and central piedmont (HA4, HA6, HA7
and HA8). The following discussion explains the characteristics that reduce the potential for
base flow in these regions.
Coastal Plain Physiographic Area
The geology of this area consists of alternating layers of sand, silt, clay and limestone. This area
was divided into three HAs based on soil types and topography. These are clay soils (HA1),
sandy soils (HA2) and the Sand Hills (HA3). With the exception of the Sand Hills area (HA3),
topographic relief is relatively flat, with the land surface dipping coastward at a rate of only a
few feet per mile. Topographic relief and hydraulic gradient in the Sand Hills (HA3) is much
higher.
The clay soils have the lowest low flow values of the three HAs (median 7Q10 is 0[ft3/s]/mi2);
sandy soils (HA2) have intermediate values (median 7Q10 is 0.006[ft3/s]/mi2); and the Sand Hills
(HA3) have the highest values in the state (median 7Q10 is 0.318[ft3/s]/mi2).
The low topographic relief of HA1 and HA2 (1 to 2 feet per mile) reflects the low hydraulic
gradient and reduced potential to move water to streams than in areas with greater topographic
relief (i.e., HA3). The lower low flow values for clay soils versus sandy soils result from the
lower permeability of clay soils and that a higher percentage of precipitation that falls on clay
soils is not absorbed and runs off directly into streams. Clay soils also have lower hydraulic
conductivity than sandy soils, and thus, contribute less to base flow of streams than sandy soils.
Eastern and Central Piedmont Physiographic Area
Topography in this area is characterized by rolling hills and geologic formations consisting of
crystalline or sedimentary rocks. This area was divided into six HAs based on soil types,
topography and underlying bedrock type: the Eastern Slate Belt (HA4), the Raleigh Belt (HA5),
the Triassic Basin (HA6), the Carolina Slate Belt (HA7 and HA8), and the Charlotte Belt and
Milton Belt (HA9).
Of particular interest within this area is the fact that the sedimentary rocks underlying the
Triassic Basin have the lowest average yield of water to wells of all rock types in the state. This
low yield implies the rocks have low permeability, and thus, result in low base flows of streams
in the region.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 18
The 7Q10 values for HA6 are zero for all but the largest drainages. In addition, the Carolina
Slate Belt region is associated with low to zero flow streams. DWQ limits discharges of oxygen-
consuming wastewater to these low base flow streams.
In addition, the overall low permeability of residual soils derived from the Triassic sedimentary
rocks results in low percolation rates for septic systems. This low permeability promotes surface
runoff and shallow discharge during storm flow events.
The goal of DWQ for streams determined to be zero flow streams is to remove all discharges, or
if removal is not possible, advanced treatment will be required. DWQ management strategies for
wastewater discharges into zero flow streams are presented in Section A, Part 4.12.
2.4 Land Cover
Land cover information in this section is derived from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) of
1992 and 1982, as developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, 1994).
The NRI is a multi-resource national inventory based on soils and other resource data collected at
scientifically selected random sample sites. It is considered accurate to the 8-digit hydrologic
unit scale established by the US Geological Survey (USDA, 1994).
Table A-5 summarizes acreages and percentage of land cover from the 1992 NRI for the entire
basin and for the major watershed areas within the basin (USGS hydrologic unit 03030001 is not
included in the table because only a small portion of the area is within the Cape Fear River
basin). Land cover types identified by the NRI as occurring in the Cape Fear River basin are
presented in Table A-6.
Land cover in the basin, as presented in Table A-5, is dominated by forestland that covers
approximately 56% of the land area. Agriculture (including cultivated and uncultivated cropland
and pastureland) covers approximately 24% of the area. The urban category comprises roughly
9% of the area and exhibited the most dramatic change since 1982, with a 43% increase of land
area in this category. Other categories that showed substantial changes since 1982 were
uncultivated cropland and "other" with increases of 18% and 17%, respectively. These land
cover changes are summarized in Figure A-9.
The most recent land cover information for the Cape Fear River basin is based on satellite
imagery collected from the North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database. The state’s Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) developed statewide land cover information
based on this 1993-1995 satellite imagery. This land cover data is divided into 24 categories.
For the purposes of this report, those categories have been condensed into five broader categories
as described in Table A-7. Figure A-10 provides an illustration of the relative amount of land
area that falls into each major cover type for the Cape Fear River basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 19
Table A-5 Land Cover in the Cape Fear River Basin by Major Watersheds
(8-Digit USGS Hydrologic Units)
(Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1992 NRI)
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS
Haw River and Upper Cape Lower Cape Northeast Cape %
Jordan Lake Deep River Fear River Fear River Black River Fear River 1992 TOTALS 1982 TOTAL change
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres % of Acres % of since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 140.8 13.0 87.8 9.5 167.9 16.4 73.4 10.7 367.9 36.8 230.5 20.1 1068 18.2 1163 19.8 -8
Uncult. Crop 15.8 1.5 18.3 2.0 13.7 1.3 2.6 0.4 5.4 0.5 10.0 0.8 65.8 1.1 55.7 0.9 +18
Pasture 133.6 12.3 85.8 9.3 31.7 3.1 5.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 24.6 2.2 280.8 4.8 288.3 5.0 -3
Forest 464.5 42.9 577.5 62.7 462.4 45.0 492.0 71.9 550.3 55.0 741.7 64.8 3288 56.1 3444 59.0 -5
Urban & Built-up 186.8 17.3 93.4 10.2 120.3 11.7 35.5 5.2 29.6 2.9 46.4 4.1 512.0 8.8 358.7 6.0 +43
Other 140.5 13.0 57.7 6.3 230.8 22.5 76.0 11.1 47.9 4.8 91.9 8.0 644.8 11.0 550.8 9.3 +17
Totals 1082.0 100.0 920.5 100.0 1027 100.0 684.6 100.0 1001 100.0 1145.1 100.0 5860 100.0 5860 100.0
% of Total Basin 18.5 15.7 17.5 11.7 17.1 19.5 100.0
SUBBASINS 01 to 06 and 07* 08 to 12 07*, 13 to 15* 15*, 16 and 17 18, 19 and 20 21, 22 and 23
8- Digit 03030002 03030003 03030004 03030005 03030006 03030007
Hydraulic Units
* These subbasins are found within more than one 8-Digit Hydraulic Unit.
Table A-6 Description of Land Cover Types (1992 NRI - USDA SCS)
Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Cultivated Cropland Harvestable crops including row crops, small grain and hay crops, nursery and orchard
crops, and other specialty crops.
Uncultivated Cropland Summer fallow or other cropland not planted.
Pastureland Forage plants for livestock grazing including land that has a vegetative cover of grasses,
legumes and /or forbs, regardless of whether or not it is being grazed by livestock.
Forestland At least 10 percent stocked (a canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 percent or
greater) by single-stemmed trees of any size, which will be at least 4 meters at maturity,
and land bearing evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover. The minimum area for
classification of forestland is 1 acre, and the area must be at least 1,000 feet wide.
Urban and Built-up
Land
Includes airports, playgrounds with permanent structures, cemeteries, public
administration sites, commercial sites, railroad yards, construction sites, residences, golf
courses, sanitary landfills, industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, institutional sites,
water control structure spillways and parking lots. Includes highways, railroads and
other transportation facilities if surrounded by other urban and built-up areas. Tracts of
less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and built-up lands.
Other Rural Transportation: Consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated rights-
of-way outside urban and built-up areas; private roads to farmsteads; logging roads; and
other private roads (but not field lanes).
Small Water Areas: Waterbodies less than 40 acres in size and streams less than one-
half mile wide.
Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40 acres
and rivers greater than one-half mile in width.
Minor Land: Lands not in one of the other categories.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 20
Figure A-9 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1992 for the Cape Fear River Basin
(Source: USDA-NCRS 1992 NRI)
Table A-7 Description of Land Cover Categories
Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Urban Greater than 50% coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area) and municipal
areas.
Cultivated Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern (such as
rows).
Pasture/Managed
Herbaceous
Areas used for the production of grass and other forage crops and other managed areas
such as golf courses and cemeteries. Also includes upland herbaceous areas not
characteristic of riverine and estuarine environments.
Forest/Wetland Includes salt and freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, shrublands and all kinds of
forested areas (such as needleleaf evergreens, conifers, deciduous hardwoods).
Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt adjacent to
tidal waters and lakes.
Figure A-10 Percentages within Major Land Cover Categories in the Cape Fear Basin
-8 %
-2 %
-4 .5%
+17%
+43%
18%
-200
-150
-100
-5 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Cult. Crop Uncult.
Crop
Pasture Forest Urban &
Built-u p
Other
Land Use Type
Ac
r
e
s

(10
0
0
)
urban
cultivated
pasture/m anaged
herbaceous
forest/wetland
water
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 21
2.5 Population and Growth Trends
Population
The Cape Fear River basin has an estimated population of 1,465,451 people based on 1990
census data. Table A-8 presents census data for 1970, 1980 and 1990 for each of the subbasins.
It also includes land areas and population densities (persons/square mile) by subbasin based on
the land area (excludes open water) for each subbasin. Densely populated areas are scattered
across the basin and include the Burlington-Greensboro-High Point area in the upper part of the
basin (Figure A-11), the Fayetteville area in the middle part of the basin, and the Wilmington
area in the lower portion of the basin (Figure A-12). The subbasin that encircles the Chapel Hill
area is the most densely populated with 783 persons/square mile compared to a basinwide
average of 160 persons/square mile. This density compares to a statewide average of 139
persons/square mile.
It should be noted that some of the population figures are estimates because the census block
group boundaries do not generally coincide with subbasin boundaries. The census data are
collected within boundaries such as counties and municipalities. By contrast, the subbasin lines
are drawn along natural drainage divides separating watersheds. Therefore, where a census block
group straddles a subbasin line, an estimate has to be made on the percentage of the population
that is located in the subbasin. This is done by simply determining the percentage of the census
block group area located in the subbasin and then taking that same percentage of the total census
block group population and assigning it the subbasin. Use of this method necessitates assuming
that population density is evenly distributed throughout a census block group, which is not
always the case. However, the level of error associated with this method is not expected to be
significant for the purposes of this document. It is also important to note that the census block
groups change every ten years, so comparisons between years must be considered approximate.
Growth Trends
The percentage increase in population for the entire basin was 29.3% from 1970-1990 and 11.5%
from 1980-1990. This latter percentage is almost equal to a statewide increase of 12.7% over the
same ten-year period. Population increases by subbasin are presented in Figure A-13 and Table
8.
Table A-9 shows the estimated percent changes in growth between 1990 and 1997 and projected
percent change in growth between 1997 and 2010 for counties in the basin (Office of State
Planning, 1999). Since river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these
numbers are not directly applicable to the Cape Fear River basin. They are instead presented as
an estimate of possible countywide population changes.
Population growth trends for the basin between 1990 and 1997 indicate growth rates for six of
the 26 counties of 20 to 30 percent and a basinwide population increase of nearly 13.2%.
Projections for population growth from 1997 to 2010 indicate five counties with growth rates in
excess of 30 percent and seven counties with growth rates of 20 to 30 percent with a total
population increase in the basin of 17.8%.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 22
Table A-8 Cape Fear Subbasin Population (1970, 1980 and 1990) and Land Area Summaries
POPULATION POPULATION DENSITY LAND AND WATER AREAS
(Number of Persons) (Persons/Square Mile) Total Land and Water Area Water Area Land Area
SUBBASIN 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 (Acres) (Sq. Miles) (Sq. Miles) (Sq. Miles)
03-06-01 20,250 21,894 25,897 108 117 138 120,794 189 2 187
03-06-02 222,954 254,617 279,034 402 459 503 359,634 562 7 555
03-06-03 61,354 59,377 66,593 235 227 255 167,494 262 1 261
03-06-04 13,600 18,949 20,213 42 58 62 211,750 331 4 327
03-06-05 69,772 77,357 102,058 278 308 407 171,940 269 18 251
03-06-06 37,469 47,017 57,917 506 635 783 47,695 75 1 74
03-06-07 35,520 37,704 39,713 88 94 99 266,019 415 12 403
03-06-08 87,537 91,778 101,430 495 519 573 114,385 179 2 177
03-06-09 40,171 51,405 55,755 90 116 125 285,450 446 1 445
03-06-10 19,222 21,691 21,107 43 49 47 287,088 448 2 446
03-06-11 14,599 21,083 22,221 111 160 168 84,842 133 1 132
03-06-12 14,622 14,326 16,015 60 59 66 155,909 244 1 243
03-06-13 15,743 16,443 23,913 72 75 109 141,134 221 2 219
03-06-14 51,713 60,635 67,587 108 127 141 309,699 484 6 478
03-06-15 186,209 222,582 247,765 313 374 416 384,138 600 5 595
03-06-16 12,424 15,992 14,811 29 37 34 280,559 438 8 430
03-06-17 38,646 48,954 56,467 78 98 113 349,828 547 49 498
03-06-18 32,256 38,068 39,895 65 77 81 316,587 495 2 493
03-06-19 39,703 43,577 40,575 54 59 55 473,136 739 2 737
03-06-20 4,556 5,229 5,231 13 15 15 219,740 343 5 338
03-06-21 7,076 9,271 7,582 59 78 64 76,297 119 0 119
03-06-22 35,696 39,552 39,144 43 48 47 530,335 829 1 828
03-06-23 41,623 60,632 64,540 53 77 82 508,688 795 6 789
03-06-24 33,295 36,748 49,988 234 259 352 103,962 162 20 142
TOTALS 1,136,010 1,314,881 1,465,451 124 143 160 5,967,103 9,325 158 9,167

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 26
Table A-9 Estimated Population Statistics for the Years 1990, 1997 and 2010 for Counties in
the Cape Fear River Basin
Population Population Estimated % Estimated Estimated %
County in 1990 in 1997 Growth Population in growth
1990-1997 2010 1997-2010
Alamance 108,213 119,820 10.7 135,794 13.3
Bladen 19,777 20,917 5.8 21,698 3.7
Brunswick 22,943 29,340 27.9 39,317 34.0
Caswell 2,069 2,206 6.6 2,336 5.9
Chatham 38,759 45,130 16.4 54,433 20.6
Columbus 5,455 5,714 4.7 5,874 2.8
Cumberland 269,219 289,350 7.5 321,450 11.1
Duplin 39,995 44,080 10.2 48,786 10.7
Durham 49,101 53,382 8.7 61,512 15.2
Forsyth 5,318 5,743 8.0 6,387 11.2
Guilford 336,997 371,690 10.3 420,591 13.2
Harnett 67,833 81,358 19.9 102,301 25.7
Hoke 13,028 16,463 26.4 21,621 31.3
Johnston 1,626 2,064 26.9 2,747 33.1
Lee 41,370 48,369 16.9 58,645 21.2
Montgomery 1,401 1,468 4.8 1,554 5.8
Moore 46,610 54,907 17.8 66,068 20.3
New Hanover 120,284 146,601 21.9 183,112 24.9
Onslow 32,964 32,417 -1.7 38,629 19.2
Orange 45,987 52,554 14.3 63,882 21.6
Pender 28,855 37,208 28.9 49,954 34.3
Randolph 59,666 68,068 14.1 81,927 20.4
Rockingham 16,352 16,940 3.6 17,489 3.2
Sampson 46,824 52,124 11.3 58,317 11.9
Wake 63,945 83,528 30.6 116,602 39.6
Wayne 9,420 10,186 8.1 11,102 9.0
Totals 1,494,011 1,691,627 13.2 1,992,128 17.8
2.6 Natural Resources
2.6.1 Lakes
There are 32 reservoirs in the Cape Fear River basin monitored by DWQ. Over half the total
lakes are located in the upper portion of the basin (subbasins 03-06-01 through 03-06-08). These
impoundments serve as water supplies for communities such as Greensboro, Burlington, Durham
and Chapel Hill.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 27
B. Everett Jordon Reservoir, located mostly in Chatham County south of Durham and west of
Raleigh, is the largest lake in the basin and is used for water supply, flood control and recreation
area in one of the fastest growing regions of the state.
There are five natural lakes, (the Carolina Bays), in the lower portion of the basin. Carolina Bays
are of unknown origin located along the East Coast. The lakes are between 30,000 and 100,000
years old and, because of the unique chemistry and productivity, are home to many endemic
species. The lakes are shallow, fed by surface and shallow groundwater, and function as
wetlands. Agricultural and forestry practices, prior to 1970, have left undisturbed only about 10
percent of these lakes (Krajick, 1997).
2.6.2 Fish and Shellfish
Over 95 fish species have been found in the Cape Fear River basin including a variety with
recreational and commercial importance. Popular sportfish species found in the freshwater
portion of the river and reservoirs include largemouth bass, sunfish, crappie, catfish and pickerel.
Recreationally and commercially important anadromous species, including striped bass,
American and hickory shad and herring, migrate into freshwater portions of the Cape Fear River
and tributaries to spawn during the spring. The Cape Fear River below Wilmington supports
valuable recreational and commercial fisheries for striped bass, speckled sea trout, croaker,
flounder and spot. Commercial finfish landings within the Cape Fear River basin have declined
since 1996 from 108,764 pounds valued at $117,990 to 74,514 pounds valued at $64,191 (Figure
A-14). Non-finfish commercial landings within the Cape Fear River basin include shrimp, blue
crabs, squid, scallops and oysters. This fishery has had similar declines in recent years (Figure
A-15). Figure A-16 shows shellfish growing areas in the Cape Fear River basin.
A total of 30 endangered, threatened or special concern species, including fish, amphibians,
mammals, crustaceans and mollusks, are listed by federal and state agencies for the Cape Fear
River basin. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were once plentiful in the Cape Fear River, but the
population levels for both species are currently at low levels, with the few remaining individuals
located primarily in the lower Cape Fear and Brunswick Rivers. The last shortnose sturgeon to
be captured in the Cape Fear River was collected in 1993 (Fisheries Management Plan for the
Cape Fear River, March 1998).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 28
Figure A-14 Recent Overall Trends in Commercial Landings of Finfish in the Cape Fear River
Basin Coastal Areas by Total Pounds and Total Value Per Year (1994-1998)
Source: NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Figure A-15 Recent Overall Trends in Commercial Landings of Non-Finfish in the Cape Fear
River Basin Coastal Areas by Total Pounds and Total Value Per Year (1994-
1998) Source: NC Division of Marine Fisheries
2.6.3 Wetlands
Wetlands are transitional areas between land and water, such as swamps and marshes. Some are
connected to streams; and others, such as low lying pine plantations and pocosins, are not. Over
the years, however, approximately half of North Carolina’s wetlands have been lost to
development, farming and forestry practices. Wetlands now only cover about 25 percent of the
state’s land area.
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Po
u
n
d
s
/
D
o
l
l
a
r

V
a
l
u
e
Shellfish Pounds Shellfish Value
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Po
u
n
d
s
/
D
o
l
l
a
r

V
a
l
u
e
Finfish Pounds Finfish Value

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 30
Wetlands provide a variety of benefits to society and are very important in watershed planning
because of the functions they perform. Wetlands provide important protection for flood
prevention to protect property values; streambank stabilization to prevent erosion and
downstream sedimentation; water purification and pollutant removal (especially for nitrogen and
phosphorus); habitat for aquatic life and wildlife and endangered species protection. These
values vary greatly with wetland type. Wetlands adjacent to intermittent and permanent streams
are most important to protecting water quality in those streams, as well as downstream lakes and
estuaries. However, wetlands located landward or away from streams also have important water
storage capacity and pollutant removal potential.
Wetland Fill Activities
In 1989, the Environmental Management Commission passed a rule directing DWQ to review
wetland fill using a review sequence of avoidance, minimization and mitigation of wetland fill.
After extensive public review, the EMC passed rules, effective October 1, 1996, to restructure
the 401 Water Quality Certification Program. These rules are not a new regulatory program
since DWQ has issued approvals for wetland fill since the mid-1980s. The rules consider
wetland values - whether or not the wetland is providing significant uses or whether the activity
would remove or degrade uses. The rules also specify mitigation ratios, locations and types to
make the mitigation process more predictable and certain for the regulated community. DWQ’s
emphasis continues to be on water quality and the essential role that wetlands play in maintaining
water quality. Table A-10 shows wetland fill activities by subbasin.
Wetland Draining and Ditching Activities
Ditching and draining of wetlands in North Carolina have been a restricted activity under
oversight from both state and federal environmental regulations since the early 1990s.
Generally, approvals have been required from DWQ and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) for draining activities that impact one third of an acre or more of wetlands.
A federal court ruling in June 1998 overturned the authority of the ACOE to require permitting
for wetlands draining. This decision effectively removed regulatory review of draining unless
dirt spoil from a ditch is dumped into jurisdictional wetlands.
The State of North Carolina has since determined that wetland ditching and draining still fall
under its authority and are an illegal activity if proper approval is not acquired. That authority
applies when the hydrology or biology of the wetland is altered or the draining violates
downstream water quality standards such as turbidity, salinity and dissolved oxygen. DWQ
developed and began implementing the wetland draining policy on March 1, 1999.
Wetland draining activities include both ditching and installation of ground pumping systems.
Other activities also covered under this policy include pond construction in wetlands, filling of
isolated wetlands, and off-site sediment erosion into wetlands.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 31
Table A-10 Wetland Fill Activities (in Acres) Permitted in the Cape Fear River Basin by
Subbasin and Year
Subbasin
Number 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
03-06-01 5.27 0.68 4.69 0 10.64
03-06-02 1.42 9.08 10.85 3.74 25.09
03-06-03 3.3 0.25 0.33 0.83 4.71
03-06-04 0 0.56 3.28 0 3.84
03-06-05 20.23 7.44 5.99 8.57 42.23
03-06-06 0.89 0.5 5.91 0 7.3
03-06-07 1.88 5.08 1.59 1.24 9.79
03-06-08 9.68 8.94 4.72 0.18 23.52
03-06-09 1.97 1.53 0 1.15 4.65
03-06-10 0 8.95 0 3.19 12.14
03-06-11 0 0.29 0 0 0.29
03-06-12 0 0 0.54 0.35 0.89
03-06-13 0.09 4.03 1.15 2.58 7.85
03-06-14 13.55 30.26 20.54 2.93 67.28
03-06-15 20.18 48.1 13.17 12.02 93.47
03-06-16 27.48 3.8 3.76 0.7 35.74
03-06-17 31.67 53.68 57.83 30.37 173.55
03-06-18 1.83 1.69 0.4 1.46 5.38
03-06-19 7.26 17.28 7.38 2.54 34.46
03-06-20 7 0.01 0.66 0.91 8.58
03-06-21 2.6 4.57 1.3 0 8.47
03-06-22 62.68 22.58 4.67 7.05 96.98
03-06-23 31.21 6.43 7.85 18.14 63.63
03-06-24 6.05 28.76 94.9 13.06 142.77
Total Acres 256.24 264.49 251.51 111.01 883.25
When DWQ discovers any such draining activities, it will notify the landowner in writing that
the activity has or is likely to violate the state’s wetland standards. The landowner will be given
an opportunity to refute the finding. If DWQ determines that a violation has occurred, it can
seek enforcement action and require that the natural hydrology or biology be restored. In some
instances, the filling of ditches may require a federal 404 wetland fill permit.
Ditch maintenance is allowed as long as written documentation can be provided on the ditch’s
original height and width dimensions. Both DWQ and the Division of Land Resources will
review such activities. Ditches created for forestry purposes are allowed if they are designed,
constructed and maintained properly to retain the natural wetland hydrology. Refer to Best
Management Practices for Forestry in the Wetlands of North Carolina.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 32
DWQ has the authority to review specific wetland draining projects that began prior to March 1,
1999 to determine whether the draining activities impaired downstream water quality. The
Division of Land Resources will check various projects to make sure they have complied with
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources is using a multiagency approach to
implement the draining policy, to seek compliance and to pursue enforcement. Involved DENR
agencies include DWQ, Division of Land Resources, Forest Resources, Soil and Water
Conservation, and Coastal Management. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service will
also participate.
When violations are found, regulators can seek injunction relief to cease the draining activity and
to restore the wetland on-site, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, and possible prosecution.
The Division of Forest Resources is flying reconnaissance missions, with various regulatory
personnel, to identify and assess draining sites. Satellite imagery is also used to target problem
areas. To further assist in wetland protection, the public is encouraged to report possible sites
where illegal draining has occurred.
To report possible wetlands draining violations in the Cape Fear River basin, the public can
contact the appropriate DWQ regional office: Fayetteville [phone], Wilmington (910)
395-3900, Raleigh [phone] and Winston-Salem [phone].
Wetland draining project acres and types are summarized in Table A-11. Figure A-17 shows the
locations of project areas in the Cape Fear River basin.
Table A-11 Wetland Acreage Impacted by Wetland Ditching and Draining Activities in the
Cape Fear River Basin Separated by Wetland Type (September 1999)
Wetland Type Acres % of Total
Wet Flat 3,559 54%
Pocosin 2,769 42%
Bottomland Hardwood/Swamp Forest 254 4%
Human Impacted Wetland 22 minor
Freshwater Marsh 8 minor
Total Wetlands 6,612
Non-Wetland 2,419
Note: These boundaries and associated acreage values are approximate and are intended to give general
location information only. The wetland data used in this analysis were developed by the Division of
Coastal Management and are not intended to represent jurisdictional wetland boundaries.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 34
There are several uses and limitations that should be considered when reviewing the wetland
draining project data in the above tables. These include:
1. Project boundaries were compiled from NC Division of Land Resource’s permit file
information, aerial surveys conducted by regional office staff, low altitude color infrared
photography, and on-site investigations. These methods created inherent and varied
inaccuracies in the data.
2. Project boundaries represent approximate size and location only; more precise information
will require more extensive individual site visits.
3. Wetland data used in this analysis were obtained from NC Division of Coastal Management.
For more information on mapping procedures and data accuracy, contact Jim Stanfill of the
Division of Coastal Management at [phone].
4. The numbers provided in this analysis represent potential wetland impacts, not actual wetland
"loss".
Wetland Restoration Efforts
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is responsible for implementing
wetland and stream restoration projects on a basinwide scale throughout the state. The focus of
the program is to enhance water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities. The NCWRP is not a grant program. However, it can compliment
grant programs like the Section 319 program by taking on restoration projects identified through
Section 319 grant applications. Alternatively, studies funded by Section 319 to identify suitable
stream or wetland restoration sites can then be implemented by the NCWRP. The NCWRP can
also directly fund other stream or wetland restoration sites provided those sites are located within
a priority subbasin, as determined by the NCWRP. Finally, the NCWRP can perform restoration
projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or with environmental groups.
The NCWRP has identified priority subbasins for the Cape Fear River basin through the
Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin. For more
information on this document or the NCWRP, call [phone] or visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm.
2.7 Permitted Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Facilities
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as 'point sources'. Wastewater point source discharges include
municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater
treatment plants and small domestic wastewater
treatment systems serving schools, commercial
offices, residential subdivisions and individual homes.
Stormwater point source discharges include
stormwater collection systems for municipalities and
stormwater discharges associated with certain
industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North
Carolina must apply for and obtain a National
The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:
* oxygen-consuming wastes,
*nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 35
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under
the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.7.1 Wastewater Discharges in the Cape Fear River Basin
There are 280 permitted wastewater
discharges in the Cape Fear River basin.
Table A-12 provides summary
information (numbers of facilities and
permitted flows) regarding the discharges
by type and subbasin. The various types
of dischargers characterized in the table
are described in the inset box. A
summary of all dischargers can be found
in Appendix I.
Figures A-18, A-19 and A-20 show the
location of major and minor permitted
wastewater discharges within the basin.
The number of triangles on the map
depicting major discharges do not
correspond exactly to the number of
major facilities listed in Table A-12,
since some major facilities have more
than one outfall point. Each outfall point
received its own triangle.
2.7.2 Stormwater Discharges in the Cape Fear River Basin
Amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1990 provided requirements for NPDES stormwater
permits for municipal, industrial and construction activities (Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program). Permit requirements were established for ten categories of industrial activity ranging
from vehicle maintenance facilities to textile manufacturers. Permit requirements were also
established for construction activities which disturb 5 or more acres of land area. Permit
application requirements were established for municipalities with a population of 100,000 or
more. The focus of the NPDES stormwater program is pollution prevention and source control.
The primary concern with runoff from industrial facilities is the contamination of stormwater
from contact with exposed materials. In addition, poor housekeeping can lead to significant
contributions of sediment and other water quality pollutants. To address these issues, each
NPDES stormwater permitted facility must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SPPP) that addresses the facility’s potential impacts on water quality. Facilities or activities
identified as having significant potential to impact water quality are also required to perform
analytical monitoring to characterize the pollutants in their stormwater discharges under
individual NPDES stormwater permits.
Types of Wastewater Discharges
Major Facilities: Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants with flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day);
and some industrial facilities (depending on flow and
potential impacts on public health and water quality).
Minor Facilities: Any facilities not meeting the
definition of Major.
100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat
domestic-type waste (water from bathrooms, sinks,
washers).
Municipal Facilities: Facilities that serve a
municipality. Can treat waste from homes and
industries.
Industrial Facilities: Facilities with wastewater from
industrial processes such as textiles, mining, seafood
processing, glass-making and power generation.
Other Facilities: This category includes a variety of
facilities such as schools, nursing homes, groundwater
remediation projects, water treatment plants and non-
process industrial wastewater.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 36
Table A-12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Cape Fear River
Basin (as of April 1999)
Subbasin
Facility Categories 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL
Total Facilities 13358898152715674611685537231464 280
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.4 69.9 0.1 0.8 26.3 8.3 13.9 28.0 9.8 1.6 6.0 4.0 9.0 3.0 39.9 14.0 93.0 0.1 4.7 0.0 1.4 10.6 2.5 0.1 352.6
Major Discharges 2800225211213243130102310 58
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.2 67.3 0.0 0.0 26.0 8.0 11.6 17.7 9.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 6.7 1.5 39.9 7.5 88.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.4 8.0 1.1 0.0 313.7
Minor Discharges 1127887610251455339254236211154 222
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.2 2.6 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 2.4 10.3 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.5 0.0 6.5 4.1 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.4 0.1 38.8
100% Domestic Waste 914654381085242722211621441 131
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.2 9.2 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 3.0 14.0 0.8 9.9 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.1 54.4
Municipal Facilities 1 6 0221523211223260501411 53
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.0 66.0 0.0 0.8 26.0 8.0 2.9 17.7 9.5 1.6 5.0 4.0 4.2 1.6 39.0 1.5 28.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.1 226.3
Non-Municipal Facilities 12 29 867710251246349364932221053 227
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.4 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 11.0 10.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.8 1.5 0.9 12.5 64.9 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.4 8.6 2.0 0.0 126.3

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 40
EPA Stormwater Rules
Phase I – December 1990
Requires a NPDES permit for municipal storm
sewer systems serving populations of 100,000
or more.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
eleven categories of industry.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
construction sites that are 5 acres or more.
Phase II – November 1999
Requires a NPDES permit for municipal storm
sewer systems serving populations under
100,000 that are located in urbanized areas.
Provides incentives to industrial facilities
covered under Phase I for protecting
operations from stormwater exposure.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
construction sites that are 1-5 acres.
Permits are granted in the form of general
stormwater permits (covering a wide
variety of activities) or individual
stormwater permits. Excluding
construction general permits, there are 623
general stormwater permits and 48
individual stormwater permits issued
within the river basin. Individual permit
holders are presented in Table A-13.
The municipalities covered by the NPDES
stormwater regulations are called
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s). Phase I covers large and medium
MS4s (population of 100,000 or more).
There are six permitted Phase I MS4s in
North Carolina. The cities of Greensboro,
Durham and Fayetteville (which also
includes Cumberland County) are the only
Phase I MS4s in the Cape Fear River
Basin.
On October 29, 1999, a second phase of the NPDES stormwater program was signed into law.
Phase II lowers the construction activity threshold to 1 or more acres of land disturbance and
allows a permitting exemption for industrial facilities that do not have significant materials or
activities exposed to stormwater.
Phase II also pulls many small local governments into the NPDES stormwater program. The
federal regulations require that small MS4s with a population of 50,000 or more and a density of
1,000 people per square mile be covered under a NPDES stormwater permit. This includes small
municipalities that, when clustered together, are considered an urbanized area that collectively
meets the 50,000/1,000 criteria. In addition, DWQ is required to develop designation criteria that
pull in other small MS4s. The designation criteria must include, at a minimum, all MS4s with a
population of 10,000 or more and a density of 1,000 people per square mile. At a minimum, the
local governments listed in Table A-14 will be covered under Phase II of the NPDES stormwater
program. It is highly likely that additional local governments will be required to seek a permit
through designation. Phase II MS4 permit applications must be submitted to DWQ by March 1,
2003.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 41
Table A-13 Summary of Individual NPDES Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin
Permit # Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County
NCS000030 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. UT Little Troublesome Creek 03-06-01 Rockingham
NCS000085 Safety-Kleen (TS) UT Troublesome Creek 03-06-01 Rockingham
NCS000010 Stockhausen, Inc. Mile Run Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000048 Chemol Co., Inc. Mile Run Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000077 Dow Corning Corporation UT South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000107 Unitex Chemical Corporation South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000119 Unichem, Inc. Haw River 03-06-02 Alamance
NCS000155 GKN Automotive Components, Inc. Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Lee
NCS000206 Duke Power Fairfax Ops Center UT South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000253 Southern Foundries Corporation North Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000308 Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. UT Little Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000353 H B Fuller Company - Guilford Co. UT South Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Guilford
NCS000090 Burlington Chemical Company Gum Creek 03-06-03 Alamance
NCS000017 Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. - Durham Co. UT Northeast Creek 03-06-05 Durham
NCS000046 National Specialty Gases UT Northeast Creek 03-06-05 Durham
NCS000050 SCM Metal Products, Inc. UT Northeast Creek & Stirrup Iron Creek 03-06-05 Durham
NCS000084 South Atlantic Services, Inc. Fishing Creek 03-06-05 New Hanover
NCS000201 Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill UT Bolin Creek 03-06-06 Orange
NCS000087 PAC-FAB, Inc. Little Buffalo Creek 03-06-07 Lee
NCS000100 Allied Signal, Inc. Shaddox Creek & Haw River 03-06-07 Chatham
NCS000150 Neste Resins Corporation Haw River 03-06-07 Chatham
NCS000151 Weyerhaeuser Company Shaddox Creek 03-06-07 Chatham
NCS000078 Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. East Fork Long Branch Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000092 Marsh Furniture Company UT Richland Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000280 Lester Group, Inc. - Fortress Wood Prod. UT Bull Run Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000319 Marlowe-Van Loan Corporation Richland Creek 03-06-08 Guilford
NCS000242 Ultracraft Company UT Sandy Creek 03-06-09 Randolph
NCS000023 Pioneer Southern, Inc. Rita Branch 03-06-10 Montgomery
NCS000123 Perdue Farms, Inc. Bear Creek & Buck Creek 03-06-10 Moore
NCS000122 General Timber, Inc. George’s Creek 03-06-11 Chatham
NCS000056 ICI Americas, Inc. Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000088 Borden Packaging & Industrial Products Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000147 Fiber Industries UT Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000187 Black & Decker (US), Inc. UT Lake Lynn 03-06-15 Cumberland
NCS000076 Corning, Inc. Spring Branch 03-06-17 New Hanover
NCS000101 Federal Paper Board Co. - Riegelwood Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Columbus
NCS000156 Wright Corporation Mill Creek & Livingston Creek 03-06-17 Columbus
NCS000174 NC State Ports Authority - Wilmington Cape Fear River 03-06-17 New Hanover
NCS000208 Military Ocean Terminal - Sunny Point Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Brunswick
NCS000244 American Distillation Co. Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Brunswick
NCS000258 National Starch & Chemical Co .- Leland Alligator Branch 03-06-17 Brunswick
NCS000344 American Crane Corp - New Hanover UT Barnards Creek 03-06-17 New Hanover
NCS000309 Schindler Elevator Corporation Old Williams Mill Branch 03-06-19 Sampson
NCS0000003 Occidental Chemical Company Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000022 GE Wilmington Prince George Creek 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000118 Arteva Specialties, Sarl Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000214 Royster Clark, Inc. Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-23 New Hanover
NCS000222 General Wood Preserving Co., Inc. UT Sturgeon Creek 03-06-23 Brunswick
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 42
Table A-14 Cities and Counties Included in State Stormwater Program
Phase I Cities
Durham Fayetteville Greensboro
Phase II Cities
Apex Cary High Point Reidsville
Archdale Chapel Hill Hope Mills Sanford
Asheboro Elon College Jamestown Spring Lake
Belville Gibsonville Kernersville Wilmington
Burlington Graham Leland Wrightsville Beach
Carrboro Haw River Mebane
Phase II Counties
Alamance Forsyth New Hanover Randolph
Brunswick Guilford Onslow Wake
Durham Harnett Orange Wayne
2.8 Animal Operations
Table A-15 summarizes, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total
animals and total steady state live weight as of September 1998. These numbers reflect only
operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent the total number of
animals in each subbasin. Figures A-21, A-22 and A-23 show the general location of the
registered operations in the basin.
Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is the result, in pounds, after a conversion factor has been
applied to the number (head count) of swine, cattle or poultry on a farm. The conversion factors,
which come from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) guidelines, vary
depending on the type of animals on the farm and the type of operation (for example, there are
five types of hog farms). Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, SSLW is the
best way to compare the sizes of the farms.
The NC Department of Agriculture provided information on animal capacity by subbasin (Table
A-16).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 43
Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-1999)
1995 –Senate Bill 974 requires owners of swine facilities with 250 or more animals to hire a certified
operator. Operators are required to attend a six-hour training course and pass an examination
for certification. Senate Bill 1080 established buffer requirements for swine houses, lagoons and
land application areas for farms sited after October 1, 1995.
1996 – Senate Bill 1217 required all facilities (above threshold populations) to obtain coverage under a
general permit, beginning in January 1997, for all new and expanding facilities. DWQ was
directed to conduct annual inspections of all animal waste management facilities. Poultry
facilities with 30,000+ birds and a liquid waste management system were required to hire a
certified operator by January 1997 and facilities with dry litter animal waste management
systems were required to develop an animal waste management plan by January 1998. The
plan must address three specific items: 1) periodic testing of soils where waste is applied; 2)
development of waste utilization plans; and 3) completion and maintenance of records on-site
for three years. Additionally, anyone wishing to construct a new, or expand an existing, swine
farm must notify all adjoining property owners.
1997 –House Bill 515 placed a moratorium on new or existing swine farm operations and allows
counties to adopt zoning ordinances for swine farms with a design capacity of 600,000 pounds
(SSLW) or more. In addition, owners of potential new and expanding operations are required
to notify the county (manager or chair of commission) and local health department, as well as
adjoining landowners. DENR was required to develop and adopt economically feasible odor
control standards by March 1, 1999.
1998 –House Bill 1480 extended the moratorium on construction or expansion of swine farms. The
bill also requires owners of swine operations to register with DWQ any contractual relationship
with an integrator.
1999 –House Bill 1160 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine
farms, required DENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons, and requires
owners/operators of an animal waste treatment system to notify the public in the event of a
discharge to surface waters of the state of 1,000 gallons or more of untreated wastewater.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 44
Table A-15 Registered Animal Operations in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of 9/98)
Swine Cattle
Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight
03-06-01 1 2,850 493,620 5 2,599 2,598,200
03-06-02 1 1,000 130,500 6 2,010 2,154,000
03-06-03 3 9,660 776,580 2 400 560,000
03-06-04 3 23,544 2,432,520 17 2,505 2,507,000
03-06-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-06-06 0 0 0 1 125 175,000
03-06-07 2 5,616 866,112 0 0 0
03-06-08 0 0 0 5 2,325 3,255,000
03-06-09 13 43,435 6,222,528 3 625 875,000
03-06-10 2 12,253 924,090 1 200 280,000
03-06-11 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-06-12 1 400 52,200 2 250 350,000
03-06-13 6 27,815 3,251,025 0 0 0
03-06-14 5 32,152 4,157,160 1 700 980,000
03-06-15 13 55,550 6,753,860 0 0 0
03-06-16 42 254,353 32,063,197 0 0 0
03-06-17 7 45,216 6,381,110 0 0 0
03-06-18 82 450,398 57,856,987 0 0 0
03-06-19 306 1,538,402 182,351,532 0 0 0
03-06-20 12 88,672 10,888,120 0 0 0
03-06-21 69 240,648 27,261,539 0 0 0
03-06-22 404 787,900 217,781,138 0 0 0
03-06-23 46 204,757 25,636,095 0 0 0
03-06-24 1 1,800 243,000 0 0 0
Totals 1,019 3,826,421 586,522,913 43 11,739 13,734,200

Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 48
Table A-16 Estimated Populations of Swine (1998, 1994 and 1990), Dairy (1998 and 1994)
and Poultry (1998 and 1994) in the Cape Fear River Basin
(NCDA Veterinary Division)
Total Swine
Capacity
Swine
Change
Total Dairy
Capacity
Dairy
Change
Poultry
Capacity
Poultry
ChangeSubbasin
1998 1994 1990 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%)
03-06-01 2,884 1,798 1,052 60 1,223 1,629 -25 63,300 100 63,200
03-06-02 1,944 2,342 2,995 -17 2,181 3,656 -40 286,849 86,773 231
03-06-03 2,112 3,357 2,918 -37 1,058 1,353 -22 522,070 482,144 8
03-06-04 3,310 3,354 1,469 -1 5,698 6,153 -7 4,865,029 1,855,294 162
03-06-05 300 209 167 44 640 213 200 10,000 22,000 -55
03-06-06 300 120 167 150 640 641 0 10,000 50 19,900
03-06-07 4,202 4,109 3,256 2 255 1,020 -75 1,857,430 1,653,430 12
03-06-08 118 129 228 -9 2,604 2,677 -3 465,889 415,789 12
03-06-09 37,997 40,443 8,233 -6 2,933 3,113 -6 13,185,379 12,049,038 9
03-06-10 28,585 21,454 18,920 33 405 405 0 9,640,013 9,311,324 4
03-06-11 963 1,042 1,220 -8 0 127 -100 2,219,382 2,080,230 7
03-06-12 3,466 4,524 6,978 -23 1,117 1,483 -25 5,950,459 5,955,399 0
03-06-13 19,353 3,342 1,686 479 0 12 -100 967,800 753,600 28
03-06-14 20,809 8,192 4,437 154 585 589 -1 3,765,400 3,279,900 15
03-06-15 43,395 38,306 24,657 13 0 0 0 486,811 413,911 18
03-06-16 293,021 137,777 38,281 113 0 0 0 125,000 155,000 -19
03-06-17 39,343 20,614 9,231 91 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-06-18 474,316 192,309 98,466 147 0 0 0 1,820,288 1,440,488 26
03-06-19 1,647,410 954,060 353,427 73 1,875 1,875 0 8,582,910 6,092,850 41
03-06-20 95,950 29,170 9,404 229 0 0 0 77,300 47,030 64
03-06-21 275,767 145,138 50,280 90 155 155 0 1,526,230 1,415,500 8
03-06-22 1,804,152 920,839 277,130 96 0 0 0 7,944,900 8,416,850 -6
03-06-23 440,628 229,490 65,424 92 0 0 0 3,251,100 3,052,100 7
03-06-24 1,067 1,051 276 2 0 0 0 2,000 3,000 -33
TOTALS 5,241,392 2,763,169 980,302 90 21,369 25,101 -15 67,625,539 58,981,800 15
% of State Total 54% 51% 39% 22% 19% 32% 32%
Source : NC Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Division
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 49
2.9 Water Use and Minimum Streamflow
2.9.1 Local Water Supply Planning
The North Carolina General Assembly has mandated a local and state water supply planning
process under North Carolina General Statute §143-355(l) and (m) to assure that communities
have an adequate supply of water for future needs. Under this statute all units of local
government that provide or plan to provide public water supply service are required to prepare a
Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) and to update that plan at least every five years. The
information presented in a LWSP is an assessment of a water system’s present and future water
needs and its ability to meet those needs. The current LWSPs are based on 1992 data. Updated
plans based on 1997 water supply and water use information were completed in 1999.
In 1992, 130 systems that use water from the Cape Fear River basin provided an average of
208.77 million gallons per day (MGD) to 1.3 million people (Table A-17). Projections of future
need show that these systems expect their service populations to increase by 66% to 2.1 million
people by 2020. Average daily water use for these systems is expected to increase by 86 percent
to 388 MGD by the year 2020. These data only represent systems submitting a LWSP and do
not reflect the needs of the public water systems in this basin that are not required to prepare a
plan because they are not operated by a unit of local government. The information is self-
reported and has not been field verified. However, plans have been reviewed by staff engineers
for consistency and reasonableness. More information is available for these and other systems
across the state that submitted a Local Water Supply Plan from the Division of Water Resources’
website at: www.dwr.ehnr.state.nc.us/home.htm.
2.9.2 Minimum Streamflow
One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows
below dams. Hydropower dams that are subject to FERC authority are exempt from Division of
Land Resources (DLR) authority. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying
mandatory minimum releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the
length of a stream affected by an impoundment. Table A-18 lists hydroelectric projects with
minimum releases. The Division of Water Resources (DWR), in conjunction with the Wildlife
Resources Commission, recommends conditions relating to release of flows to satisfy minimum
instream flow requirements. The permits are issued by the Division of Land Resources. Table
A-19 lists minimum instream flow studies in this basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 50
Table A-17 Population and Water Use for Water Systems in the Cape Fear River Basin
Population Average Daily Water Use
County 1992 2000 2020 1992 2000 2020
MGD MGD MGD
Alamance 64,394 76,447 94,023 15.334 19.587 24.32
Bladen 11,593 13,935 18,395 1.291 2.352 2.77
Brunswick 83,658 119,138 159,007 11.353 19.005 26.006
Chatham 14,864 17,867 26,156 3.724 5.111 7.277
Columbus 320 350 425 0.474 0.109 0.133
Cumberland 151,684 179,675 249,315 23.191 27.012 43.377
Duplin 16,607 32,104 39,530 5 7 8
Durham 140,000 195,000 279,000 23 30 42
Forsyth 12,276 18,739 46,780 1 2 6
Guilford 271,057 288,565 317,715 43 52 75
Harnett 46,223 65,390 107,142 7 12 18
Hoke 5,755 15,735 18,567 2 3 5
Johnston 2,880 3,300 4,630 1 1 1
Lee 20,515 23,531 26,643 5 6 7
Montgomery 6,443 6,927 7,929 3 4 7
Moore 24,073 31,015 27,680 4 8 10
New Hanover 71,449 101,525 111,596 20 48 36
Orange 68,900 81,900 115,300 8 10 14
Onslow 99,329 111,705 153,475 8.567 9.962 14.175
Pender 11,203 14,051 15,362 1 1 1
Randolph 36,169 41,252 52,782 7 12 19
Rockingham 14,011 14,825 15,400 3 5 5
Sampson 14,205 17,818 19,878 2.344 3.078 3.745
Wake 58,487 92,353 166,178 7 9 20
Wayne 25,579 37,311 39,772 2 4 4
TOTALS 1,271,674 1,600,458 2,112,680 208.278 300.216 399.803
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 51
Table A-18 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin
HYDROELECTRIC DAMS
Hydropower
Dam
Regulatory
Authority
Bypass
Reach (ft)
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
Min. Release
(cu.ft/sec)
Deep River
Coltrane unlicensed 320 124
Worthville Federal Energy
Regulatory
Comm (FERC
None 223 None*
Cox Lake FERC 506 250 42
Cedar Falls FERC 2112 257 32
Franklin/ Randolph Mills FERC 480 278 None*
Ramseur FERC 1430 343 45
Coleridge FERC 500 391 35
High Falls FERC 2844 748 108
Carbonton FERC None 970 None*
Lockville FERC 700 1380 70
Haw River
Altamahaw unlicensed 800 226
Glencoe Mills FERC 1815 495 57
Swepsonville 700
Saxapahaw FERC 5200 1020 10
Bynum FERC 3000 1270 80
B.E. Jordan FERC 1690
Rockfish Creek
Raeford FERC None 179 None*
Rocky River
Rocky River FERC None 181 None*
Notes:
* Even though there is no minimum flow, the project must still operate in a run-of-river mode; i.e., instantaneous
inflow equals instantaneous outflow. A noncompliant project can alter noticeably the streamflow.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 52
Table A-19 Minimum Instream Flow Studies in the Cape Fear River Basin
WATER SUPPLY IMPOUNDMENTS/WITHDRAWALS
Dam Study
Cooperators
Purpose of Study
Big Alamance
Creek
DWR The Town of Burlington’s water supply, Lake Mackintosh, has a tiered release with a
maximum flow release of 9 cfs at full pool. The recommendation was based on a wetted
perimeter study done by DWR.
Back Creek DWR DWR requested, following the review of the environmental assessment for the expansion of
the Graham-Mebane water treatment plant from 6 to 12 MGD, a tiered release with a
maximum low flow release of 5 cfs at full pool from Graham-Mebane Lake. The flow
recommendation was based on a wetted perimeter study by DWR.
Bones Creek DWR and
NCWRC
Lake Rim is used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission as a fish hatchery storage pond.
DWR requested a minimum flow as a stipulation for dam repair. The Division assisted the
Commission in determining a tiered release of 18 cfs from the impoundment in all months
except July, when the release is 10.5 cfs. The releases are based on a hydrologic desktop
investigation. A calibrated gage is required to monitor releases.
Branson Creek NCWRC A stipulation for repairs to Forest Lake dam in Fayetteville was a minimum flow requirement
of 3.4 cfs. The recommendation is based on a NC Wildlife Resources Commission habitat
evaluation and a hydrologic desktop investigation.
Little Cross
Creek
DWR,
NCWRC
and DWQ
DWR participated in an aquatic habitat assessment of Little Cross Creek below Glenville
Lake (Fayetteville’s reserve water source) with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and
DWQ. A minimum flow of 3.6 cfs, based on a hydrologic desktop investigation, was
established.
Deep River DWR The proposed Randleman reservoir will serve the cities of Greensboro and High Point. The
reservoir will have a tiered minimum release ranging from a high of 30 cfs at full pool, 20 cfs
when below 60 percent full pool, and 10 cfs when below 30 percent full pool. The minimum
flow recommendations are based on a wetted perimeter study. The project will divert up to
30.5 MGD (47.1 cfs) which will reduce the average annual flow. The natural low flows in
the lower Deep River will be increased by the minimum release. There will be some
interbasin transfer (see Part 2.9.3). Randleman Reservoir will impact hydropower generation
in the Deep River. The Coltrane Mill project will be inundated by the impoundment. DWR
estimates that hydropower generation will be reduced by 5 to 15 percent depending on the
amount of withdrawal from the reservoir, proximity of the generation facility to Randleman,
and the minimum flow requirement at each project.
The City of High Point’s primary sources for water, High Point City Lake and Oak Hollow
Reservoir, do not have minimum release requirements. The Dam Safety Law restricts
minimum flow requirements for existing reservoirs to 10 percent of the safe yield. This
corresponds to 1.3 cfs and 1.9 cfs for High Point City Lake and Oak Hollow Reservoir,
respectively.
Mill Creek NCWRC Reservoir Park dam in Southern Pines has a minimum flow requirement of 0.5 cfs based
upon consultation with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and a hydrologic desktop
investigation.
Nick’s Creek DWR and
Town of
Carthage
DWR will be cooperating with the Town of Carthage on an instream flow study of Nick’s
Creek to evaluate a proposal to expand their withdrawal from 0.5 to 1.0 MGD.
Reedy Fork DWR Lake Townsend in Greensboro has a minimum flow requirement of 7.1 cfs at full pool as a
stipulation for expansion of the water treatment plant from 20 to 30 MGD. The
recommended flow is based upon a wetted perimeter study done by DWR.
Rocky River DWR, Town
of Siler City
and other
agencies
The Town of Siler City has a tiered release at their water withdrawal structure based on an
instream flow study performed by DWR. The minimum release from December through
May is 3.5 cfs when the town’s reservoir is at 40 percent capacity or greater. The town has
installed gages to monitor the release. DWR and other resource agencies are now
participating in discussions with the town on a proposal to raise the evaluation of the
withdrawal pond by 12. 5 feet.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 53
2.9.3 Interbasin Transfer
Water users in North Carolina are required to register their water withdrawals and transfers with
the Division of Water Resources if the amount is 100,000 gallons per day or more, according to
NCGS §143-215.22H. In addition, transfers of one million gallons per day or more require
certification from the Environmental Management Commission, according to NCGS §143-
215.22I. Table A-20 lists the parties that have registered withdrawals in the Cape Fear River
basin as of January 1, 1999.
The river basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled
Major River Basins and Subbasins in North Carolina that was filed in the Office of the Secretary
of State on April 16, 1991. Within the Cape Fear basin, six subbasins are delineated: the Haw
River, the Deep River, the Cape Fear River, the South River, Northeast Cape Fear River and the
New River (Figure A-24). (Note: The New River is not considered part of the Cape Fear River
basin under the basinwide management approach which utilizes basin definitions adopted by the
Department of Water and Air Resources in 1974. The New River will be addressed as part of the
White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan in 2001.)
Figure A-25 shows the approximate location of transfers of 1.0 MGD or greater. Table A-21
lists all potential transfers within the basin. Unless otherwise noted, the transfer amounts are
1992 average daily amounts in million gallons per day (MGD) based on Local Water Supply
Plans and registered withdrawal/transfer information. Many of the transfers cannot be quantified
due to undocumented consumptive losses (examples: septic, lawn irrigation). Note: Under a
provision of Senate Bill 1299 (ratified by the General Assembly on September 23, 1988), all
local water systems are now required to report existing and anticipated interbasin transfers as part
of the Local Water Supply Planning process. This information will be available for future
updates of this management plan and will allow an assessment of cumulative impacts.
Currently, there are two permitted transfers in the Cape Fear basin. The first permit is for
Cary/Apex’s 16 MGD transfer from the Haw River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin. Cary
and Apex are currently preparing environmental documentation to support an application for
increasing the transfer amount. The second permit is for Piedmont Triad Water Authority’s 30.5
MGD transfer from the Deep River subbasin to the Haw and Yadkin River subbasins. This
permit covers anticipated transfers resulting from the operation of the proposed Randleman dam.
Other large transfers in the Cape Fear basin include Durham (18.0 MGD), Asheboro (4.7 MGD),
and High Point (3.5 MGD).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 54
Table A-20 Water Withdrawal Registrations in the Cape Fear River Basin
Cape Fear River Basin
Water Withdrawal Registrations pursuant to NCGS 143-215.22H.
Data is self-reported and has not been field verified.
County Facility #Capacity MGD Facility
ALAMANCE 01-003 3.000 CONE MILLS CORPORATION - GRANITE PLANT
ALAMANCE 01-006 229.000 GLENCOE MILLS
CHATHAM 19-002 180.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CHATHAM 19-007 0.860 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
GUILFORD 41-001 5.000 CONE MILLS CORPORATION - WHITE OAK PLANT
GUILFORD 41-002 2.000 CONE MILLS CORPORATION - WHITE OAK PLANT
GUILFORD 41-003 0.000 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
GUILFORD 41-004 0.000 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY
GUILFORD 41-008 1.555 JAMESTOWN PARK GOLF COURSE
LEE 53-001 1.440 WAKE STONE CORPORATION - KNIGHTDALE QUARRY
LEE 53-003 1.500 FLOYD BROWNE & ASSOCIATION WTP
LEE 53-004 1.009 GOLDEN POULTRY COMPANY, INC
MOORE 63-002 1.270 SANDY RIDGE FARMS
MOORE 63-003 1.270 SANDY RIDGE FARMS
MOORE 63-004 1.270 SANDY RIDGE FARMS
MOORE 63-012 2.000 TRIPLE H FARMS (SANDHILL TURF)
MOORE 63-013 4.000 SANDHILL TURF, INC
RANDOLPH 76-006 0.000 PIEDMONT TRIAD WATER AUTHORITY
BLADEN 09-003 17.000 E. I. DUPONT DENEMOURS - FAYETTEVILLE
BLADEN 09-004 1.240 COGENTRIX OF NORTH CAROLINA
BLADEN 09-006 2.100 ALAMAC KNITS - WEST POINT STEVENS
BRUNSWICK 10-001 4.000 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY
BRUNSWICK 10-003 1600.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
BRUNSWICK 10-004 2.000 BALD HEAD ISLAND GOLF CLUB
BRUNSWICK 10-006 0.000 COGENTRIX - BRUNSWICK COUNTY
BRUNSWICK 10-006 4.140 COGENTRIX OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK 10-007 18.000 E. I. DUPONT
COLUMBUS 24-001 50.000 FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC
CUMBERLAND 26-001 1.500 KIRBY PUGTT
CUMBERLAND 26-002 1.680 MONSANTO AGRICULTURE COMPANY
CUMBERLAND 26-003 11.000 HQ XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS & FORT BRAGG
CUMBERLAND 26-008 5.800 BROOKWOOD COMMUNITY WS
CUMBERLAND 26-009 3.000 BLAKE FARMS, INC
HARNETT 43-001 2.050 NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
HARNETT 43-003 8.000 ERWIN MILLS
MOORE 63-010 1.610 PINEHURST RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB
NEW HANOVER 65-001 0.000 CAPE INDUSTRIES
NEW HANOVER 65-002 49.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
NEW HANOVER 65-007 3.100 HOECHST CELANESE-WILMINGTON PLANT
WAKE 92-005 28.000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
WAKE 92-019 1.400 RONNIE BETTS
SAMPSON 82-017 1.000 DL & B ENTERPRISES, INC
DUPLIN 31-001 1.700 GUILFORD MILLS, INC - GUILFORD EAST SITE
DUPLIN 31-002 3.240 CAROLINA TURKEYS
DUPLIN 31-003 2.090 COGENTRIX OF NORTH CAROLINA
DUPLIN 31-004 2.520 STEVCOKNIT FABRICS COMPANY, INC
DUPLIN 31-005 2.000 BUTTERBALL TURKEY COMPANY
NEW HANOVER 65-003 5.760 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
NEW HANOVER 65-006 4.450 CAPE FEAR INDUSTRIES
NEW HANOVER 65-008 2.110 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
NEW HANOVER 65-025 15.840 MARTIN MARIETTA
PENDER 71-002 17.760 MARTIN MARIETTA
NEW HANOVER 65-004 2.700 LANDFALL CLUB
NEW HANOVER 65-005 1.500 LANDFALL CLUB
ONSLOW 67-001 5.322 CAMP LEJEUNE MCB
ONSLOW 67-002 8.464 CAMP LEJEUNE MCB
ONSLOW 67-003 4.710 CAMP LEJEUNE MCB
Total Capacity 2330.96 MGD
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 55
Figure A-24 River Basins Subject to Surface Water Transfers Act
14-1
3-2
8-1
7-1
13-1
6-1
7-2
3-1 18-1
18-4
5-2
1-1
5-1
5-3
18-2
16-1
11-1
10-1
9-3
2-3
9-19-2 2-6
9-4
2-52-4
17-1
15-1
18-3
2-2
2-1
10-2
10-3
12-1
15-3
15-2 4-1
4-2
NC-DENR
Division of W ater Resources
919-733-4064
Legend
Major River Basin Boundary
Sub-Basin Boundary
County Boundary
î¨
15-1 Tar River
15-2 Fishing Creek
15-3 Pamlico River & Sound
16-1 Watauga River
17-1 White Oak River
18-1 Yadkin River
18-2 South Yadkin River
18-3 Uwharrie River
18-4 Rocky River
BASIN NAME
1-1 Broad River
2-1 Haw River
2-2 Deep River
2-3 Cape Fear River
2-4 South River
2-5 Northeast Cape Fear River
2-6 New River
3-1 Catawba River
3-2 South Fork Catawba River
4-1 Chowan River
4-2 Meherrin River
5-1 Nolichucky River
5-2 French Broad River
5-3 Pigeon River
6-1 Hiwassee River
10-1 Neuse River
10-2 Contentnea Creek
10-3 Trent River
11-1 New River
12-1 Albemarle Sound
13-1 Ocoee River
14-1 Roanoke River
7-1 Little Tennessee River
7-2 Tuckasegee River
8-1 Savannah River
9-1 Lumber River
9-2 Big Shoe Heel Creek
9-3 Waccamaw River
9-4 Shallotte River
BASIN NAME BASIN NAME
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 56
Figure A-25 Interbasin Transfers (>1.0 MGD) in the Cape Fear River Basin
Durham (18 MGD)
Cary/Apex (16 MGD)
Benson (1.0 MGD)
Asheboro
(4.7 MGD)
Archer Daniel Midland
(1.9 MGD)
Piedmont Triad RWA
(Future: 30.5 MGD)
High Point
(5.0 MGD)
Montgomery Co.
(1.0 MGD)
L. Cape Fear W.A.
(1.6 MGD)
HAW R.
SUBBASIN
DEEP R.
SUBBASIN
CAPE FEAR R.
SUBBASIN
SOUTH R.
SUBBASIN
NE CAPE FEAR R.
SUBBASIN
NEW R.
SUBBASIN
CAPE FEAR BASIN
NEUSE BASIN
YADKIN
BASIN
LUMBER
BASIN
Legend
Major Basin Boundary
Sub-Basin Boundary
County Boundary
Section A: Chapter 2 – Basin Overview 57
Table A-21 Interbasin Transfers in the Cape Fear River Basin
Source
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated Transfer
(MGD)1,2,3
Permitted Transfers
Cary/Apex Cary/Apex Haw Neuse 16.0
4
Piedmont Triad WA Piedmont Triad WA Deep Haw, Yadkin 30.5
5
Other Transfers
Graham Orange-Alamance Haw Neuse Emergency
Greensboro Jamestown Haw Deep 0.09
Greensboro Greensboro Haw Deep Unknown
OWASA Hillsborough Haw Neuse Emergency
Reidsville Reidsville Haw Roanoke Unknown
High Point Greensboro Deep Haw Unknown
High Point Thomasville Deep Yadkin Emergency
High Point High Point Deep Yadkin 3.5
Lower Cape Fear WSA Brunswick County Cape Fear Shallotte Unknown
Carthage Carthage Cape Fear Deep Unknown
Dunn Benson Cape Fear Neuse 1.0
Dunn Dunn Cape Fear South Unknown
Dunn Benson Cape Fear South Unknown
Harnett Fuquay-Varina Cape Fear Neuse Unknown
Harnett Angier Cape Fear South Unknown
Harnett Coats Cape Fear South Unknown
Harnett Dunn Cape Fear South Emergency
Sanford Chatham County East Cape Fear Deep Unknown
Sanford Sanford Cape Fear Deep Unknown
Sanford Lee County - Tramway Cape Fear Deep Emergency
Wilmington Wilmington Cape Fear New Unknown
General Electric General Electric NE Cape Fear Cape Fear 0.75
Southern Pines Southern Pines Lumber Cape Fear Unknown
Archer Daniel Midland Archer Daniel Midland Shallotte Cape Fear 1.89
Durham OWASA Neuse Haw Emergency
Durham Durham Neuse Haw 18.0
6
Goldsboro Wayne WD Neuse NE Cape Fear Emergency
Hillsborough Orange-Alamance WS Neuse Haw Emergency
Orange-Alamance WS Mebane Neuse Haw Emergency
Orange-Alamance WS Orange-Alamance WS Neuse Haw Unknown
Raleigh Holly Springs Neuse Cape Fear 0.8
Davidson Archdale Yadkin Deep Unknown
Davidson Davidson Yadkin Deep Unknown
Montgomery County Montgomery County Yadkin Deep 1.0
North Wilkesboro Broadway Yadkin Cape Fear Unknown
Winston Salem Kernersville Yadkin Haw Unknown
Winston Salem Winston Salem Yadkin Deep Unknown
Winston Salem Winston Salem Yadkin Haw Unknown
Asheboro Randleman Uwharrie Deep Emergency
Asheboro Asheboro Uwharrie Deep 4.7
1 Transfer amounts are based on average daily water use reported in 1992 Local Water Supply Plans, and the 1993 Water
Withdrawal and Transfer Registration Database.
2 "Unknown" refers to undocumented consumptive use.
3 "Emergency" refers to emergency connections.
4 Transfer amount for Cary/Apex are based on its permitted transfer.
5 Transfer amount for Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority is based on its permitted transfer, but will not become effective
until completion of Randleman dam.
6 The estimated transfer amount for Durham is based on information in their Jordan Lake allocation application.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 58
Chapter 3 -
Summary of Water Quality Information for the Cape
Fear River Basin
3.1 General Sources of Pollution
Human activities can negatively impact surface water quality, even when the activity is far
removed from the waterbody. With proper management of wastes and land use activities, these
impacts can be minimized. Pollutants that
enter waters fall into two general
categories: point sources and nonpoint
sources.
Point sources are typically piped
discharges and are controlled through
regulatory programs administered by the
state. All regulated point source
discharges in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the state.
Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land use
activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are typically
carried to waters by rainfall, runoff or snowmelt.
Sediment and nutrients are most often associated with
nonpoint source pollution. Other pollutants associated
with nonpoint source pollution include fecal coliform
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other
substance that may be washed off the ground or
deposited from the atmosphere into surface waters.
Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution sources are diffuse in nature and occur
intermittently, depending on rainfall events and land disturbance. Given the diffuse nature of
nonpoint source pollution, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify nonpoint source
contributions to water quality degradation in a given watershed. While nonpoint source pollution
control often relies on voluntary actions, the state has many programs designed to reduce
nonpoint source pollution.
Every person living in or visiting a watershed
contributes to impacts on water quality. Therefore,
each individual should be aware of these
contributions and take actions to reduce them.
Point Sources
• Piped discharges from municipal wastewater
treatment plants
• Industrial facilities
• Small package treatment plants
• Large urban and industrial stormwater systems
Nonpoint Sources
• Stormwater runoff
• Forestry
• Agricultural lands
• Rural residential development
• Septic systems
• Mining
While any one activity may not have a
dramatic effect on water quality, the
cumulative effect of land use activities
in a watershed can have a severe and
long-lasting impact.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 59
3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards
Program Overview
North Carolina established a water quality classification and standards program early in the
1950s, with classification and water quality standards for all the state’s river basins adopted by
1963. The Water Quality Standards program in North Carolina has evolved over time and has
been modified to be consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. Water
quality classifications and standards have also been modified to promote protection of surface
water supply watersheds, high quality waters, and the protection of unique and special pristine
waters with outstanding resource values. Classifications and standards are applied to provide
protection of the waters’ best uses.
Statewide Classifications
All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best
uses of that waterbody. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a
supplemental classification (Table A-22). Most supplemental classifications have been
developed to provide special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. For
example, a stream in the mountains might have a C Tr classification, where C is the primary
classification followed by the Tr (Trout) supplemental classification. A full description of the
state’s primary and supplemental classifications are available in the document titled:
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina
(derived from 15A NCAC 2B .0200). Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s
Water Quality Section website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html.
Statewide Water Quality Standards
Each primary and supplemental classification is assigned a set of water quality standards that
establish the level of water quality that must be maintained in the waterbody to support the uses
associated with each classification. Some of the standards, particularly for HQW and ORW
waters, outline protective management strategies aimed at controlling point and nonpoint source
pollution. These strategies are discussed briefly below. The standards for C and SC waters
establish the basic protection level for all state surface waters. With the exception of Sw, all of
the other primary and supplemental classifications have more stringent standards than for C and
SC, and therefore, require higher levels of protection.
Some of North Carolina’s surface waters are relatively unaffected by pollution sources and have
water quality higher than the standards that are applied to the majority of the waters of the state.
In addition, some waters provide habitat for sensitive biota such as trout, juvenile fish, or rare
and endangered aquatic species. These waters may be rated as HQW or ORW.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 60
Table A-22 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications
(Primary classifications beginning with an "S" are assigned to saltwaters)
PRIMARY FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses
C and SC Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation.
B and SB Primary recreation and Class C uses.
SA Waters classified for commercial shellfish harvesting.
WS Water Supply watershed. There are five WS classes ranging from WS-I through WS-V. WS
classifications are assigned to watersheds based on land use characteristics of the area. Each water
supply classification has a set of management strategies to protect the surface water supply. WS-I
provides the highest level of protection and WS-IV provides the least protection. A Critical Area
(CA) designation is also listed for watershed areas within a half-mile and draining to the water
supply intake or reservoir where an intake is located.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses
Sw Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters that will naturally be more acidic (have lower pH values) and
have lower levels of dissolved oxygen.
HQW High Quality Waters: Waters possessing special qualities including excellent water quality, Native
or Special Native Trout Waters, Critical Habitat areas, or WS-I and WS-II water supplies.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters: Unique and special surface waters which are unimpacted by
pollution and have some outstanding resource values.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout.
High Quality Waters
Special HQW protection management
strategies are intended to prevent degradation
of water quality below present levels from both
point and nonpoint sources. HQW
requirements for new wastewater discharge
facilities and facilities which expand beyond
their currently permitted loadings address
oxygen-consuming wastes, total suspended
solids, disinfection, emergency requirements,
volume, nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters)
and toxic substances.
For nonpoint source pollution, development
activities which require a Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control
Commission or approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program, and which
Criteria for HQW Classification
• Waters rated as Excellent based on DWQ’s
chemical and biological sampling.
• Streams designated as native and special
native trout waters or primary nursery
areas by the Wildlife Resources
Commission.
• Waters designated as primary nursery
areas by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
• Critical habitat areas designated by the
Wildlife Resources Commission or the
Department of Agriculture.
• Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I, WS-II
and SA are HQW by definition, but these
waters are not specifically assigned the
HQW classification because the standards
for WS-I, WS-II and SA waters are at least
as stringent as those for waters classified
HQW.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 61
drain to and are within one mile of HQWs, are required to control runoff from the development
using either a low density or high density option. In addition, the Division of Land Quality
requires more stringent sedimentation controls for land-disturbing projects within one mile and
draining to HQWs.
Outstanding Resource Waters
A small percentage of North Carolina’s surface waters have excellent water quality (rated based
on biological and chemical sampling as with HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource.
The requirements for ORW waters
are more stringent than those for
HQWs. Special protection measures
that apply to North Carolina ORWs
are set forth in 15A NCAC 2B
.0225. At a minimum, no new
discharges or expansions are
permitted, and stormwater controls
for most new developments are
required. In some circumstances, the unique characteristics of the waters and resources that are
to be protected require that a specialized (or customized) ORW management strategy be
developed.
Classifications and Standards in the Cape Fear River Basin
The waters of the Cape Fear River basin have a variety of surface water quality classifications
applied to them. Water Supply watersheds range from WS-II to WS-IV. Maps of water supply
watersheds, Outstanding Resource Waters and High Quality Waters are presented in Figures A-
26 to A-28.
Classification and standards for the entire basin can be found in a separate document titled
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River
Basin, available by calling the Planning Branch of DWQ at [phone]. They can also be
accessed through DWQ’s Water Quality Section website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html.
Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the Cape Fear River Basin
There is one pending reclassification in the Cape Fear River basin on Mill Creek in Moore
County. The proposed reclassification is from WS-III to WS-III HQW. DWQ will continue to
assess the proposed reclassification.
Recent reclassifications in the basin include Buckhorn Creek (Harris Lake) in Wake and Lee
counties (from C to WS-V) and streams within the proposed Randleman Reservoir Critical Area
to WS-IV CA. These recent reclassifications became effective in April 1999. There were three
reclassifications in 1998.
The ORW rule defines outstanding resource values as:
• outstanding fisheries resource;
• a high level of water-based recreation;
• a special designation such as National Wild and Scenic
River or a National Wildlife Refuge;
• being within a state or national park or forest; or
• having special ecological or scientific significance.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 65
3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Cape Fear River
Basin
The Environmental Sciences Branch of DWQ collects a variety of biological, chemical and
physical data. The following discussion contains a brief introduction to each program, followed
by a summary of water quality data in the Cape Fear
River basin for that program. A more complete
discussion on biological and chemical monitoring
within the basin can be found in the Cape Fear River
Basinwide Assessment Report (DENR, June 1999).
3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are
organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. These organisms are primarily
aquatic insect larvae. The use of benthos data has
proven to be a reliable monitoring tool, as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Since macroinvertebrates have life cycles of six months to over one year, the
effects of short-term pollution (such as a spill) will generally not be overcome until the following
generation appears. The benthic community also integrates the effects of a wide array of
potential pollutant mixtures.
Criteria have been developed to assign a bioclassification rating to each benthic sample based on
the number of different species present in the pollution intolerant groups of Ephemeroptera
(Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies); or commonly referred to as
EPTs. Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains, piedmont and
coastal plain) within North Carolina. The ratings fall into five categories ranging from Poor to
Excellent.
Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Appendix A-II lists all the benthic macroinvertebrate collections in the Cape Fear River basin
between 1983 and 1998, giving site location, collection date, taxa richness, biotic index values
and bioclassifications. Benthic macroinvertebrates have been collected at over 350 freshwater
sites in the Cape Fear River basin since 1983; 131 of these sites were sampled during 1998
basinwide surveys or special studies and could be assigned a rating (Table A-23). For the 1998
collections, bioclassifications were given to sites in the following breakdown: Excellent – 18
(14%), Good – 34 (26%), Good-Fair – 41 (31%), Fair - 23 (18%) and Poor – 15 (11%). The
distribution of water quality ratings is very similar for both the 1998 and 1993 collections,
suggesting little overall change in water quality within the Cape Fear River basin. Individual
sites, however, often show distinct long-term or short-term changes in water quality (see below
and Table A-24).
DWQ monitoring programs for the
Cape Fear River Basin include:
• benthic macroinvertebrates
(Section 3.3.1)
• fish assessments
(Section 3.3.2)
• aquatic toxicity monitoring
(Section 3.3.3)
• lakes assessment
(Section 3.3.4)
• ambient monitoring system
(Section 3.3.5)
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 66
Table A-23 Biological Ratings for Recent Samplings in the Cape Fear River Basin
Subbasin
03-06-01 to 03-06-24
Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor
Piedmont
01: Upper Haw/Troublesome Creek - - 3 2 1
02: Greensboro/Burlington area -2444
03: Alamance Creek - 1 1 - 1
04: Lower Haw River 1251-
05: Durham/Jordan Lake - - - 1 -
06: Chapel Hill area 12142
07: Upper Cape Fear River - 1 2 - 1
08: Deep River #1 - - 2 2 1
09: Deep River #2 3 3 2 - 2
10: Deep River #3 - 4 - 2 1
11: Deep River #4 (Triassic Basin) - - 2 - -
12: Rocky River - 2 4 - -
Coastal
13: Upper Little River 2 2 1 - -
14: (Lower) Little River 6 - 1 - -
15: Rockfish Creek 2 1 - 1 -
16: Middle Cape Fear River - 1 5 - -
17: Lower Cape Fear River 1311-
18: South River - 1 1 1 -
19: Clinton area 1 1 2 - -
20: Black River - 2 - 1 -
21: NE Cape Fear River #1 -----
22: NE Cape Fear River #2 1132-
23: NE Cape Fear River #3 - 5 - 1 2
24: Coastal - - 1 - -
Total (#) 1834412315
Total (%) 14% 26% 31% 18% 11%
Areas of Excellent water quality in the piedmont of the Cape Fear River basin are either small
streams in protected catchments or large rivers that are far enough downstream to have recovered
from point source pollutants. Streams in the first category include Morgan Creek and Cane
Creek (near Chapel Hill), while rivers in the second category include the Cape Fear River in
Harnett County and the Deep River in Moore County. Two streams between Greensboro and
High Point are also worthy of note: the headwaters of Reedy Fork and the West Fork of the
Deep River. Although these streams only received a Good-Fair or Good rating, they have
unusually diverse communities of intolerant stonefly taxa. Slate Belt tributaries of the Haw and
Deep Rivers (Alamance, Chatham and Randolph counties) often receive a Good rating, although
these streams may suffer from low flow effects during droughts.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 67
Areas of highest water quality in the coastal area of the Cape Fear River basin are concentrated in
subbasins 03-06-13 to 03-06-15: Upper Little River, Little River, Rockfish Creek and their
tributaries. This area comprises most of the sandhills area within the Cape Fear River basin and
contained 10 Excellent sites and three Good sites. Portions of the Black and South Rivers
(subbasins 03-06-18 and 03-06-19) have high benthic diversity, although few tributary streams
have the diversity observed at mainstem sites. A similar community also occurs in the middle
section of the Northeast Cape Fear River near Chinquapin (subbasin 03-06-22).
The Division of Water Quality is developing criteria for swamp streams. Many swamp streams
in the lower Cape Fear River basin were sampled for the first time in 1998. Areas of highest
water quality ("natural" conditions) included Town Creek, Hood Creek, Shelter Swamp and
Merricks Creek.
Samples taken in 1998 were often collected during a period of very low flow. This may have a
variety of effects on streams, depending on both catchment size and relative contribution of point
source dischargers compared to nonpoint source runoff. The smallest streams may suffer from
very low flow or entirely cease flowing. This causes a lower bioclassification (sometimes
evaluated as "not rated") or makes it impossible to collect samples. This was true for streams in
subbasins 03-06-04 (Dry Creek); 03-06-08 (Muddy Creek/Hickory Creek); Triassic Basin sites in
subbasins 03-06-05, 03-06-10 and 03-06-11; and coastal plain sites in subbasins 03-06-14, 03-
06-15, 03-06-16 and 03-06-17.
Streams affected by point source runoff may have a lower bioclassification during low flow
periods, due to lower dilution of the effluent (Reedy Fork, subbasin 03-06-02). More common,
however, are those streams that improve due to a reduction in nonpoint source runoff during a
low flow year: Haw Creek, Pokeberry Creek and Stinking Quarter Creek.
The most acute problems in the piedmont section of the Cape Fear River basin (Poor
bioclassifications) are usually associated with point source discharges and/or urban runoff. Poor
water quality was found for Little Troublesome Creek (Reidsville, subbasin 03-06-01); North
and South Buffalo Creeks (Greensboro, subbasin 03-06-02); Northeast Creek (Durham, urban
runoff, subbasin 03-06-05); Little Alamance Creek (Burlington, urban runoff, subbasin 03-06-
03); Richland Creek (High Point, subbasin 03-06-08); Cotton Creek (Star, subbasin 03-06-10);
Kenneth Creek (subbasin 03-06-07); Loves Creek (subbasin 03-06-12); and Burgaw Creek
(subbasin 03-06-22). The segments of North and South Buffalo Creeks below Greensboro
constitute one of the worst water quality problems in North Carolina.
Long-term changes in water quality were evaluated at 117 sites in the Cape Fear River basin,
with the majority of sites showing no changes in water quality other than flow-related changes in
bioclassification (Table A-24). The benthos sampling since 1983 may slightly overestimate the
proportion of Fair and Poor sites, as DWQ special study sampling often has the greatest sampling
intensity (number of sites/streams) in areas with severe water quality problems.
Table A-24 does not tabulate flow-related changes as a between-year change in water quality.
For long-term changes in water quality, positive changes outnumber negative changes, usually
reflecting improvements at wastewater treatment plants. Over the last five years, however, there
were more negative changes. The last five years compare 117 sites, while there were only 69
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 68
Table A-24 Long-Term Changes in Bioclassification in the Cape Fear River Basin
Subbasin # Trend 5-year trend Long-term (>5 years) trend
03-06-01 to 03-06-24 Sites None + - None + -
Piedmont
01: Upper Haw/Troublesome Creek 5 4 0 1 2 0 0
02: Greensboro/Burlington area 11 9 1 1 5 1 1
03: Alamance Creek 3 2 0 0 3 0 0
04: Lower Haw River 5 5 0 0 3 2 0
05: Durham/ Jordan Lake* 5 3 0 0 3 1 0
06: Chapel Hill area 10 8 1 1 3 1 1
07: Upper Cape Fear River 4 3 0 1 1 0 0
08: Deep River #1 6 5 0 1 3 3 0
09: Deep River #2 9 8 1 0 3 3 0
10: Deep River #3* 10 10 0 0 2 0 0
11: Deep River #4 (Triassic)* 4 2 0 2 1 0 1
12: Rocky River 5 2 1 0 3 2 0
Coastal
13: Upper Little River 5 5 0 0 4 0 0
14: (Lower) Little River 6 4 2 0 2 1 0
15: Rockfish Creek 3 3 0 0 1 1 0
16: Middle Cape Fear River 5 4 1 1 1 1 1
17: Lower Cape Fear River** 3 2 1 0 0 0 0
18: South River* 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
19: Clinton area 4 2 0 2 1 0 2
20: Black River 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
21: NE Cape Fear River #1* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22: NE Cape Fear River #2 6 3 0 3 0 1 1
23: NE Cape Fear River #3 4 3 1 0 0 1 0
24: Coastal 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
Total 117 91 9 13 42 19 8
* Sampling difficulties due to inability to rate streams (Triassic Basin) or lack of flow in many streams during 1998 collections.
** Many estuarine sites are not included in this tabulation.
sites with long-term data. The latter trend reflects changes in the coastal plain area associated
with a combination of desnagging (after Hurricane Fran) and possible runoff from hog farms. It
is usually not possible to differentiate between the effects of these two problems (see Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for discussion of hurricane effects).
Positive changes (either over 5 years or over longer time periods) were primarily related to
improvements in wastewater treatment. Collections from the Haw River (3 sites) and Deep
River (6 sites) showed improvements. New Hope Creek and Morgan Creek were slightly
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 69
improved. Rockfish Creek and the Northeast Cape Fear River at Castle Hayne also showed
improvements. The most striking recent change in water quality was the improvement seen in
the Little River below the Fort Bragg WWTP.
Two sites on the Rocky River improved due to a combination of better flow management
(upstream site) and upgrades at the Siler City WWTP. The lower Cape Fear River in Bladen and
Columbus counties improved in 1998, but some of this change may be due to low nonpoint
source inputs in 1998 as a result of reduced rainfall.
Declines in water quality were also related to expanding urban areas. This was observed for
Horsepen Creek (Greensboro) and Bolin Creek (Chapel Hill). Road construction in Greensboro
caused a decline for the upper portion of South Buffalo Creek. The lower portion of the Deep
River (near Sanford) has declined from Good to Good-Fair, and this change is apparently
unrelated to dischargers in the Sanford area.
3.3.2 Fish Assessments
In 1998, 52 sites representing 19 of the 24 subbasins were sampled and evaluated using the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of 12
metrics. Each metric is designed to contribute unique information to the overall assessment. The
scores for all metrics are then summed to obtain the overall NCIBI score. The NCIBI score is
then used to determine the NCIBI class of the stream (Table A-25).
The NCIBI has been revised since the 1996 Cape Fear River basinwide monitoring was
conducted. Recently, the focus of using and applying the Index has been restricted to wadeable
streams that can be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using backpack electrofishers and
following the NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures (NCDENR, 1997). The fish community
integrity classes have been modified in an effort to simplify and standardize the evaluation of a
stream’s ecological integrity and water quality bioclassification across both fish community and
benthic invertebrate assessments.
Fish sites were chosen based upon the use support ratings the streams received during the first
round of basinwide monitoring in 1994. Streams that were specifically targeted in each subbasin
and which had the greatest sampling priority were those rated as either Partially Supporting (25
sites) or Not Supporting (8 sites). As resources permitted, streams which were rated Fully
Supporting but Threatened (8 sites) or Fully Supporting (11 sites) were then sampled. Subbasins
03-06-20, 03-06-21 and 03-06-23 were sampled for the first time in 1998.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 70
Table A-25 Scores, Integrity Classes and Class Attributes for Evaluating a Wadeable Stream
Using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
NCIBI Scores NCIBI Classes Class Attributes
56 - 60 Excellent Comparable to the best situations without human disturbance.
All regionally expected species for the habitat and stream size,
including the most intolerant forms are present, along with a
full array of size classes and a balanced trophic structure.
50 - 54 Good Species richness somewhat below expectation, especially due
to the loss of the most intolerant species; some species are
present with less than optimal abundance or size distributions;
and the trophic structure shows some signs of stress.
44 - 48 Good-Fair Signs of additional deterioration include the loss of intolerant
species, fewer species and a highly skewed trophic structure.
38 - 42 Fair Dominated by omnivores, tolerant species and habitat
generalists; few top carnivores; growth rates and condition
factors commonly depressed; and diseased fish often present.
< 36 Poor Few fish present, mostly introduced or tolerant species; and
disease fin damage and other anomalies are regular.
Overview of Fish Community Assessment Data
The NCIBI classifications at the 52 sites ranged from Good (7 sites) to Poor (20 sites). The
distribution of ratings were: Good (7), Good-Fair (13), Fair (12) and Poor (20) (Figure A-29).
The fish community with the greatest biological integrity score was Whites Creek (Bladen
County); the fish community with the lowest biological integrity score was South Buffalo Creek
(Guilford County).
Of the 52 sites sampled in 1998, 17 of the sites (16 exact sites) were previously sampled in 1992-
1994 (Figure A-30). In 1998, the distribution of the ratings of these 17 sites were: Good-Fair
(4), Fair (3) and Poor (10). In 1992-1994, the distribution of these ratings were: Good (1),
Good-Fair (3), Fair (6) and Poor (7).
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 71
Figure A-29 The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity for the Cape Fear River Basin (1997)
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Haw R
Haw R
Haw R
Troublesome Cr
Little Troublesome Cr
Little Troublesome Cr
Reedy Fork
Reedy Fork
N Buffalo Cr
S Buffalo Cr
S Buffalo Cr
Big Alamance Cr
Little Alamance Cr
Stinking Quarter Cr
Little Alamance Cr
Co llins Cr
Terrells Cr
Ferrells Cr
New Hope Cr
Bolin Cr
Morgan Cr
Avents Cr
He c t o r C r
Kenneth Cr
Richland Cr
Muddy Cr
Sandy Cr
Bear Cr
Cabin Cr
Falls Cr
McLendon’s Cr
Richland Cr
Ind ian Cr
Big Buffalo Cr
Rocky R
Lo ves Cr
Bear Cr
Crains Cr
Buffalo Cr
Anderson Cr
Big Cross Cr
Puppy Cr
Harris o n C r
Browns Cr
Turnbull Cr
Whites Cr
Colly Cr
White Oak Branch
Mathews Cr
Grove Cr
Duff Cr
Burgaw Cr
NCIBI Sc o re
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 72
Figure A-30 The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity for the Cape Fear River Basin
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Troublesome Cr
Reedy Fork
N Buffalo Cr
S Buffalo Cr
S Buffalo Cr
Stinking Quarter Cr
Little Alamance Cr
Terrells Cr
Hector Cr
Kenneth Br
Muddy Cr
Sandy Cr
Richland Cr
Big Buffalo Cr
Harrison Cr
Browns Cr
Grove Cr
NCIBI Score
1992-1994 1998
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 73
Overview of Fish Tissue Sampling
Fish tissue samples were collected at 23 stations within the Cape Fear River basin from 1994 to
1998. Fish tissue surveys were conducted in the basin as part of mercury assessments of fish in
the eastern part of the state and during routine basinwide assessments. Most fish samples
collected during the period contained metal and organic contaminants at undetectable levels or at
levels below FDA and EPA criteria. Elevations in mercury were, however, measured in
largemouth bass and bowfin samples from numerous stations, and in multiple species collected
from the Black and South Rivers. Nearly two thirds of the total samples collected from the
Black and South stations contained mercury above FDA/NC and/or EPA criteria. Mercury
contamination of fish in the Cape Fear River basin was not associated with point sources and is
consistent with levels measured in fish species throughout the North Carolina coastal plain.
A small number of fish samples collected from the Cape Fear River, the Deep River and the Haw
River were analyzed for chlorinated pesticides and PCB arochlors during the 1998 assessment.
Results showed undetectable levels of organic contaminants in fish tissue from these stations.
International Paper Company performs yearly monitoring of fish tissue for dioxins and furans
along the Cape Fear River near the company mill in Reigelwood. Results from 1994 to 1998
show dioxin and furan levels in gamefish and bottom species at undetectable levels or at
concentrations well below the NC limit of 3 parts per trillion (CZR Incorporated, 1998).
Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) conducts annual environmental monitoring of Lake Sutton
near Wilmington. CP&L has measured levels of arsenic, copper, mercury and selenium in the
liver and muscle tissue of two fish species since 1992. Results of a 1996 survey showed a
significant increase in levels of copper and selenium in bluegill and largemouth bass over levels
seen in prior years. Tissue burdens measured in bass and bluegill during 1996 were considered
to be at levels capable of causing ecological effects (CP&L, 1996).
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
Largemouth bass, bowfin and chain pickerel in the South River and the Black River just below
the South River contain higher than normal levels of mercury. Consumption of bass, bowfin and
chain pickerel should be limited to no more than two meals per person per month. Women of
childbearing age and children should eat no bass, bowfin or chain pickerel taken from this area
until further notice. Swimming, boating and other recreational activities are not affected by this
advisory.
The entire basin is posted for bowfin as part of a statewide mercury advisory on the species.
Consumption of bowfin is limited to no more than 2 meals per month for the general population.
Children and women of childbearing age are advised not to consume bowfin.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 74
Cape Fear River Basin Fish Kills
There have been 52 fish kills in the Cape Fear River basin since 1996. Low dissolved oxygen
(DO) during hot dry weather, sewage and chemical spills, copper sulfate applications, hog farm
spills, Hurricane Bonnie (1998) and many unknowns were listed as potential causes of fish kills.
The Cape Fear River basin has accounted for nearly 33% of reported fish kills in the state over
the past three years. There were 14 fish kills reported basinwide in 1999.
3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
Acute and/or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine toxicity of discharges to sensitive
aquatic species (usually fathead minnows or the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia). Results of
these tests have been shown by several researchers to be predictive of discharge effects on
receiving stream populations. Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity by
their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. Other facilities may be tested by DWQ’s
Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory.
The Aquatic Toxicology Unit maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to
perform tests and provides a monthly update of this information to regional offices and DWQ
administration. Ambient toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality relative to
other stream sites and/or a point source discharge. A summary of compliance for the Cape Fear
River basin from 1985 through 1998 is presented in Table A-26.
Table A-26 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Cape Fear River
Basin
Year Number of
Facilities
Number of
Tests
% Meeting
Permit Limit*
1985 9 91 45.0
1986 15 145 49.6
1987 27 233 42.1
1988 42 383 53.0
1989 49 538 69.7
1990 57 625 71.8
1991 63 685 83.1
1992 67 799 80.2
1993 71 845 85.7
1994 79 908 83.7
1995 80 964 85.3
1996 82 963 87.5
1997 85 994 89.3
1998 87 1018 90.9
* This number was calculated by determining whether a facility was meeting its ultimate permit limit
during the given time period, regardless of any SOCs in force.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 75
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program
There were 32 lakes in the Cape Fear River basin sampled as part of the Lakes Assessment
Program. Each lake is individually discussed in the appropriate subbasin section with a focus on
the most recent available data. Figure A-31 shows the most recent NCTSI scores for the thirty-
two sampled lakes of the Cape Fear River basin. The August NCTSI scores were not calculated
for the lakes monitored by DWQ in 1998 due to unacceptable laboratory results for chlorophyll a.
Figure A-31 Cape Fear River Basin NCTSI Score
(All NCTSI Scores Reflect July 1998 Except for Oak Hollow Lake)
3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System Program
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine sample
stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data.
North Carolina has 59 stations in the Cape Fear River basin (Table A-27). For the purpose of
this report, those stations are divided into seven drainages: the Haw River, the Deep River, Cape
Fear River mainstem, Cape Fear River tributaries, Black River, Northeast Cape Fear River and
Coastal Areas.
-6-5-4-3-2-10123456
Bay Tree Lake (D)
Boiling Springs Lake (D)
Bonnie Doon Lake
Burlington Reservoir
Cane Creek Reservoir
Carthage City Lake
Glenville Lake
Graham-Mebane Reservoir
Greenfield Lake
Harris Lake
High Point Lake
Hope Mills Lake
Oak Hollow Lake †
Jones Lake (D)
Jordan Lake
Kornbow Lake
Lake Brandt
Lake Burlington
Lake Higgins
Lake Hunt
Lake Mackintosh
Lake Townsend
Mintz Pond
Old Town Reservoir
Pittsboro Lake
Reidsville Lake
Rocky River Reservoir
Salters Lake (D)
Sandy Creek Reservoir
Singletary Lake (D)
University Lake
White Lake
Lak
e

N
a
m
e
EutrophicMesotrophicOligotrophic Hypereutrophic
NCTSI Scores -7-8
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 76
Table A-27 Locations of the Ambient Monitoring Stations
STORET Number Subbasin County Location
Haw River Mainstem
B0040000 03-06-01 Guilford SR 2109 near Oak Ridge
B0050000 03-06-01 Rockingham NC Hwy 29A near Benja
B0210000 03-06-01 Alamance SR 1561 near Altamahaw
B1140000 03-06-02 Alamance NC Hwy 49N at Haw River
B2000000 03-06-02 Alamance SR 1005 near Saxapahaw
B2100000 03-06-04 Chatham US Hwy 15-501 near Bynum
B4050000 03-06-04 Chatham Below Jordan Dam near Moncure
Haw River Tributaries
B0160000 03-06-01 Rockingham Little Troublesome Creek at SR 2600 near Reidsville
B0540000 03-06-02 Guilford North Buffalo Creek at SR 2832 near Greensboro
B0750000 03-06-02 Guilford South Buffalo Creek at SR 2821 at McLeansville
B0840000 03-06-02 Alamance Reedy Fork at NC Hwy 87 at Ossipee
B1095000 03-06-02 Alamance Jordan Creek at SR 1754 near Union Ridge
B1260000 03-06-02 Alamance Town Branch at SR 2109 near Graham
B1960000 03-06-02 Alamance Alamance Creek at SR 2116 at Swepsonville
B1670000 03-06-03 Guilford Little Alamance Creek at NC Highway 61 near Whitsett -- See Footnote
B2450000 03-06-04 Chatham Robeson Creek at SR 1939 near Seaforth
B3040000 03-06-05 Durham New Hope Creek at SR 1107 near Blands
B3660000 03-06-05 Durham Northeast Creek at SR 1100 near Nelson
B3900000 03-06-06 Chatham Morgan Creek at SR 1726 near Farrington
Deep River Mainstem
B4240000 03-06-08 Guilford East Fork Deep River at SR 1541 near High Point
B4615000 03-06-08 Randolph SR 1921 near Randleman
B4800000 03-06-09 Randolph SR 2122 at Worthville
B5070000 03-06-09 Randolph Main Street at Ramseur
B5190000 03-06-09 Moore SR 1456 near High Falls
B5520000 03-06-10 Moore NC Hwy 22 at High Falls
B5575000 03-06-11 Chatham NC Hwy 42 at Carbonton
B5820000 03-06-11 Lee US Hwy 15-501 near Sanford
B6050000 03-06-11 Chatham CSX Railroad Bridge at Moncure
Deep River Tributaries
B4410000 03-06-08 Guilford Richland Creek at SR 1145 near High Point
B4890000 03-06-09 Randolph Hasketts Creek at SR 2128 near Central Falls
B5480000 03-06-10 Moore Bear Creek at NC Hwy 705 at Robbins
B6010000 03-06-12 Chatham Rocky River at US Highway 15-501
Cape Fear Mainstem
B6160000 03-06-07 Chatham NC Hwy 42 near Corinth
B6370000 03-06-07 Harnett US Hwy 401 at Lillington
B6840000 03-06-13 Harnett NC Hwy 217 near Erwin
B7600000 03-06-15 Cumberland NC Hwy 24 at Fayetteville
B8300000 03-06-16 Bladen Huske Lock near Tar Heel
B8305000 03-06-16 Bladen SR 1316 near Tar Heel
B8340000 03-06-16 Bladen Lock And Dam #2 near Elizabethtown
B8350000 03-06-16 Bladen Lock #1 near Kelly
B8360000 03-06-16 Bladen NC Hwy 11 near Kelly
B8450000 03-06-17 Columbus Above Neils Eddy Landing near Acme
B9020000 03-06-17 Brunswick Below Hale Point Landing near Phoenix
B9050000 03-06-17 Brunswick Navassa
B9800000 03-06-17 New Hanover Channel Marker #55 at Wilmington
B9820000 03-06-17 New Hanover Channel Marker #50 near Wilmington
Cape Fear Tributaries
B6830000 03-06-13 Harnett Upper Little River at SR 2021 near Erwin
B7280000 03-06-14 Cumberland Little River (Lower) at SR 1451 at Manchester
B7245000 03-06-14 Moore Lower Little River at SR 2023 near Lobelia
B7700000 03-06-15 Hoke Rockfish Creek at SR 1432 near Raeford
B8220000 03-06-15 Cumberland Rockfish Creek at US Highway 301 near Hope Mills
B8445000 03-06-17 Columbus Livingston Creek at mouth near Riegelwood
Black River Mainstem and Tributaries
B8750000 03-06-19 Sampson NC Highway 411 near Tomahawk
B9013000 03-06-20 Pender Below Raccoon Island near Huggins
B8919000 03-06-18 Bladen South River at SR 1503 near Parkersburg
B8545000 03-06-19 Sampson Little Coharie Creek at SR 1240 near Roseboro
B8725000 03-06-19 Sampson Six Runs Creek at SR 1960 near Taylors Bridge
Northeast Cape Fear River Mainstem and Tributaries
B9080000 03-06-21 Wayne SR 1937 near Mount Olive
B9290000 03-06-22 Duplin NC Highway 41 near Chinquapin
B9580000 03-06-23 New Hanover US Highway 117 at Castle Hayne
B9740000 03-06-17 New Hanover US Highway 421 at Wilmington
B9470000 03-06-22 Duplin Rockfish Creek at I-40 near Wallace
Coastal Area
B9879000 03-06-24 New Hanover Carolina Beach Harbor near Channel Marker R6 & G7
B9874000 03-06-24 New Hanover ICW @ US Hwys 74 & 76 @ Wrightsville Beach
B9860000 03-06-24 Onslow ICW at NC Highway 210 at Goose Bay
B9876000 03-06-24 New Hanover ICW at Channel Marker G151 near Everett Creek
B9872500 03-06-24 New Hanover ICW at Channel Marker G123 near Howe Point
B9872000 03-06-24 Pender ICW near Long Point
B9865000 03-06-24 Onslow ICW near Morris Landing
Note: Station 15 - B1670000 was included in the previous basin assessment report. It is now part of Lake Mackintosh; therefore, this
station is discussed as a lake station.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 77
Haw River and Tributaries
The Haw River mainstem stations generally show an increase in pH, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity and some nutrients from Oak Ridge to Haw River, after which concentrations are
fairly constant or decrease. Lower levels of dissolved oxygen and high conductivity and nutrient
levels show the influence of two Greensboro wastewater treatment plants discharging into North
and South Buffalo Creeks.
Deep River and Tributaries
Field measurements for pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity show no discernable patterns
among the mainstem stations for the Deep River. However, high concentrations for some
nutrients begin at Randleman and decrease downstream. Also, noteworthy are high conductivity
and nutrient levels in Richland and Hasketts Creeks, below the High Point and Asheboro
wastewater treatment plants.
Cape Fear Mainstem and Tributaries
There are no major differences for pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity among the mainstem
stations of the Cape Fear River until the river becomes influenced by salinity near Wilmington.
Higher conductivity levels resulting from higher ocean salinities begin near Phoenix. Slightly
lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen also begin near Phoenix. Concentrations of
phosphorus increase slightly from Corinth (most upstream station) to Tar Heel (between lock and
dams one and two), and then begin to decrease.
Livingston Creek shows a higher pH and conductivity and lower concentrations of dissolved
oxygen. However, the Little River at Manchester, Rockfish Creek at Raeford, and Livingston
Creek show elevated concentrations for some nutrients.
Black River and Tributaries
A decrease in median dissolved oxygen occurs between the upstream and downstream stations
along the Black River. The station on the South River has the lowest pH, with a median less than
6.0.
Northeast Cape Fear River
Conductivity was very high at the Northeast Cape Fear station near Mount Olive, resulting from
the discharge associated with a pickle manufacturer. In addition to the high conductivity were
low concentrations of dissolved oxygen and high nutrients. However, time series plots show
improvements in these parameters associated with improvements in the pickle companies’
wastewater discharges.
High conductivities and high nutrient concentrations, particularly phosphorus, occur in Rockfish
Creek below the Wallace wastewater treatment plant.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 78
Coastal Stations
Dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH are relatively similar among the coastal stations. The
station at Carolina Beach shows higher concentrations of total nitrogen and slightly higher
concentrations of phosphorus.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria are widely used as an indicator of the potential presence of pathogens
typically associated with the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. The water quality
standard for fecal coliform bacteria is based on a geometric mean of 200 colonies/100ml of five
samples taken within 30 days. Sites with 10 or more fecal coliform samples within the last 5
years that exceed 200 colonies/100ml are presented in Table A-28. Fecal coliform bacteria are
listed as a problem parameter for use support if the geometric mean of five years of sample data
is greater than 200 colonies/100ml. Fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a cause of impairment
on the 303(d) list only if a geometric mean of 200 colonies/100ml has been found for five
samples collected within 30 days.
There are sampling stations with high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the Cape Fear River
basin. Eleven stations reported geometric means above 200 colonies/100ml (Table A-28 in bold)
for this assessment period. Most of these are in urban areas of the Haw River near Greensboro,
Reidsville and Burlington, and in streams draining Chapel Hill and Durham.
Table A-28 Fecal Coliform Summary Data for the Cape Fear River Basin - 1993 to 1997
Site Total Geometric Samples Percent First Last
Samples Mean >200/100ml >200/100ml Sample Sample
B0160000 52 262 30 57.7 9/27/93 8/27/98
B0540000 49 599 36 73.5 9/16/93 8/11/98
B0750000 50 203 27 54 9/16/93 8/11/98
B0840000 50 434 37 74 9/16/93 8/11/98
B1140000 48 286 25 52.1 9/23/93 8/24/98
B1260000 49 439 34 69.4 9/23/93 8/24/98
B1960000 49 249 24 49 9/23/93 8/24/98
B3040000 46 228 26 56.5 9/20/93 7/29/98
B3660000 47 360 32 68.1 9/20/93 7/29/98
B4240000 49 204 25 51 9/28/93 8/18/98
B4800000 49 218 24 49 9/28/93 8/20/98
B0040000 51 117 15 29.4 9/15/93 8/26/98
B0210000 50 153 17 34 9/16/93 8/11/98
B1095000 34 167 13 38.2 12/7/94 8/11/98
B1670000 50 33 11 22 9/23/93 8/24/98
B2000000 50 150 15 30 9/23/93 8/24/98
B3900000 48 131 14 29.2 9/20/93 7/29/98
B4410000 54 104 17 31.5 9/22/93 8/18/98
B4615000 54 177 18 33.3 9/22/93 8/18/98
B4890000 49 141 18 36.7 9/28/93 8/20/98
B5070000 49 59 12 24.5 9/28/93 8/20/98
B5190000 47 103 15 31.9 9/1/93 8/25/98
B5520000 47 72 12 25.5 9/1/93 8/25/98
B5575000 48 69 10 20.8 9/16/93 7/29/98
B6370000 49 89 10 20.4 9/16/93 8/11/98
B8300000 47 86 14 29.8 9/23/93 8/17/98
B8340000 42 158 20 47.6 9/23/93 8/17/98
B9470000 48 116 15 31.3 9/13/93 8/4/98
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 79
3.4 Other Water Quality Research
There are many other water quality sampling programs being conducted throughout the Cape
Fear River basin. Any data submitted to DWQ from other water sampling programs conducted
in the Cape Fear River basin have been reviewed. Data that meet data quality and accessibility
requirements were considered for use support assessments and the 303(d) list. These research
efforts are also used by DWQ to adjust the location of biological and chemical monitoring sites.
Some of the programs or research that developed these data are presented in Section C.
3.5 Use Support Summary
3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support
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. Use support assessments for the Cape Fear River basin are summarized
in this section and presented in the appropriate subbasin chapters in Section B.
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 (FS), partially
supported (PS) or not supported (NS). 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 would be rated as PS or NS, depending on the degree of exceedence. Streams rated as
either partially supporting or not supporting are considered impaired. Impaired waters are
discussed in the separate subbasin chapter in Section B.
An additional use support category, fully supporting but
threatened (ST), was used in previous basinwide plans. In
the past, ST was used to identify a water that was fully
supporting but had some notable water quality problems. ST
could represent constant, degrading or improving conditions.
North Carolina’s use of ST was very different from that of
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which uses it to identify waters that are
characterized by declining water quality. In addition, the US EPA requires the inclusion of ST
waters on the 303(d) list in its proposed revision to the 303(d) list rules (Appendix IV). Due to
the difference between US EPA’s and North Carolina’s definitions of ST, North Carolina no
longer uses this term. Because North Carolina has used fully supporting but threatened as a
subset of fully supporting (FS) waters, those waters formerly called ST are now rated FS. Waters
that are fully supporting but have some notable water quality problems are discussed individually
in the subbasin chapters (Section B).
Use support ratings for
streams and lakes:
• fully supporting (FS)
• partially supporting (PS)
• not supporting (NS)
• not rated (NR)
Impaired waters categories:
• Partially Supporting
• Not Supporting
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 80
Streams which had no data to determine their use support were listed as not rated (NR). For a
more complete description of use support methodology, refer to Appendix III.
3.5.2 Revisions to Methodology Since 1992-1993 305(b) Report
Methodology for determining use support has been revised. As mentioned above, fully
supporting but threatened (ST) is no longer used as a use support category. In the 1992-1993
305(b) Report, evaluated information (subjective information not based on actual monitoring)
from older reports and workshops was included in the use support process. Streams rated using
this information were considered to be rated on an evaluated basis. In the current use support
process, this older, evaluated information has been discarded, and streams are now rated using
only information from biological or physical/chemical monitoring (including current and older
monitoring data). Streams are rated on a monitored basis if the data are less than five years old.
Streams are rated on an evaluated basis under the following conditions:
• If the only existing data for a stream are more than five years old.
• If a stream is a tributary to a monitored segment of a stream rated fully supporting (FS) and it
has land use similar to that of the monitored stream, the tributary will receive the same rating
on an evaluated basis. If a stream is a tributary to a monitored segment rated partially
supporting (PS) or not supporting (NS), the stream is considered not rated (NR).
These changes resulted in a reduction in streams rated on an evaluated basis.
3.5.3 Comparison of Use Support Ratings to Streams on the 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 priority. The waters in the Cape Fear River basin that are on this list are
presented in the individual subbasin chapters in Section B. The waters presented in this
basinwide plan represent those that will be submitted to EPA for approval in 2000. These waters
are on the state’s 303(d) list based on recent monitoring data. The actual 303(d) list for the Cape
Fear River basin may be somewhat different than presented in this plan, depending on EPA
approval.
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states develop a 303(d) list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. EPA must then provide review
and approval of the listed waters. A list of waters not meeting standards is submitted to EPA
biennially. States are also required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or
management strategies for 303(d) listed waters to address impairment. In the last few years, the
TMDL program has received a great deal of attention as the result of a number of lawsuits filed
across the country against EPA. These lawsuits argue that TMDLs have not adequately been
developed for specific impaired waters. As a result of these lawsuits, EPA issued a guidance
memorandum in August 1997 that called for states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs
for all waters on the 303(d) list. The schedules for TMDL development, according to this EPA
memo, are to span 8-13 years.
Waters are placed on North Carolina’s 303(d) list primarily due to a partially or not supporting
use support rating. These use support ratings are based on biological and chemical data. When
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 81
the state water quality criterion is exceeded, then this constituent is listed as the problem
parameter. TMDLs must be developed for problem parameters on the 303(d) list. Other
strategies may be implemented to restore water quality; however, the waterbody must remain on
the 303(d) list until improvement has been realized based on either biological ratings or water
quality standards.
The 303(d) list and accompanying data are updated as the basinwide plans are revised. In some
cases, the new data will demonstrate water quality improvement and waters may receive a better
use support rating. These waters may be removed from the 303(d) list since water quality
improvement has been attained. In other cases, the new data will show a stable or decreasing
trend in overall water quality resulting in the same, or lower, use support rating. Attention
remains focused on these waters until water quality has improved.
In some cases, a waterbody appears on the 303(d) list, but has a fully supporting rating. There
are two major reasons for this: 1) biological data show full use support, but chemical impairment
continues; or 2) fish consumption advisories exist on the water. These waters will remain on the
303(d) list until the problem pollutant meets water quality standards or a TMDL is developed.
3.5.4 Use Support Ratings for the Cape Fear River Basin
A summary of use support ratings for the Cape Fear River basin is presented in Table A-29.
Approximately 34% of freshwater streams in the basin are monitored. For further information
and definition of monitored and evaluated streams, refer to Appendix III.
Table A-30 shows the total number of stream miles in each use support category for each
subbasin. This table presents use support for both the monitored and evaluated streams in the
basin. Table A-31 shows use support ratings for monitored lakes in the basin. Table A-32 shows
use support for estuarine waters in acres. More detailed information on the monitored stream
segments can be found in Appendix III. Color maps showing use support ratings for the basin
are presented in Figures A-32 to A-34.
Table A-29 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
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 82
Table A-30 Cape Fear River Basin Use Support Ratings in Miles for Freshwater Streams
(1999)
Subbasin Fully
Supporting
Partially
Supporting
Not
Supporting
Not
Rated Total
03-06-01 49.1 46.6 5.0 5.0 105.7
03-06-02 225.0 55.9 24.1 86.4 391.4
03-06-03 176.0 0 12.3 5.2 193.5
03-06-04 207.1 15.9 0 18.3 241.3
03-06-05 52.5 32.3 0 129.9 214.7
03-06-06 46.7 12.4 6.8 9.0 74.9
03-06-07 239.4 2.9 10.2 44.8 297.3
03-06-08 28.3 22.6 9.0 41.4 101.3
03-06-09 266.2 0 7.2 37.1 310.5
03-06-10 205.9 6.2 2.2 133.1 347.4
03-06-11 74.0 0 0 55.4 129.4
03-06-12 99.6 13.4 0.5 52.3 165.8
03-06-13 151.8 0 0 27.8 179.6
03-06-14 274.3 28.3 0 100.2 402.8
03-06-15 283.8 7.8 13.0 84.0 388.6
03-06-16 240.8 0 8.5 11.8 261.1
03-06-17 251.5 3.8 0 65.5 320.8
03-06-18 165.9 0 0 113.7 279.6
03-06-19 452.1 15.0 0 40.2 507.3
03-06-20 142.4 0 0 35.7 178.1
03-06-21 69.3 0 4.3 6.8 80.4
03-06-22 283.3 22.7 0 208.2 514.2
03-06-23 310.6 0 14.3 37.5 362.4
03-06-2400000
TOTAL 4295.6 285.8 117.4 1349.3 6048.1
% 71% 5% 2% 22% 100%
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 83
Table A-31 Use Support Ratings for Lakes and Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin
Lake Subbasin County Classification
Use
Support
Rating
Surface
Area
(Acres)
Watershed
(sq. mi.)
Mean
Depth
(ft)
Algal
Bloom
Reported
Lake Hunt 03-06-01 Rockingham WS-III B NSW FS 180 5 33 no
Reidsville Lake 03-06-01 Rockingham WS-III CA NSW FS 750 53 20 no
Lake Higgins 03-06-02 Guilford WS-III NSW CA FS 287 11 4 no
Lake Brandt 03-06-02 Guilford WS-III NSW CA FS 710 40 7 yes*
Lake Townsend 03-06-02 Guilford WS-III NSW CA FS 1610 105 10 yes*
Burlington Reservoir 03-06-02 Alamance WS-III NSW CA FS 750 28 12 no
Lake Burlington 03-06-02 Alamance WS-II NSW CA FS 137 110 7 yes
Graham-Mebane Reservoir 03-06-02 Alamance WS-II NSW CA FS 650 66 10 yes*
Lake Mackintosh 03-06-03 Guilford/
Alamance
WS-IV NSW CA FS 1150 129 33 yes*
Cane Creek Reservoir 03-06-04 Orange WS-II NSW CA FS 500 32 8 yes*
Pittsboro Lake 03-06-04 Chatham WS-IV NSW NS 38 8 3 no
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir 03-06-05 Chatham WS-III IV B NSW CA FS 14300 1700 16
University Lake 03-06-06 Orange WS-II NSW CA FS 205 29 5 yes
Harris Lake 03-06-07 Chatham WS-V FS 4150 70 20 No
High Point Lake 03-06-08 Guilford WS-IV CA FS 300 60 16 yes*
Oak Hollow Lake 03-06-08 Guilford WS-IV FS 720 55 23 yes*
Sandy Creek Reservoir 03-06-09 Randolph WS-III CA FS 125 55 19 yes*
Carthage City Lake 03-06-10 Moore WS-III CA FS 8 27 3 no
Rocky River Reservoir 03-06-12 Chatham WS-III CA FS 185 23 33 no
Old Town Reservoir 03-06-14 Moore WS-III CA FS 60 0.4 13 no
Bonnie Doone Lake 03-06-15 Cumberland WS-IV FS 27 3 2 no
Glenville Lake 03-06-15 Cumberland WS-IV CA FS 26 10 10 yes*
Hope Mills Lake 03-06-15 Cumberland B FS 110 26 10 no
Kornbow Lake 03-06-15 Cumberland WS-IV FS 57 5 7 no
Mintz Pond 03-06-15 Cumberland WS-IV FS 15 6 2 yes
Jones Lake 03-06-16 Bladen B FS 225 2 3 no
Salters Lake 03-06-16 Bladen C FS 450 27 7 no
White Lake 03-06-16 Bladen B FS 1050 Unknown 7 no
Boiling Springs Lake 03-06-17 Brunswick B Sw FS 1120 10 7 no
Greenfield Lake 03-06-17 New Hanover C Sw NR 115 4 7 no
Bay Tree Lake 03-06-18 Bladen C Sw PS 1400 4 3
Singletary Lake 03-06-20 Bladen B Sw FS 572 2 7 no
* Indicates that algal blooms were confirmed by samples.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 84
Table A-32 Use Support Ratings for Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin (1994-
1998)
Overall Use Support (Acres) Major CausesArea
Name
DEH
Area1
Total
Acres S PS NS NR Fecal DO
Major
Sources
Possible
Sources
Southport B-1 1,325 0 1,125 0 200 1,125 0 P, NP Southport WWTP,
marinas, urban
runoff
Buzzard Bay B-2 2,850 2,735 115 0 0 115 0 NP wildlife
The BasinB-327527410010NPseptic systems?
Cape Fear B-4
B-10
20,000 13,305 5970 0 725 970 5,0002 P, NP package WWTP,
industry, Kure Beach
WWTP, urban runoff
Myrtle Sound B-5 2,300 2,187 113 0 0 113 0 NP marinas, urban
runoff
Masonboro
Sound
B-6 1,600 1,318 282 0 0 282 0 NP marinas, urban
runoff, ag
Wrightsville
Beach
B-7 2,150 1,975 175 0 0 175 0 NP septic systems,
sewage lines, sewage
pump station,
marinas, urban
runoff
Topsail
Sound
B-8 5,700 5,024 676 0 0 676 0 NP septic systems, urban
runoff, construction,
marinas, wildlife
Stump Sound B-9 3,000 2,855 145 0 0 145 0 P, NP septic systems, Holly
Ridge WWTP
Totals 39,200 29,673 8,602 0 925 3,602 5,000
% of Total Acres 100% 76% 22% 0% 2% 9% 13%
1 Denotes Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Growing Area
2 In DEH Area B-10

INSERT CPF COLOR FIGURE A-32
HERE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

INSERT CPF COLOR FIGURE A-33
HERE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

INSERT CPF COLOR FIGURE A-34
HERE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 88
Chapter 4 -
Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear
River Basin
4.1 Introduction
Clean water is crucial to the health, economic and ecological well-being of the state. Tourism,
water supplies, recreation and a high quality of life for residents are dependent on the water
resources within any given river basin. Water quality problems are varied and complex.
Inevitably, water quality impairment is due to human activities within the watershed. Solving
these problems and protecting the surface water quality of the basin in the face of continued
growth and development will be a major challenge. Looking to the future, water quality in this
basin will depend on the manner in which growth and development occur.
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.
The 1996 Cape Fear River Basin Management Plan included several recommendations to address
water quality issues in the basin. Most of these recommendations are for specific stream
segments and are discussed separately in the individual subbasin chapters in Section B. There
are a few recommendations that apply to areas that extend across more than one subbasin. These
issues are discussed below, as well as other issues and recommendations that apply to all waters
of the state.
4.2 Strategies for Restoring and Protecting Impaired Waters
Impaired waters are those waters identified in Section A, Chapter 3 as partially supporting (PS)
or not supporting (NS) their designated uses based on DWQ monitoring data. These waters are
summarized by subbasin in Table A-30 and indicated on Figures A-32 to A-34. The impaired
waters are also discussed individually in the subbasin chapters in Section B.
These waters are impaired, at least in part, due to nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution. The tasks
of identifying nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for these
impaired waters is very resource intensive. Accomplishing these tasks 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.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 89
Therefore, only limited progress towards restoring NPS impaired waters can be expected during
this five-year cycle unless substantial resources are put toward solving NPS problems. Due to
these restraints, this plan has no NPS management strategies for many of the streams with NPS
problems.
DWQ plans to further evaluate the impaired waters in the Cape Fear River basin in conjunction
with other NPS agencies and develop management strategies for a portion of these impaired
waters for the next Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 303(d) (see Part 4.3 below).
4.3 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 priority. The waters in the Cape Fear River basin that are on this list are
presented in the individual subbasin descriptions in Section B. For information on listing
requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a 303(d) list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. States are also required to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed
waters to address impairment. In the last few years, the TMDL program has received a great deal
of attention as the result of a number of lawsuits filed across the country against EPA. These
lawsuits argue that TMDLs have not adequately been developed for specific impaired waters. As
a result of these lawsuits, EPA issued a guidance memorandum in August 1997 that called for
states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list. The
schedules for TMDL development, according to this EPA memo, are to span 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 of these waters during an 8 to 13-year time frame
will require the focus of much of the water quality program’s resources. Therefore, 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.
4.4 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy for Jordan/Haw River Watershed
The 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Plan recommended that a nutrient fate and transport model
be developed to better identify point and nonpoint source impacts and to evaluate the Nutrient
Sensitive Waters strategy. It was determined that water in the Haw River was high in nutrients
and that conditions existed for potential algal growth. Ambient monitoring data indicate high
nutrient loads at both high and low flows, implicating point and nonpoint sources.
Status of Progress
In 1983, the Haw River and Jordan Reservoir (subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06) were classified
as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). The NSW strategy mandated effluent total phosphorus (TP)
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 90
of 2.0 mg/l for all discharges of 50,000 GPD or greater. Currently all subject discharges are
meeting this limit. Nutrient overenrichment is a continuing potential source of impairment to the
waters in this 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 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 the nitrogen reduction requirements.
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 hired a
consultant to perform the modeling tasks. Progress on the compliance extension will be reported
to the Environmental Management Commission two times a year.
4.5 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.
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.
4.6 Modeling Efforts in the Lower Cape Fear River and Estuary
DWQ, in cooperation with the Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP), (see Section C,
Chapter 1, Part 1.4.1), EPA and other interested stakeholders are developing a dynamic water
quality model for the Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #1 downstream to near the mouth of
the estuary. The modeling domain will also include portions of the Black and Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers. The model will be used as a tool for assessing the assimilative capacity of the
system and for the development of a TMDL for oxygen-consuming wastes. DWQ is working
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 91
closely with stakeholders to ensure that the modeling framework ultimately chosen will not only
meet the requirements for a TMDL but will also support, to the extent possible, the research
needs and interests of the stakeholders.
Although a considerable amount of data has been collected by DWQ, LCFRP, USACOE and
others, an extensive amount of data remains to be gathered to support the calibration and
verification of the model. For example, streamflow gages on the Black and Northeast Cape Fear
Rivers will need to be installed for quantifying background loadings from these two major
drainages. Given the costs, complexity and substantial data collection requirements of the
modeling effort, DWQ anticipates the TMDL development process to proceed over the next
couple of years with the goal of having an approved TMDL in place by the next Cape Fear basin
cycle. In recognition of the persistent DO water quality violations documented within the
estuary, DWQ is recommending an interim NPDES permitting strategy for new and expanding
discharges within subbasin 03-06-17 (see Section B, Chapter 17 for more details).
4.7 Growth and Development
Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a
manner that maintains water quality. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between
water quality protection, natural resource management and economic growth. Growth
management requires planning for the needs of future population increases as well as developing
and enforcing environmental protection measures. These actions are critical to water quality
management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin.
These actions should include, but not be limited to:
• preservation of open spaces;
• provisions for controlled growth;
• development and enforcement of buffer ordinances and water supply watershed protection
ordinances more stringent than state requirements;
• halt on floodplain development and protection of wetland areas;
• examination of zoning ordinances to ensure that they limit large, unnecessary parking lots;
allow for vegetation and soil drainage systems; and build in green spaces in parking lots to
limit and absorb runoff; and
• sustainable land use planning that considers long-term effects of development.
Phase II of the NPDES stormwater permitting program, promulgated by EPA and administered
by DWQ, will help address stormwater runoff from additional municipal areas. Some local
initiatives are presented in Section C.
4.7.1 Stormwater Management
DWQ administers a number of programs aimed at controlling urban stormwater runoff. These
include: 1) programs for the control of development activities near High Quality Waters (HQW)
and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) and activities within designated Water Supply (WS)
watersheds; and 2) NPDES stormwater permit requirements for industrial activities and
municipalities.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 92
Throughout the Cape Fear River basin, various types of activities with point source discharges of
stormwater are required to be permitted under the Phase I NPDES stormwater program. These
include industrial discharges related to manufacturing, processing and materials storage areas.
Construction activities with greater than five acres of disturbance are also required to obtain an
NPDES permit. All of those areas requiring coverage must develop Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans (SPPP) to minimize and control pollutants discharged from their stormwater
systems. Municipal areas with populations greater than 100,000 are also required to obtain Phase
I NPDES stormwater permit and develop a stormwater program. In the Cape Fear River basin,
the cities of Greensboro, Durham and Fayetteville (including Cumberland County) have Phase I
NPDES stormwater permits. Additional information on these stormwater programs can be found
in Section C.
Status of Progress
On October 29, 1999, a second phase of the NPDES stormwater program was signed into law.
Phase II of the NPDES stormwater program lowers the construction activity threshold to one or
more acres of land disturbance and allows a permitting exemption for industrial facilities that do
not have significant materials or activities exposed to stormwater. Phase II also pulls many small
local governments into the NPDES stormwater program, potentially an additional 54 cities and
24 counties or more in the Cape Fear River basin. Additional information can be found in
Section A, Chapter 2, Part 2.7.2.
For more information on municipal NPDES stormwater programs, contact Jeanette Powell at
[phone] ext. 537. For industrial NPDES stormwater programs, contact Bill Mills at (919)
733-5083 ext. 548.
4.7.2 Protecting Headwaters
Many stream miles in any river basin are small trickles of water that emerge from the ground. A
larger stream is formed at the confluence of these trickles. This constant merging eventually
forms a large stream or river. Most monitoring of fresh surface waters evaluates these larger
streams. The many miles of small trickles, collectively known as headwaters, are not directly
monitored and in many instances are not indicated on maps. Headwater areas are found from the
mountains to the coast along all river systems and drain all of the land in a river basin. Because
of the small size of headwater streams, they are often overlooked in land use activities.
Impairment of headwater streams can impact the larger stream or river. All landowners can
participate in the protection of headwaters by keeping water quality issues in mind when making
land use management decisions on the areas they control. This includes activities such as
retaining forested stream buffers, driveway paving, lawn fertilizing, car maintenance, proper
disposal of pet waste, and excluding cattle from streams.
The streams in the Cape Fear River basin are affected by the rapidly expanding urban areas of
Greensboro, High Point, Fayetteville, Research Triangle Park, Burlington and Wilmington.
Continued urbanization of rural areas adjacent to these municipalities has the potential to
adversely affect groundwater and surface water quality and quantity. These headwater areas are
important as sources of water for downstream water supplies and as potential recolonization
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 93
areas for aquatic life. Local rural and urban planning initiatives should consider impacts to
headwater streams when developing land around the urban areas. Efforts should be made to
protect headwater streams during development. Construction projects should be required to use
BMPs to reduce acute impacts.
4.8 Biological Monitoring Issues
4.8.1 Development of Draft Benthic Macroinvertebrate Swamp Criteria
Recent extensive work on swamp streams suggested that different criteria should be used for
slow-flowing, swamp-like systems. DWQ has developed draft biological criteria ratings more
specific to swamp waters. Draft swamp stream rating criteria evaluate a stream based on benthic
macroinvertebrate data collected in winter, fish community data and a habitat score. Benthos
data collected outside of the winter high flow period are not used to assign ratings. At least two
of the data types (benthic macroinvertebrates, fish or habitat score) must be collected to assign a
rating. Each of these components is assigned a point value, and the points are averaged to assign
an overall site rating. Ratings for the benthos are based entirely on the Biotic Index value. Deep
(nonwadeable) coastal rivers with little or no visible current have different EPT criteria (Coastal
B) that are being used on a provisional basis until more data can be gathered. Details of benthos
sampling, criteria and data analysis can be found in the Biological Monitoring SOP Manual
(NCDEHNR, 1997).
The draft swamp criteria were developed after collecting data for over four years. That data
indicated that the BI values could separate differences in impact, but only during winter high
flow conditions. During normal summer sampling, all sites were too similar to provide
meaningful data. However, DWQ believes there is insufficient sampling of reference swamp
streams to use the ratings without reservation for use support determinations. It must be stressed
that the criteria are draft and will remain so until DWQ is better able to evaluate such things as:
year-to-year variation at reference swamp sites, variation among reference swamp sites, the effect
of small changes in pH on the benthos community, whether the habitat evaluation can be
improved, and the role fisheries data should play in the evaluation. The ratings have not been
used for use support and should be used for comparative purposes only.
However, much work has and will continue to be done to allow biological communities to
provide meaningful information for swamp-like waters. For example: In 1992, 1993 and 1995
benthos samples were collected each year from 27 swamp streams during February or March
throughout the NC coastal plain. The intent of this sampling was to develop draft swamp stream
criteria, primarily using benthos data and habitat evaluations. Since 1995, benthos swamp
sampling methods have been used at almost 40 sites, including 13 reference sites sampled in
1998.
Validation of the swamp criteria will require several years of data from the reference sites to
determine variations due to flow conditions and changes in pH, and to see if the present draft
criteria will allow differentiation between reference sites and known impacted sites.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 94
4.8.2 Fish Community Assessment Draft Criteria
The NCIBI has been revised since the 1996 Cape Fear River basinwide monitoring was
conducted. Recently, the focus of using and applying the Index has been restricted to wadeable
streams that can be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using backpack electrofishers and
following the NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures (NCDENR, 1997). The fish community
integrity classes have been modified in an effort to simplify and standardize the evaluation of a
stream’s ecological integrity and water quality bioclassification across both fish community and
benthic invertebrate assessments. The fish community assessment criteria will continue to be
evaluated and adjusted to better reflect the conditions of nonwadeable coastal plain streams.
4.8.3 Estuarine Waters Criteria Development
Draft criteria have been developed to evaluate the level of anthropogenic impact in estuarine
waters with greater than 8-10 parts per thousand salinity. Bioclassifications of Heavy, Moderate
or No Impact are based on the total number of taxa, the number of taxa from intolerant groups
(amphipods and caridian shrimp), and the average sensitivity of all the taxa living at a site
(Estuarine Biotic Index). Higher values of each of these metrics reflect better water quality. The
ranges of metric values were found to be different in the mesohaline and polyhaline salinity
regimes and criteria have been developed for each. The range of values for each metric was
divided into five categories and each category was given points. The points scored from each
metric were summed to give a final water quality rating. The estuarine rating will not be used for
use support determinations until the draft estuarine criteria are finalized.
4.8.4 Fish Advisories Related to Mercury Contamination
During 1992 and 1993, DWQ conducted extensive fish tissue surveys in southeastern North
Carolina in an effort to assess mercury contamination in several fish species associated with the
region. The studies revealed mercury levels approaching or exceeding EPA and FDA criteria in
largemouth bass and/or bowfin across a wide geographic area.
The presence and accumulation of mercury in North Carolina’s aquatic environment is similar to
contamination observed in other states. Atmospheric deposition may be a significant source of
the observed levels of mercury, but the exact pathways and extent of mercury contamination in
North Carolina fish, or across the nation, have yet to be characterized.
DWQ will continue to monitor fish tissue in the Cape Fear River basin to assess mercury
contamination. Given the likelihood that the source of mercury is atmospheric and of a
global/regional scale, use support determinations have been revised to not include waters with
fish consumption advisories related to mercury. Waters with fish consumption advisories related
to mercury remain on the North Carolina 303(d) List (see Appendix IV), and a TMDL approach
is being developed.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 95
4.8.5 Habitat Degradation
Instream habitat degradation is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or
a negative change in habitat. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization,
lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
Good instream habitat is necessary for aquatic life to survive and reproduce. Streams that
typically show signs of habitat degradation are in watersheds that have a large amount of land-
disturbing activities (construction, mining, timber harvest and agricultural activities) or a large
percentage of impervious surfaces. A watershed in which most of the riparian vegetation has
been removed from streams or channelization has occurred also exhibit instream habitat
degradation. Streams that receive a discharge quantity that is much greater than the natural flow
in the stream often have degraded habitat as well.
Determining the cause and quantifying amounts of habitat degradation is very difficult in most
cases. To assess instream habitat degradation in most streams would require extensive technical
and monetary resources and perhaps even more resources to restore the stream to a supporting
rating. DWQ is working to develop a reliable habitat assessment methodology.
Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address this issue, it requires local efforts to
prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been impaired by
activities that cause habitat degradation. As point sources become less of a source of water
quality impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation will need
to be addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.
4.9 Clean Water Act of 1999 (House Bill 1160)
The General Assembly has expressed interest in protecting water quality in the Cape Fear River
basin through the ratification of the Clean Water Act of 1999 (HB 1160, Part VII). This Act
gives authority to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt temporary rules
to protect the Cape Fear, Catawba and Tar-Pamlico River basins. The intent of the bill is to
allow for development of rules for basinwide buffers or other water quality protection measures
as required in these three river basins.
DWQ will continue to maintain the schedule for developing basinwide plans. The basinwide
plans are planning tools, rather than regulatory documents. The plans are intended to present
current water quality information and recommend management strategies to protect or restore
water quality. Temporary rule making for the Cape Fear River basin cannot begin until the Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan has been approved by the EMC. At the time of
approval, DWQ staff will alert the EMC to recommendations and comments made by the public
to support rule making. The EMC will determine if rule making is warranted by current
information. This is a new authority for the EMC, and they will be looking for comments and
input on the need for temporary rules. There will be opportunities for stakeholder input into
temporary rule making as set out by HB 1160. The bill also requires public notice and public
hearings to be held after the rule-making language is developed.
There have been some efforts at the local level to protect stream water quality through buffer
requirements. For example, Mecklenburg County adopted a Stream Buffer Plan that is flexible
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 96
and establishes a buffer width based on the number of acres in the watershed. This buffer plan
could be used as a model for counties in this basin. In addition to state mandated requirements,
interested citizens have the option to petition their local government representatives to establish a
buffer plan for their county.
4.10 Water Supply Watershed Protection
There are 32 surface water supply watersheds in the Cape Fear River basin. Local governments
that have land use jurisdiction within these watersheds are responsible for the adoption,
implementation and enforcement of the state’s water supply watershed minimum requirements.
Local governments can adopt and enforce more stringent water supply watershed protection
ordinances if they choose. For example, the state’s rules require the use of a 30-foot vegetated
buffer (for low density development) along all waters in the water supply watershed that appear
as solid blue lines on USGS 1:24,000 scale topographical maps. The state’s rules allow the
buffer’s vegetation to consist entirely of grass rather than natural vegetation. However, a local
government can require a larger and undisturbed (natural vegetation) buffer. If a local
government adopts a more stringent ordinance, the state cannot require the local government to
enforce anything more stringent than the state’s minimum requirements. However, the state does
have statutory authority to assess local governments or developers civil penalties for not
administering the state’s minimum requirements.
Some recent development may have received valid local approval (under vested rights) to
develop under previous building requirements. Vested rights may be granted by the local
government as allowed under state statutes (NCGS 153A-344.1 or NCGS 160A-385.1). This can
be confusing seeing "new" development occurring in the water supply watershed that does not
appear to comply with the current ordinance.
Since its inception in 1993, the DWQ’s Water Supply Watershed Protection Program has focused
on assuring that affected local governments are aware of their responsibility to adopt and enforce
water supply watershed protection ordinances, review local ordinances to assure that they meet
the state’s minimum requirements, and provide technical assistance. Now that the majority of
ordinances have been reviewed and approved by the state’s Water Quality Committee of the
Environmental Management Commission, it is DWQ’s intent to refocus the program. Although
technical assistance will still be a major component of the program’s function, it will be DWQ’s
intent to direct more effort to ensuring that local governments are complying with the state’s
minimum requirements.
DWQ is in the process of developing an audit/enforcement component for the water supply
watershed protection program. This process is expected to take about a year to set up using
existing programs as models.
4.11 Effects of Hurricanes on Water Quality
The Cape Fear River basin is subjected to hurricanes and tropical storms on a yearly basis. In the
last five years the basin has been impacted by Hurricanes Bertha and Fran (1996), Bonnie (1998),
and Dennis and Floyd (1999). Fran and Floyd caused the most economic damage and water
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 97
quality problems. Aquatic ecosystems and water quality can and do recover from wind damage
and extensive flooding. However, human activities in hurricane prone areas can greatly increase
the extent and severity of water quality problems and ecosystem impacts, as well as increase
recovery time.
In September 1996, Hurricane Fran made landfall at Wilmington and traveled up the Cape Fear
River into Virginia. The storm dropped several inches of rain in the basin, and flooding and
wind damage ensued. It is estimated that $3.2 billion in damage was caused by Fran. The
affects of Fran were not only felt by local economies, but by the various surface waters in the
Cape Fear River basin.
Several million gallons of untreated human sewage were released into the river as a result of
Fran. Many animal operations experienced ruptured lagoons and inundation. Large amounts of
debris were generated causing flooding and adding organic matter to the river. This loading
decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Northeast Cape Fear River and the Cape Fear
Estuary, causing fish kills. Hypoxic conditions were present in the Cape Fear River for several
days after the hurricane.
Also of concern are the human activities that went on before and after the hurricane as part of
preparation for and recovery from the problems associated with a hurricane. Emergency de-
snagging was started after the storm as part of NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP).
The de-snagging was mostly carried out to prevent imminent flooding around bridges and to
prevent economic loss of property.
Much of the initial NRCS supervised de-snagging operations affected areas immediately
upstream and downstream of road crossings. There was an effort to remove only debris that was
deposited during the storm and leave in place snags that predated the event or were associated
with beavers. There were difficulties assessing snag origins and ages because most of the de-
snagging projects did not start until almost a year after the storm. Funding was also made
available to local governments to do nonemergency de-snagging. These operations were not
monitored to prevent excessive removal of debris. Several stream segments and wetland areas
were completely cleared of debris and snags.
Snags are the predominant habitat for invertebrates in these systems. Removal of large
proportions of snag habitat would make it difficult to assess the health of the macroinvertebrate
community in these waters. During the recent sampling (1998) DWQ biologists noted that snag
habitat had been removed from many segments of rivers in the lower Cape Fear River subbasins.
In September 1999, Hurricane Floyd made landfall near Wilmington only a few days after
Hurricane, then Tropical Storm Dennis, made two passes through the eastern part of the state.
Wind damage was not nearly as severe as that from Fran in 1996; however, flooding in eastern
North Carolina was higher and more extensive than any recorded. Several towns were
completely inundated, and floodwaters did not recede for several days. In some areas, because of
more rainfall after Floyd, flooding continued for weeks. Animal operations lost lagoons as well
as millions of animals to floodwaters. Over 40 people were killed and thousands were left
homeless.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 98
Mallin et al. (1999) studied the effects of the 1996 hurricanes on the lower Cape Fear River
subbasins. This study documents dissolved oxygen (DO) problems and identifies problems
associated with human activities in hurricane affected areas.
2000 Recommendations
NRCS should reevaluate de-snagging practices after hurricanes. Selecting sites and amounts of
snag to be removed should reduce the recovery times of populations of aquatic
macroinvertebrates after storms and reduce habitat degradation caused by de-snagging activities
and equipment.
There has not been an environmental assessment of water quality after Floyd. Areas were
flooded that have never flooded before. It is expected that, because of the record rainfall,
problems after Hurricane Fran will pale in comparison to that of Floyd. All water quality
information presented in this document is based on data collected prior to 1998. It is highly
likely that current water quality conditions, especially in the coastal subbasins, has changed
substantially; and the recovery of these waters will not be known for sometime. DWQ will
continue to assess the impacts of this storm on water quality.
4.12 Discharges to Zero Flow Streams
Due to the preponderance of low flow streams across the state, the Division developed
regulations for evaluating discharges to such waters. In 1980, a study was performed on zero
flow streams (7Q10 = 0 cfs and 30Q2 = 0 cfs) to determine the effect of wastewater discharges.
The study concluded that:
• Steady-state models do not apply to zero flow streams, particularly those receiving waste
from small discharges.
• The pool/riffle configuration of these small streams results in violations of the DO standard
even when wastewater is well treated.
• Small streams receiving wastes from schools, mobile home parks, subdivisions, etc. flow
through populated areas where children have easy access to streams.
• Noxious conditions were found in the low flow streams that were part of the study.
As a result of the study, regulations [15A NCAC 2B .0206 (d)] were developed that prohibit new
or expanded discharges of oxygen-consuming wastes to zero flow streams. Existing facilities
discharging to zero flow streams were evaluated for alternatives to discharge. Many facilities
found alternatives to a surface water discharge, and some built new treatment plants to meet
advanced tertiary limits for BOD5 and NH3-N.
This policy typically covers small discharges such as schools, mobile home parks, subdivisions
and rest homes, which discharge to zero flow streams in headwater areas. Such discharges
generally do not cause significant water quality problems in the mainstem of the Cape Fear or
larger tributaries, but they can cause localized problems in the zero flow receiving streams.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 99
The results of the 1980 study were extrapolated to facilities discharging to low flow streams
(those with a 7Q10 = 0 but with a 30Q2 > 0) since similar adverse impacts are expected in these
waters. Regulations [15A NCAC 2B .0206 (d)] were developed to set effluent limitations for
new and expanding discharges to 5 mg/l BOD5, 2 mg/l NH3-N and 6 mg/l dissolved oxygen
(DO) unless it is determined that these limitations will not protect water quality standards.
4.13 Sedimentation
Soil erosion, transport and redeposition are among the most essential natural processes occurring
in watersheds. However, land-disturbing activities such as the construction of roads and
buildings, crop production, livestock grazing and logging can accelerate erosion rates by causing
more soil than usual to be detached and moved by water. If best management practices (BMPs)
are not used effectively, accelerated erosion can strip the land of its topsoil, decreasing soil
productivity, and causing sedimentation in streams and rivers (DENR-DLR, 1998).
Sedimentation is the process by which eroded
soil is deposited into waters. Sediment that
accumulates on the bottom of streams and rivers
smothers fish habitat vital to reproduction and
impacts aquatic insects that fish feed upon.
Sediment filling rivers and streams decreases
their storage volume and increases the frequency
of floods. Suspended sediment increases the
cost of treating municipal drinking water
supplies (DENR-DLR, 1998).
During 1998 basinwide monitoring, DWQ aquatic biologists reported streambank erosion and
sedimentation in many subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin that was moderate to severe.
Some streams are currently considered biologically impaired due to habitat degradation related in
part to these impacts. Even in streams that were not listed as impaired, lower bioclassification
ratings were assigned because of sedimentation; bottom substrate was embedded by silt, and/or
pools were partially filled with sediment. Unstable and/or undercut (eroding) streambanks were
also noted in explanation of lower ratings (DENR-DWQ, July 1999).
4.13.1 Land Clearing Activities
Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using
appropriate BMPs. In fact, substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to
minimize the (1) amount and (2) time the land is exposed. Land clearing activities that
contribute to sedimentation in the Cape Fear River basin include: construction of homes and
subdivisions as well as commercial and public buildings; plowing soil to plant crops; and road
projects. DWQ’s role in sediment control is to work cooperatively with those agencies that
administer sediment control programs in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and
protect water quality. Where programs are not effective, as evidenced by violation of instream
water quality standards, and where DWQ can identify a source, then appropriate enforcement
action can be taken. Generally, this would entail requiring the landowner or responsible party to
install acceptable BMPs.
Major Causes of Sedimentation in the
Cape Fear River Basin
• Construction and land development
• Agricultural practices
• Streambank erosion
• Runoff from urban areas with high
percentage of impervious surface
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 100
As a result of new stormwater rules enacted by EPA in 1999, construction or land development
activities that disturb one acre or more are required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit (refer
to Part 4.7.1 of this section for more information). An erosion and sediment control plan must
also be developed for these sites under the state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA)
administered by the NC Division of Land Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre are
required to use BMPs, but a plan is not required.
For activities not subject to these rules, such as
agriculture and forestry, sediment controls are carried
out on a voluntary basis through programs
administered by several different agencies. Forestry
operations, however, must comply with nine
performance standards to remain exempt from
permitting requirements of the SPCA. The
performance standards can be found in the document
Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality.
4.13.2 Streambank Erosion and Loss of Riparian
Vegetation
Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant
grass or place rock (also known as rip-rap) along the
bank of a river or stream degrades water quality.
Removing riparian vegetation eliminates habitat for
aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and
other fish. Rocks lining a bank absorb the sun’s heat
and warm the water even more. Trees, shrubs and
other native vegetation cool the water by shading it.
Straightening a stream, clearing streambank
vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock
severely impact the habitat that aquatic insects and fish
need to survive (WNCT, 1999).
Livestock grazing with unlimited access to the stream channel and banks can cause severe
streambank erosion resulting in degraded water quality. Although they often make up a small
percentage of grazing areas by surface area, riparian zones (vegetated stream corridors) are
particularly attractive to cattle that prefer the cooler environment and lush vegetation found
beside rivers and streams. This concentration of livestock can result in increased sedimentation
of streams due to "hoof shear", trampling of bank vegetation, and down-cutting by the
destabilized stream. Despite livestock’s preference for frequent water access, farm veterinarians
have reported that cows are healthier when stream access is limited (USEPA, 1999).
Probably the best-known and most widely used category of BMPs is the retention of naturally
vegetated buffer strips along streams. Streamside buffers serve many functions including
nutrient filtering, bank stabilization, reduction of soil and land loss, moderating water
temperature (which helps maintain higher levels of dissolved oxygen and hence a more suitable
fish environment), and providing wildlife habitat and corridors for movement (EPA, 1999).
Some Best Management Practices
Agriculture
• Using no till or conservation tillage
practices
• Strip cropping, contour farming
and use of terraces
• Maintaining buffers along
streambanks
Construction
• Using phased grading/seeding
plans
• Limiting time of exposure
• Planting temporary ground cover
• Using sediment basins and traps
Forestry
• Controlling runoff from logging
roads and other areas
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed
areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas
around small streams and rivers
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 101
4.13.3 New Rules Regarding Sediment Control
The Division of Land Resources (DLR) has the primary responsibility for assuring that erosion is
minimized and sedimentation is reduced. For the past several years, there were inadequate staff
to achieve the mission of the agency; however, in its 1999-2001 biennial budget, the NC General
Assembly provided funding for 10 new positions in the Land Quality Section of DLR.
In February 1999, the NC Sedimentation Control Commission adopted significant changes for
strengthening the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. The following rule changes were
filed as temporary rules, subject to approval by the Rules Review Commission and the NC
General Assembly:
• Allows state and local erosion and sediment control programs to require a preconstruction
conference when one is deemed necessary.
• Reduces the number of days allowed for establishment of ground cover from 30 working
days to 15 working days and from 120 calendar days to 90 calendar days. (Stabilization must
now be complete in 15 working days or 90 calendar days, whichever period is shorter.)
• Provides that no person may initiate a land-disturbing activity until notifying the agency that
issued the plan approval of the date the activity will begin.
• Allows assessment penalties for significant violations upon initial issuance of a Notice of
Violation (NOV).
Additionally, during its 1999 session, the NC General Assembly passed House Bill 1098 to
strengthen the Sediment Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA). The bill made the following
changes to the Act:
• Increases the maximum civil penalty for violating the SPCA from $500 to $5000 per day.
• Provides that a person may be assessed a civil penalty from the date a violation is detected if
the deadline stated in the Notice of Violation is not met.
• Provides that approval of an erosion control plan is conditioned on compliance with federal
and state water quality laws, regulations and rules.
• Provides that any erosion control plan that involves using ditches for the purpose of
dewatering or lowering the water table must be forwarded to the Director of DWQ.
• Amends the General Statutes governing licensing of general contractors to provide that the
State Licensing Board for General Contractors shall test applicants’ knowledge of
requirements of the SPCA and rules adopted pursuant to the Act.
• Removes a cap on the percentage of administrative costs that may be recovered through plan
review fees.
In August 1999, the Sedimentation Control Commission initiated rule making to increase plan
review fees to $40 per acre. In addition, the Commission voted to request that Governor Hunt
use his authority to put into effect at an earlier date (before August 1, 2000) the rules adopted in
February. For information on North Carolina’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program or
to report erosion and sedimentation problems, visit the new website: http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/ or
you may call the NC Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section at [phone].
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 102
4.13.4 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with DLR and other agencies that administer sediment
control programs in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to take appropriate
enforcement action when necessary to protect or restore water quality. However, more voluntary
implementation of BMPs is needed for activities that are not subject to these rules in order to
substantially reduce the amount of widespread sedimentation present in the Cape Fear River
basin. Public education is needed basinwide to educate landowners about the value of riparian
vegetation and the impacts of sedimentation.
Funding is available for cost sharing with local governments that set up new erosion and
sedimentation control programs or conduct their own training workshops. The Sediment Control
Commission will provide 40% of the cost of starting a new local erosion and sedimentation
control program for up to 18 months. Two municipalities or a municipality and county can
develop a program together and split the match. It is recommended that local governments draft
and implement local erosion and sedimentation control programs.
Funding is also available through numerous federal and state programs for farmers to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams. EPA’s Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for
Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines these and other programs aimed at
protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling the National Center for
Environmental Publications and Information at [phone]. Local contacts for various state
and local agencies are listed in Appendix V.
4.14 Issues in the Development of Management Strategies for Coastal
Waters
The NC Blue Ribbon Advisory Council
The NC Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Oysters issued its final Report on Studies and
Recommendations in October 1995. In the report, the Council "reaches the inescapable
conclusion that oyster harvests have declined sufficiently in North Carolina to justify bold new
action and to require initiation of that action immediately. ... Because of the economic, cultural,
and environmental value of healthy oyster populations, the council judges the perpetuation of
this decline in an important component of our coastal heritage to be unacceptable to the citizens
of our state." The report cites a number of reasons for this decline, including outbreaks of oyster
diseases (mostly weather driven), physical degradation of oyster reefs, overharvest and to
"substantial deterioration of coastal water quality". Both the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
and Governor Hunt’s Coastal Futures Committee, which preceded the council, have also
recognized the importance of protecting and restoring shellfish waters.
The Council’s report, along with a report from the Council’s Public Bottom Production
Committee, makes a series of specific water quality recommendations (NC Blue Ribbon
Advisory Council on Oysters, 1995). The objective of these recommendations is to "restore and
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 103
protect coastal water quality to create an environment suitable for oysters that are safe for human
consumption". These recommendations include, but are not limited to:
• institution of regulatory mechanisms for control of NPS runoff, particularly fecal coliform
bacteria and nutrients;
• mandatory 100-foot buffers along all SA waters;
• reducing the allowable built-upon area for low density development;
• promote and fund research on oyster reefs that documents their positive impact on water
quality;
• urge the Marine Fisheries and Environmental Management Commissions to work together to
establish and implement a "Use Restoration Waters" classification in order to restore closed
shellfish beds; and
• DENR should "augment its basinwide management plans to include mechanisms for
controlling both point and nonpoint source nutrient additions" and "develop and fund a
coastal water quality monitoring system capable of measuring oxygen levels in bottom
waters in historically important shellfish grounds".
Restoring water quality in all closed SA waters may not be an attainable objective, particularly in
the short run. Contamination in some waters, especially some of those in which harvesting has
been prohibited for a long time, may be due to natural conditions (e.g., poor flushing or fecal
coliform inputs from wildlife) or to long-standing inputs from developed areas that cannot be
effectively or economically mitigated. Other waters may now be threatened by the growth
pressures and runoff associated with urban development.
Development Thresholds
Identifying a development threshold, beyond which contamination of shellfish waters is likely to
occur, would be useful. Establishing such a threshold is a difficult task because of the wide
variety of factors that must be considered: the amount of development, its type, the specific
practices used, and the nature of the land prior to initiation of development. Research has shown
that degradation of water quality often becomes significant once watershed development exceeds
10-15% impervious cover (Schueler, 1995). These studies have been conducted primarily on
freshwater streams; however, and to date no systematic effort has been undertaken to establish a
relationship between shellfish closures and the extent of imperviousness (Schueler, 1995).
Research (Tschetter and Maiolo, 1984) has confirmed the correlation between coastal population
growth in North Carolina and the closure of waters to shellfishing, but this work is too general to
be useful for management purposes. A study of coastal watersheds in New Hanover County
(Duda and Cromartie, 1982) found that closings generally occurred where more than one septic
system drainfield was present per every seven acres of watershed. It is not clear how much
subsurface drainage networks contributed to the problem or how widely the results of this
investigation should be generalized. The bottom line is that there is a strong relationship
between land development and shellfish water closures that cannot be ignored if shellfish waters
are to be protected or restored.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 104
Construction, Stormwater and Land Use Issues
While no development threshold can be identified at present, it is apparent that closings have
increased despite the management policies currently in place. The reasons for this are not clear.
There are many aspects of the development process that relate to factors influencing fecal
coliform export from urban areas. These aspects include size of disturbed area, length of
nonvegetated stage, size of vegetated buffer, impervious level, and design of sediment or
stormwater control devices.
Shellfish closures due to developed areas may be related to improper installation or maintenance
of best management practices, lack of stream buffers, or ditching and piping land areas. Recent
closings may be related in part to:
• Developments approved prior to January 1, 1988 (and thus not subject to the current
stormwater regulations) which have been gradually built out over the past few years.
• Density levels allowed without stormwater BMPs may be too high.
• Required buffers for both low and high density development may be too small.
• The cumulative impact of numerous small projects that are not subject to the regulations.
• The lack of vegetative buffers or stringent revegetation schedule during the construction
phase.
• Animal populations (both wildlife and livestock), timber harvesting and associated land
disturbance, and crop preparation all may contribute to fecal coliform bacteria levels in
adjacent waters.
Most likely recent closings may be attributed to a combination of these factors, but adequate
information does not exist to confirm this. DEH shoreline surveys, for example, most often do
not verify specific causes of contamination or identify specific aspects of stormwater
management or erosion/sediment control which may need attention. Changes in DWQ’s
stormwater rules became effective at the end of 1995. The intent of these changes was in part to
address some of the above issues, including enhancing long-term enforcement and managing the
cumulative effects of smaller projects. It is still too early to assess the impact of the modified
rules.
Septic System Impacts
Dealing with contamination from septic systems is also a difficult issue, but increasingly local
governments around the country are finding innovative ways to address these impacts. In order
to protect water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, Arlington County, Virginia has adopted an
ordinance requiring that all septic tanks be pumped at least once every 5 years (USEPA, 1993b).
In the Puget Sound area, where a significant shellfish resource has been threatened by fecal
coliform contamination from a number of sources, most counties have established revolving loan
funds to facilitate the repair of failing systems (Center for Watershed Protection, 1995).
Experience has shown that widespread community support is generally necessary to mount an
effective effort, and that this support is unlikely to be forthcoming in the absence of significant
perceived benefits (Herring, 1996).
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 105
State and Local Interaction through CAMA
The need for both state and local actions to protect coastal water quality was the basis for
establishing the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) in the 1970s. Since the enactment of
CAMA, the state’s role in coastal water quality has continued to evolve, encompassing
permitting by the Division of Coastal Management in Areas of Environmental Concern, DWQ’s
coastal stormwater rules, and the continuing development of the Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Program by the Division of Land Resources. Local governments have also implemented
the local planning requirements of CAMA.
Since additional limitations on shellfish harvesting have occurred under current policies, it seems
clear that simply continuing these activities will not adequately protect water quality. All parties
in this state-local partnership, as well as private landowners, must accept more responsibility for
protecting coastal resources. The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is currently assessing
the adequacy of existing land use planning requirements for providing water quality protection.
DWQ will work cooperatively with DCM to evaluate coastal water quality protection measures.
Actions that Can Reduce Impacts to Coastal Waters
Improvements to Stormwater Control Programs
Changes to or better enforcement of present stormwater regulations appear to be necessary to
ensure that shellfish waters are adequately protected from runoff from developed areas. Changes
in regulations which may be worth investigating include:
• modification of the size, nature or extent of vegetative buffers for both the construction and
stormwater phase of the project;
• lowering the allowable built upon area for low density development draining to SA waters;
• increasing the size of vegetative filters for outflows from stormwater management devices;
• developing requirements for maximum size of disturbed area or a revegetation schedule; and
• modified design standards for stormwater and sediment control BMPs to maximize fecal
coliform die-off.
Local Growth Management Initiatives
Growth management--defined here as local planning and development review requirements
designed to maintain or improve water quality (Center for Watershed Protection, 1995)--has
often been unpopular among local governments for a variety of reasons. While it is important to
acknowledge this, it must also be acknowledged that further improvements in state programs are,
by themselves, unlikely to prevent further deterioration of coastal water quality. Local
governments should be taking steps to manage growth. Increasingly, local governments in areas
such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound watersheds have recognized that a more proactive
approach is essential to protect their coastal resources. Seventy percent of the local governments
in the 12 county Puget Sound region, for example, have adopted some form of a stormwater
management plan (Dohrmann, 1995).
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 106
Over the past several years DWQ, DCM and other agencies have been involved in a number of
projects to encourage and assist local governments in carrying out wastewater planning and
growth management activities. One of these projects was the development of the Blueprint to
Protect Coastal Water Quality: A Guide to Successful Growth Management in the Coastal
Region of North Carolina (Center For Watershed Protection, 1995). This guide was developed
as part of a federal grant project sponsored by DWQ and carried out by the Neuse River Council
of Governments. Local governments should consider the application of growth management
techniques outlined in the "Blueprint" document. It provides practical concepts and tools that
can be implemented at the local level to protect coastal water quality.
Local governments should consider the application of growth management techniques outlined in
the Blueprint to Protect Coastal Water Quality. This document provides practical concepts and
tools that can be implemented at the local level to protect coastal water quality. Copies are
available free of charge from DWQ’s Planning Branch at [phone].
The following two tables summarize key features of the document. Each element listed in Table
A-33 can be tailored to both rural and developed areas and to inland, soundside and barrier island
locations. Growth management tools in Table A-34 range from on-the-ground best management
practices, such as modifying parking areas to reduce impervious surfaces, to establishing regional
wastewater and/or stormwater authorities.
Table A-33 Growth Management Elements Applicable to the North Carolina Coast
• Use Watershed-Based Land Use Planning • Minimize Impervious Cover in Site Design
• Protect Sensitive Natural Areas • Limit Erosion During Construction
• Establish Buffer Network • Maintain Coastal Growth Measures
• Treat Stormwater • Implement Stormwater Management Plans
Table A-34 Growth Management Tools
• Overlay Zoning • Greenbelts
• Transfer of Development Rights • Watershed Impervious Limits
• Marina Siting and Design • Forest Conservation
• Septic System Siting Criteria • Shoreline and Wetlands Buffers
• Modification of Street Standards • Modification of Parking Areas
• Siting Clearing Standards • Stormwater Treatment
• Cluster Zoning • Marina Pumpout
• Septic System Alternatives • Regional CAMA Planning
• Wastewater Authority • Stormwater Authority
• Wastewater/Stormwater Authority • Waste Quality Authority
• Sensitive Habitat Protection Ordinance • Septic System Inspection and Maintenance
The NC Division of Coastal Management has been providing extensive GIS information to local
governments to aid in development of local land use plans. These plans must be consistent with
state guidelines and address a wide range of issues, including resource protection and
conservation, hazard mitigation, economic development and public participation. The 1995
revisions to the land use planning guidelines strengthened the connection between land use
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 107
planning and surface water quality. Future land use plan updates must consider water quality use
classifications, watershed planning and problems identified in the basin plans.
4.15 Coastal Habitat Protection Plans
The North Carolina General Assembly established the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Program
within the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources with passage of
the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997. The Act (NCGS 143B-279.8) requires preparation of Coastal
Habitat Protection Plans for critical fisheries habitats in the coastal area. The goal of the plans
shall be the long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with each coastal habitat. The
divisions of the Department dealing with marine fisheries, water quality and coastal management
were designated as the lead agencies for the program. Other agencies are to be included as
necessary. The Coastal Habitat Protection Plan for the Cape Fear River basin is scheduled for
completion in 2003.
Section B: Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin 108
Section B
Water Quality Data
and
Information by Subbasin
Section B: Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 109
Chapter 1 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01
Includes the Haw River, Little Troublesome and Troublesome
Creeks
1.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the piedmont and is the
headwaters of the Haw River, including Troublesome and
Little Troublesome Creeks. The City of Reidsville is the
only large municipality in the subbasin. The
characteristics of streams in this subbasin are strongly
affected by geology and soil type. Streams in the northern
and western portion (upper Haw River, upper
Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek) are
within the Milton Belt and tend to be very sandy. The
upper reaches of the Haw River and Little Troublesome
Creek are generally slow flowing and swampy with little
assimilative capacity for oxygen-consuming waste. A
map of the subbasin, including water quality sampling
locations, is presented in Figure B-1.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-1. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for four streams 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.
The subbasin is primarily agricultural. There are 12
permitted discharges within the subbasin, mostly near
Reidsville. Discharges from Reidsville WWTP and Glen
Raven Mills are the largest.
Little Troublesome Creek, downstream of the Reidsville
WWTP, rated Poor for both fish and macroinvertebrate data in 1998. Special studies of this
discharge (1992 and 1994) demonstrated a reduction in organic loading in 1992; however, data
indicated toxic conditions in Little Troublesome Creek during 1998. Urban nonpoint sources
may also contribute to this problem, as a Fair benthos rating was assigned in 1992 and 1994 for
Little Troublesome Creek above the discharge.
Subbasin 03-06-01 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 189
Land Area: 187
Water Area: 2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 25,897 people
Pop. Density: 138 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 58.6
Water: 2.0
Urban: 1.7
Cultivated Crop: 7.1
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 30.6
Use Support Summary
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 49.1 mi.
Partially Supporting: 46.7 mi.
Not Supporting: 5.0 mi.
Not Rated: 5.0 mi.
Lakes:
Hunt - Fully Supporting
Reidsville - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 111
Table B-1 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 Haw River Guilford SR 2109 Fair Fair
B-2 Haw River Rockingham US 29 Bus Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-3 Haw River Rockingham NC 150 no sample Good-Fair
B-4 Haw River Alamance NC 87 Good-Fair Fair
B-7 Troublesome Creek Rockingham SR 2422 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-11 Little Troublesome Creek Guilford SR 2600 Poor Poor
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
F-1 Haw River Guilford SR 2109 no sample Poor
F-2 Haw River Rockingham SR 2426 no sample Poor/Fair
F-3 Troublesome Creek Rockingham SR 1001 Poor Poor
F-4 Little Troublesome Creek Rockingham SR 2600 no sample Poor
The Haw River at NC 87 has fluctuated between a Good-Fair benthos bioclassification (1985,
1987, 1993) and Fair (1990, 1998). While the drop from Good-Fair in 1993 to Fair in 1998
indicates a decline in water quality, part of this change may be due to the lower flow in 1998.
The Haw River Assembly has sampling sites on Little Troublesome Creek, Troublesome Creek
and the Haw River (see Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.6 for a description of this organization).
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].
1.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of the Haw River, Candy Creek, Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek
were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions
of the Haw River, Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek are currently rated impaired
according to recent DWQ monitoring. Current status of each stream 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 1.3
and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 1.4.
Section B: Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 112
Haw River
1996 Recommendations
The 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Plan identified the Haw River (7.2 miles from source to
SR 2109) as partially supporting (PS). This segment of the Haw River was listed as impaired
from nonpoint and point sources of pollution. The 1996 plan recommended that any new or
expanding discharges to this portion of the Haw River meet limits at least as stringent as 15 mg/l
BOD5 and 4 mg/l NH3-N.
Current Status
No new or expanding discharges have been permitted in this section of the Haw River. The Haw
River (27.8 miles from source to SR 2426) is partially supporting (PS) based on recent DWQ
monitoring because of an impaired biological community. This stream is on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Instream habitat degradation associated with
agricultural nonpoint sources may be the cause of impairment. These two stream segments are
very low flowing and biological ratings may reflect the low flow condition.
2000 Recommendations
No new or expanding discharges should be permitted in this portion of the Haw River (because
of the low flows in this stream). Continued monitoring is recommended to determine the extent
of impacts from agricultural sources. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological
and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
The Haw River Assembly is establishing a management trust on 3.7 acres around the source
spring of the Haw River. For more information on this project, refer to Section C, Chapter 1,
Part 1.5.1.
Candy Creek
Current Status
Candy Creek (3.6 miles for source to Haw River) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan.
Candy Creek is currently not rated (NR). Using new biological information, DWQ has
determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size of this stream.
Troublesome Creek
Current Status
Troublesome Creek was rated partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Currently 15.6 miles of
Troublesome Creek (from source to SR 2423) are partially supporting (PS) based on recent
DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation
associated with agricultural nonpoint sources may be the cause of impairment. This stream is on
Section B: Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 113
the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). This portion of Troublesome Creek is
very low flowing and biological ratings may reflect the low flow condition.
2000 Recommendations
No new or expanding discharges should be permitted in this stream (because of the low flows in
these streams). Continued monitoring is recommended to determine the extent of impacts from
agricultural sources. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical
data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
Little Troublesome Creek
Current Status
Little Troublesome Creek was identified as impaired in the 1996 plan. The 3.3-mile segment
upstream of the Reidsville WWTP was partially supporting (PS) due to urban and agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. The 5.0-mile stream segment upstream from the Haw River was not
supporting (NS) because of point source pollution from the Reidsville WWTP.
The Reidsville WWTP outfall was relocated to the Haw River at NC 150 in November 1998,
although during power outages the Little Troublesome Creek outfall is still used. Little
Troublesome Creek (8.3 miles from source to the Haw River) is currently partially supporting
(PS) above the Reidsville WWTP and not supporting (NS) below the WWTP because of an
impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint
sources may be the cause of impairment. There are also indications of nutrient enrichment
associated with runoff from the City of Reidsville. Fecal coliform bacteria are a noted problem
parameter as well. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
There is currently a 100% moratorium on this facility, preventing new connections to the
collection system (see Part 1.4 below).
2000 Recommendations
Continued monitoring is recommended to assess water quality in Little Troublesome Creek
downstream of the previous discharge location. The 303(d) list approach in the lower section
will be to develop a TMDL to address fecal coliform bacteria. Flow data are being collected in
the lower segment as part of the TMDL development process.
Reidsville 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. The 303(d) list approach in the upper section will be to resample for biological
and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
DWQ, with CWMTF (see Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.3.2), will start working on a detailed
study of the Little Troublesome Creek watershed to identify the sources and extent of nonpoint
source impacts to this stream.
Section B: Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 114
1.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are three streams (64.0 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). The Haw River, Troublesome Creek and Little
Troublesome Creek are discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and
approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
1.4 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.
Reidsville Lake, a water supply reservoir located on Troublesome Creek, is owned by the City of
Reidsville. The topography of the watershed is characterized by rolling hills, and land use is
mainly agricultural (row crop and pastures) along with light residential and commercial
development. A public park with boat launch area is located off of SR 2435 and is operated by
the City of Reidsville Department of Parks and Recreation. In Reidsville Lake, one largemouth
bass sample (of 15 fish tissue samples collected) contained mercury exceeding the EPA
screening value of 0.6 ppm.
Portions of the Haw River and Troublesome Creek are downstream of partially supporting
stream segments affected by agricultural nonpoint sources. DWQ encourages implementation of
agricultural best management practices that reduce potential impacts to these surface waters. For
information on water quality education programs, workshops and nonpoint source agency
contacts, see Appendix V. Enforcement of sediment and erosion control laws will help to reduce
impacts on these streams. DWQ encourages the use of voluntary measures to prevent water
quality degradation.
Approximately 50% 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.
Section B: Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 115
Haw River at WWTP Discharge
Current Status
This segment of the Haw River is currently fully supporting (FS), but is downstream of impacted
waters, and may also be adversely affected by the Reidsville WWTP outfall to the Haw River at
NC 150. Toxicity violations have been a continuing problem for the Reidsville WWTP. The
facility has been out of compliance and on a special order of consent (SOC) for several years.
The facility has been upgraded, and the discharge moved from Little Troublesome Creek to the
current location. The SOC expired in 1999, and the WWTP was fined and continued to have
toxicity violations. DWQ did not reissue the SOC. The facility was placed on a 100%
moratorium, preventing new connections to the collection system, in August 1999. The facility
has not had toxicity violations for nine months and has been from the moratorium.
2000 Recommendations
It is recommended that this segment of the Haw River be monitored to determine if the new
discharge is degrading water quality in the Haw River. The Reidsville WWTP discharge will
continue to be monitored to assure that toxicity problems do reoccur.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 116
Chapter 2 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02
Includes Reedy Fork and North and South Buffalo Creeks
2.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the piedmont and contains the
cities of Greensboro, Burlington, Graham and Mebane. A
map of the subbasin, including water quality sampling
locations, is presented in Figure B-2.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-2. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for six streams 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.
Although there is a large amount of agricultural land use
in this subbasin, urban land use is more likely to affect
stream water quality near the cities of Greensboro and
Burlington.
There are 32 permitted discharges in the subbasin; the
largest from Greensboro, Burlington and Cone Mills.
North Buffalo Creek, South Buffalo Creek and the lower
segment of Reedy Fork Creek are effluent-dominated
streams, often strongly colored by wastewater discharges.
Both point source discharges and nonpoint source runoff
(agriculture and urban) contribute to the Fair to Poor
water quality bioclassifications found in many streams in
the subbasin. North and South Buffalo Creeks,
downstream of the Greensboro WWTPs, had Poor water
quality based on both fish and benthos samples. Further
downstream on Reedy Fork, there is slight improvement
to a Fair benthos rating. The segments of North and
South Buffalo Creeks below the two Greensboro
discharges constitute some of the worst water quality problems in North Carolina. Conductivity
continues to increase and nutrient values are high.
Subbasin 03-06-02 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 562
Land area: 555
Water area: 7
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 279,034 people
Pop. Density: 503 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 58.9
Surface Water: 2.5
Urban: 8.5
Cultivated Crop: 2.3
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 27.9
Use Support Summary
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 225.0 mi.
Partially Supporting: 55.9 mi.
Not Supporting: 24.1 mi.
Not Rated: 86.4 mi.
Lakes:
Lake Higgins - Fully Supporting
Lake Brandt - Fully Supporting
Lake Townsend - Fully Supporting
Burlington Res. - Fully Supporting
Lake Burlington - Fully Supporting
Graham Mebane Res. - Fully
Supporting

Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 118
Table B-2 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-2 Haw River Alamance NC 54 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-5 Reedy Fork Guilford SR 2128 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-6 Brush Creek Guilford SR 2136 no sample Fair
B-7 Horsepen Creek Guilford US 220 Fair Fair
B-9 Reedy Fork Guilford SR 2728 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-10 Reedy Fork Alamance NC 87 Good-Fair Fair
B-14 North Buffalo Creek Guilford SR 2832 Poor Poor
B-16 South Buffalo Creek Guilford US 70 Fair Poor
B-17 South Buffalo Creek Guilford SR 2821 Poor Poor
B-19 Stony Creek Caswell SR 1100 Good Good
B-20 Jordan Creek Alamance SR 1002 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-21 Haw Creek Alamance SR 2158 Good-Fair Good
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Reedy Fork Guilford SR 2728 Fair Fair/Good-Fair
F-2 North Buffalo Creek Guilford SR 2770 Poor Poor
F-3 South Buffalo Creek Guilford US 70 Poor Poor
F-4 South Buffalo Creek Guilford SR 2821 Poor Poor
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Lake
Townsend
1998 17 1 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded
in 1 bass sample
FT-2 Lake
Burlington
1998 20 6 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded
in 5 bass and 1 catfish samples
FT-3 Haw River at
Swepsonville
1998 20 0 0 No samples exceeded criteria
Urban runoff also has a severe impact (Poor or Fair ratings) on the water quality of headwater
streams in Greensboro and Burlington, including portions of North and South Buffalo Creeks,
Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek. Areas affected by agricultural runoff, however, usually have
Good or Good-Fair benthos ratings. Stream segments with the best water quality (in spite of
substantial habitat degradation) include the headwaters of Reedy Fork, Stony Creek, Haw Creek
and Jordan Creek.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data indicated stable water quality at most sites in the subbasin. Of
the 11 sites sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in both 1993 and 1998, eight showed no
change in bioclassification. Between-year differences in flow appear to be the cause of a decline
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 119
in bioclassification at one site on Reedy Fork and an improvement in bioclassification at Haw
Creek. South Buffalo Creek showed a decline in water quality, probably associated with a spill
at the wastewater treatment plant in the week before the sample was collected. Examination of
long-term trends in water quality (>5 years) have shown improvements in bioclassification for
the Haw River at NC 54, but a decline for Horsepen Creek. The improvement for the Haw River
is associated with changes at wastewater treatment plants, while the decline at Horsepen Creek is
associated with residential development. Recent fish tissue samples from the Haw River
(Swepsonville) did not indicate any problems with either metals or pesticides.
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].
2.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of the Haw River, North and South Buffalo Creeks, Horsepen Creek and Town Creek
were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions
of the Haw River, North and South Buffalo Creeks, Horsepen Creek, Brush Creek and Reedy
Fork Creek are currently rated impaired according to recent DWQ monitoring. Current status of
each stream 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 2.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or
projects are discussed in Part 2.4.
Haw River
1996 Recommendations
This segment of the Haw River between Altamahaw and the Saxapahaw dam was rated partially
supporting (PS) in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. This segment
receives a large amount of wastewater discharge. The instream wastewater concentration during
low summer flow conditions is 59%. Because of expected increases of regional discharges in
this subbasin, it was recommended that a fully calibrated QUAL2E model be developed to
evaluate the assimilative capacity of oxygen-consuming waste in this segment of the Haw River.
A reallocation of metals limits was also recommended upon permit renewal.
Current Progress
There has been no development of a QUAL2E model to date. The Haw River (19.2 miles from
NC 87 to NC 49) is currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring
because of an impaired biological community and turbidity levels above state standard. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban and agricultural nonpoint sources may be the cause of
turbidity and biological community impairment. Fecal coliform bacteria are also noted as a
problem parameter. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 120
2000 Recommendations
A TMDL and management strategy will be developed to address fecal coliform bacteria and
turbidity. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to
attempt to determine potential problem parameters associated with the nonpoint sources.
Impaired upstream waters affect water quality in the Haw River. Refer to Part 2.4 below for
more general recommendations for the Buffalo/Reedy Fork Creek watershed that may help
improve water quality in the Haw River.
North Buffalo Creek
1996 Recommendations
North Buffalo Creek (8.5 miles below WWTP) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. This
segment receives large amounts of urban runoff from the City of Greensboro, as well as
receiving point source pollution from the Greensboro North Buffalo WWTP and Cone Mills. It
was recommended that no new discharges be permitted to this stream and that existing
discharges conduct engineering alternatives and economic analyses to determine the feasibility of
connecting to regional facilities. If alternatives were not possible then limits of 5 mg/l BOD5
and 2 mg/l NH3-N would be implemented. Because of inconsistent toxicity tests, it was
recommended that Cone Mills connect to the Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP. It was
also recommended that Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP improve effluent quality.
Current Status
Sites monitored above and below Cone Mills received Poor macroinvertebrate ratings in 1997
and again at the below site in 1998. Cone Mills has consistently violated toxicity limits and has
not been able to connect to the Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP on South Buffalo
Creek. The Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP has been in compliance.
North Buffalo Creek (16.8 miles from source to Buffalo Creek) is currently not supporting (NS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and a low quality effluent from Cone
Mills may be the causes of impairment. Below the WWTP, NH3 in the effluent and high flows
from the discharges may be a cause of impairment. Fecal coliform bacteria are noted as a
problem parameter, and there are indications of nutrient enrichment in this stream. The City of
Greensboro monitoring data also indicate fair to poor water quality in the smaller tributaries of
North Buffalo Creek. North Buffalo Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA
approved).
Cone Mills has been on a special order of consent (SOC) for several years. The facility has been
fined approximately $150,000 in the past 6 years. Cone has submitted plans and applications to
connect to the Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP in 2001, after the upgrades are
completed. EPA issued an adminstrative order to Cone Mills in July 1998 that included $50,000
in fines. The administrative order includes provisions for toxicity testing between May 2000 and
July 2001 to comply with 20% toxicity limit. The administrative order requires Cone Mills to
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 121
eliminate the discharge to North Buffalo Creek or comply with all NPDES permit limits by July
2001.
2000 Recommendations
It is recommended that Cone Mills connect to the Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP on
South Buffalo Creek as soon as possible. The North Buffalo WWTP is not increasing flow, but
is currently upgrading treatment capability to increase the quality of the effluent into North
Buffalo Creek. The capacity of this facility is 16 MGD.
TMDLs are being developed for portions of North Buffalo Creek as part of the 303(d) list
approach. The stream will be resampled for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine
potential problem parameters not addressed by the TMDLs. DWQ will work with The City of
Greensboro stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in this creek. Refer to
Part 2.4 below for more general recommendations for the Buffalo/Reedy Fork Creek watershed.
South Buffalo Creek
1996 Recommendations
South Buffalo Creek was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. This segment receives large
amounts of urban runoff from the City of Greensboro, as well as receiving point source pollution
from the Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP. It was recommended that no new discharges
be permitted to this stream and that existing discharges conduct engineering alternatives and
economic analyses to determine the feasibility of connecting to regional facilities. If alternatives
were not possible, then limits of 5 mg/l BOD5 and 2 mg/l NH3-N would be implemented. It was
also recommended that Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP improve effluent quality.
Current Status
Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP has been in compliance and is upgrading volume and
treatment to reduce BOD5 to less than 5 mg/l and 1 mg/l NH3-N.
South Buffalo Creek (22.1 miles from source to Buffalo Creek) is currently partially supporting
(PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring above the Greensboro Metro WWTP because of an
impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint
sources may be the cause of impairment. Below McConnel Road, South Buffalo Creek is not
supporting (NS) because of an impaired biological community and NH3 from the WWTP.
Based on benthos monitoring, this portion has the worst water quality in the Cape Fear River
basin. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and high flows from
the discharge may be a cause of impairment in the lower segment. Fecal coliform bacteria are
also noted as a problem parameter. South Buffalo Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list
(not yet EPA approved).
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 122
2000 Recommendations
The Greensboro Metro (T.Z. Osborne) WWTP is currently permitted to discharge 22 MGD to
South Buffalo Creek. The facility is in the construction phase of increasing the WWTP flow to
30 MGD. TMDLs are being developed for portions of South Buffalo Creek as part of the 303(d)
list approach. The stream will be resampled for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters not addressed by the TMDLs. DWQ will work with the
City of Greensboro stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in this creek.
Refer to Part 2.4 below for more general recommendations for the Buffalo/Reedy Fork Creek
watershed.
The City of Greensboro and CWMTF are building a 20-acre regional stormwater wetland on
South Buffalo Creek to enhance sediment removal, reduce pollutant loads, and improve aquatic
habitat in the 12-square mile urbanized watershed. Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.1 for
more information on this project.
Horsepen Creek
Current Status
Horsepen Creek and an UT to Horsepen Creek were rated partially supporting (PS) and not
supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan because of impaired biological communities. Horsepen Creek
(7.7 miles from source to Brandt Lake) is currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent
DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation
associated with urban nonpoint sources may be the cause of impairment. Horsepen Creek is on
the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters. DWQ, with CWMTF (see Section C, Chapter 1, Part
1.3.2), will start working on a detailed study of the Horsepen Creek watershed to identify the
sources and extent of nonpoint source impacts to this stream. DWQ will also work with the City
of Greensboro stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in this creek. Refer
to Part 2.4 below for more general recommendations for the Buffalo/Reedy Fork Creek
watershed.
Town Branch
Current Status
Town Branch was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Town Branch drains an urban area
of Graham and was impaired because of fecal coliform bacteria from urban nonpoint sources.
Because of limited sampling data, Town Branch (3.6 miles form source to Haw River) is
currently not rated (NR) according recent use support information.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 123
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample the stream to obtain updated use support
information.
Brush Creek
Current Status
Brush Creek (5.6 miles from source to Lake Higgins) is currently partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources may be the cause of impairment.
Brush Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The City of Greensboro has a stormwater program as part of Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program. Brush Creek is downstream of developed areas in Greensboro and should benefit from
the city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1 and Section C, Chapter 1, Part
1.4.4). DWQ will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality
in these creeks. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to
attempt to determine potential problem parameters. DWQ will work with the City of Greensboro
stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in this creek. Refer to Part 2.4
below for more general recommendations for the Buffalo/Reedy Fork Creek watershed.
Reedy Fork Creek
1996 Recommendations
The 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Plan identified Reedy Fork Creek (including Buffalo
Creek) as a major source of nutrients to the Haw River. This segment of Reedy Fork Creek was
not impaired in the 1996 plan. It was recommended that a nutrient fate and transport model be
developed to reevaluate the Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) strategy for this part of the
subbasin.
Current Status
To date, a nutrient fate and transport model has not been developed. See Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.4 for progress on model development. Reedy Fork Creek (8.6 miles from Buffalo Creek
to Haw River) is currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring due to
low quality water from Buffalo Creek.
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters. Addressing water quality problems in the Greensboro
area should be a step to reducing impairments on Reedy Creek Fork and points further
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 124
downstream in the Haw River (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4). DWQ will work with the City
of Greensboro stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in this creek. Refer
to Part 2.4 below for more general recommendations for the Buffalo/Reedy Fork Creek
watershed.
2.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are 6 streams (83.6 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Segments of Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, North and
South Buffalo Creeks, Reedy Fork Creek, Town Branch and the Haw River are discussed above.
For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
2.4 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
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.
Portions of Reedy Fork Creek are not impaired, but flow through a rapidly urbanizing area.
Urban runoff has a high potential to degrade water quality and instream habitat. Careful
planning and the City of Greensboro stormwater program should help reduce potential impacts.
Jordan Creek is in an agricultural area, and streams in this watershed are subject to erosion and
sedimentation that may cause instream habitat degradation. Agricultural BMPs are encouraged
to reduce potential impacts.
Graham-Mebane Reservoir serves as a water supply for the towns of Graham, Mebane, Green
Level and Haw River. The watershed is mostly forested with a few houses, a public school and
some farmland. High total phosphorus and chlorophyll a values were reported for the Quaker
Creek arm of the reservoir. An algal bloom was also observed in this segment. Cattle were
observed near the sample site with one or two animals in the water. Implementation of BMPs
would help to reduce adverse impacts to water quality in this reservoir.
Approximately 35% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 125
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.
Back Creek (Tributaries including MoAdams Creek)
1996 Recommendations
Back Creek was not impaired in the 1996 plan. MoAdams Creek receives wastewater from the
Mebane WWTP. The instream waste concentration in Back Creek prior to the confluence with
the Haw River is 80%. The 1996 plan recommended that no new discharges should be permitted
in this watershed, and existing discharges should conduct an engineering alternatives and
economic analysis including connection to a regional facility. If there were no alternatives, then
BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l and DO = 6 mg/l would be recommended. Upon expansion
from 1.2 MGD to 2.5 MGD, the Mebane WWTP would be required to meet limits of BOD5 = 5
mg/l and NH3-N = 2 mg/l.
Current Status
MoAdams Creek is a very low flow (zero 7Q10) tributary of Back Creek. Mebane WWTP is
currently permitted to discharge 2.5 MGD to MoAdams Creek at limits of BOD5 = 5 mg/l and
NH3-N = 2 mg/l. The facility is currently passing all self-monitoring toxicity tests. There are no
other discharges to MoAdams Creek or Back Creek. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels have
been detected in MoAdams and Back Creeks below the Mebane WWTP discharge. In November
1999, DWQ biologists surveyed MoAdams and Back Creek. Because of hurricane and drought
effects on the biological communities in the streams, it was difficult to determine any effects of
the Mebane WWTP discharge, although the absence of stoneflies does indicate water quality
problems in the Back Creek watershed. Back Creek and MoAdams Creek are currently not rated
(NR).
2000 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor streams in this watershed to assess potential impacts from point
and nonpoint sources.
Haw Creek
1996 Recommendations
Haw Creek was not impaired in the 1996 plan, but because of low dissolved oxygen (DO)
readings at the mouth of Haw Creek, a study was recommended to determine the persistence and
source of the low DO problem.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 126
Current Status
DWQ staff of the Winston-Salem Regional Office sampled this stream in September 1999 and
did not conclusively find the source of low dissolved oxygen. The stream is wide and has very
low flow with potential impacts from agricultural and suburban nonpoint source pollution.
2000 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor streams in this watershed to assess potential impacts from point
and nonpoint sources.
General Recommendations for Buffalo/Reedy Fork Watershed
Development in and around the City of Greensboro will continue to affect streams in the Buffalo
Creek/Reedy Fork Creek watersheds as well as water quality in the Haw River. Increased
impervious surface area will increase the potential for adverse impacts to these streams including
streambank erosion and nutrient, sediment and pathogen (fecal coliform bacteria) delivery.
Increased water use will require further increases in capacity for the Greensboro WWTPs. The
assimilative capacity of these small streams is limited. The wasteflow into North and South
Buffalo Creeks cannot increase indefinitely without having increasingly adverse effects on Reedy
Creek Fork and the Haw River.
Increasing use of groundwater resources west of Greensboro may also have adverse effects on
recharge of headwater streams feeding the Haw River, Reedy Fork Creek, and East and West
Forks of the Deep River. Water resource planning should take into account the potential impacts
on water quality to headwater streams. Increasing groundwater usage and decreasing
groundwater recharge associated with impervious surface areas can degrade instream habitat
quality and reduce base flow in these small streams.
The City of Greensboro has a stormwater program as part of Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program. Streams in increasingly developed areas of Greensboro should benefit from the city
stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1 and Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.4).
DWQ will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in these
creeks.
Both WWTPs may also be subject to further total nitrogen limits as part of a Jordan Lake NSW
strategy (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4). A TMDL being developed for North and South
Buffalo Creeks may also influence permitted limits. The City of Greensboro has developed a
stormwater program (Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.4) that will start to address problems
associated with nonpoint sources. In addition, the WWTPs are upgrading treatment capabilities
as well as funding projects to reduce peak flows (that decrease treatment efficiency) into the
WWTPs during storm events.
The water quality situation in the Greensboro area is one of the worst in the state. Because of the
challenging geographic location and high population growth, it is recommended that all agencies
and groups interested in development and water quality in Greensboro work together to plan
growth of the city in such a way that water quality and quantity are protected. Because of the
Section B: Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 127
small flows in these streams, innovative strategies and technologies will need to be developed to
treat the increasing amounts of wastewater and stormwater generated in these high growth
watersheds. DWQ will work with the agencies and groups, where possible, to improve water
quality in these creeks.
The Upper Cape Fear Riparian Buffer Protection Planning Grant is a current initiative that may
help to address land use and water quality issues in this region. Refer to Section C, Part 1.5.1 for
more information on this initiative.
Section B: Chapter 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 128
Chapter 3 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03
Includes Big and Little Alamance Creeks
3.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the piedmont and contains few
urban areas except along the I-40/85 corridor between
Burlington and Greensboro. A map of the subbasin,
including water quality sampling locations, is presented in
Figure B-3.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-3. 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.
The primary land use in this subbasin is a mixture of
agriculture and forest. There are no discharges in this
subbasin with a permitted flow greater than 0.05 MGD.
Most water quality problems are associated with nonpoint
sources.
Erosion from agricultural land may cause large sediment
inputs into streams within this subbasin. The worst water
quality in the subbasin was observed in Little Alamance
Creek (Burlington). Urban runoff is the most likely cause
of this low rating.
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].
3.2 Impaired Waters
There were no impaired waters in this subbasin in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington) is currently rated impaired according to recent
DWQ monitoring. Current status and future recommendations for improving water quality in
this stream are discussed below. 303(d) listed waters are summarized in Part 3.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 3.4.
Subbasin 03-06-03 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 262
Land area: 1
Water area: 263
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 66,593 people
Pop. Density: 255 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 59.4
Surface Water: 0.2
Urban: 5.8
Cultivated Crop: 2.2
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 32.4
Use Support Summary
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 176.0 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 12.3 mi.
Not Rated: 5.2 mi.
Lakes:
Lake Mackintosh - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 130
Table B-3 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 Big Alamance Creek Alamance NC 49 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-8 Stinking Quarter Creek Alamance SR 1136 Good-Fair Good
B-9 Little Alamance Creek Alamance SR 2309 Not Sampled Poor
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993/1994 1998
F-1 Big Alamance Creek Guilford SR 3088 no sample Good
F-2 Little Alamance Creek Guilford SR 3039 no sample Fair
F-4 Stinking Quarter Creek Alamance SR 1136 Good-Fair Fair
F-7 Little Alamance Creek Alamance SR 2309 Fair Poor
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington) (12.3 miles from source to Big Alamance Creek)
Current Status
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington) (12.3 miles from source to Big Alamance Creek) is currently
not supporting (NS) based on recent DWQ monitoring data because of an impaired biological
community. Streambank erosion associated with stormwater surges from the City of Burlington
and indications of nutrient enrichment from urban nonpoint sources are potential causes of
impairment. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The City of Burlington 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. It is recommended that the City of Burlington focus stormwater
program activities on Little Alamance Creek. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for
biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
3.3 303(d) Listed Waters
Little Alamance Creek is the only stream (12.3 stream miles) in this subbasin that is impaired
and on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not EPA approved). This stream is discussed above.
For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
3.4 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 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 131
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.
Little Alamance Creek (Guilford County) drains an agricultural area, and Big Alamance Creek
also drains an agricultural area as well as urban areas near Burlington. High levels of fecal
coliform bacteria have been detected in Big Alamance Creek, and both creeks show instream
habitat degradation. Implementation of agricultural BMPs would reduce potential adverse
impacts to these streams.
Lake Mackintosh is a water supply reservoir for the City of Burlington. The lake is also used for
recreational purposes (fishing and boating only). The surrounding land is comprised of pastures
and farmland with a few houses. Blue-green algal blooms were confirmed by samples in January
and May 1994, June and July 1996, and June 1998. These algal blooms have been associated
with continuing taste and odor problems for the City of Burlington.
Approximately 7% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
The 1996 basinwide plan recommended that the 11 small discharges (0.154 MGD) in this
subbasin should explore and implement alternatives to surface discharge or connect to one of the
regional WWTPs. Many of the discharges were discharging into zero flow streams. There are
currently seven minor discharges in this subbasin. Regionalization of small wastewater
discharges will continue to be encouraged and monitored.
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.
Section B: Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 132
Chapter 4 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04
Includes Cane Creek, Collins Creek and the Haw River
4.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains the lower reaches of the Haw
River in Alamance, Orange and Chatham counties. This
section of the Haw River is approximately 25-river miles
in length and is completely within the Carolina Slate Belt.
Tributary streams within this subbasin are strongly
influenced by geology and characteristically have large
boulder and/or rubble riffle areas. Therefore, many of the
tributary streams in this subbasin are prone to extremely
low flow conditions during summer months. A map of
the subbasin, including water quality sampling locations,
is presented in Figure B-4.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-4. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for two streams and one lake 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.
Much of the land use within this subbasin is forest,
although pasture, cultivated crops and urban land uses
also account for significant portions of the subbasin. All
three counties within this subbasin have large numbers of
registered livestock and animal operations, particularly
cattle and poultry operations in Chatham County.
There are 7 permitted dischargers in this subbasin. Only
Pittsboro WWTP (Robeson Creek) has a permitted flow
of more than 0.5 MGD.
Ambient water quality data are collected from three locations in this subbasin: two mainstem
locations on the Haw River (US 15-501 near Bynum and below B. Everett Jordan dam near
Moncure) and Robeson Creek at SR 1939 near Seaforth. These data have indicated good water
quality with few violations in water quality criteria. Additionally, data from the two Haw River
locations in this subbasin indicate an improvement in water quality compared to conditions
recorded from ambient monitoring sites in the Haw River at Haw River and Saxapahaw.
Subbasin 03-06-04 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 331
Land area: 327
Water area: 4
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 20,213 people
Pop. Density: 62 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 73.0
Surface Water: 1.7
Urban: 0.3
Cultivated Cropland: 3.0
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 22.0
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater streams:
Fully Supporting: 207.1 mi.
Partially Supporting: 15.9 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 18.3 mi.
Lakes:
Cane Creek Reservoir - Fully
Supporting
Pittsboro Lake - Not Supporting

Section B: Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 134
Table B-4 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-2 Haw River Alamance SR 1005 Good-Fair (s) Good-Fair (s)
B-3 Marys Creek Alamance SR 2174 Not Sampled Fair (w)
B-4 Cane Creek Orange SR 1114 Good (w) Good & Excellent (w)
Good-Fair (s) Good (s)
B-11 Collins Creek Chatham SR 1539 no sample Good-Fair (w)
B-14 Terrells Creek Chatham NC 87 Good (w) Good-Fair (s)
B-16 Dry Creek Chatham SR 1520 Good (w) Good-Fair (w)
B-17 Haw River Chatham US 64 Good (s) Good (s)
B-18 Pokeberry Creek Chatham SR 1711 Good-Fair (w) Good (w)
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-2 Collins Creek Chatham SR 1539 no sample Poor
F-3 Terrells Creek Chatham NC 87 Fair Fair
F-4 Ferrels Creek Chatham SR 1525 no sample Good-Fair
(w) Winter collection, (s) Summer collection
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples have been collected from two Haw River locations since
1984, including two basinwide surveys in 1993 and 1998. These data indicate that water quality
conditions improve downstream near the Haw River arm of Jordan Lake (Good
bioclassifications, US 64) compared to upstream reaches at Saxapahaw (Good-Fair
bioclassifications, SR 1005). A benthos sample also was collected from the Saxapahaw location
in November 1998 during extremely low flow conditions. Although the bioclassification did not
change from summer data, taxa richness values were much lower. These data may reflect the
effects of greater instream waste concentrations from upstream sources during extremely low
flow conditions.
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].
4.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Robeson Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Portions of Robeson Creek, Marys Creek and Pittsboro Lake are currently
rated impaired according to recent DWQ monitoring. Current status of each stream 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 4.3, and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 4.4.
Section B: Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 135
Robeson Creek
1996 Recommendations
Robeson Creek was not supporting (NS) in the upper segment and partially supporting (PS) in
the lower segment. A reconnaissance study was recommended to determine the source of low
dissolved oxygen (DO) upstream of the Pittsboro WWTP discharge and to evaluate
improvements to the facility. A follow-up benthic survey was also recommended.
Current Status
A special study to assess the effects of an oil spill into a small tributary of Robeson Creek was
conducted in 1997. No aquatic life was found in the tributary, and the spill may have affected
waters further downstream in the Robeson Creek watershed. Robeson Creek (6.2 miles from 0.7
miles downstream of SR 2159 to the Haw River) is currently partially supporting (PS) according
to recent DWQ monitoring. There have been chlorophyll a violations in the lower segment and
impaired biological communities in both segments. Instream habitat degradation associated with
urban nonpoint sources and a discharge from the City of Pittsboro WWTP is a possible cause of
impairment. A new highway bypass and other construction around Pittsboro are adding to
nonpoint source problems. The City of Pittsboro has upgraded the WWTP, but has occasional
violations including exceeding permitted limits for total phosphorus. A chicken processing plant
has had spills from its spray line into an unnamed tributary of Robeson Creek that may
contribute to nutrient problems in the lower segment.
2000 Recommendations
Local initiatives are needed to improve water quality in Robeson Creek. DWQ encourages
development of a land use plan that protects water quality in this watershed. The 303(d) list
approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential
problem parameters and develop a TMDL to address nutrients causing high chlorophyll a levels.
The Haw River Assembly was awarded funds to initiate a watershed awareness campaign in the
Robeson Creek watershed including Pittsboro. The Haw River Assembly will seek cooperation
from city and county agencies, the Triangle J Council of Governments, Cooperative Extension
Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to coordinate development of a broader
restoration initiative. This funding will provide for landowner outreach and education and
initiate broader opportunities for conservation and restoration.
Marys Creek
Current Status
Marys Creek (9.7 miles from source to Haw River) is currently partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream
habitat degradation associated with agricultural nonpoint sources may be a cause of impairment.
Indications of nutrient enrichment were also noted. Holding ponds have been installed at
milking parlors on dairy farms in the watershed. Fencing cattle out of streams has also been
Section B: Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 136
implemented by some of the dairy operations on a voluntary basis. Marys Creek is on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
DWQ encourages groups interested in watershed projects to work with DWQ and other agencies
to identify sources of impairment to this stream and to implement best management practices to
reduce agricultural nonpoint source impacts (see nonpoint source agency contacts in Appendix
V). The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
Pittsboro Lake
Current Status
Pittsboro Lake (38 acres, SW of Pittsboro) is currently not supporting (NS) according to recent
DWQ monitoring. The lake is impacted by urban and rural nonpoint source pollution. The lake
is also affected by algal blooms stimulated by excessive nutrient input from the watershed.
Pittsboro Lake is a small impoundment located just outside of, and owned by, the Town of
Pittsboro in Chatham County. The lake, which is a retired water supply, is actually a system of
two separate ponds connected by a canal that becomes dry during periods of low precipitation.
The drainage area for Pittsboro Lake is composed of forested, urban and agricultural areas.
Pittsboro Lake is currently part of a town park.
When sampled by DWQ in 1993, this lake had a significant macrophyte infestation problem.
Field observations in 1998 continued to identify a problem with excessive macrophyte growth in
the lake. There has been no dredging or macrophyte control actions (either mechanical or
chemical) to reduce the plant growth in the lake. Hurricane Fran (1996) did remove a great deal
of the plant material and algae observed in the lake in 1993 by DWQ. The lake is also affected
by algal blooms and nutrient loading.
2000 Recommendations
Local initiatives are needed to improve water quality in Pittsboro Lake. DWQ encourages
development of a land use plan that protects water quality in the lake. A stormwater program
with an educational component would help to reduce nutrient input into Pittsboro Lake. The
303(d) list approach will be to develop TMDL to address nutrients causing high chlorophyll a
levels.
4.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (15.9 stream miles) and one lake in the subbasin rated as impaired and on
the state year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Robeson Creek, Marys Creek and
Pittsboro Lake are discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and
approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section B: Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 137
4.4 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
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.
Cane Creek South, Collins Creek, Terrells Creek South, Terrells Creek North, Dry Creek and the
Haw River mainstem are in agricultural watersheds and subject to streambank erosion and
habitat degradation. Implementation of agricultural BMPs would reduce potential impacts to the
smaller streams and reduce the potential for impacts to the mainstem.
Approximately 8% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
Cane Creek Reservoir
Algal bloom samples were collected from Cane Creek Reservoir in July and August 1998.
Chlorophyll a above the state water quality standard was reported in June and August 1998. The
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund awarded OWASA a one million-dollar
grant to help acquire land and conservation easements in the Cane Creek Reservoir watershed.
See Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.1 for a complete description of the project.
Section B: Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 138
Chapter 5 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05
Includes New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Jordan Reservoir
5.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin includes large sections of the City of
Durham and Research Triangle Park. New Hope Creek
and many of its tributaries are within the geological
formation of the Triassic Basin, an area that covers about
1,100 square miles. The 7Q10 values are zero for all but
the largest watersheds. A large percentage of land use
within this subbasin is urban and built-up. A map of the
subbasin, including water quality sampling locations, is
presented in Figure B-5.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-5. 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. See Section A, Chapter 3, Table
A-31 for a summary of lakes use support data.
There are eight permitted dischargers in the subbasin.
Two facilities have permitted flows of greater than 1
MGD. These facilities discharge to Northeast Creek
(Durham County Triangle WWTP) and New Hope Creek
(South Durham Water Reclamation Facility) and have
instream waste concentrations of 100% and 99.5%,
respectively, under 7Q10 flow conditions. Elevated
nutrient concentrations and depressed dissolved oxygen
values have been recorded at both of these locations when
compared to most other Haw River tributary locations.
Median fecal coliform counts are above water quality
criteria at both of these locations.
Both point and nonpoint sources have impacted streams in this highly urbanized subbasin.
Streams in this subbasin are typical of the Triassic Basin with 7Q10 values of zero and poor
instream habitat. For these reasons, most streams in this subbasin were not sampled because of
low flow conditions or were not rated using benthic macroinvertebrate criteria.
Fish tissue samples were collected from two locations on Jordan Lake during 1998: Farrington
arm and near the dam. Only one largemouth bass from the Farrington arm location had a
mercury concentration exceeding EPA criteria.
Subbasin 03-06-05 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 269
Land area: 251
Water area: 18
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 102,058 people
Pop. Density: 407 person/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 78.2
Surface Water: 8.2
Urban: 6.4
Cultivated Crop: 0.6
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 52.5 mi.
Partially Supporting: 39.9 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 122.4 mi.
Lakes:
B. Everett Jordon Reservoir -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 140
Table B-5 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-4 New Hope Creek Durham SR 1107 Not sampled Fair (s)
B-6 Northeast Creek Durham SR 1102 Not Rated (w) Not rated (w)
B-11 Beartree Creek Chatham SR 1716 Not Rated (w) Not rated (w)
B-12 White Oak Creek Chatham SR 1603 Not sampled Not rated (w)
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 New Hope Creek Durham SR 2220 no sample Poor
FISH TISSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Lake Jordan
near Farrington
1998 24 1 0 EPA mercury limit
exceeded in 1 bass sample
FT-2 Lake Jordan
near Dam
1998 22 0 0 No samples exceeded
criteria
(w) Winter collection (s) Summer collection
5.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek, Third Fork Creek and White Oak Creek were
identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of
New Hope Creek and Northeast Creek are currently rated impaired according to recent DWQ
monitoring. Current status of each stream 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 5.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 5.4.
New Hope Creek
1996 Recommendations
New Hope Creek (20.7 miles from I-40 to SR 1107) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The stream receives a large discharge from South
Durham Water Reclamation Facility. The instream waste concentration was 99% during summer
low flow conditions. The stream was subject to low dissolved oxygen (DO). The upstream
segments receive wastewater from smaller discharges that reduce the instream DO prior to the
WWTP. It was recommended that upon expansion from 10 to 20 MGD, the WWTP should meet
advanced tertiary treatment of 5 mg/l BOD5 and 1 mg/l NH3-N. It was also recommended that
smaller discharges into zero flow streams above the WWTP connect to regional treatment
facilities.
Section B: Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 141
Current Status
The South Durham Water Reclamation Facility has expanded to 20 MGD with permitted limits
of 5 mg/l BOD5 and 2 mg/l NH3-N and 2 mg/l TP. The instream waste concentration is 100%
during summer low flow conditions. Some of the small discharges in the area have connected to
regional facilities. However, because of insufficient DWQ staffing, more regionalization of
wastewater treatment has not been pursued. New Hope Creek (25 miles from Sandy Creek to SR
1107) is currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an
impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint
sources and the South Durham Water Reclamation Facility discharge is a possible cause of
impairment. Manganese and fecal coliform bacteria are also noted as problem parameters in the
lower segment. New Hope Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
New Hope Creek is in heavily urbanized areas of Durham and should benefit from the existing
city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1 and Section C, Chapter 1, Part
1.5.1). DWQ will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality
in these streams. DWQ is currently studying New Hope Creek to determine the extent and
possible sources of fecal coliform bacteria contamination. DWQ also encourages further efforts
to connect small discharges in this watershed to a regional facility. The South Durham Water
Reclamation Facility is in compliance with current permitted limits. Permit limits may be
reevaluated after modeling efforts are completed to address the NSW strategy for Jordan
Reservoir/Haw River (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4).
The 800-acre New Hope Creek Riparian buffer and greenway trail system is protecting this
stream from rapid commercial and residential development in this watershed. For more
information on this project, refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.1.
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program and Duke University received a grant of
$582,500 to collaborate on the restoration of degraded streambanks and riparian areas of Sandy
Creek, within the New Hope Creek watershed. The project will treat stormwater runoff within
the 25-acre project watershed adjacent to the University Campus. Treatment methods will
include the installation of twelve biofiltration areas to receive and attenuate runoff from parking
and trail areas, and a structure to create an instream stormwater wetland and support the
restoration of degraded streambanks. The Wetland Program at Duke University will monitor
water quality at 15 sites in the project area to determine the success of the project design.
Northeast Creek
1996 Recommendations
Northeast Creek (13 miles from source to Jordan Reservoir) was partially supporting (PS) in the
1996 plan. The stream receives a large discharge from the Durham County-Triangle WWTP.
The instream waste concentration was 99% during summer low flow conditions, and the stream
was subject to low dissolved oxygen (DO). Because of low summer flows, it was recommended
that no new discharges be allowed.
Section B: Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 142
Current Status
No new discharges have been permitted into this stream. There was a 1.6 million-gallon sewage
spill from Durham County-Triangle WWTP in 1997. Northeast Creek (14.9 miles from source
to New Hope Creek arm of Jordan Reservoir, 3 segments) is currently partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring data because of an impaired biological community.
Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and the Durham County
Triangle WWTP is a possible cause of impairment. Manganese, fecal coliform bacteria and low
dissolved oxygen (DO) are also noted as problem parameters. Northeast Creek is on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Northeast Creek is in heavily urbanized areas of Durham and Research Triangle Park and should
benefit from the existing city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). DWQ
will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in these
streams. Durham County Triangle WWTP is in compliance with current permitted limits.
Permit limits may be reevaluated after modeling efforts are completed to address the NSW
strategy for Jordan Reservoir/Haw River (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4).
Third Fork Creek
Current Status
Third Fork Creek (4.5 miles from source to Jordan Reservoir) was not supporting (NS) in the
1996 plan. An impaired biological community and turbidity related to development in the
watershed were the causes of impairment. New biological information has determined that the
previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size of the stream. Third Fork is currently
not rated.
2000 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the impacts of land development on streams in this watershed.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample this stream to obtain updated use support
information.
White Oak Creek
Current Status
White Oak Creek (0.4 miles from NC 751 to New Hope River Arm of Jordan Reservoir) was
identified as partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 basinwide plan because of an impaired
biological community. White Oak Creek is currently not rated (NR). Based on new biological
information, it was determined that the previous biological rating was inappropriate. This stream
is not on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
Section B: Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 143
5.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are three streams (49 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Third Fork
Creek are on the list and are addressed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements
and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
5.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
Approximately 60% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
Jordan Reservoir
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir is currently supporting its designated uses. There are currently no
public health advisories for swimming, fish consumption or drinking water use. Aquatic weeds
are not currently a significant issue. The water treatment plant using the Jordan Reservoir as a
raw water source has had (1995, 1996) some experiences with taste and odor issues as a result of
noxious algal growth. However, these treatment concerns are not currently a problem according
to the water plant operators. Recent DWQ evaluations of water quality, however, continue to
show concerns for water quality standards. Water quality standards related to eutrophication are
not consistently achieved. Continued growth in the drainage basin is likely to increase runoff
and increase delivery of nutrients and sediment to the reservoir.
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir receives discharges from many large municipal facilities via the Haw
River, Morgan Creek, New Hope Creek and Northeast Creek. The cumulative effect of the
discharges increases the potential for water quality problems associated with excessive nutrients.
Because the facilities in the Jordan watershed are increasing flow capacity in response to
population growth, steps will need to be taken to prevent water quality degradation in Jordan
Reservoir from both point and nonpoint sources. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4 for
updates on the Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.
Section B: Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 144
Chapter 6 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06
Includes Morgan Creek and Bolin Creek
6.1 Water Quality Overview
This small subbasin contains the urban and large suburban
sections of Chapel Hill in Orange County. Relative to
other subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin, it contains a
large proportion of urban and built-up areas. This type of
land use includes residential areas, institutional sites,
construction sites and golf courses. Forest and
agriculture, including pasture and cultivated cropland,
also make up portions of the subbasin.
Small streams in this subbasin typically stop flowing
during low flow periods due to the lack of groundwater
recharge. USGS has estimated that Slate Belt streams
with catchment areas of 18 square miles or less will have
zero 7Q10 flows during summer low flow periods (USGS,
1993). A map of the subbasin, including water quality
sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-6.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-6. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for five streams 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.
There are 7 permitted dischargers in this subbasin. Most
of these are very small, with the largest being the
OWASA/Mason Farm WWTP. This facility has a
permitted flow of 8.0 MGD into Morgan Creek. The facility has an instream waste concentration
of 93% during 7Q10 flow conditions.
Data from Morgan Creek and the Bolin/Booker/Little Creeks watershed indicate a downstream
decline in water quality. Good or Excellent water quality results are recorded from upstream
sites and water quality degrades, as the streams flow through urban and suburban sections of
Chapel Hill.
Subbasin 03-06-06 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 75
Land area: 74
Water area: 1
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 101,430 people
Pop. Density: 573 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 84
Surface Water: 1.4
Urban: 5.3
Cultivated Crop: 0.6
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 8.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 46.7 mi.
Partially Supporting: 12.4 mi.
Not Supporting: 6.8 mi.
Not Rated: 9.0 mi.
Lakes:
University Lake - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 146
Table B-6 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-6 Morgan Creek Orange NC 54 Excellent (w) Excellent (w)
Good (s) -
B-10 Morgan Creek Orange SR 1726 Fair (s) Fair (s)
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Bolin Creek Orange off SR 1750 no sample Poor
F-3 Morgan Creek Orange SR 1900 no sample 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].
6.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Meeting of the Waters, Morgan and Bolin Creeks were identified as impaired in the
1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of Meeting of the Waters,
Morgan, Bolin, Booker and Little Creeks 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 6.3
and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 6.4.
Meeting of the Waters
Current Status
Meeting of the Waters was identified as not supporting (NS) in the 1996 basinwide plan because
of an impaired biological community. Meeting of the Waters (1.4 miles from source to Morgan
Creek) was resampled and is currently not supporting (NS) according to recent DWQ monitoring
because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with
urban nonpoint sources is a possible cause of impairment. This stream drains heavily urbanized
areas of UNC-Chapel Hill. Meeting of the Waters is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet
EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Meeting of the Waters is impaired from urban nonpoint sources in Chapel Hill. The City of
Chapel Hill will be required to address stormwater issues as part of Phase II of the NPDES
Section B: Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 147
stormwater program. NPDES stormwater permit applications must be received by DWQ by
March 1, 2003. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to
attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
Morgan Creek
1996 Plan Recommendations
The 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Plan identified two segments of the Morgan Creek (8.6
miles from SR 1919 to Jordan Reservoir) as partially supporting (PS) because of an impaired
biological community. Sedimentation and fecal coliform bacteria were listed as possible causes
of impairment. The 1996 plan recommended that no new discharges should be permitted in this
stream.
Current Status
No new discharges have been permitted into this stream. The sample segments of Morgan Creek
have been redefined. Approximately three miles of Morgan Creek between SR 1919 and
Meeting of the Waters has improved since the last sampling period and is no longer impaired.
Two segments of Morgan Creek (5.1 miles from Meeting of the Waters to Jordan Reservoir) are
partially supporting (PS) and not supporting (NS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because
of an impaired biological community. These two segments are on the state’s year 2000 303(d)
list (not yet EPA approved). Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint
sources is a possible cause of impairment. Manganese is also listed as a problem parameter for
both stream segments. For more information on unimpaired segments of Morgan Creek, refer to
Part 6.4 below.
2000 Recommendations
The City of Chapel Hill 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. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and
chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
Bolin Creek
Current Status
Bolin Creek (1 mile from NC 501 to Little Creek) was identified as partially supporting (PS) in
the 1996 basinwide plan because of an impaired biological community. This same segment of
Bolin Creek is partially supporting (PS) according to recent monitoring because of an impaired
biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources is a
possible cause of impairment. Bolin Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA
approved).
Section B: Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 148
2000 Recommendations
Bolin Creek is impaired from urban nonpoint sources in Chapel Hill. The City of Chapel Hill
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.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
Booker Creek
Current Status
Booker Creek (5.6 miles from source to Little Creek) is partially supporting (PS) according to
recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat
degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources is a possible cause of impairment. Booker
Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Booker Creek is impaired from urban nonpoint sources in Chapel Hill. The City of Chapel Hill
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.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
Little Creek
Current Status
Little Creek (6.1 miles from source to New Hope Creek) is not supporting (NS) according to
recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat
degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources is a possible source of impairment. The 0.7-
mile segment upstream of New Hope River Arm of Jordan Reservoir is partially supporting (PS)
for the same reasons. Little Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Little Creek is impaired from urban nonpoint sources in Chapel Hill. The City of Chapel Hill
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.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
Section B: Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 149
6.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are 5 streams (19.2 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Segments of Meeting of the Waters, Morgan, Bolin,
Booker and Little Creeks are discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements
and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
6.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
Morgan Creek upstream of Meeting of the Waters is rated as fully supporting (FS) using recent
DWQ monitoring data. However, this stream may still be affected by urban runoff that has the
potential to degrade water quality and instream habitat. Addressing stormwater runoff in Chapel
Hill should reduce future impacts to water quality in Morgan Creek. Although no action is
required for these surface waters, continued monitoring is recommended. 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.
Approximately 40% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
Chapel Hill Stream Monitoring
The Town of Chapel Hill currently monitors 14 sites monthly in area streams. The town will
also be performing watershed and stream assessments as part of the stormwater management
program.
Section B: Chapter 7 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 150
Chapter 7 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07
Including Cape Fear River, Parkers and Neills Creeks
7.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains approximately 25-river miles of
the Cape Fear River from near the confluence of Lick
Creek in Lee County to near Buies Creek in Harnett
County. This subbasin contains many tributary streams
that are completely contained within the Sand Hills,
although other streams within this subbasin have
piedmont or coastal plain characteristics as well. The
sandy soils and high permeability rates of Sandhill soils
allow for greater groundwater recharge than Slate Belt or
Triassic Basin streams. Many streams within this
ecoregion typically have 7Q10 flow rates greater than
zero. A map of the subbasin, including water quality
sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-7.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-7. 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.
The subbasin is primarily forested, although agriculture
(including pasture and cultivated cropland) accounts for a
significant amount of land use. The towns of Sanford,
Fuquay-Varina and Lillington are the largest urban areas
in the subbasin. Parkers Creek, Avents Creek and Hector
Creek in Raven Rock State Park are rated as HQW. There
are 16 permitted dischargers in the subbasin. Six of these
facilities have permitted flows of 0.5 MGD or greater.
Bioclassifications based on benthic macroinvertebrate data for the Cape Fear River at Lillington
have been Good, with only one exception, since the first survey in 1983. This includes
basinwide surveys in 1993 and 1998. Fish tissue samples also were collected from the Cape Fear
River at Lillington during 1998. Twenty-six specimens were analyzed for metal contaminants.
Only one bowfin had mercury exceeding the EPA screening value. The Cape Fear River near
Erwin had an Excellent benthos bioclassification in 1998 and in 1993.
Subbasin 03-06-07 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 415
Land area: 403
Water area: 12
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 39,713 people
Pop. Density: 99 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 69.6
Surface Water: 2.9
Urban: 1.6
Cultivated Crop: 21.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 4.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 239.4 mi.
Partially Supporting: 2.9 mi.
Not Supporting: 10.2 mi.
Not Rated: 44.8 mi.
Lakes:
Harris Lake - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 152
Table B-7 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 Parkers Creek Harnett SR 1450 Good (w) Good-Fair (w)
Good (s) Good-Fair (s)
B-7 Neills Creek Harnett SR 1441 Fair (w) Good-Fair (w)
B-11 Kenneth Creek Harnett SR 1441 Poor (w) Poor (w)
B-13* Cape Fear River Harnett US 401 Good (s) Good (s)
B-14 Cape Fear River Harnett NC 217 Excellent Excellent
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-5 Hector Creek Harnett SR 1412 no sample Fair
F-6 Kenneth Creek Harnett SR 1441 Poor Poor
FISH TISSUE
No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Cape Fear River
at Lillington
1998 22 1 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded
in 1 bowfin sample
(w) Winter collection (s) Summer collection
A 5-year decline in water quality was found at Parkers Creek based on basinwide benthos
surveys conducted in 1993 and 1998. This decline was evident during surveys conducted during
both winter and summer surveys at this location. Changes in land use activities and/or nonpoint
source runoff in the watershed above the collection location may have accounted for the decline
in water quality. There are no permitted point source facilities in the watershed. A 5-year
improvement in bioclassification is noted at Neills Creek, although only one additional EPT taxa
was collected during the 1998 survey to account for the change in bioclassification. The only
Poor water quality indicated by macroinvertebrates and the fish community in this subbasin was
for Kenneth Creek at a location below the Fuquay-Varina WWTP.
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].
7.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Kenneth Creek, Gulf Creek and Neills Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of Kenneth 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
Section B: Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 153
waters are summarized in Part 7.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are
discussed in Part 7.4.
Kenneth Creek
1996 Recommendations
Kenneth Creek (6.5 miles) was rated not supporting (NS) and partially supporting (PS) in the
1996 plan. The stream is a low flow stream that receives urban nonpoint source pollution and a
1.2 MGD discharge from the Fuquay-Varina WWTP. It was recommended that any new or
expanding discharges to Kenneth Creek meet limits of 5 mg/l BOD5 and 2 mg/l NH3-N.
Current Status
There have been no new or expanding discharges to Kenneth Creek. Kenneth Creek (7.3 miles
from source to Neills Creek) is currently not supporting (NS) according to recent DWQ
monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Urban nonpoint source pollution from
Fuquay-Varina and a discharge from the Fuquay-Varina WWTP are possible sources of
impairment. There are also indications of nutrient enrichment in this stream. Kenneth Creek is
on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Local initiatives are needed to improve water quality in Kenneth Creek. DWQ encourages
development of a land use plan and stormwater program that protects water quality in this
stream. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt
to determine potential problem parameters.
Gulf Creek
Current Status
Gulf Creek (5.1 miles) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. The stream is currently
partially supporting (PS) and not supporting (NS) according to 1993 DWQ monitoring data
because of instream habitat degradation, possibly associated with nonpoint source runoff from a
clay pit mine. 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. Gulf Creek is on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor implementation of BMPs to assess their ability to protect water
quality. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt
to determine potential problem parameters.
Section B: Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 154
Neills Creek
Current Status
Neills Creek (2.4 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. This stream was
sampled during recent DWQ monitoring, but was not rated below the confluence with Kenneth
Creek. The upper segments are currently fully supporting (FS). Neills Creek has improved in
water quality, but monitoring should be continued to assess sources of instream habitat
degradation.
7.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (13.1 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Kenneth Creek and Gulf Creek are discussed
above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
7.4 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
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.
Approximately 3% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
Parkers Creek is in an agricultural area, and streams in this watershed are subject to erosion and
habitat degradation. DWQ encourages implementation of agricultural best management practices
(BMPs), including fencing cattle out of streams that reduce potential impacts to surface waters.
Development in Harris Lake Watershed
Harris Lake watershed is in an area that is experiencing rapid growth. Harris Lake will be
increasingly impacted by nonpoint sources. As land in the watershed is converted from forest
and agricultural land uses to residential and commercial land uses, the streams feeding Harris
Lake will be subjected to higher flows during rain events and increased delivery of pollutants and
Section B: Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 155
nutrients. This may result in streambank erosion, habitat degradation and increased potential for
algal blooms in slow-flowing sections of the streams and in Harris Lake.
Communities in western Wake County are pursuing a discharge into the Cape Fear River in this
subbasin. A model approach is needed that takes into account algal activity upstream of
Buckhorn dam to determine wasteload allocation in this segment of the Haw/Cape Fear River.
DWQ will be reviewing the exisiting QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear River mainstem (from
Buckhorn Dam to Lock and Dam #1) to determine if improvements in the calibration can be
made.
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) started sampling at eight stations in
this subbasin (30 stations total) in July 1998. This data will be used to give a higher resolution
picture of water quality conditions in the Cape Fear River mainstem as well as in Lick,
Buckhorn, Avents and Buies Creeks. The data will also 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.
Utley Creek
1996 Recommendations
Utley Creek had recommendations that were not specifically linked to an impaired stream.
Because of the high instream waste concentration of Holly Springs WWTP, it was recommended
that a survey be conducted below the discharge to determine water quality impacts.
Current Status
Utley Creek is a low flow stream (7Q10 = 0.11cfs) that currently receives a 0.5 MGD discharge
from the Town of Holly Springs. Water quality data has been collected from a site just below
Thomas Mill Pond (approximately 1 mile below discharge point) as well as other areas of the
watershed. Calculated dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation values exceeded the state standard of
110% in 91 of 218 samples (42%) evaluated from January 1994 to May 1997. In July 1996,
DWQ staff documented an algal bloom in Thomas Mill Pond and a fish kill further downstream.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels at the fish kill site ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l. In summer 1997,
DWQ staff noted a large algal bloom in a waterfowl impoundment downstream of Thomas Mill
Pond. Total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) levels are higher below the Holly Springs
WWTP discharge than in the stream above the discharge. Because of the mostly forested nature
of the Utley Creek watershed and the observations noted above, it is believed that the Holly
Springs WWTP is the major contributor of nutrients to this stream. In summer months, this
discharge can greatly increase the potential for algal blooms and subsequent fish kills.
Section B: Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 156
2000 Recommendations
Utley Creek is currently not rated. Water quality in Utley Creek is marginal with the current
discharge and low impact land uses. Increased flow from the WWTP, as well as the expected
stormwater flow, has the potential to not only increase nutrient loading but also increase
sedimentation and streambank erosion. Land use planning in the watershed that considers water
quality concerns is needed prior to large-scale development projects to minimize runoff effects.
Because of water quality concerns in Utley Creek and the expected urbanization of the Harris
Lake watershed, DWQ recommends that Holly Springs explore other means of sewage disposal
including connection to existing facilities in the area.
Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 157
Chapter 8 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08
East and West Forks of the Deep River and Richland Creek
8.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the piedmont and contains the
City of High Point and portions of Greensboro and
Randleman. A map of the subbasin, including water quality
sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-8.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented in
Table B-8. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for three streams 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.
Land use in the subbasin is a mixture of urban, residential
and agriculture land use. Urban residential land use is
increasing due to growth in both High Point (Richland Creek
and Muddy Creek watersheds) and Greensboro (West Fork
Deep River and Hickory Creek watersheds).
There are 21 small dischargers in this subbasin, but only two
facilities with permitted flows greater than 1 MGD. High
Point Eastside WWTP is permitted to discharge 16 MGD to
Richland Creek, and the Randleman WWTP is permitted to
discharge 1.7 MGD to the Deep River.
The High Point WWTP affects water quality in both
Richland Creek and portions of the Deep River. Both of
these streams, however, are also affected by urban runoff.
Increased development in both High Point and Greensboro
can be expected to have negative effects on the water quality
of small streams in this subbasin.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data indicated stable water quality at most sites in the subbasin since
1993, although Richland Creek declined from Fair in 1993 to Poor in 1998. Low flow in
Hickory Creek and Muddy Creek prevented any assessment of water quality changes at these
sites during 1998. Long-term analysis of data has shown improvements at 3 sites on the Deep
River associated with upgrades of wastewater treatment plants. The most substantial change
occurred for the Deep River at Randleman: Poor in 1985, Fair in 1986 and 1987, Good-Fair in
1993 and 1998.
Subbasin 03-06-08 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 179
Land area: 177
Water area: 2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 101,430 people
Pop. Density: 573 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 58.4
Surface Water: 1.7
Urban: 13.0
Cultivated Crop: 1.5
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 25.4
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 28.3 mi.
Partially Supporting: 22.6 mi.
Not Supporting: 9.0 mi.
Not Rated: 41.4 mi.
Lakes:
High Point Lake -
Fully Supporting
Oak Hollow Lake -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 159
Table B-8 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 East Fork Deep River Guilford SR 1541 Fair Fair
B-3 West Fork Deep River Guilford SR 1850 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-9 Deep River Randolph US 220 Bus Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-11 Richland Creek Guilford SR 1145 Fair Poor
B-12 Hickory Creek Guilford SR 1131 Fair Not Rated
B-13 Muddy Creek Randolph SR 1929 Good-Fair Not Rated
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Richland Creek Guilford SR 1154 no sample Poor
F-2 Muddy Creek Randolph SR 1929 Fair Poor
FISH TISSUE
No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Muddy Creek nr
Glenola
1994 4 0 0 No samples exceeded
criteria
FT-2 Oak Hollow Lake 1998 18 2 0 EPA mercury limit
exceeded in 2 bass 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].
8.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Richland Creek, Deep River and Hickory Creek were identified as impaired in the
1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of Richland Creek, Deep River
and East Fork Deep River 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 8.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 8.4.
Richland Creek
1996 Recommendations
Richland Creek (9.1 miles at SR 1145 near High Point) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. The stream receives a discharge from the High Point Eastside WWTP (16 MGD) which
Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 160
has reported occurrences of dissolved oxygen (DO) below the daily average standard of 5.0 mg/l.
This discharge has also been associated with water quality problems in downstream
impoundments on the Deep River. It was recommended that High Point Eastside WWTP be
issued limits of BOD5 = 5 mg/l and NH3-N = 2 mg/l.
Current Status
High Point Eastside WWTP has passed recent toxicity tests, and DO levels below the standard
have not been detected at the ambient station below the facility. Richland Creek (9.0 miles from
source to Deep River) is currently not supporting (NS) according to recent DWQ monitoring
because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with
High Point urban nonpoint sources and High Point Eastside WWTP is a possible source of
impairment. Richland Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
High Point Eastside WWTP is undergoing an upgrade. High Point will be required to develop
ordinances or modify existing water supply ordinances to protect riparian areas and implement
stormwater management plans. The upgrades to the WWTP should reduce the potential for algal
blooms that have been observed in downstream impoundments on the Deep River. See Section
A, Chapter 4, Part 4.5 for more details regarding Randleman Reservoir. Local efforts to identify
and eliminate the effects of nonpoint source pollution and stormwater surges in this watershed
would help to reduce the potential for impairment to the biological community. The 303(d) list
approach for Richland Creek will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters. A TMDL will be developed to address high levels of
fecal coliform bacteria.
The Piedmont Triad Water Authority has secured CWMTF grant money to protect 100 acres of
riparian buffers along Richland and Muddy Creeks for the protection of water quality in the
proposed Randleman Reservoir. For more information on this project, refer to Section C,
Chapter 1, Part 1.5.2.
Deep River
1996 Recommendations
The Deep River (15.8 miles downstream of Richland Creek) was partially supporting (PS) in the
1996 plan. Because of water quality problems downstream of High Point in the Deep River, it
was recommended that advanced tertiary limits be issued to new and expanding major
discharges. 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. If surface discharge was the most feasible option, then permit limits no less stringent
than BOD5 = 15 mg/l and NH3-N = 4 mg/l were to be applied.
Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 161
Current Status
No new or expanding discharges have been permitted in this segment of the Deep River. (Refer
to discussion on the Randleman Reservoir in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.5.) The lower 2.3
miles of the Deep River in this subbasin are no longer impaired according to recent DWQ
monitoring. Portions of the Deep River (11 miles from High Point dam to SR 1921 in Randolph
County) are currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because of
an impaired biological community. Pollution associated with urban nonpoint sources in
Greensboro and High Point are possible causes of impairment. Fecal coliform bacteria are a
noted problem parameter for 6.8 miles of the Deep River from SR 1113 to SR 1921. The Deep
River is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The City of Greensboro has a stormwater program as part of Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program. The Deep River is downstream of developed areas in Greensboro and should benefit
from the city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). DWQ will work with
the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in these creeks. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.5 for information on ordinances related to stormwater and the
proposed Randleman Reservoir.
The 303(d) list approach for the upper portions of the Deep River will be to resample for
biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters. A TMDL
will be developed to address high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the Deep River from SR
1113 to SR 1921.
Hickory Creek
Current Status
Hickory Creek (4.5 miles from source to Deep River) was partially supporting (PS) according to
DWQ monitoring data from 1993 because of an impaired biological community. Instream
habitat degradation associated with agricultural nonpoint sources is a possible cause of
impairment. Hickory Creek is currently not rated (NR) according to recent DWQ monitoring
because of low flow conditions. The lower portion of Hickory Creek will be inundated by the
Randleman dam project (See Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.5 for more details regarding
Randleman Reservoir). Hickory Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA
approved).
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 162
East Fork Deep River
Current Status
The East Fork Deep River (7.1 miles from source to High Point Lake) is currently partially
supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological
community and violations of the state turbidity standard. Instream habitat degradation associated
with urban nonpoint sources is a possible cause of biological impairment. Fecal coliform
bacteria are also noted as a problem parameter. High turbidity may be from road construction
activities in the watershed. The East Fork Deep River is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not
yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The City of Greensboro has a stormwater program as part of Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program. East Fork Deep River is downstream of developed areas in Greensboro and should
benefit from the city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). DWQ will work
with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in these creeks. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.5 for information on ordinances related to stormwater and the
proposed Randleman Reservoir.
The 303(d) list approach for the upper portions of the East Fork Deep River will be to resample
for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters. A
management strategy will be developed to address high turbidity in East Fork Deep River. A
TMDL will be developed to address high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
8.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are 4 stream segments (31.6 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Segments of Richland Creek, Deep River,
Hickory Creek and East Fork Deep River are discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing
requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
8.4 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
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.
Approximately 50% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). All the waters of the subbasin are affected by nonpoint sources. DENR, other
Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 163
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.
Segments of the Deep River and its headwater tributaries, downstream of impaired segments,
may be affected by urban runoff that has the potential to degrade water quality and instream
habitat. These waters receive runoff from the cities of High Point and Greensboro. Water
quality in the Deep River could be improved by reducing urban runoff.
High Point Lake (also known as City Lake) is used for a water supply and recreation.
Urban/residential areas and pasture/row crop farms dominate the watershed. The two arms of the
lake are fed by the East Fork Deep River and the West Fork Deep River. There have been
frequent public complaints of taste and odor problems from processed drinking water taken from
this lake related to algal blooms. To reduce this problem, the water treatment plant currently
treats the raw water to reduce algae-related taste and odor problems. Typical diurnal effects
(dissolved oxygen and pH) related to algal activity are observed in High Point Lake and a winter
bloom was observed. This winter bloom was investigated and was believed to have been caused
by the use of fertilizer in the watershed as a deicer during a winter ice storm. Water clarity has
decreased since 1984 and is associated with two current highway construction activities (one for
I-40 and the other the Hwy 73/74 Bypass) and algal blooms. There have been no reports of
stressed or dead fish in the lake and no problems with nuisance levels of aquatic macrophytes.
Oak Hollow Lake (also known as High Point Reservoir) is used for boating, fishing and
swimming. The watershed is characterized by urban, residential and some agricultural land uses.
Two 18-hole golf courses adjoin the lake. Conditions in Oak Hollow Lake are similar to those in
High Point Lake. There have been frequent public complaints of taste and odor problems from
processed drinking water taken from this lake related to algal blooms. To reduce this problem,
the water treatment plant currently treats the raw water to reduce algae-related taste and odor
problems, and a destratification system (forced air) is in place in the mainstem of the lake to help
improve the dissolved oxygen levels in the lake. Water clarity has decreased since 1984 and is
associated with increasing urban development and highway construction (the Hwy 73/74 Bypass
under construction will cross over Oak Hollow Lake) and algal blooms.
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.
Section B: Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 164
Muddy Creek
The lower portion of Muddy Creek will be inundated by the Randleman Reservoir. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.5 for information on ordinances related to stormwater and the
proposed Randleman Reservoir.
Although Muddy Creek was not rated (NR) during recent sampling, there have been indications
of high fecal coliform bacteria and some noted problems with aquatic habitats.
Section B: Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 165
Chapter 9 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09
Includes the Deep River, Polecat Creek and Sandy Creek
9.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains approximately 25 miles of the
Deep River from Randleman to the Randolph/Moore
County line. A map of the subbasin, including water
quality sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-9.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-9. 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.
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. Randolph County has large numbers of
registered livestock and animal operations, particularly
cattle and poultry operations.
There are 14 permitted discharge facilities in the subbasin.
Asheboro WWTP is the largest; the remaining discharges
have permitted flows less than 1 MGD.
Water quality data from the Deep River ambient
monitoring stations generally suggest water quality
problems. For example, median conductivity
concentrations are in excess of 200 µmhos/cm at each
location in this subbasin. Higher median nutrient
concentrations and fecal coliform levels are typically
found at the Worthville location. These values decline progressively downstream, suggesting
recovery at downstream locations.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data from the Deep River near Ramseur show long-term
improvements in water quality (since 1985 and 1986 surveys), although no 5-year change in
bioclassification was seen during basinwide surveys between 1993 and 1998. Four other Deep
River locations were sampled in this subbasin as part of intensive investigations of this river.
The results of these investigations have generally indicated long-term improvements in water
quality. Benthic macroinvertebrate data from the most downstream location in Moore County
Subbasin 03-06-09 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 446
Land area: 445
Water area: 1
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 55,755 people
Pop. Density: 125 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 68.7
Surface Water: 0.6
Urban: 1.1
Cultivated Crop: 2.8
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 26.9
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 266.2 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 7.2 mi.
Not Rated: 37.1 mi.
Lakes:
Sandy Creek Reservoir -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 167
Table B-9 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 Deep River Randolph SR 2615 Good-Fair (s) Good-Fair (s)
B-5 Deep River Moore SR 1461 Excellent (s) Excellent (s)
B-7 Polecat Creek Randolph SR 2113 Good (w) Good (w)
B-10 L. Polecat Creek Randolph SR 2108 Not Rated Not Rated
B-16 Sandy Creek Randolph SR 2481 Good (w & s) Excellent (s)
B-19 Richland Creek Randolph SR 2873 Good (s) Excellent (s)
B-21 Brush Creek Randolph NC 22 Good (w) Good (s)
B-24 Flat Creek Randolph SR 2886 Fair (w) Good-Fair (w)
B-25 Fork Creek Randolph SR 2873 Good (w) Good (w)
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Sandy Creek Randolph SR 2481 Good-Fair Good-Fair
FISH TISSUE No. Samples Exceeding
Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Deep River at
Franklinville
1998 15 0 0 EPA mercury limit
exceeded in 1 bass sample
have consistently indicated an Excellent bioclassification, suggesting that the Deep River at this
point has recovered from upstream impacts.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data from tributary streams in this subbasin found improvements at 3
of the 6 sites sampled during 1998. Two of these locations improved from Good to Excellent
(Sandy and Richland Creeks).
Fish tissue samples were collected from the Deep River at Franklinville in 1998 above the
WWTP. Franklinville is located above the Ramseur ambient monitoring location. Fifteen
specimens were analyzed for metal contamination and, in addition, two largemouth bass were
analyzed for chlorinated pesticides and PCBs. These data found that no FDA or EPA criteria
were exceeded.
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].
Section B: Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 168
9.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Flat Creek, Hasketts Creek and an unnamed tributary to Polecat Creek were
identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of
Hasketts 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 9.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 9.4.
Flat Creek
Current Status
Flat Creek (9.5 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Flat Creek (9.5 miles) is
currently fully supporting (FS) according to recent DWQ monitoring. However, this stream is in
a watershed with primarily agricultural land uses and may be subject to further degradation. The
land in this watershed is subject to erosion that can cause instream habitat degradation.
Implementation of agricultural BMPs is encouraged to reduce potential impacts. This stream is
no longer on the 303(d) list.
Hasketts Creek
Current Status
Hasketts Creek (7.2 miles source to Deep River) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan.
This stream is currently not supporting (NS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an
impaired biological community. Runoff associated with the Town of Asheboro is a possible
cause of impairment. Hasketts Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA
approved).
2000 Recommendations
The Town of Asheboro 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 (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). The 303(d) list approach will be
to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem
parameters.
UT to Polecat Creek (Unnamed tributary at Cone Mills Club)
UT to Polecat Creek (1.4 miles) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. The stream had very
low flow during recent monitoring and could not be sampled. New biological information has
determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size of the stream.
This stream is no longer on the 303(d) list.
Section B: Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 169
9.3 303(d) listed Waters
Hasketts Creek (7.2 stream miles) is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved)
and is discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to
Appendix IV.
9.4 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
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.
Approximately 3% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
The Deep River in this subbasin is downstream of impaired segments and may be affected by
urban runoff that has the potential to degrade water quality and instream habitat. Fecal coliform
bacteria, turbidity and nutrients are also noted as potential problem parameters. Addressing
problems upstream would benefit water quality in this segment of the Deep River.
Sandy Creek Reservoir is the water supply for the Town of Ramseur. The watershed is
moderately developed, and land use is mostly characterized by forested and agricultural areas as
well as urban development. There is frequently a problem with taste and odor associated with
water drawn from Sandy Creek Reservoir. Algae and manganese are believed to be the source of
these problems.
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.
Section B: Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 170
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:
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 Asheboro WWTP has expanded capacity (6 MGD to 9 MGD) and is currently in
compliance. There are ongoing efforts to regionalize wastewater treatment in this subbasin.
There are four small dams on the Deep River in this subbasin. The dams slow flow in the river
and increase the potential for algal blooms to occur.
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 discharge 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
Sandy Creek
Ramseur is purchasing conservation easements on riparian corridors of Sandy Creek Reservoir to
protect water quality. The town also received grant money to rehabilitate an existing sewer line.
Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.2 for more information on these projects.
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
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.
Section B: Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 183
Chapter 12 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12
Includes Rocky River, Bear Creek, Tick Creek and Loves Creek
12.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains the entire Rocky River watershed
and is located mainly in Chatham County. Siler City is
the largest community in the subbasin. Streams in this
region are rocky streams characterized by very low base
flows during summer months. Smaller tributaries often
dry up completely during prolonged low flow periods. A
map of the subbasin, including water quality sampling
locations, is presented in Figure B-12.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-12. 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. See Section A, Chapter 3, Table
A-31 for a summary of lakes and reservoirs use support
data.
Land use within this subbasin is primarily forest, although
pasture, cultivated crops, and urban and built-up land uses
also are significant. Chatham County has the largest
number of cattle operations of all counties within the
Cape Fear River basin and is second only to Duplin
County in the number of poultry operations.
There are 4 permitted NPDES dischargers in the subbasin,
and only Siler City WWTP has a permitted flow of 1
MGD or greater.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples have been collected
from three mainstem Rocky River locations in this subbasin. Data collected during recent
investigations (1998 and 1997) found Good-Fair bioclassifications at the two most upstream
locations. An improvement in water quality was found in the Rocky River at US 64 (Fair in
1993 to Good-Fair in 1998). Long-term improvements were found at this site and at the Rocky
River at SR 2170. No change in rating (Good bioclassification) was found at the US 15/501
location, which is near the confluence with the Deep River. Several freshwater mussel species,
which are proposed for state protection, have been collected from the Rocky River. A fish
community sample also was collected from a headwater reach of the Rocky River above the
Subbasin 03-06-12 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 244
Land area: 243
Water area: 1
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 16,015 people
Pop. Density: 66 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 68.9
Surface Water: 0.6
Urban: 1.3
Cultivated Crop: 2.5
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 26.8
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 99.6 mi.
Partially Supporting: 13.4 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.5 mi.
Not Rated: 52.3 mi.
Lakes:
Rocky River Reservoir -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 185
Table B-12 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 Rocky River Chatham US 64 Fair (s) Good-Fair (s)
B-2 Rocky River Chatham SR 2170 Good-Fair (s) Good-Fair (s)
B-4 Rocky River Chatham US 15/501 Good (s) Good (s)
B-8 Tick Creek Chatham SR 2120 no sample Good-Fair (s)
B-10 Harlands Creek Chatham NC 902 no sample Good /Good-Fair
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Rocky River Chatham SR 1300 no sample Fair
F-2 Loves Creek Chatham SR 2229 no sample Good-Fair
F-3 Tick Creek Chatham US 421 Good-Fair ---
F-4 Bear Creek Chatham SR 2187 no sample Good
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples Exceeding
Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Rocky River at
SR 1300
1998 9 0 0 No samples exceeded
criteria
(w) Winter collection, (s) Summer collection
Rocky River Reservoir. A Fair score was given to this location, possibly reflecting the effects of
nonpoint source runoff and enrichment.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from two tributaries during basinwide surveys
in this subbasin. Good-Fair ratings were found at two sites on Tick Creek (a winter survey at US
421 and a summer survey at SR 2120). Although a Poor bioclassification was given to the US
421 site in 1993, a 5-year trend in these data is difficult to determine. Field notes from the 1993
survey indicated that streamflow was reduced, likely affecting benthic macroinvertebrate
community structure rather than water quality. An improvement in bioclassification was seen at
Harlands Creek since 1990, although the difference between surveys was minimal. In addition to
benthic macroinvertebrate data, fish community samples also were collected from two tributary
locations in this subbasin.
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].
12.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Loves Creek, Rocky River and Bear Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of Loves Creek and Rocky River are
currently rated as impaired according to recent DWQ monitoring. Current status of each of these
Section B: Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 186
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 12.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects
are discussed in Part 12.4.
Loves Creek
1996 Recommendations
Loves Creek (6.4 miles from source to Rocky River) was rated partially supporting (PS) above
the Siler City WWTP and not supporting (NS) below the WWTP. Continued monitoring of
Loves Creek was recommended to assess upgrades to the Siler City WWTP.
Current Status
Loves Creek was monitored in 1997, but there were no changes in bioclassifications. Loves
Creek (2.8 miles from US 421 to Siler City WWTP) is partially supporting (PS), and the 0.5-mile
segment below the Siler City WWTP is not supporting (NS) according to recent DWQ
monitoring because of an impaired biological community. The upper segment of Loves Creek is
currently not rated (NR). Pollutants associated with Siler City urban nonpoint sources and the
WWTP discharge are possible causes of impairment. There are also indications of nutrient
enrichment in the lower segment. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet
EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Local initiatives are needed to address urban runoff to Loves Creek. DWQ encourages Siler City
to develop a stormwater program to reduce impacts to urban streams. Siler City WWTP is
currently in compliance with permitted limits (6 mg/l BOD5 and 2 mg/l NH3-N). The 303(d) list
approach for the lower portions of Loves Creek will be to resample for biological and chemical
data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters. The 303(d) list approach for the
upper portion will be to resample the stream to obtain updated use support information.
Rocky River
1996 Recommendations
Rocky River (4.2 miles from dam at Siler City water supply to US 64) was partially supporting
(PS) in the 1996 plan. Follow-up studies were recommended to assess implementation of
minimum releases from the Siler City water supply.
Current Status
Recent sampling indicated a slight improvement in water quality that may be attributed to
increased flow permanence in this segment. (See Section A, Table A-19 for information on
minimum flow studies on the Rocky River.) Also, upgrades in treatment and increased flow
Section B: Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 187
from the Siler City WWTP (Loves Creek) contributed to improved water quality in downstream
segments of the Rocky River. This Rocky River segment is currently fully supporting (FS).
The Rocky River (10.6 miles from source to Rocky River Reservoir) is partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream
habitat degradation associated with agricultural nonpoint sources is a possible cause of
impairment. The Rocky River has a narrow riparian area, and cattle have access to the stream.
There are also indications of nutrient enrichment in this stream. This stream is on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
DWQ encourages the use of agricultural BMPs (including fencing cattle out of stream) to reduce
nutrient delivery and streambank erosion. The 303(d) list approach for this portion of the Rocky
River will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential
problem parameters.
Bear Creek
Current Status
Bear Creek (14.9 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. This stream is currently
not rated (NR). Using new biological information, DWQ has determined that the previous rating
was inappropriate because of the small size of the stream. This stream is no longer on the 303(d)
list.
12.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (17 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). The Rocky River and Loves Creek are discussed
above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
12.4 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
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.
Approximately 1% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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
Section B: Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 188
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.
Tick Creek and Harlands Creek are in agricultural areas, and streams in these watersheds are
subject to erosion and habit degradation from cattle entering streams. Implementation of
agricultural BMPs would reduce potential adverse impacts to these streams.
The Rocky River receives water from agricultural watersheds as well as urban runoff and WWTP
discharge water from Loves Creek. Addressing problems on Loves Creek and implementation of
urban and agricultural BMPs should reduce the potential for adverse impacts in the Rocky River.
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.
Regionalization Efforts
It was recommended that the Pittsboro and Siler City WWTPs encourage the many small single
family discharges to connect to these facilities in order to reduce the number of discharges to
zero flow streams in the subbasin.
The extent of regionalization of wastewater from small discharges is unknown. DWQ continues
to encourage efforts to regionalize wastewater treatment, but because of insufficient staffing,
more regionalization of wastewater treatment has not been pursued.
Section B: Chapter 13 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13 189
Chapter 13 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13
Includes Upper Little River and Barbeque Creek
13.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin lies within the Sand Hills and contains no
urban areas (though Sanford and Lillington are just
outside the subbasin), and most of the land is forested or
used for agriculture. A map of the subbasin, including
water quality sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-
13.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-13. There are no impaired streams in this
subbasin. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and use support ratings.
Three sites were sampled for benthos on the Upper Little
River in the headwaters, the middle section and at the
ambient site near its mouth. The headwater and middle
sites were barely flowing, while the downstream site had
good flow. The benthos ratings indicate a progressive
improvement in water quality going downstream in this
agricultural watershed: Good-Fair to Good to Excellent.
Only the downstream site improved, compared to 1993
when it was Good. Barbeque Creek, a slow-flowing
tributary of the Upper Little River, was given a Good-Fair
bioclassification in 1998; the same rating it had in 1993.
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 03-06-13 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 221
Land area: 219
Water area: 2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 23,913 people
Pop. Density: 109 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 65.2
Surface Water: 2.0
Urban: 1.3
Cultivated Crop: 23.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 8.1
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 151.8 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 27.8 mi.

Section B: Chapter 13 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13 191
Table B-13 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-2 Upper Little River Harnett SR 1222 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-3 Upper Little River Harnett NC 27 Good Good
B-4 Barbeque Creek Harnett SR 1209 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-7 Upper Little River Harnett SR 2021 Good Excellent
13.2 Impaired Waters
All streams in this subbasin were fully supporting (FS) in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan and are currently fully supporting (FS) based on recent DWQ monitoring.
303(d) listed waters are summarized in Part 13.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations
or projects are discussed in Part 13.4.
13.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are no streams 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.
13.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
DWQ encourages the use of voluntary measures to prevent water quality degradation.
Enforcement of sediment and erosion control laws will help to reduce impacts on area streams.
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.
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) started sampling at one station in
this subbasin (30 stations total) in July 1998. This data will be used to give a higher resolution
picture of water quality conditions in the Upper Little River. The data will also 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.
Section B: Chapter 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 192
Chapter 14 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14
Includes Lower Little River, Nicks Creek and Juniper Creek
14.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the Sand Hills and contains the
Little River watershed and the towns of Southern Pines,
Pinehurst and Aberdeen. A map of the subbasin,
including water quality sampling locations, is presented in
Figure B-14.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-14. 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.
The upper portion of this watershed is characterized by
mostly rural areas, though Southern Pines is in the
watershed of Mill Creek. The lower reaches flow through
or near Fort Bragg or the urban areas of Spring Lake and
Fayetteville. The Lower Little River was designated High
Quality Waters (HQW) from its source to Crane Creek,
based on Excellent biological (benthos) data. (Note: This
has always been named the Lower Little River in
biological reports, but the DWQ Schedule of
Classifications refers to it as the (Lower) Little River).
The Lower Little River was sampled for benthos at three
sites. The upper site is in the HQW section of the river
and has rated Excellent, based on benthos data, since first
sampled in 1988. The middle site near Manchester is
below the Fort Bragg WWTP and has improved
dramatically since 1986, when water quality was Fair. The Fort Bragg WWTP completed an
upgrade in 1991, and water quality improved to Good-Fair in 1993 and then to Excellent in 1998.
The most downstream site was rated Excellent in both 1993 and 1998.
Nicks Creek is a headwater tributary that improved from Good in 1993 to Excellent in 1998
based on benthos data. Jumping Run Creek in Cumberland County showed a marked
improvement from a Good-Fair rating in 1993 to Excellent in 1998, based on benthos data. This
Subbasin 03-06-14 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 484
Land area: 478
Water area: 6
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 67,587 people
Pop. Density: 141 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 78.8
Surface Water: 2.2
Urban: 2.4
Cultivated Crop: 8.2
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 8.4
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 274.3 mi.
Partially Supporting: 28.3 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 100.2 mi.
Lakes:
Old Town Reservoir -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 194
Table B-14 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 Nicks Creek Moore NC 22 Good Excellent
B-2 (Lower) Little River Moore SR 2023 Excellent Excellent
B-14 (Lower) Little River Cumberland NC 87/24 Good-Fair Excellent
B-15 (Lower) Little River Cumberland US 401 Excellent Excellent
B-16 Jumping Run Creek Cumberland NC 210 Good-Fair Excellent
B-17 Anderson Creek Harnett SR 2031 Good-Fair Good-Fair
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-3 Crains Creek Moore US 1 no sample Fair
F-5 Buffalo Creek Moore SR 1001 no sample Good-Fair
F-6 Anderson Creek Harnett SR 2031 no sample Fair
was despite poor instream habitat, a very developed nearby watershed, and no apparent changes
in land use since 1993.
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].
14.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Anderson Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Crane Creek is 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 14.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 14.4.
Anderson Creek
Current Status
Anderson Creek (5.5 miles from source to Little River) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. The biological community was impaired. Recent DWQ monitoring data indicate that
Anderson Creek is currently not impaired. Although Anderson Creek is not impaired, it is
recommended that monitoring be continued to identify potential pollutants.
Section B: Chapter 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 195
Crane Creek
Current Status
Crane Creek (28.3 miles from source to Lake Surf) is partially supporting (PS) according to
recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat
degradation associated with agricultural nonpoint sources is a possible cause of impairment.
This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Local initiatives are needed to reduce land use impacts on Crane Creek. DWQ encourages
implementation of agricultural best management practices that reduce potential impacts to
surface waters. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to
attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
14.3 303(d) Listed Waters
Crane Creek is the only stream (28.3 stream miles) in the subbasin that is impaired and on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Crane Creek is discussed above. For
information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
14.4 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
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.
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) started sampling at one station in
this subbasin (30 stations total) in July 1998. This data will be used to give a higher resolution
picture of water quality conditions in the Lower Little River. The data will also 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.
Section B: Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 196
Chapter 15 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15
Includes Cape Fear River, Cross Creek and Rockfish Creek
15.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains the City of Fayetteville as well as
the majority of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The
Cape Fear River flows through Fayetteville in this
subbasin, but most of the subbasin is made up of the
Rockfish Creek and Little Rockfish Creek watersheds. A
map of the subbasin, including water quality sampling
locations, is presented in Figure B-15.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-15. 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. See Section A, Chapter 3, Table
A-31 for a summary of lakes and reservoirs use support
data.
The upper Rockfish Creek site is below the Raeford
WWTP, and benthos bioclassifications improved from
Good-Fair in 1990 to Good in 1993 to Excellent in 1998.
Upgrades in treatment at the WWTP are believed to be
responsible for this improved water quality. The
downstream Rockfish Creek site has been Excellent,
based on benthos data since 1983, except for a slight
decrease to Good in 1993. Little Rockfish Creek was also
sampled above the confluence with Rockfish Creek. Even
though the watershed is urban and agricultural, benthos
ratings in both 1993 and 1998 were Good.
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 03-06-15 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 600
Land area: 595
Water area: 5
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 247,765 people
Pop. Density: 416 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 64.2
Surface Water: 1.6
Urban: 9.9
Cultivated Crop: 14.2
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 10.0
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 283.8 mi.
Partially Supporting: 7.8 mi.
Not Supporting: 13 mi.
Not Rated: 84.0 mi.
Lakes:
Bonnie Doone Lake - Fully
Supporting
Glenville Lake - Fully Supporting
Hope Mills Lake - Fully Supporting
Kornbow Lake - Fully Supporting
Mintz Pond - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 198
Table B-15 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 Cape Fear River Cumberland Person Street Good-Fair Not Rated
B-17 Rockfish Creek Hoke SR 1432 Good Excellent
B-21 Rockfish Creek Cumberland NC 87 Good Excellent
B-25 Little Rockfish Creek Cumberland NC 59 Good Good
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-2 Big Cross Creek Cumberland NC 87/210/24 no sample Poor
F-3 Puppy Creek Hoke SR 1406 no sample Good-Fair
15.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Cross Creek, Little Cross Creek, Pedler Branch and an unnamed tributary to Bones
Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Portions of Cross Creek and Little Cross 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
15.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 15.4.
Cross Creek
Current Status
Cross Creek was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Cross Creek (13 miles from source
to Cape Fear River) is not supporting according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an
impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint
sources is a possible cause of impairment to this stream.
2000 Recommendations
The City of Fayetteville is implementing a state permitted stormwater program. Cross Creek is
in heavily urbanized areas and should benefit from the city stormwater program (see Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). DWQ will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to
improve water quality in this creek. The 303(d) list approach for this stream will be to resample
for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
Section B: Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 199
The Cape Fear River Botanical Garden is stabilizing the streambanks of Cross Creek where it
meets the Cape Fear River main channel. For more information on this project, refer to Section
C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.3.
Little Cross Creek
Current Status
Little Cross Creek was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. Little Cross Creek (7.8 miles from
source to Cross Creek) is currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ
monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation
associated with urban nonpoint sources is a possible cause of impairment to this stream.
2000 Recommendations
The City of Fayetteville is implementing a state permitted stormwater program. Little Cross
Creek is in heavily urbanized areas and should benefit from the city stormwater program (see
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). DWQ will work with the stormwater program, where possible,
to improve water quality in this creek. The 303(d) list approach for this stream will be to
resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
The Fayetteville PWC has established buffers on 101 acres of easements around two of its water
supply reservoirs. The city is also applying for funds to assess pollution hazards in the Little
Cross Creek watershed. Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.3 for more information on these
projects.
Pedler Branch
Current Status
Pedler Branch (2.6 miles) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan. This stream is currently not
rated (NR), although it may be severely impacted by urban nonpoint source pollution including
stormwater surges associated with impervious surfaces in the Town of Raeford. Using new
biological information, DWQ has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate because
of the small size of the stream. This stream is no longer on the 303(d) list.
Unnamed Tributary to Bones Creek
Current Status
UT to Bones Creek was not supporting (NS) 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. This stream is no longer on the 303(d) list.
Section B: Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 200
15.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (20.8 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek are discussed
above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
15.4 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
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.
The Cape Fear River in this subbasin is downstream of many discharges and is affected by
tributaries draining urban areas of the City of Fayetteville.
Puppy Creek is downstream of Fort Bragg and is potentially affected by land-disturbing activities
on the military reservation. Continued monitoring of this stream is recommended to assess the
extent of impacts from land-disturbing activities.
Bonnie Doone Lake is the first in a series of four lakes formed as impoundments of Little Cross
Creek. Fort Bragg Military Base is located in close proximity to Bonnie Doone Lake.
Firebreaks located on the base and the general soil type of the area contribute large amounts of
sediment into the lake through stormwater runoff. To preserve water quality, work has been
done to remove stormwater outlets which had drained into Bonnie Doone Lake.
Kornbow Lake is the second and largest in the series of four impoundments located on Little
Cross Creek. The immediate shoreline of the lake is forested with residential developments
beyond that buffer. Kornbow Lake is 90% infested with variable-leaf water milfoil. However,
because this lake and its watershed are monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, the city is discouraged from removing this plant. To protect Kornbow Lake, 150 acres
in the headwaters have been purchased by the City of Fayetteville with money received from the
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (see Section C, Chapter1, Part 1.5.3). Sanitary sewers and
construction activities have been a threat to the water quality of this lake.
Mintz Pond is a small auxiliary water supply reservoir for the City of Fayetteville located in
Cumberland County. The lake is the third in a series of four impoundments located on Little
Cross Creek and is not open to the public. The immediate shoreline is forested and surrounded
by residential and urban development. Algal blooms have occurred in the past, along with public
complaints regarding odor due to these blooms. Nutrients have entered the lake from a tributary
which drains a small irrigation pond. To correct this problem, the City of Fayetteville has
Section B: Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 201
purchased the pond and is modifying it to prevent future algal blooms. In addition to nutrients
and algal blooms, pesticides and herbicides from the watershed also threaten this lake.
Glenville Lake is a small, backup water supply reservoir for the City of Fayetteville. The lake is
the last in a series of four impoundments of Little Cross Creek. The immediate shoreline is
forested with residential development located along the western side of the lake just beyond the
forest buffer. Sedimentation has been a problem in this lake, and the lake is gradually filling in.
There has also been a problem with unsupervised public access to the lake and removal of
riparian buffers in a city park located in the upstream region of the lake. A stormwater
management program is operated by the City of Fayetteville; however, stormwater continues to
present a water quality problem for this lake.
Hope Mills Lake is a small, shallow, recreational reservoir located on Little Rockfish Creek in
the Town of Hope Mills. The lake drainage area is mostly forested with some urban and
agricultural uses. There have been numerous public complaints regarding odor at the dam and at
the swimming beach, although there have been no reports of human health problems due to
swimming in the lake. Fecal coliform bacteria may be a problem at the swimming beach and
boat dock area due to waterfowl in these areas.
Approximately 7% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) started sampling at seven stations in
this subbasin (30 stations total) in July 1998. This data will be used to give a higher resolution
picture of water quality conditions in the Cape Fear River mainstem and Rockfish Creek. The
data will also 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.
Cape Fear River from Erwin to Lock and Dam #3
1996 Recommendations
A field-calibrated QUAL2E model developed during the first basinwide planning cycle indicated
that assimilative capacity for oxygen-consuming wastes had been reached in the segment of the
Cape Fear River from Erwin to Lock and Dam #3. It was recommended that new and expanding
discharges conduct engineering alternatives and economic analyses. If no alternatives were
feasible, then limits would be required as follows:
Section B: Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 202
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New industrial discharges: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Expanding industrial discharges: best available technology or BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
2000 Recommendations
Limits recommended in the 1996 plan were made to protect dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the
river. These limits will continue to be recommended with the exception that new and expanding
municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD will be given limits of BOD5 = 5 mg/l and NH3-N = 1
mg/l. This is now considered BAT for this discharger category. Recommended limits for other
facilities are as follows:
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1 mg/l
New industrial discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1 mg/l
New industrial discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Expanding industrial discharges: site specific best available technology or
BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) and DWQ continue to collect data in
this segment of the Cape Fear River. There are indications that algal productivity influences
dissolved oxygen (DO) dynamics in this segment of the Cape Fear River.
DWQ will be reviewing the exisiting QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear River mainstem (from
Buckhorn Dam to Lock and Dam #1) to determine if improvements in the calibration can be
made.
Section B: Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 203
Chapter 16 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16
Includes Cape Fear River, Harrison Creek and Turnbull Creek
16.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the inner coastal plain and
contains the City of Elizabethtown. The Cape Fear River
in this subbasin is deep and slow moving, with two locks
to aid in navigation. The Bladen Lakes State Park, which
includes several natural lakes, is located in this subbasin.
The streams and many of the natural bay lakes within this
subbasin are tannin-stained or low pH blackwaters. Land
use in the subbasin is mostly forest and marsh with some
agriculture. A map of the subbasin, including water
quality sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-16.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-16. 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.
There are eight permitted dischargers in this subbasin,
mostly near Elizabethtown. Four of the largest
dischargers, Veeder-Root, Smithfield Foods Incorporated
in Tar Heel, Alamac Knit Fabrics in Elizabethtown, and
Dupont of Fayetteville, discharge into the Cape Fear
River.
Of the 68 fish tissue samples analyzed since 1994, seven
samples exceeded the EPA mercury limit. These samples
were from bass, bowfin and catfish. Only one bowfin
sample exceeded the FDA/NC mercury limit.
Of the five sites sampled in both 1993 and 1995 for benthos, three improved in bioclassification
and the others remained the same. Two of the three Cape Fear River sites, the Cape Fear River
near Duarte and the Cape Fear River near Kelly, increased from Fair to Good-Fair. The Cape
Fear River at Elizabethtown remained the same (Good-Fair), as did Ellis Creek (Good-Fair).
Harrison Creek also increased from Fair to Good-Fair between 1993 and 1995. Turnbull Creek,
with a Good bioclassification, had the best water quality in this subbasin.
Subbasin 03-06-16 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 438
Land area: 430
Water area: 8
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 14,811 people
Pop. Density: 34 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 78.7
Surface Water: 2.5
Urban: 0.6
Cultivated Crop: 12.7
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 5.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 240.8 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 8.5 mi.
Not Rated: 11.8 mi.
Lakes:
Jones Lake - Fully Supporting
Salters Lake - Fully Supporting
White Lake - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 205
Table B-16 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 Cape Fear River Bladen SR 1355 nr Duarte Fair Good-Fair
B-4 Cape Fear River Bladen nr Elizabethtown Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-5 Ellis Creek Bladen NC 53 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-6 Harrison Creek Bladen SR 1318 Fair Good-Fair
B-7 Turnbull Creek Bladen SR 1511 no sample Good
B-8 Cape Fear River Bladen SR 1730 nr Kelly Fair Good-Fair
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Harrison Creek Bladen SR 1318 Good-Fair Good-Fair
F-2 Browns Creek Bladen NC 87 Poor Poor
F-3 Turnbull Creek Bladen NC 242 no sample Fair
F-4 Whites Creek Bladen SR 1704 no sample Good
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
1994 21 2 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 1
bass/1 bowfin samples
1995 8 3 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 3
bowfin samples; FDA/NC mercury
limit exceeded in 1 bowfin sample
FT-1 Cape Fear River
at Elizabethtown
1998 19 1 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 1
bass sample
FT-2 Cape Fear at
Lock and Dam 3
1998 10 0 0 No samples exceeded criteria
FT-3 Cape Fear at
Lock and Dam 2
1998 10 01 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 1
catfish sample
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].
16.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Turnbull Creek and Harrisons Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Browns Creek is 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 16.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 16.4.
Section B: Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 206
Turnbull Creek
Current Status
Turnbull Creek (27.8 miles from source to Cape Fear River) was partially supporting (PS) in the
1996 plan. Turnbull Creek is a swamp water with a naturally low pH. This stream is currently
fully supporting (FS) according to recent DWQ monitoring and no longer on the state’s 303(d)
list. Streams in this watershed are subject to erosion and instream habitat degradation.
Agricultural BMPs are encouraged to reduce potential for adverse impacts.
Harrisons Creek
Current Status
Harrisons Creek (27.4 miles from source to Cape Fear River) was partially supporting (PS) in the
1996 plan. Harrisons Creek is a swamp water with a naturally low pH. This stream is currently
fully supporting (FS) according to recent DWQ monitoring and no longer on the state’s 303(d)
list. Streams in this watershed are subject to erosion and instream habitat degradation.
Agricultural BMPs are encouraged to reduce potential for adverse impacts.
Browns Creek
Current Status
Browns Creek (8.5 miles from source to Cape Fear River) is not supporting (NS) according to
recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Urban nonpoint sources
and sanitary sewer overflows from the City of Elizabethtown are possible sources of impairment.
This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Local initiatives are needed to improve water quality in Browns Creek. DWQ encourages
development of a land use plan that protects water quality in this stream.
Sanitary sewer overflows have not been a continuing problem for the City of Elizabethtown.
Three overflows coincided with DWQ monitoring and may have affected the rating. Continued
monitoring is recommended to determine if Browns Creek is recovering from the sewer
overflows and to determine the nature of nonpoint sources. The 303(d) list approach for these
two streams will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to determine
potential problem parameters.
16.3 303(d) Listed Waters
Browns Creek (8.5 stream miles) is the only impaired stream in this subbasin and is on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Browns Creek is discussed above. For
information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section B: Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 207
16.4 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
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.
Approximately 1% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). 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.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains five sampling stations in this subbasin that are
used along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin. Refer
to Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA)
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) started sampling at seven stations in
this subbasin (30 stations total) in July 1998. This data will be used to give a higher resolution
picture of water quality conditions in the Cape Fear River mainstem and Rockfish Creek. The
data will also 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.
Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #3 to Lock and Dam #1
A field-calibrated QUAL2E model developed during the first basinwide planning cycle indicated
that assimilative capacity for oxygen-consuming wastes had been reached in the Cape Fear River
from Erwin to Lock and Dam #3. It was recommended that new and expanding discharges
conduct engineering alternatives and economic analyses. If no alternatives were feasible, then
limits would be required as follows:
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l
New industrial discharges: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Section B: Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 208
Expanding industrial discharges: best available technology or BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
2000 Recommendations
Limits recommended in the 1996 plan were made to protect dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the
river. These limits will continue to be recommended with the exception that new and expanding
municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD will be given limits of BOD5 = 5 mg/l and NH3-N =
1mg/l. This is now considered BAT for this discharger category. Recommended limits for other
facilities are as follows:
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1mg/l
New industrial discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1 mg/l
New industrial discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Expanding industrial discharges: site specific best available technology or
BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) and DWQ continue to collect data in
this segment of the Cape Fear River. There are indications that algal productivity influences
dissolved oxygen (DO) dynamics in this segment of the Cape Fear River.
DWQ will be reviewing the exisiting QUAL2E model for the Cape Fear River mainstem (from
Buckhorn Dam to Lock and Dam #1) to determine if improvements in the calibration can be
made.
Suggs Mill Pond Land Acquisition
The WRC acquired 9,000 acres of land in the Bladen Lakes Management Region. Refer to
Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.4 for more information on this project.
Section B: Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 209
Chapter 17 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17
Includes Town Creek, Smith Creek and the Brunswick River
17.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the outer Coastal Plain and in
estuarine regions of the basin. The subbasin contains the
City of Wilmington and the Town of Southport. Most
tributaries in this subbasin are backwater and slow moving
or tidal. A map of the subbasin, including water quality
sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-17.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-17. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for one stream and 7,211 acres of impaired
estuarine waters in this subbasin. A summary of use
support ratings for estuarine waters is presented in Table
A-32. 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.
Forest and agriculture are the primary land uses; however,
Wilmington and surrounding suburban areas also
contribute to nonpoint source pollution. There are 49
permitted dischargers in the subbasin; half of which
discharge directly into the Cape Fear River. Ten of these
are major dischargers (>1 MGD), with the largest
dischargers being International Paper, Wilmington North
Side WWTP and Wilmington South Side WWTP.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data indicated improved water
quality at sites most affected by nonpoint sources during
this low flow year. Excellent (using draft criteria)
conditions were recorded from the Cape Fear River above
International Paper. The Cape Fear River below the
Federal Paper discharge showed no change in water
quality since the last sampling. A Good-Fair rating was
assigned to Livingston Creek, up from Fair in 1993. In
the estuarine area, water quality has remained stable at
Cape Fear River at Snows Marsh with only Moderate
impacts.
Subbasin 03-06-17 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 547
Land area: 498
Water area: 49
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 56,467 people
Pop. Density: 113 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 74.7
Surface Water: 9.3
Urban: 4.1
Cultivated Crop: 7.6
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 4.3
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 251.5 mi.
Partially Supporting: 3.8 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 65.5 mi.
Estuarine Waters:
Fully Supporting: 16,314 ac.
Partially Supporting: 7,211 ac.
Not Supporting: 0.0 ac.
Not Rated: 925 ac.
Lakes:
Greenfield Lake - Not Rated
Boiling Springs Lake -
Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 211
Table B-17 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 Cape Fear River Columbus ab Federal Paper Good-Fair Excellent
B-2 Cape Fear River Columbus be Federal Paper Fair Fair
B-3 Livingston Creek Columbus US 74 Fair Good-Fair
B-5 Hood Creek Brunswick US 74/76 no sample Good
B-9 Barnards Creek Brunswick US 421 no sample Fair-Good
B-10 Town Creek Brunswick ab SR 1413 no sample Good-Fair
B-11 Lewis Swamp Brunswick SR 1410 no sample Good-Excellent
B-18 Cape Fear River Brunswick Snows Marsh Moderate Moderate
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Cape Fear River
at Riegelwood
1998 23 8 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 4
bowfin and 4 bass samples;
FDA/NC mercury limit exceeded
in 1 bass sample
FT-2 Livingston Creek
near Acme
1998 20 11 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 11
samples of bass, bowfin, pickerel;
FDA/NC mercury limit exceeded
in 3 samples of bass and bowfin
FT-3 Cape Fear River
below Riegelwood
1994 15 3 0 EPA and FDA/NC mercury limit
exceeded in 3 bowfin samples
The highest incidence of elevated mercury in fish tissue was in Livingston Creek. Over half of
the fish tested, including bass, bowfin and pickerel, had levels of mercury above EPA limits.
Samples from the Cape Fear River near Riegelwood found lower, but still significant levels of
mercury in bass and bowfin tissues.
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].
17.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Livingston Creek, the Cape Fear River and estuarine areas were identified as
impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of the Cape Fear
River and estuarine areas 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 17.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 17.4.
Section B: Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 212
Livingston Creek
Current Status
Livingston Creek (22.2 miles from source to Cape Fear River) was partially supporting (PS) in
the upper segment and not supporting (NS) in the lower segment in the 1996 Cape Fear River
Basinwide Plan. This stream is currently fully supporting (FS). The bioclassification improved
from Fair to Good-Fair for 1993 to 1998. Livingston Creek is no longer on the 303(d) list.
DWQ will continue to monitor this stream to determine the extent of impacts from both point
and nonpoint sources.
Cape Fear River (near Neils Eddy Landing, International Paper)
Current Status
The Cape Fear River (near Neils Eddy Landing) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan.
The Cape Fear River (3.8 miles near Neils Eddy Landing) is currently partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. The
International Paper Board discharge and nonpoint source pollution are possible causes of
impairment. This segment is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters. The International Paper discharge will also be
monitored to determine the extent of impacts to this segment and other segments of the Cape
Fear River in this subbasin. See Part 17.4 below for recommendations for the Cape Fear River
mainstem that include this impaired section and the rest of the mainstem in this subbasin.
The Cape Fear River Estuary
Current Status
The Cape Fear River Estuary (5000 acres) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan because
of low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO). This same area is currently partially supporting (PS)
and is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). The cumulative impacts from
WWTP discharges in the subbasin as well as nonpoint source pollution are suspected to be
significant contributors to the impairment. Swamp water drainage may also be a source of low
DO waters feeding into the estuary. Possible sources of nonpoint source pollution include
marinas, canal systems and septic systems.
2000 Recommendations
See Part 17.4 below for recommendations for the Cape Fear River mainstem that include this
impaired section and the rest of the mainstem in this subbasin.
Section B: Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 213
Other Estuarine Waters in Subbasin 03-06-17
Current Status
There are 2,211 acres of impaired estuarine waters (Southport, Buzzard Bay, The Basin and the
Cape Fear River) in the subbasin according to recent DWQ and DEH Shellfish Sanitation Section
monitoring (not including 5,000 acres of Cape Fear River Estuary discussed above). These
waters have been closed to shellfishing by the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) based on
recommendations by Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Sanitation Section. DEH
regulations specify closure of growing areas when fecal coliform bacteria levels exceed 14
colonies per 100 ml of water. These waters are on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA
approved). Recommendations for improving water quality in these waters are discussed below.
Refer to Table A-32 for overall use support ratings for estuarine areas and Figure A-16 for a map
of DEH shellfish growing areas.
2000 Recommendations
In the Cape Fear River basin, there are a variety of activities that contribute to the degradation
and impairment of shellfish waters. These include, but are not limited to, urban stormwater
runoff, failing septic tanks, channelized waters, draining wetlands and marinas. Management of
various land use activities is needed to decrease fecal coliform bacteria levels in shellfish
growing areas, thereby, decreasing the acreage closed to harvesting.
Refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.14 for further recommendations regarding shellfish growing
areas.
17.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There is one stream segment (3.8 stream miles) one lake and 7,211 acres of estuarine waters in
the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
The Cape Fear River and impaired estuarine areas are discussed above. For information on
303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
17.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
Approximately 45% 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.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains several sampling stations in this subbasin that
are used along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin.
Section B: Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 214
This data is also being used to support modeling in the Cape Fear River Estuary. Refer to
Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
Mercury Advisories
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. See Section A, Chapter 4, Part
4.11 for information on Hurricane Fran in 1996.
Greenfield Lake
Greenfield Lake is owned by the City of Wilmington and was built before 1750. Originally a
cypress swamp, the lake was impounded to provide water for milling and irrigation for the
Greenfields Plantation that surrounded it. The city encompasses the lake and its watershed.
Greenfield Lake is currently swampy and cypress-filled. The City of Wilmington no longer
dredges the lake, but is treating the aquatic macrophytes with chemicals and grass carp. In the
summer of 1998, there was a fish kill in Greenfield Lake following a rainfall event. Significant
beds of submerged filamentous algae and floating mats of duckweed (Lemna sp.) and watermeal
(Wolffia sp.) were observed at nuisance levels in the lake in 1998. The filamentous algae in the
lake also appeared to be worse in 1998, as compared with previous years, while the clarity of the
water in the lake appeared to have improved in the past few years. Greenfield Lake is currently
not rated (NR) but is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved) because of
aquatic weeds and nutrient enrichment.
Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #1 to the lower Cape Fear River Estuary
1996 Recommendations
Because of documented water quality problems related to low dissolved oxygen (DO) in the
Cape Fear River below Lock and Dam #1, all new and expanding discharges will be required to
complete an engineering alternatives and economic analysis. If no other alternatives are found to
be feasible, then a detailed evaluation of the potential impact of the discharge will be required
and recommended summer permitted limits will be as follows:
Section B: Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 215
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l
New industrial discharges: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Expanding industrial discharges: best available technology or BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
It was also recommended that Arcadian and Wilmington Northside WWTP change from Whole
Effluent Toxicity test procedure to 24-hour acute toxicity test at 90% effluent concentration.
These discharges are now using this toxicity test.
2000 Recommendations
The impaired segments are discussed above in Part 17.2. The 303(d) list approach will be to
develop a TMDL for this segment of the Cape Fear River because of low dissolved oxygen (DO)
levels. A TMDL is currently under development in cooperation with the Lower Cape Fear River
Program (Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.5) and the interested stakeholders. Because of the nature
of the river/estuary system in this portion of the Cape Fear River basin, addressing water quality
issues must not be limited to problems detected in impaired segments alone. Until an EPA
approved TMDL to address low DO is in place to guide wasteload allocation decisions in this
portion of the Cape Fear River and Cape Fear River Estuary, recommended summer limits for
oxygen consuming wastes for new and expanding discharges will be as follows:
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
New and expanding municipal/domestic discharges 1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1mg/l
New industrial discharges: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Expanding industrial discharges: site specific best available technology or
BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l
Because this segment of the Cape Fear River and Cape Fear River Estuary is impaired and on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved), issuance of permits for new and expanding
discharges that would further increase the load of oxygen-consuming waste into these waters will
be carefully considered on a case by case basis.
For information on model development in this segment of the Cape Fear River estuary, see
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.6.
Coastal Urban and Recreation BMP Demonstration Project
This project will evaluate and implement BMPs to protect coastal waters impaired by
development. For more information on this project, refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.4.
Section B: Chapter 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 216
Chapter 18 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18
Includes the South River and Big Creek
18.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the inner coastal plain and
contains the cities of Dunn and Roseboro. Major
tributaries of the Cape Fear River in this subbasin include
the South River and Black River (Little Black River).
The South River below Big Swamp was designated an
outstanding resource water (ORW) in 1994. Land use in
this subbasin is primarily agriculture in the form of animal
operations (mostly hog farms). Streams in this subbasin
are characterized as slow-moving blackwater swamp
streams. There are 3 permitted dischargers in the
subbasin, none with a design flow >0.05 MGD. A map of
the subbasin, including water quality sampling locations,
is presented in Figure B-18.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-18. Refer to Appendix III for a complete
listing of monitored waters and use support ratings. Bay
Tree Lake is partially supporting. See Section A, Chapter
3, Table A-31 for a summary of lakes and reservoirs use
support data.
The benthic site on the South River near Parkersburg has
consistently received a rating of either Good or Excellent
since 1983. Fish tissue samples collected from the South
River in 1998 contained significant mercury levels.
Elevated mercury was measured in multiple species
including warmouth, suckers, pickerel, perch and bass.
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 03-06-18 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 495
Land area: 493
Water area: 2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 39,895 people
Pop. Density: 81 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 56.1
Surface Water: 1.3
Urban: 1.7
Cultivated Crop: 34.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 165.9 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 113.7 mi.
Lakes:
Bay Tree Lake - Partially Supporting

Section B: Chapter 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 218
Table B-18 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-3 South River Bladen SR 1502, nr Parkersburg Good Good
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples Exceeding
Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 South River
near NC 701
1998 20 16 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded
in 16 samples of multiple
species; FDA/NC mercury
limit exceeded in 6 samples
18.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of the South River and Black River (Little Black) were identified as impaired in the
1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Bay Tree Lake is 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 18.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects
are discussed in Part 18.4.
South River
Current Status
The South River (7.2 miles from source to NC 13) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. This river segment was not sampled by DWQ during recent monitoring because of low
flow conditions. This segment of the South River is currently not rated (NR) but remains on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). A downstream segment (SR 1502, near
Parkersburg) is not impaired.
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample this segment of the river to obtain updated use
support information.
Black River (Little Black)
Current Status
The Black River (Little Black) (from Dunn to I-95) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. The river was not sampled by DWQ during recent monitoring because of low flow
Section B: Chapter 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 219
conditions. This segment of the Black River (Little Black) is currently not rated (NR) but
remains on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample the river to obtain updated use support information.
Fish tissue samples will be collected to determine if mercury contamination is a problem in this
segment of the river.
Bay Tree Lake
Current Status
Bay Tree Lake (1,400 acres) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. The lake is
currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring. Bay Tree Lake (also
called Black Lake) is a shallow, natural lake located in the Coastal Plain near Elizabethtown.
The lake is located in Bay Tree State Park and is owned by the State of North Carolina. Typical
of Carolina Bay Lakes, Bay Tree Lake receives no significant overland inflows. Bay Tree Lake
has a network of drainage canals built on its northern and eastern shores. The surrounding land
is primarily flat, composed of wetlands and upland forests. Bay Tree Lake is used for fishing
and boating. A private residential community is located along the northern and northeastern
shoreline of the lake. The lake is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
Because Bay Tree Lake is dystrophic, a trophic status of the lake cannot be accurately
determined through the NCTSI scores (see Appendix III). Bay Tree Lake has experienced a die-
off of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) every summer due to long-term exposure to the naturally
low pH waters of the lake. There have been no increases in aquatic macrophytes or algae in
recent years, nor have there been any public complaints regarding problems related to swimming
in the lake.
2000 Recommendations
In 1994, a "No Consumption" advisory was placed on largemouth bass and bowfin. The
advisory remains in effect. These species have been found to contain elevated levels of mercury
(NCDEHNR, June 1997). The 303(d) list approach will to develop a TMDL for mercury.
18.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two stream segments (102.5 stream miles) and one lake (1,400 acres) in the subbasin
that are impaired and on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Bay Tree
Lake, the South River and the Black River (Little Black) are discussed above. Portions of the
South River are not impaired; however, because of fish consumption advisories, this 70.9-mile
segment is on the 303(d) list (see Part 18.4 below). For information on 303(d) listing
requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section B: Chapter 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 220
18.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
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.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains three sampling stations in this subbasin that are
used along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin. Refer
to Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
Mercury Advisories
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
Largemouth bass, bowfin and chain pickerel in the South River and the Black River just below
the South River contain higher than normal levels of mercury. Consumption of bass, bowfin and
chain pickerel should be limited to no more than two meals per person per month. Women of
childbearing age and children should eat no bass, bowfin or chain pickerel taken from this area
until further notice. Swimming, boating and other recreational activities are not affected by this
advisory.
DWQ is continuing to sample fish tissue in eastern North Carolina.
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11.
Black and South River Riparian Protection
The Nature Conservancy has acquired a 295-acre tract in the Black River watershed ORW to
demonstrate how the riparian buffer protects the river from nonpoint source pollution. Refer to
Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.5 for more information on this project.
Section B: Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 221
Chapter 19 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19
Includes the Black River, Six Runs Creek and Great Coharie Creek
19.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the coastal plain. The Black
River and Six Runs Creek, below Quewhiffle Swamp,
were designated ORW in 1994. Land adjacent to the
Black River is primarily undisturbed forest. A map of the
subbasin, including water quality sampling locations, is
presented in Figure B-19.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-19. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for a portion of one stream. Refer to Appendix III
for a complete listing of monitored waters and use support
ratings.
This subbasin has a very high concentration of hog farms.
The Town of Clinton is the largest developed area within
this subbasin. There are 7 permitted dischargers in this
subbasin, the largest of which is the Town of Clinton
WWTP.
Analysis of monitoring data has been complicated by the
de-snagging of these streams as part of the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program. This program,
administered by the USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), provides technical and
financial assistance to preserve life and property
threatened by excessive erosion and flooding. Streams appeared to be totally de-snagged at
sampling sites. This makes it difficult to determine whether any changes that may have occurred
in the macroinvertebrate community were due to changes in water quality or lack of suitable
habitat (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11).
Both Great Coharie Creek and Six Runs Creek showed decreased water quality between 1993
and 1998. All the streams in this subbasin have many hog farms in their watersheds. The Black
River has maintained a rating of Excellent since 1985; however, some pollution intolerant
macroinvertebrate species were not collected in 1998 that were found in earlier samplings.
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 03-06-19 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 739
Land area: 737
Water area: 2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 40,575 people
Pop. Density: 55 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 53.5
Surface Water: 0.5
Urban: 1.3
Cultivated Crop: 34.0
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 10.7
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 452.1 mi.
Partially Supporting: 15.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 40.2 mi.

Section B: Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 223
Table B-19 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 Great Coharie Creek Sampson SR 1214 Good Good-Fair
B-3 Little Coharie Creek Sampson SR 1214 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-6 Six Runs Creek Sampson SR 1960 Excellent Good
B-12 Black River Sampson NC 411 Excellent Excellent
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples Exceeding
Criteria
Station Description
Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Black River
near Ivanhoe
1995 7 3 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded
in 3 bowfin samples
19.2 Impaired Waters
There were no impaired streams identified in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Stewarts Creek is 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 19.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 19.4.
Stewarts Creek
Current Status
Stewarts Creek (15.0 miles from source to Six Runs Creek) is currently partially supporting (PS)
according to DWQ monitoring in 1996 because of an impaired biological community. Nonpoint
source pollution resulting from Hurricane Fran is a possible cause of the impairment. This
sample was taken after the hurricane, but before de-snagging operations had started. Stewarts
Creek is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
The Town of Magnolia discharges into an unnamed tributary to Millers Creek, which flows into
Millers Creek before entering Stewarts Creek downstream of Warsaw. The Magnolia WWTP
has had problems with effluent toxicity, and UT Millers Creek has received a large amount of
sludge since 1998. The problems with the WWTP are related to inflow and infiltration (I&I).
The WWTP has been fined monthly since November 1999. DWQ staff are working with this
facility to quickly address the collection system problems. Magnolia WWTP is replacing several
thousand feet of sewer line that have caused the problems. Millers Creek and UT Millers Creek
are currently not rated (NR).
Section B: Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 224
2000 Recommendations
Because of the timing of the sampling and hurricane impacts, Stewarts Creek will continue to be
monitored to assess impacts and recovery from the hurricane. The 303(d) list approach will be to
resample the stream to obtain updated use support information. Monitoring of the Magnolia
WWTP discharge will continue as repairs are made to the sewer system.
19.3 303(d) Listed Waters
Stewarts Creek is the only stream (15 stream miles) in the subbasin that is impaired and on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Stewarts Creek is discussed above. For
information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
19.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
The following surface waters are 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 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.
Portions of Great Coharie Creek, Little Coharie Creek, Six Runs Creek and Crane Creek were
impacted during Hurricane Fran in 1996. These streams were also subject to massive de-
snagging operations after the storm (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11). Because this region is
regularly impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms, it is recommended that further monitoring
be conducted to evaluate the post-hurricane recovery of macroinvertebrates. Monitoring is
recommended to determine the impacts of de-snagging operations that remove important habitat
in these waters.
Approximately 3% 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.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains three sampling stations in this subbasin that are
used along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin. Refer
to Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
Section B: Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 225
Mercury Advisories
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11.
Section B: Chapter 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 226
Chapter 20 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20
Includes the Black River, Colly Creek and Moores Creek
20.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the coastal plain. The subbasin
contains no major urban areas, but includes the towns of
White Lake, Currie and Atkinson. White Lake WWTP is
the only permitted discharger in the subbasin.
The characteristics of streams in this subbasin are typical
of most coastal plain areas: low geographic relief, low pH
blackwaters, and a tendency for all but the largest rivers to
stop flowing in summer. The Black River in this area has
been classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
Agriculture is the major land use, and nonpoint source
pollution is the major water quality problem, especially in
the tributaries. A map of the subbasin, including water
quality sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-20.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-20. The current sampling resulted in no
streams being rated as impaired. 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.
Water quality in this subbasin appears to be generally
good. Benthic macroinvertebrate data indicate stable
water quality in the Black River for nearly a decade.
Tributaries to the Black River stop flowing in the
summer, so water quality assessments of tributary streams
were conducted in the winter. Fair conditions were
recorded at the Lyons Swamp Canal, mostly as a result of habitat degradation and heavy
agricultural land use. Moore Creek had Good water quality due to its relatively undisturbed local
land use and the generally lower levels of agricultural intensity in the watershed.
Fish community data were collected from Colly Creek and White Oak Branch. Fish tissue data
from the Black River show elevated levels of mercury in most bowfin and bass; similar levels
have been observed throughout the coastal plain.
Subbasin 03-06-20 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 343
Land area: 338
Water area: 5
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 5,231 people
Pop. Density: 15 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 77.9
Surface Water: 0.8
Urban: 0.2
Cultivated Crop: 18.0
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 3.1
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 142.5 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 35.7 mi.
Lakes:
Singletary Lake - Fully Supporting

Section B: Chapter 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 228
Table B-52 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-2 Black River Bladen NC 11 nr Atkinson Good Good
B- Moores Creek Bladen NC 53 no sample Good
B- Lyons Swamp Canal Bladen NC 11 no sample Fair
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993/1994 1998
F-1 Colly Creek Bladen US 701 --- Good-Fair
F-2 White Oak Branch Pender SR 1206 --- Good-Fair
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Black River
near Atkinson
1994 20 13 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 13
samples of bass or bowfin;
FDA/NC mercury limit also
exceeded in 3 bowfin
Black River
near Atkinson
1998 36 26 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 26
samples; FDA/NC mercury limit
also exceeded in 12 samples
FT-2 Black River
at NC 210
1995 6 4 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in 4
bowfin samples; FDA/NC mercury
limit also exceeded in 1 bowfin
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].
20.2 Impaired Waters
There were no waters identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. There are currently no waters rated as impaired according to recent DWQ
monitoring. Waters with other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 20.4.
20.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are no streams in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list
(not yet EPA approved). Portions of the Black River are not impaired; however, because of fish
consumption advisories, this 34.5-mile segment is on the 303(d) list (see Part 20.4 below). For
information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section B: Chapter 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 229
20.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
The following surface waters are 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 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.
Portions of Colly Creek and White Oak Branch were impacted during Hurricane Fran in 1996.
These streams were also subject to massive de-snagging operations after the storm (see Section
A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11). Because this region is regularly impacted by hurricanes and tropical
storms, it is recommended that further monitoring be conducted to evaluate the post-hurricane
recovery of macroinvertebrates.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains one sampling station in this subbasin that is used
along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin. Refer to
Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
Mercury Advisories
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
Largemouth bass, bowfin and chain pickerel in the South River and the Black River just below
the South River contain higher than normal levels of mercury. Consumption of bass, bowfin and
chain pickerel should be limited to no more than two meals per person per month. Women of
childbearing age and children should eat no bass, bowfin or chain pickerel taken from this area
until further notice. Swimming, boating and other recreational activities are not affected by this
advisory.
Section B: Chapter 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 230
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11.
Section B: Chapter 21 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21 231
Chapter 21 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21
Includes the Northeast Cape Fear River and Barlow Branch
21.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the inner coastal plain and
contains the headwaters of the Northeast Cape Fear River
and its tributaries. Most of this subbasin is in northern
Duplin County, with approximately one-third of the
subbasin in southern Wayne County. Land use is
primarily agriculture. The only town in this area is Mount
Olive. The only significant dischargers in this subbasin
are Mount Olive Pickle Company and the Town of Mount
Olive. Due to lack of flow, no sites were sampled for
macroinvertebrates in 1998. Fish community sampling
gave Matthews Creek a Good rating. A map of the
subbasin, including water quality sampling locations, is
presented in Figure B-21.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-21. The current sampling resulted in no
impaired ratings for streams in this subbasin. Refer to
Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters
and use support ratings.
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].
Table B-21 Biological Assessment Site in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993/1994 1998
F-1 Matthews Creek Duplin NC 111/903 --- Good
Subbasin 03-06-21 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 119
Land area: 119
Water area: 0
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 7,582 people
Pop. Density: 64 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 46.5
Surface Water: 0.2
Urban: 0.8
Cultivated Crop: 45.2
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 7.3
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 69.3 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 4.3 mi.
Not Rated: 6.8 mi.

Section B: Chapter 21 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21 233
21.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of the Northeast Cape Fear River and Barlow Branch were identified as impaired in the
1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of the Northeast Cape Fear River
and Barlow Branch 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 21.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 21.4.
Northeast Cape Fear River and Barlow Branch
Current Status
Barlow Branch (1.1 miles form source to Northeast Cape Fear River) was not supporting (NS),
and Northeast Cape Fear River (4.9 miles from source to NC 403) was not supporting (NS) and
partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. The discharge from the Mount Olive Pickle Company
was the cause of impairment. Biological monitoring data were not collected in these two streams
during recent DWQ sampling because of low flow conditions. Ambient water quality data
(Northeast Cape Fear River at SR 1937 approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the Mount Olive
Pickle Company discharge) indicated chloride levels exceeding the water quality limit in 48% of
samples taken between 1993 and July 1996. The ambient water quality station was relocated
approximately 5.1 miles downstream at NC 403 in 1996. The ambient station data at NC 403 has
not indicated high chloride levels. Currently the Northeast Cape Fear River (3.3 miles for source
to SR 1937) and Barlow Branch (1 mile) are not supporting (NS).
The Mount Olive Pickle Company discharges chlorides above permitted levels into Barlow
Branch (a zero 7Q10 stream) before it joins the Northeast Cape Fear River. The Mount Olive
Pickle Company was given a variance from the state surface water quality standard for chloride
(230 mg/l) in 1996. The Mount Olive Pickle Company has met the requirements of the variance
to date. Over the past 11 years, the company has reduced water usage per case by 50% and salt
usage by 74%.
2000 Recommendations
It is recommended that the Northeast Cape Fear River ambient monitoring station be relocated to
SR 1937 to better evaluate the impacts of the Mount Olive Pickle Company discharge. DWQ
will continue to monitor this discharge as the company continues to reduce the chloride levels
reaching surface waters. For more information on the variance, refer to the EMC Report of
Proceedings on the Proposed Changes to the Surface Water Quality Standards and
Classifications Rules for the Triennial Review- December 9, 1999.
21.3 303(d) Listed Waters
Because the Mount Olive Pickle Company has a variance from the chloride standard and is
working toward reducing the impacts of the discharge, the Northeast Cape Fear River and
Section B: Chapter 21 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21 234
Barlow Branch will not be on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). These
streams will be discussed in the narrative section of the 303(d) list.
21.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
The following surface waters are 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 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.
Portions of the Northeast Cape Fear River were impacted during Hurricane Fran in 1996. These
streams were also subject to massive de-snagging operations after the storm (see Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.11). Because this region is regularly impacted by hurricanes and tropical
storms, it is recommended that further monitoring be conducted to evaluate the post-hurricane
recovery of macroinvertebrates. Monitoring is needed to determine the impacts of de-snagging
operations that remove the most important habitat in these systems.
Section B: Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 235
Chapter 22 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22
Includes the Northeast Cape Fear River and Rockfish Creek
22.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains a large portion of the Northeast
Cape Fear River and its tributaries in Duplin County.
Most of the watershed is agricultural, including both row
crops and a dense concentration of animal operations
(poultry and swine). The towns of Beulaville,
Kenansville, Rose Hill and Wallace are within this
subbasin. The largest discharger is Stevecoknit Fabrics.
Other large dischargers include Guilford Mills, Swift-
Eckrich/Butterball and the Town of Wallace. The last two
facilities discharge to Rockfish Creek. A map of the
subbasin, including water quality sampling locations, is
presented in Figure B-22.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-22. 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.
Analysis of the sample data was complicated by the de-
snagging of streams after Hurricane Fran as part of the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Many
streams were totally de-snagged, removing nearly all of
the valuable snag habitat available for macroinvertebrate
colonization. This makes it difficult to determine whether
any changes that may have occurred in the macroinvertebrate community were due to changes in
water quality or lack of suitable habitat (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11).
Benthos data indicated Good to Good-Fair water quality in the Northeast Cape Fear River. The
section of the river between Muddy Creek and Rockfish Creek has been classified as High
Quality Waters. The site at NC 41 was sampled after Hurricane Bonnie in September 1998.
Sampling showed the hurricane had measurable impacts on the river. Water quality in the
uppermost reach of the Northeast Cape Fear River has decreased from Excellent to Good-Fair
since 1993. Most of the tributaries (Limestone Creek, Stockinghead Creek and Rockfish Creek)
are rated Fair or Good-Fair, usually due to nonpoint sources of pollution.
Subbasin 03-06-22 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 829
Land area: 828
Water area: 1
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 39,144 people
Pop. Density: 47 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 58.6
Surface Water: 0.3
Urban: 1.3
Cultivated Crop: 30.3
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 9.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 283.3 mi.
Partially Supporting: 22.7 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 208.2 mi.

Section B: Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 237
Table B-22 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-1 NE Cape Fear River Duplin NC 11/903 Excellent Good-Fair
B-2 NE Cape Fear River Duplin NC 41 Good Good
B-15 Limestone Creek Duplin SR 1702 Excellent Good-Fair
B-16 Stockinghead Creek Duplin SR 1953 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-21 Muddy Creek Duplin NC 41 Not Rated Fair
B-25 Rockfish Creek Duplin SR 1165 Good-Fair Fair
B-26 Rockfish Creek Duplin I-40 Fair Good-Fair
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993/1994 1998
F-3 Grove Creek Duplin NC 11/903 Good Good-Fair
F-4 Duff Creek Duplin SR 1170 --- Good
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Northeast Cape
Fear River at
NC 24
1994 26 9 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in
9 samples; FDA/NC mercury
limit exceeded in 3 samples
The fish community was evaluated at Grove Creek and Duff Creek. Fish tissue samples were
collected from the Northeast Cape Fear River at NC 24. Nine of the 26 samples analyzed
contained mercury at a level exceeding EPA limits. Three samples also contained mercury
exceeding the FDA/NC limit.
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].
22.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Goshen Swamp, Panther Creek, Herrings Marsh Run, Limestone Creek, Persimmon
Branch and Rock Fish Creek were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Portions of Rock Fish Creek and Muddy 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 22.3 and waters with other issues, recommendations or projects
are discussed in Part 22.4.
Section B: Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 238
Goshen Swamp and Panther Creek
Current Status
Goshen Swamp and Panther Creek were not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan because of a high
chloride discharge from Dean Pickle and Specialty Products, which discharges into an unnamed
low flow (zero 7Q10) tributary of Panther Creek before flowing into Goshen Swamp. Dean
Pickle and Specialty Products was given a variance from the state surface water quality standard
for chloride (230 mg/l) in 1996. The company has met the requirements of the variance to date.
Goshen Swamp and Panther Creek were not sampled during recent DWQ monitoring because of
low flow conditions. These two streams are currently not rated (NR). Because Dean Pickle and
Specialty Products has a variance from the chloride standard and is working toward reducing the
impacts of the discharge, Goshen Swamp and Panther Branch will not be on the state’s year 2000
303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). For more information on the variance, refer to the EMC
Report of Proceedings on the Proposed Changes to the Surface Water Quality Standards and
Classifications Rules for the Triennial Review- December 9, 1999.
2000 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the discharge to further assess the extent and severity of the
impacts to water quality in the receiving stream.
Herrings Marsh Run
Current Status
Herrings Marsh Run (1.8 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. This stream is
currently not rated (NR). Using new biological information, DWQ has determined that the
previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size of the stream. This stream is no
longer on the 303(d) list.
Limestone Creek
Current Status
Limestone Creek (7.5 miles) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Using new
biological information, DWQ has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate. This
stream is currently fully supporting (FS) according to recent DWQ monitoring and is no longer
on the 303(d) list.
Persimmon Branch
Current Status
Persimmon Branch (2.3 miles) was not supporting (NS) and partially supporting (PS) in the
lower segment in the 1996 plan. This stream is currently not rated (NR). Using new biological
Section B: Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 239
information, DWQ has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate. This stream is no
longer on the 303(d) list.
Rock Fish Creek
Current Status
Rock Fish Creek (7.2 miles from SR 1165 to Northeast Cape Fear River) was partially
supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Currently, 8.7 miles (from Swift-Eckrich to Little Rockfish
Creek) are partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because of instream
habitat degradation. The 3.8-mile segment from Little Rock Fish Creek to the Northeast Cape
Fear River is currently fully supporting (FS). De-snagging operations after Hurricane Fran
removed important habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish in these waters. Discharges from
Swift-Eckrich may also contribute to the habitat degradation. These waters are on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
It is recommended that monitoring of Rock Fish Creek be continued to assess recovery from
hurricane impacts. For recommendations regarding de-snagging operations, see Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.11. The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical
data to attempt to determine potential problem parameters.
Muddy Creek
Current Status
Muddy Creek (14.0 miles from source to Northeast Cape Fear River) was not rated in 1993
because of its small size. The stream is significantly larger due to changes associated with
Hurricane Fran in 1996. The stream is partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ
monitoring due to nonpoint sources. The watershed contains many hog operations. This stream
is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Further monitoring is recommended to determine the nature of the nonpoint source pollution.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
22.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (22.7 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Muddy Creek and Rock Fish Creek are discussed
above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section B: Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 240
22.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
The following surface waters are 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 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.
Portions of the Northeast Cape Fear River, Limestone Creek and Rock Fish Creek were impacted
during Hurricane Fran in 1996. These streams were also subject to massive de-snagging
operations after the storm (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11). Because this region is regularly
impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms, it is recommended that further monitoring be
conducted to evaluate the post-hurricane recovery of macroinvertebrates. Monitoring is needed
to determine the impacts of de-snagging operations that remove the most important habitat in
these systems.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains six sampling stations in this subbasin that are
used along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin. Refer
to Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
Mercury Advisories
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11 for more information.
Section B: Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 241
Northeast Cape Fear River Riparian Buffer Protection
The Wildlife Resource Commission was awarded funding to establish 46,000 linear feet of
buffers along the Northeast Cape Fear River. Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.6 for
information on this project.
Section B: Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 242
Chapter 23 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23
Includes Northeast Cape Fear River and Burgaw Creek
23.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the outer Coastal Plain and
contains the Town of Burgaw. The area is characterized
by slow-flowing blackwater streams. Most of the streams
in this subbasin stop flowing or dry up during the
summer. Much of this subbasin is undeveloped and
included in either the Holly Shelter Game Refuge or the
Angola Bay Game Refuge. A map of the subbasin,
including water quality sampling locations, is presented in
Figure B-23.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-23. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for four of the seven stream segments. Refer to
Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters
and use support ratings.
There are six permitted dischargers in the subbasin, with
the largest dischargers being Occidental Chemical, Thorn
Apple Valley and Burgaw WWTP.
Ambient chemistry data show average nutrient levels in
the Northeast Cape Fear River at US 117 to be lower than
more upstream river sites.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data indicated stable water
quality at most sites in the subbasin, except for the mainstem Northeast Cape Fear River, which
has shown steady improvement from Fair water quality in 1985 to a Good rating in 1998. Fair
conditions were maintained at Angola Creek, and Cypress Creek maintained its Good rating.
Most other sites were not rated using macroinvertebrate data because of the swampy
characteristics of these waters. Burgaw Creek below the WWTP, and Burnt Mill Creek in
Wilmington were rated Poor. The fish community in Burgaw Creek below the WWTP was also
impacted, receiving a Fair NCIBI rating. Mercury above EPA and /or FDA/NC limits was found
in the tissue of bass and bowfin in this subbasin.
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 03-06-23 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 795
Land area: 789
Water area: 6
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 64,540 people
Pop. Density: 82 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 82.5
Surface Water: 0.9
Urban: 2.1
Cultivated Crop: 11.2
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 3.2
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 304.1 mi.
Partially Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Supporting: 14.3 mi.
Not Rated: 37.5 mi.

Section B: Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 244
Table B-23 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-5 NE Cape Fear River New Hanover US 117 Good-Fair Good
B-8 Burgaw Creek Pender I-40 no sample Poor
B-9 Angola Creek Pender NC 53 Fair Fair
B-11 Cypress Creek Pender NC 53 Good Good
B-12 Juniper Swamp Onslow NC 50 Good-Excellent Good-Excellent
B-14 Merricks Creek Pender NC 210 Good-Excellent Good-Excellent
B-16 Shelter Swamp Onslow NC 50 no sample Good-Excellent
B-17 Burnt Mill Creek New Hanover Metts Avenue no sample Poor
FISH Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1994 1998
F-1 Burgaw Creek Pender US 117 no sample Fair
FISH TISSSUE No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station Description Year
Sampled
Total
Samples
Metals Organics Comments
FT-1 Cape Fear River
at NC 53
1995 6 1 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded
in 1 bowfin sample
FT-2 NE Cape Fear River
at Castle Hayne
1994 21 8 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in
8 bowfin/ bass samples
1998 25 3 0 EPA mercury limit exceeded in
3 samples; FDA/NC mercury
limit exceeded in 1 sample
23.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Cypress Creek, Burnt Mill Creek and Burgaw Creek were identified as impaired in
the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of Burnt Mill Creek and
Burgaw 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 23.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 23.4.
Cypress Creek
Current Status
Cypress Creek (8.0 miles from source to Long Creek) was partially supporting (PS) in the 1996
plan. DWQ has determined that the previous rating was inappropriate for this section. This
Section B: Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 245
stream segment is currently not rated (NR) and is not on the 303(d) list. A downstream sample at
NC 53 shows no impairment.
Burnt Mill Creek
Current Status
Burnt Mill Creek (4.8 miles from source to Smith Creek) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996
plan and is currently not supporting (NS) because of an impaired biological community.
Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and channel dredging is a
possible cause of impairment. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA
approved).
2000 Recommendations
Further monitoring is recommended to determine the nature of the nonpoint source pollution.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
The NC Wetlands Restoration Program (see Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.3.1) will be starting a
stakeholder process to develop a Local Watershed Plan for the Burnt Mill Creek watershed in
June, 2000.
Burgaw Creek
Current Status
Burgaw Creek (9.5 miles from Osgood Canal to Northeast Cape Fear River) was not supporting
(NS) in the 1996 plan. This stream is currently not supporting (NS) because of an impaired
biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources is a
possible cause of impairment. There are indications of excessive nutrients in this stream, and
fecal coliform bacteria are also noted as a problem parameter. Failing septic systems have been
noted in this watershed as well. The stream is channelized and has been adversely impacted by
desnagging activities after Hurricane Fran (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11). This stream is
on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Further monitoring is recommended to determine the nature of the nonpoint source pollution.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample for biological and chemical data to attempt to
determine potential problem parameters.
23.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two streams (14.3 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Burnt Mill Creek and Burgaw Creek are
Section B: Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 246
discussed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to
Appendix IV.
23.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
The following surface waters are 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 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.
The Lower Cape Fear River Program
The Lower Cape Fear River Program maintains five sampling stations in this subbasin that are
used along with DWQ ambient data to make use support determinations in this subbasin. Refer
to Section C, Part 1.4.5 for more information on the program and the UNCW Center for Marine
Sciences.
Mercury Advisories
DWQ sampling in 1994 and 1998 noted mercury in fish tissue at levels greater than EPA limits
and FDA/NC limits. Mercury in fish tissue is not exclusive to the Cape Fear River basin. In
recent years, elevated levels of mercury in some fish species have been noted in other coastal
areas. This issue is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.4.
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11 for more information.
Section B: Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 247
Chapter 24 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24
Includes Masonboro Sound, Topsail Sound and the Intracoastal
Waterway
24.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin is located in the tidal and estuarine region
of the coast and contains portions of Wilmington and the
towns of Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach. A map
of the subbasin, including water quality sampling
locations, is presented in Figure B-24.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-24. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for 1,391 acres of estuarine waters. A summary of
use support ratings for estuarine waters is presented in
Table A-32. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing
of monitored waters and use support ratings.
Suburban development is the major land use and nonpoint
source pollution is the major water quality problem.
There are 4 permitted dischargers in the subbasin, but
none larger than 0.5 MGD.
Water quality appears to be high in most of the sounds
and creeks in this subbasin. Masonboro Sound, Middle
Sound, Topsail Sound and Stump Sound are all classified
as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Many creeks
(Turkey, Cedar Snag, Butler, Howe and John) and
channels (Howard, Long Point, Green and Nixon) also
have been designated ORW. The Masonboro Island National Estuarine Research Reserve is also
located in this subbasin.
The greatest water quality problem in this subbasin appears to be the rapid urbanization of this
area and the increasing runoff that comes with this development. DWQ sampling suggests that
water quality also appears to decline at either end of this subbasin (Snows Cut and Everett Bay),
where the only flushing comes from areas of poorer water quality (Cape Fear River and New
River, respectively).
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 03-06-24 at a Glance
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area: 162
Land area: 142
Water area: 20
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 49,998 people
Pop. Density: 352 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 63.0
Surface Water: 17.5
Urban: 8.3
Cultivated Crop: 6.7
Pasture/ 4.5
Managed Herbaceous:
Use Support Ratings
Estuarine Waters:In Acres
Fully Supporting: 13,359 ac.
Partially Supporting: 1,391 ac.
Not Supporting: 0.0 ac.
Not Rated: 0.0 ac.

Section B: Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 249
Table B-24 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24
BENTHOS Bioclassification
Site # Stream County Location 1993 1998
B-15 Bradley Creek New Hanover US 76 Heavy Heavy
B-21 Hewletts Creek New Hanover at bend Moderate Moderate
24.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of Myrtle Sound, Masonboro Sound, Wrightsville Beach, Topsail Sound and Stump
Sound were identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Portions of Myrtle Sound, Masonboro Sound, Wrightsville Beach, Topsail Sound and Stump
Sound are currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ and DEH monitoring.
Current status of each of these waters 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 24.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 24.4.
Impaired Estuarine Waters
Current Status
Portions of Myrtle Sound, Masonboro Sound, Wrightsville Beach, Topsail Sound and Stump
Sound have been closed to shellfishing by the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) based on
recommendations by Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Sanitation Section. DEH
regulations specify closure of growing areas when fecal coliform bacteria levels exceed 14
colonies per 100 ml of water. Urban runoff after rainfall events is the major source of fecal
coliform bacteria contamination with several marinas, canal systems, construction, one WWTP
and septic tanks as minor sources.
Based on DEH monitoring, 1,391 estuarine acres are currently partially supporting (PS). These
waters are on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). Recommendations for
improving water quality in these waters are discussed below. Refer to Table A-32 for overall use
support ratings for estuarine areas and Figure A-16 for a map of DEH shellfish growing areas.
There are 14,750 acres of Class SA waters in subbasin 03-06-24. The best use of Class SA
waters is for harvesting shellfish. Approximately 10% (1,391 acres) are currently impaired.
Many acres have shellfish harvesting limited because of polluted runoff after rain events.
Productive shellfish harvest areas are near shore and at high risk for bacterial contamination from
urban runoff. There is a significant correlation between impervious surfaces in a watershed and
amount of fecal coliform bacteria found in receiving waters (Mallin et al., 2000).
Section B: Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 250
2000 Recommendations
In the Cape Fear River basin, there are a variety of activities that contribute to the degradation
and impairment of shellfish waters. These include, but are not limited to, urban stormwater
runoff, failing septic tanks, channelized waters, draining wetlands and marinas. Management of
various land use activities is needed to decrease fecal coliform bacteria levels in shellfish
growing areas, thereby, decreasing the acreage closed to harvesting. Refer to Section A, Chapter
4, Part 4.14 for further recommendations regarding shellfish growing areas.
DWQ will work with DEH, DCM, DMF and local governments to better identify the extent and
sources of impairment to shellfish harvesting in Class SA waters.
24.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are 1,391 acres of estuarine waters in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). The impaired estuarine areas are discussed above. For
information on 303(d) listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
24.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
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.
Conditionally Approved Open Shellfish Harvest Areas
Conditionally approved open shellfish harvest areas are currently fully supporting (FS). There
are concerns that the amount of time that these areas are open for shellfishing is decreasing.
Increased development around these waters will likely increase the number of days that these
areas are closed to shellfishing. Development must be curbed in order to maintain current open
acreage of shellfishing waters. Maintenance and restoration of shellfishing waters will require
the concerted efforts of local governments, environmental organizations, shellfishermen, and
state and federal agencies. DWQ will work with other agencies, organizations and local
governments, where possible, to improve water quality and shellfishing in coastal waters.
1999 Hurricanes
In September and October 1999, three hurricanes made landfall near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. Although streams throughout the basin were impacted, the streams in the lower Cape Fear
River subbasins were severely impacted. The extent of water quality problems and recovery of
ecosystems in this subbasin will not be known for some time. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11 for more information.
Section B: Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 251
Constructed Wetlands for Landfill Leachate
This project is a non-discharge solution to leachate disposal that will greatly reduce the nitrogen
load to receiving waters. For more information on this project, refer to Section C, Chapter 1,
Part 1.5.6.
The New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Project and City of Wilmington Watersheds
Project
Since 1993, the UNC-Wilmington Center for Marine Science has been conducting research on
bacterial pollution, algal blooms, effect of tides on water quality parameters, nutrient limitation
of phytoplankton productivity, and nutrient loading in five tidal creeks in New Hanover County.
Annual reports are published on the projects’ progress. In autumn 1997, the Center began an
ongoing project analyzing environmental quality of the City of Wilmington’s drainage basins.
Refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.5 for more information on these projects.
Section C: Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives 252
Section C
Current and Future
Water Quality Initiatives
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 253
Chapter 1 -
Current Water Quality Initiatives
1.1 Workshop Summaries
There were three workshops held in the Cape Fear River basin in July and August 1999. The
workshops were held in Greensboro, Clinton and Wilmington. The DWQ, NC Cooperative
Extension Services of Guilford, Sampson and New Hanover counties, and the Cape Fear River
Assembly sponsored the workshops. A total of 198 people attended the three workshops. All
workshops represented a wide variety of interests in the river basin.
Each workshop had four presentations pertaining to important issues to the region of the basin
where the workshop was held. Workshop participants were asked to discuss a series of questions
in small groups. The questions were as follows:
1) What are the most important issues to be addressed in the next basin plan?
2) Where are the problem areas or waters in the basin?
3) What recommendations do you have for addressing these problems?
4) What local agencies or organizations should be involved in addressing these problems?
The discussion on these questions was very productive. Comments and responses were recorded
during each workshop. A general summary of the workshops, providing common ideas and
viewpoints, is presented below.
• urban sprawl
• comprehensive watershed management
• nonpoint source pollution
• buffers
• algal blooms and nutrients
• Randleman Reservoir
• land-use planning
• seventeen dams on the Deep River
• sedimentation
• agricultural BMPs
• focusing on economic considerations
• focus on nonpoint source pollution
• better education for general public
• growth planning
• state agency and local community coordination
• tighter controls on variances/SOCs for permittees with tighter time limits
• point source dischargers bearing brunt of enforcement
• more control on development and construction in wetlands
• stormwater runoff
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 254
Workshop participants made recommendations for addressing water quality problems. These
recommendations included urban BMPs, planning, incentives for agricultural operations, local
enforcement, water recycling, education, riparian buffers, increasing regulatory staff and securing
funding for enforcement.
DWQ considered these comments while drafting the revised Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan and will continue to use these comments to guide water quality activities in the
Cape Fear River basin.
For a copy of the summary of the three workshops, call DWQ at [phone], ext. 360.
1.2 Federal Initiatives
1.2.1 Section 319 – Base Program
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration
projects. Approximately $1 million is available annually for demonstration and education
projects across the state. Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina
Nonpoint Source Workgroup, made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or
research associated with nonpoint source pollution. Information on the North Carolina 319 grant
program, including application deadlines and requests for proposals, are available online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/bigpic.htm.
Table C-1 319 Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin
Fund Source Project Contractor Grant
319 FY1998 Private Well Protection Project NC Cooperative Extension Service $34,555
Private Well Protection Project
Many private wells in eastern North Carolina are particularly susceptible to contamination
because they are shallow (typically less than 50 feet deep) and poorly constructed. Previous
studies of North Carolina private water supply wells indicate that up to 10% may contain nitrate-
nitrogen at levels exceeding the safe drinking water standard of 10 mg/l.
A minimum of 300 private water supply wells will be screened for nitrate contamination over a
two-year period in the Cape Fear River basin. Special emphasis will be placed on sampling
high-risk wells that are shallow, poorly constructed, and located near potential pollution sources.
A detailed survey of well construction and location characteristics will be completed for each
well. All project participants will be educated on basic well protection measures including water
testing, pollution prevention, water treatment and new well construction, if needed.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 255
1.2.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) – Incremental Program
In 1998, the President’s Clean Water Action Plan Initiative required states to compile and rate
water quality conditions at the 8-digit hydrologic unit scale. This evaluation by the state resulted
in the identification of 23 HUs as 'needing restoration'. The Category I rating makes these areas
eligible for additional funding through the incremental 319 program. There are six hydrologic
units within the Cape Fear River basin (Table C-2); three of which were rated as needing
restoration in the 1998 Unified Watershed Assessment. The Haw River was identified as a high
priority restoration area, particularly due to the state designation as nutrient sensitive waters and
the significant urban impacts.
Table C-2 Hydrologic Units within the Cape Fear River Basin
HU Name HUC UWA Rating
Haw 03030002 I-HP
Deep 03030003 I
Upper Cape Fear 03030004 II
Lower Cape Fear 03030005 I
Black River 03030006 II
Northeast Cape Fear River 03030007 II
Funding for implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan Initiative is provided through the
Section 319 Incremental Grant Program. With a separate funding source, these grant resources
are to be allocated by the state for assessment and implementation in Hydrologic Units defined as
"Needing Restoration" in the 1998 North Carolina Unified Watershed Assessment. This funding
was first available for FY 1999, and continued funding of this program will be decided by
Congress. Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source
Workgroup, made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or research associated
with nonpoint source pollution. Information on the North Carolina 319 grant program, including
application deadlines and requests for proposals, are available online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/bigpic.htm.
1.2.3 Clean Water Act – Section 205 (j) Planning Grant
Section 205 (j) of the Clean Water Act allocates a small amount of money to states for water
resource planning or demonstration. Only Councils of Government are eligible to apply for this
funding. Annual funding for this program is approximately $100,000. Descriptions of these
projects are included in Part 1.5 below.
1.2.4 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)
The EQIP program is a federal cost share program that in many states is not augmented by a state
agricultural cost share program. For this reason, EQIP funds are allocated to priority areas where
current available funding is identified as inadequate. Through applications, the NRCS districts
are able to compete for EQIP incentive funding. A team of state agencies reviews new
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 256
applications and reevaluates the performance of existing priority areas on an annual basis.
Rankings are considered based upon performance; i.e., the value of contracts completed versus
the amount of money allocated and environmental benefit. Initial allocations are set based upon
ranking and proposal requests. The NRCS administers the local sign-up, environmental benefits
ratings and contract administration.
Three areas within the Cape Fear River basin are included in the USDA – NRCS EQIP FY2000
Priority area budget. The Deep River, Northeast Cape Fear and Black River are included. Table
C-3 includes descriptions of primary resource concerns, targeted practices and final FY 1999
contract allocations. NRCS district contacts are available in the NPS Contact Sheet, Appendix
V.
Table C-3 Cape Fear River Basin EQIP Projects
Priority Area Primary Resource
Concern
Targeted Practices Lead NRCS
District
Final
Allocation
Deep River
03030003
Soil erosion, animal
waste, nutrient runoff
and leaching
No-till, waste utilization, nutrient
management, pest management,
pasture and hay planting
Randolph
County
$119,124
Black River
03030006
Animal waste, soil
erosion, wildlife habitat,
nutrient runoff
No-till, waste utilization, riparian
buffer, nutrient management,
wildlife habitat management
Sampson
County
$105,945
Northeast
Cape Fear
03030007
Animal waste, soil
erosion, wildlife habitat,
pesticide runoff
Waste utilization, no-till, wildlife
habitat management, nutrient
management, pest management
Duplin
County
$118,214
1.3 State Initiatives
1.3.1 NC Wetlands Restoration Program
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is a nonregulatory program
responsible for implementing wetland and stream restoration projects throughout the state. The
focus of the program is to improve water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities. The NCWRP is not a grant program. Instead, the NCWRP funds
wetland, stream and streamside (riparian) area projects directly through the Wetlands Restoration
Fund.
Restoration sites are targeted through the use and development of the Basinwide Wetlands and
Riparian Restoration Plans. These plans were developed, in part, using information compiled in
DWQ’s Basinwide Water Quality Plans. The Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration
Plans are updated every five years on the same schedule as DWQ’s Basinwide Water Quality
Plans. As new data and information become available about water quality degradation issues in
the Cape Fear River River basin, priority subbasins identified in the NCWRP’s plans may be
modified.
The NCWRP is also working to develop comprehensive Local Watershed Restoration Plans
within the identified Priority Subbasins. These more locally-based plans will identify wetland
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 257
areas, contiguous reaches of stream, and contiguous strips of buffer that, once restored, will
provide significant water quality and other environmental benefits to watersheds. The NCWRP
will coordinate with local community groups, local governments and others to develop and
implement these plans.
The NCWRP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs
or environmental groups. For example, the NCWRP’s efforts can complement projects funded
through the Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components
with 319 funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality benefits of the
project.
For more information about participating in the NCWRP, please contact Crystal Braswell at
[phone] or visit the website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/, then click on Wetlands Restoration
Program.
1.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund offers approximately $40 million annually in grants
for projects within the broadly focused areas of restoring and protecting state surface waters and
protecting state surface waters and establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In
the Cape Fear River basin, twenty projects have been funded. The total amount of funds
allocated to this basin through the CWMTF is $21,431,700. Descriptions of the basinwide
projects are included in descriptions of current initiatives by major watershed in Part 1.5 below.
For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or visit the website at
www.cwmtf.net.
1.4 Local Initiatives
1.4.1 Cape Fear River Basin Associations
In complement to the DWQ’s basinwide approach for planning and management of water
resources, associations of NPDES dischargers are voluntarily forming in our state’s river basins.
The concept of these coalitions is to integrate instream sampling requirements as set forth in their
NPDES permits with DWQ’s basinwide management program. Monitoring sites and parameters
are strategically located and established such that instream monitoring is more efficient,
effective, basin-oriented, and potentially yields better quality, more usable data. A Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) specifies that one organization (usually a contract lab) conducts all the
instream sampling and performs the required analyses, instead of each discharger conducting
individual sampling. Three discharger associations are active in the Cape Fear River basin.
Each discharger association monitoring network is designed to complement the state’s ambient
sampling sites. The discharger association concept allows for a collective voice among the
dischargers located in the Cape Fear River basin and fosters better communication within the
association itself and with DWQ.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 258
The Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP) is comprised of 19 NPDES dischargers and
began sampling in 1996. The LCFRP currently collects water quality data at 34 sites located
throughout the lower portion of the basin. This association contracts with the University of
North Carolina at Wilmington to collect the water quality samples and benefits from additional
work that UNCW conducts, such as fisheries ecology and benthic community studies.
The Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA) has 16 members and began
sampling 30 stations in July 1998. Twenty-five of the stations are required in the MOA, and the
other 5 stations are sampled voluntarily by the Association. The MCFRBA contracts with a
commercial lab to collect the water quality samples and run the analyses.
The Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association started sampling 36 stations in 2000. DWQ will
continue to work with the basin associations’ water quality data in developing use support and
identifying other water quality problems and solutions.
1.4.2 Cape Fear River Assembly
The Cape Fear River Assembly is a basinwide organization committed to achieving the highest
quality of life possible for residents of the Cape Fear River basin through the proper management
of the Cape Fear River, its tributaries and adjacent land uses. The Cape Fear River Assembly
(CFRA) was founded 27 years ago and has several hundred members and a 34-member board of
directors. The Assembly membership and the board are made up of representatives from
throughout the Cape Fear River basin and with varying interests, including environmental and
conservation organizations, academia, small business and industry, government (local, state and
federal), and the general public. The Cape Fear River Assembly serves as the umbrella
organization for the three discharger associations, including the Upper Cape Fear River Basin
Association, the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association and the Lower Cape Fear River
Program.
The Assembly provides a basinwide context for resource management and a forum for discussion
and issue resolution. In addition, it provides a basinwide commitment to facilitate the
completion of needed scientific and economic study, to educate the public regarding the
environmental and economic value of this natural resource, and to encourage the development of
policy to maintain and improve the condition of the Cape Fear River and its tributaries for
present and future uses and benefits. Programs and activities accomplished through the Cape
Fear River Assembly include: 1) extensive, ongoing water quality monitoring (109 stations); 2)
fisheries stock monitoring (lower); 3) Hurricanes Bonnie and Floyd storm event sampling; 4)
clean metals sampling (mid); 5) a primary productivity study (mid); 6) a hydrologic modeling
project; 7) numerous conferences; 8) a GIS/land use project; 9) Cape Fear River Basin highway
signs; 10) Triangle area drinking water supply monitoring (upper); and 11) a Haw River/Jordan
Lake watershed partnership (upper). For additional information, please see the Cape Fear River
Assembly website www.cfra-nc.org or contact Executive Director, Don Freeman at [phone]
or by e-mail at [e-mail].
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 259
1.4.3 Cape Fear River Headwaters Group
The Cape Fear River Headwaters Group was formed in the fall of 1999 with the goal of
determining the major water quality issues in this region and what projects the group can conduct
to address these issues. The group has focused on the 303(d) impaired streams for the
headwaters area of the Deep and Haw River and are currently prioritizing which 303(d) impaired
streams the group can restore and develop a methodology in conjunction with DWQ to identify
and correct the problems found in these streams. The group consists of the representatives from
local governments, area universities, the Cape Fear River Assembly, DWQ, the Triangle J
Council of Governments, and Piedmont Triad Council of Governments. The contact for this
group is Carol Patrick of the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments at [phone] or
[e-mail].
1.4.4 City of Greensboro Storm Water Services
The City of Greensboro is developing a watershed-based stormwater management program
designed to be "proactive". The federal NPDES stormwater regulations mandate that
municipalities take a comprehensive approach towards stormwater management issues within
their jurisdiction and develop new programs that will prevent or minimize impacts to water
quality from nonpoint pollution sources, such as urbanized areas. Regulatory mandates, along
with local interest in developing an optimum stormwater management program, have served as
initiatives for Greensboro to begin developing improved programs for both stormwater and
watershed management.
The city’s developing Stormwater Management Program includes the following key
components:
• Implementation of a Stormwater Utility to serve as the dedicated funding mechanism for the
new and improved stormwater management programs, including administration of the
NPDES municipal stormwater permit.
• Development and implementation of a comprehensive GIS database of stormwater
infrastructure and proactive stormwater infrastructure maintenance program.
• Development of a "Dynamic Stormwater and Watershed Management System", which
includes interactive linkages between the GIS database and major hydrologic, hydraulic,
water quality and stream restoration models.
• Implementation of an extensive public education and awareness program. The city has also
developed partnerships with many area businesses to promote environmental and water
quality protection goals through a program called the "Environmental Business Partners".
• Implementation of a watershed-based water quality monitoring program, including wet
weather land use-based monitoring, ambient and wet weather stream monitoring, structural
Best Management Practice (BMP) assessment monitoring, and biological/habitat assessment
and monitoring. The city is also working with the United States Geological Survey to
establish a citywide network of continuous monitoring rainfall and streamflow gaging
stations to provide data for the watershed modeling and management program.
• Innovative restoration projects for local degraded streams including enhancement or creation
of adjacent riparian wetland areas.
• Development of a comprehensive stormwater management ordinance.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 260
For more information on the City of Greensboro Storm Water Services, contact Scott Bryant,
City of Greensboro Storm Water Services, [phone].
1.4.5 UNC-Wilmington – Center for Marine Science Research
The Center conducts research involving nutrients, plankton, aquatic microorganisms, and general
water quality and pollution management issues in marine, estuarine and freshwater systems.
Information about the program is available at: http://www.uncwil.edu/cmsr/aquaticecology.laboratory/.
Descriptions of the ongoing research projects within the Lower Cape Fear River Hydrologic Unit
are included below.
Lower Cape Fear River Program
Since 1995, the Center for Marine Science Research has regularly collected data on numerous
physical, chemical and biological parameters at 35 locations throughout the Cape Fear River
watershed. This data is entered into the EPA STORET system, and comprehensive reports are
issued to interested parties on an annual basis. Research projects in this watershed include
analysis of animal waste lagoon spills, effect of hurricanes and storms on the watershed, factors
controlling phytoplankton production in the estuary and tributary rivers, effects of water
chemistry on fungal breakdown of detritus, and the effects of nutrient loading on the biota and
metabolism of blackwater streams. Related cooperative research projects are also conducted
with the UNCW Biology Department and the UNCW Benthic Ecology Lab.
The New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Project
Since 1993, the Center has been conducting research on bacterial pollution, algal blooms, effect
of tides on water quality parameters, nutrient limitation of phytoplankton productivity, and
nutrient loading in five tidal creeks in New Hanover County, with published annual reports. A
major accomplishment of this project has been publication of a set of management
recommendations for environmentally sound coastal development practices. The project is
funded by and works cooperatively with a citizen’s group (the Northeast New Hanover
Conservancy) and the New Hanover County Planning Department.
City of Wilmington Watersheds Project
In 1997, the Center began an ongoing project analyzing environmental quality of the City of
Wilmington’s drainage basins. This includes collecting baseline data on pollutants such as
nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity and other parameters; analyzing effectiveness of large
stormwater detention ponds, runoff from golf courses, and effect of loadings on adjacent
waterways. This project is funded by and designed in cooperation with the City of Wilmington
Engineering Department and its stormwater runoff program.
1.4.6 Haw River Assembly
The Haw River Assembly is a nonprofit citizen organization working to restore the Haw River
and protect Jordan Lake using education, citizen water monitoring and research as our tools. We
share water monitoring information collected by our Haw River Watch volunteers with state
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 261
biologists, and are working with state and federal agencies in the areas of land conservation,
nonpoint source pollution education and dam removal. We have been instrumental in drawing
attention to the impaired streams in our river basin.
1.5 Current Initiatives by Major Watershed
1.5.1 Haw River (Subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06)
Table C-4 highlights projects within the Haw River watershed. A description of each project
follows.
Table C-4 Haw River Watershed Projects
Project Subbasin Contractor
Funding
Source Grant
Upper Cape Fear Riparian Buffer Protection
Planning Grant
03-06-01 –
03-06-06
Triangle J COG CWMTF $70,0001
Upper Cape Fear Planning Initiative 03-06-01 –
03-06-06
Piedmont Triad and Triangle
J COGs
205(j) $31,119
New Hope Creek Corridor Riparian Buffer
Acquisition
03-06-05 –
03-06-06
County of Durham CWMTF $750,000
New Hope Creek Corridor Riparian Buffer
Acquisition
03-06-05 –
03-06-06
Triangle Land Conservancy CWMTF $2,250,000
2
New Hope Creek Corridor Riparian Buffer
Acquisition
03-06-05 –
03-06-06
Town of Chapel Hill CWMTF $200,000
3 Sandy Creek Stormwater Control Project 03-06-05 Duke University and
NCWRP
CWMTF $582,500
4 South Buffalo Creek Regional Stormwater
Wetland
03-06-02 Town of Greensboro CWMTF $800,000
5 Haw River Source Land Acquisition 03-06-01 Haw River Assembly CWMTF $24,500
6 Sedimentation Basin Design Improvements 03-06-06 North Carolina State
University
319 $61,050
7 Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Buffer
Acquisition
03-06-04 Orange Water and Sewer
Authority
CWMTF $1,042,500
8 Robeson Creek Steward Education Campaign 03-06-04 Haw River Assembly CWMTF $6,000
Upper Cape Fear Riparian Buffer Protection Planning Grant
The Triangle J Council of Governments was awarded $70,000 to initiate a stakeholder program
to quantify the extent and status of riparian buffers within the Jordan Reservoir watershed. The
project will establish a priority listing of riparian buffer and stream restoration needs within the
Haw River watershed. This initiative was augmented in 1998 with a planning grant through the
Clean Water Act 205 (j) program. The three project components include: development and
adoption of proposed comprehensive land use plans for portions of the upper Cape Fear River
basin; development and distribution of informational materials for government officials and
planners on the relationship between regional water quality and land use activities; and
development of a water quality improvement strategy on one priority surface water area.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 262
New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Master Plan
Completed in 1991, the New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Master Plan is a large regional
effort between the counties of Durham and Orange, and cities of Durham and Chapel Hill to
protect a riparian corridor and trail network between the two rapidly growing areas. The Master
Plan was jointly funded and adopted by the four local governments and has received additional
support through the Triangle Land Conservancy, Duke University and the New Hope Audubon
Society. The City and County of Durham established a bond referendum to fund the acquisition
of 170 acres. In 1997, the County of Durham obtained a land acquisition grant from the
CWMTF for the acquisition of an additional 330 acres identified as priorities within the county.
Because Orange County and Chapel Hill do not have bond funds, the Triangle Land
Conservancy recovered funds to acquire three high priority tracts of land totaling 392 acres. In
1998, the Town of Chapel Hill also received funds from the CWMTF to acquire an additional 84
acres. The CWMTF has invested $3.2 million to acquire conservation easements on more than
800 acres, contributing to the completion of the New Hope Creek Riparian buffer and greenway
trail system. Commitment of these groups to protect the New Hope Creek Corridor will help
buffer the impacts of commercial and residential development along the I-40 and 15-501
corridors.
Sandy Creek Stormwater Control Project
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program and Duke University received a grant of
$582,500 to collaborate on the restoration of degraded streambanks and riparian areas of Sandy
Creek, within the New Hope Creek watershed. The project will treat stormwater runoff within
the 25-acre project watershed adjacent to the University Campus. Treatment methods will
include the installation of twelve biofiltration areas to receive and attenuate runoff from parking
and trail areas, and a structure to create an instream stormwater wetland and support the
restoration of degraded streambanks. The Wetland Program at Duke University will monitor
water quality at 15 sites in the project area to determine the success of the project design.
City of Greensboro – South Buffalo Creek Regional Stormwater Wetland
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund’s (CWMTF) grant funds of up to $800,000,
supplemented by the City of Greensboro’s matching funds of up to $160,000, will be used to
acquire approximately 40 acres of property located south of I-40 and east of Rehobeth Church
Road in Greensboro and to construct a 20-acre riparian wetland on the property. Vegetated
riparian buffers will also be provided along the banks of the South Buffalo Creek in the project
reach.
The objectives of the project are to improve the water quality in the 12-square mile urbanized
watershed by reducing the pollutant loads and removal of sediment. Additional objectives are to
achieve improvement in aquatic and terrestrial habitats through the development of the riparian
wetland and vegetative stream buffers, which will provide shade and cooling of the water in the
stream.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 263
Haw River Source Land Acquisition
The project acquired a 3.7-acre parcel containing the source spring of the Haw River. The Haw
River Assembly will establish a management trust to protect the source and riparian buffer along
the first 800 feet of the stream. This project is expected to spawn additional protection of
riparian areas in the headwaters portion of the Haw River.
Sedimentation Basin Design Improvements
One major source of sediment is soil erosion from construction sites. Sediment basins are
constructed to remove sediment from stormwater before it leaves the construction site. The project
funded through the 319 program is part of a larger scale demonstration and analysis of innovative
construction site sediment control basin techniques for environmentally sensitive Piedmont area
streams.
Several other approaches have been tested in Orange County to increase effective sediment
trapping. An improvement to sediment basin function is to use gypsum to flocculate suspended
materials prior to discharge. This approach is currently being tested in Orange County under a
special grant from the Sediment Control Commission. Tests conducted so far have shown that
gypsum significantly reduces suspended sediment and can clarify discharge water to the state
turbidity standard of 50 NTU. The use of gypsum will be demonstrated under various
combinations of skimmer and level spreader configurations.
Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Buffer Acquisition
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) received CWMTF funding to assist and
augment the OWASA capital improvement funds for the acquisition of easements on ‘preferred
properties’ within the Cane Creek watershed. The purpose of the project is to protect the long-
term quality of the Cane Creek Reservoir through the protection of three hundred-foot buffers on
perennial and intermittent streams, and the reservoir itself. Protection of these buffers will be
accomplished through fee simple purchases and conservation agreements.
Robeson Creek Stream Steward Education Campaign
The Haw River Assembly was awarded funds to initiate a watershed awareness campaign in the
Robeson Creek watershed including Pittsboro. The stream is listed on the 2000 303(d) list and
many of the pollution sources are nonpoint source in nature. The Haw River Assembly will seek
cooperation from city and county agencies, the Triangle J Council of Governments, Cooperative
Extension Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to coordinate development
of a broader restoration initiative. This funding will provide for landowner outreach and
education and initiate broader opportunities for conservation and restoration.
1.5.2 Deep River Watershed (Subbasins 03-06-08 to 03-06-12)
Table C-5 highlights projects within the Deep River watershed. A description of each project
follows.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 264
Table C-5 Deep River Watershed Projects
Project Subbasin Contractor
Funding
Source Grant
1 Deep River Campaign 03-06-11 Triangle Land Conservancy CWMTF $1,189,000
2 McLendons Creek Watershed Project 03-06-10 North Carolina State
University
319 $198,000
3 Riparian Buffer Acquisition in Richland and
Muddy Creek
03-06-08 Piedmont Triad Regional
Water Authority
CWMTF $615,000
4 Buffalo Creek Riparian Protection and
Greenway Project
03-06-11 Town of Sanford CWMTF $765,000
5 Sandy Creek Riparian Buffer Acquisition 03-06-09 Town of Ramseur CWMTF $134,000
6 Ramseur Sewer Rehabilitation Project 03-06-09 Town of Ramseur CWMTF $344,000
Deep River Campaign
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund provided monies for the acquisition and protection of
permanent riparian buffers on 4.1 miles of the Deep River and its tributaries. Three tracts will be
used as keystone properties to continue riparian protection efforts along the Deep River.
Coordinated efforts between the Triangle Land Conservancy and other agencies will lead to
establishment and continuity of a protected riparian corridor.
McLendons Creek Watershed Project
The McLendons Creek Watershed Project was a three-year effort (ended in 1999) to install and
evaluate agricultural and urban BMPs targeted at reduction of phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment
inputs to McLendons Creek. BMPs are land use practices such as vegetated stream buffers,
fertilizer management, stormwater detention basins and others. Water quality monitoring before
and after BMP implementation is used to evaluate overall effectiveness.
The education and outreach goals of the project were accomplished. As monitoring results are
developed, the final report will be available online at
http://www5.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/ncwsheds/mlcw/.
Riparian Buffer Protection on Richland and Muddy Creek
The Piedmont Triad Water Authority secured a grant from the CWMTF for acquisition of 100
acres of riparian buffer along Richland and Muddy Creeks. These streams are located within the
Randleman Reservoir watershed, and protection of existing riparian buffers is important for the
region’s proposed drinking water supply reservoir.
Buffalo Creek Riparian Protection and Greenway Project
The Town of Sanford will acquire and protect 7 miles and 250 acres of riparian buffers along the
Deep River’s Buffalo Creek. The CWMTF funds will acquire up to a 300-foot riparian buffer.
Typical matches include acquisition of the nonriparian buffer portions of the land.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 265
Sandy Creek Riparian Buffer Acquisition and Ramseur Sewer Rehabilitation Project
Ramseur has been active in establishing a local watershed protection program centered around
the water supply reservoir on Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek drains into a section of the Deep River
designated as High Quality Waters, just downstream of Ramseur. The town secured two grants
from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to purchase conservation easements on riparian
corridors entering the Sandy Creek Reservoir. Up to 28,000 feet of easements could be
purchased through this program. In 1998, the town received a grant to rehabilitate an existing
sewer outfall, upgrading 7,500 feet of 8" to 12" line. The objective is to reduce infiltration and
leakage from the existing system.
1.5.3 Upper Cape Fear River Watershed (Subbasins 03-06-07, 03-06-13 to 03-06-15)
Table C-6 highlights projects within the Upper Cape Fear River watershed. A description of
each project follows.
Table C-6 Upper Cape Fear River Watershed Projects
Project Subbasin Contractor
Funding
Source Grant
Little Cross Creek Water Supply Watershed
Land Acquisition
03-06-15 City of Fayetteville CWMTF $502,5001
Little Cross Creek Watershed Assessment 03-06-15 City of Fayetteville CWMTF $63,200
2 Cape Fear Botanical Garden Stream
Restoration Project
03-06-15 Cape Fear Botanical Garden CWMTF $77,000
Little Cross Creek Water Supply Watershed Land Acquisition
Little Cross Creek is designated as WS-IV. Four reservoirs located in the watershed are used to
supply water to the City of Fayetteville. In 1997, the city’s Public Works Commission received
a grant to purchase and secure property adjacent to its water supply reservoirs. A total of 101
acres were purchased as permanent easements with buffer areas defined.
In 1998, the city received funds to perform a complete pollutant source assessment of the Little
Cross Creek watershed. The assessment will document watershed hazard areas and map
susceptibility of pollution by nutrients, sediment and fecal coliform. Completion of this
assessment will lead to implementation of a comprehensive watershed management plan.
Cape Fear Botanical Garden
The project will be used to stabilize the lowest portion of Cross Creek before draining into the
mainstem of the Cape Fear River in Fayetteville. The Botanical Garden includes 85 acres of
open space in an otherwise urban area and provides opportunity for demonstration of appropriate
streambank protection and stabilization techniques in an urbanized setting.
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 266
1.5.4 Lower Cape Fear River (Subbasins 03-06-16, 03-07-17, 03-06-20 and 03-06-21)
Table C-7 highlights projects within the Lower Cape Fear River watershed. A description of
each project follows.
Table C-7 Lower Cape Fear River Watershed Projects
Project Subbasin Contractor
Funding
Source Grant
Suggs Mill Pond Land Acquisition 03-06-16 Wildlife Resources
Commission
CWMTF $2,250,0001
Little Singletary Lake Land Acquisition 03-06-16 Wildlife Resources
Commission
CWMTF $1,033,000
2 Coastal Urban and Recreation BMP
Demonstration Project
03-06-17 –
03-06-24
North Carolina State
University
CWMTF $145,632
Little Singletary Lake/Suggs Mill Carolina Pond Land Acquisition
The Lake Singletary/Suggs Mill Pond Complex drains to Ellis and Turnbull Creeks. In 1997, the
Wildlife Resources Commission acquired more than 9,000 acres, including 6,400 acres of
wetland and more than four miles of riparian buffers. A 1999 grant from the CWMTF funded
the acquisition of an additional 391 acres, and one mile of riparian and wetland buffer
surrounding Little Singletary Lake that were slated for development. Additional conservation
activities in this area through The Nature Conservancy have resulted in the protection of the
Carolina Bay Ecosystem from impending development. The land is dedicated as a nature
preserve, significantly contributing to the protection of wildlife and aquatic resources in the
Bladen Lakes Management Region.
Coastal Urban and Recreation BMP Demonstration Project
The Coastal Urban and Recreation BMP Demonstration Project Team was developed through
this 319 funded project to address the issues of runoff control from developed sites. Following
the pollutant source inventory and evaluation of impaired watersheds, the project team will
evaluate and implement best management practices (BMPs) to protect coastal waters impaired by
runoff from developed areas. Surveys of existing data and interviews with local officials and
residents will be used to determine sites in four watersheds where BMPs can be installed and
evaluated for nonpoint source pollution control.
The project will demonstrate BMPs to reduce pathogen, nutrient and pesticide inputs from urban
and recreational development in coastal areas of the Cape Fear River basin. BMPs will include
vegetation and other runoff reduction measures, nutrient and pest management to reduce
pollutant sources, erosion control measures and stormwater retention.
Educational meetings, field days, demonstrations, fact sheets, displays and newsletters will be
used to promote BMP implementation throughout the coastal region. Target audiences will
include local government officials, developers, builders, lenders, professional landscapers and
the general public. A team has coordinated a Coastal Urban Workshop scheduled for the
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 267
Wilmington area in March of 2000. Coastal environmental education and demonstration projects
conducted by NCSU and UNC-Wilmington have been incorporated in the education and
demonstration programs.
1.5.5 Black River Watershed (Subbasins 03-06-18 and 03-06-19)
Table C-8 highlights projects within the Black River watershed. A description of each project
follows.
Table C-8 Black River Watershed Projects
Project Subbasin Contractor
Funding
Source Grant
1 Little Coharie Watershed Protection Project 03-06-19 North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service
319 $27,990
2 Black and South River Riparian Protection 03-06-18 The Nature Conservancy CWMTF $2,000,000
Black River Land Acquisition 03-06-19 The Nature Conservancy 319 $100,350
Little Coharie Watershed Protection Project
The Little Coharie Watershed Project was initiated in 1995. The intent was to accelerate the
adoption and use of vegetated buffers by providing educational and technical assistance in
conjunction with a cost share assistance program. Findings from surface and groundwater
monitoring of vegetative buffers in Duplin County showed that these management practices are
effective at reducing nutrient and sediment delivery to water resources. The project set a basis
for the utilization of state cost share money for implementation of riparian buffers to protect
surface waters threatened based upon BOD, nutrient and sediment inputs from nonpoint sources.
Due to the demonstrations and public attention derived from the project, many of the practices
first implemented in the Little Coharie Watershed are now being implemented countywide. For
instance more than 40,000 feet of field edge buffers have been planned or installed in Sampson
County (Rice, 1998).
The Nature Conservancy – Black and South River Land Acquisition and Riparian Protection
The Nature Conservancy has been very active in the Black and South River watersheds
concerning land acquisition for riparian protection. The well-established organization has met
acquisition needs with both private donations and public grants. In 1995, the Nature
Conservancy acquired funding through the 319 program to demonstrate the water quality benefits
of a 295-acre land acquisition within the Black River watershed. The project demonstrated how
preservation of a riparian buffer along an ORW river protects a river from NPS pollution. Field
sampling and nutrient export models were used to predict export coefficients and potential
nutrient loading based upon conversion to more intensive land uses. Without purchase, the land
was subject to conversion from forest to agriculture and clearing for development. The 1998
CWMTF funded project makes available up to two million dollars for land acquisition of riparian
forested areas along Outstanding Resource Waters segments of the Black and South Rivers.
Three hundred-foot buffers will be established to connect presently isolated lands with
Section C: Chapter 1 - Workshop Summaries 268
continuous riparian corridors. The project will preserve at least 15 miles and 3,000 acres of
riparian buffers in the project area.
1.5.6 Northeast Cape Fear River Watershed (Subbasins 03-06-22 to 03-06-24)
Table C-9 highlights projects within the Northeast Cape Fear River watershed. A description of
each project follows.
Table C-9 Northeast Cape Fear Watershed Projects
Project Subbasin Contractor
Funding
Source Grant
1 Northeast Cape Fear Riparian Buffer Protection 03-06-22 NC Wildlife Resources
Commission
CWMTF $1,070,000
2 New Hanover County – Constructed Wetlands
for Landfill Leachate Treatment
03-06-24 New Hanover County –
DEM
CWMTF $785,000
3 New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Water
Quality Enhancement Project
03-06-24 New Hanover County CWMTF $6,000,000
Northeast Cape Fear Riparian Buffer Protection
The Wildlife Resources Commission was awarded funding for acquisition of riparian buffers on
1,076 acres totaling 46,000 linear feet of buffers on the Northeast Cape Fear River. These
purchases tie in with existing state and private protected areas within the river basin.
New Hanover County – Constructed Wetlands for Landfill Leachate Treatment
The county landfill was permitted to discharge 50,000 GPD of leachate to the Northeast Cape
Fear River. The project funded a non-discharge solution including constructed wetland and
spray field for leachate from the New Hanover County municipal solid waste landfill. The
system will drastically reduce current loading of 14,000 lbs/yr of TN, 3,500 lbs/yr of BOD, and
1,800 lbs/yr of TSS. A requirement of funding is for the county to rescind its NPDES discharge
permit and replace it with a non-discharge, land application permit.
New Hanover County Tidal Creeks Water Quality Enhancement Project
This extensive project is coordinated through New Hanover County Planning Department. This
enhancement program will tie in with an ongoing monitoring program, the Tidal Creeks Project,
managed by the UNC–Wilmington Center for Marine Science. The program concentration areas
include acquisition of riparian buffers and easements and implementation of best management
practices. The centerpiece of the program was the acquisition and development of the Airlie
Garden property. This site will act as the focal point for education, research, implementation and
demonstration of estuarine water quality protection and restoration programs. The program plans
to acquire and preserve riparian buffers on five tidal creeks and to implement BMPs controlling
stormwater runoff from these areas.
Section C: Chapter 2 - Current Water Quality Initiatives 269
Chapter 2 -
Future Water Quality Initiatives
2.1 Overall DWQ Goals for the Future
The long-term goal of basinwide management is to protect the water quality standards and uses
of the surface waters in the state while accommodating reasonable economic growth. Attainment
of these goals and objectives will require determined, widespread public support; the combined
cooperation of state, local and federal agencies, agriculture, forestry, industry and development
interests; and considerable financial expenditure on the part of all involved. With this needed
support and cooperation, DWQ believes that these goals are attainable through the basinwide
water quality management approach.
In addition to these efforts, DWQ will continue to pursue several programmatic initiatives
intended to protect or restore water quality across the state. These include NPDES Program
Initiatives, better coordination of basinwide planning, use restoration waters program for
nonpoint source pollution, and improving database management and use of GIS capabilities.
Summaries of these initiatives are provided below.
NPDES Program Initiatives
In the next five years, efforts will be continued to:
• improve compliance with permitted limits;
• improve pretreatment of industrial wastes discharged to municipal wastewater treatment
plants so as to reduce effluent toxicity;
• encourage pollution prevention at industrial facilities in order to reduce the need for pollution
control;
• require dechlorination of chlorinated effluents or use of alternative disinfection methods for
new or expanding facilities;
• require multiple treatment trains at wastewater facilities; and
• require plants to begin plans for enlargement well before they reach capacity.
Long-term point source control efforts will stress reduction of wastes entering wastewater
treatment plants, seeking more efficient and creative ways of recycling by-products of the
treatment process (including reuse of nonpotable treated wastewater), and keeping abreast of and
recommending the most advanced wastewater treatment technologies.
DWQ requires all new and expanding dischargers to submit an alternatives analysis as part of its
NPDES permit application. Non-discharge alternatives, including connection to an existing
WWTP or land-applying wastes, are preferred from an environmental standpoint. If the Division
determines that there is an economically reasonable alternative to a discharge, DWQ may deny
the NPDES permit.
Section C: Chapter 2 - Current Water Quality Initiatives 270
DWQ will continue to make greater use of discharger self-monitoring data to augment the data it
collects. Quality assurance, timing and consistency of data from plant to plant are issues of
importance. Also, a system will need to be developed to enter the data into a computerized
database for later analysis.
Coordinating Basinwide Planning with Other Programs
The basinwide planning process can be used by other programs as a means of identifying and
prioritizing waterbodies in need of restoration or protection efforts and provides a means of
disseminating this information to other water quality protection programs. For example, the plan
can be used to identify and prioritize wastewater treatment plants in need of funding through
DWQ’s Construction Grants and Loan Program. The plans can also assist in identifying projects
and waterbodies applicable to the goals of the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Wetlands
Restoration Program or Section 319 grants program. Information and finalized basin plans are
provided to these offices for their use and to other state and federal agencies.
Use Restoration Waters (URW) Program for Nonpoint Source Impairment
DWQ has developed a conceptual strategy to manage watersheds with nonpoint source
impairments as determined through the use support designations. In July 1998, the state
Environmental Management Commission approved the Use Restoration Waters (URW) program
concept which will target all NPS impaired waters in the state using a two-part approach. As
envisioned, this classification will apply to all watersheds that are not supporting or partially
supporting their designated uses. The program will catalyze voluntary efforts by stakeholder
groups in impaired watersheds to restore those waters by providing various incentives and other
support. Simultaneously, the program will develop a set of mandatory requirements for NPS
pollution categories for locations where local groups choose not to take responsibility for
restoring their impairments. This URW concept offers local governments an opportunity to
implement site-specific projects at the local level as an incentive ("the carrot"). If the EMC is
not satisfied with the progress made towards use restoration by local committees, impairment
based rules will become mandatory in those watersheds ("the stick").
These mandatory requirements may not be tailored to specific watersheds but may apply more
generically across the state or region. DWQ staff has developed a timeline to accomplish the
following within five years from July 1998: work with stakeholder groups to develop mandatory
requirements; acquire the resources needed to carry out the program; develop criteria for
voluntary local programs and supporting incentive tools; and proceed through formal rule
making for the mandatory requirements. The form of the URW program will be strongly
influenced by the year-long stakeholder input process.
With more than 400 impaired watersheds or stream segments in the state, it is not realistic for
DWQ to attempt to develop watershed specific restoration strategies for nonpoint source
pollution. By involving the stakeholders in these watersheds, we believe we can catalyze large-
scale restoration of impaired waters. We anticipate that one of the major implementation
challenges of this new program will be educating public officials and stakeholders at the local
level as to the nature and solutions to their impairments. To address this challenge, the state
plans to develop a GIS-based program to help present information at a scale that is useful to local
Section C: Chapter 2 - Current Water Quality Initiatives 271
land management officials. Other incentives that the state might provide include seed grants and
technical assistance, as well as retaining the authority to mandate regulations on stakeholders
who are not willing to participate.
In cases where incentives and support do not result in effective watershed restoration strategies,
mandatory impairment source management requirements would be implemented in the
watershed. This is not the state’s preferred alternative, as it would add to state monitoring and
enforcement workload. However, in areas where it is necessary, DWQ plans to implement such
requirements. In the management area, DWQ would be assisted by regulatory staff from the
Division of Coastal Management, Division of Environmental Health, Division of Land
Resources and the Division of Marine Fisheries to insure compliance.
Improved Data Management and Expanded Use of Geographic Information System (GIS)
Computer Capabilities
DWQ is in the process of centralizing and improving its computer data management systems.
Most of its water quality program data (including permitted dischargers, waste limits,
compliance information, water quality data, stream classifications, etc.) will be put in a central
data center which will then be made accessible to most staff at desktop computer stations. Some
of this information is also being submitted into the NC Geographic Data Clearinghouse (Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis or CGIA). As this and other information (including
land use data from satellite or air photo interpretation) is made available to the GIS system, the
potential to graphically display the results of water quality data analysis will be tremendous.
Additional Research and Monitoring Needs
DWQ staff have identified some additional research and monitoring needs that would be useful
for assessing, and ultimately, protecting and restoring the water quality of the Cape Fear River
basin. The following list is not inclusive. Rather, it is meant to stimulate ideas for obtaining
more information to better address water quality problems in the basin. With the newly available
funding programs (Clean Water Management Trust Fund and Wetlands Restoration Program)
and the existing Section 319 grant program, it may be desirable for grant applicants to focus
proposals on the following issues:
• More resources are needed to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Identifying nonpoint
sources of pollution and developing management strategies for impaired waters, given the
current limited resources available, is an overwhelming task. Therefore, only limited
progress towards restoring NPS impaired waters can be expected unless substantial resources
are put towards solving NPS problems.
2.2 DWQ Compliance and Enforcement Policy Revisions
DENR began implementing a new two-stage compliance and enforcement policy in 1997. Both
stages of the revised policy are in effect as of July 1, 1999. The five major elements of the policy
are intended to provide a comprehensive route to strengthen enforcement and heighten
Section C: Chapter 2 - Current Water Quality Initiatives 272
compliance for all dischargers and nonpoint sources of water pollution in North Carolina. The
five major components of the policy are to:
1. Foster compliance through pollution prevention, technical assistance and training, reevaluate
existing grant and loan funding priority criteria, and develop recognition and incentive
programs.
2. Enhance enforcement through increased penalties, penalties for sewer collection systems,
reduced thresholds for noncompliance, and delegation of civil penalty assessment authority to
the DWQ regional office supervisors.
3. Focus on chronic and willful violators through increased use of moratoriums on expanding
and additional connections, expansion of notification to the public of violators, clarification
of process of determining "noncompliance", and initiation of discussion with stakeholders on
possible legislative actions.
4. Assure improvement in compliance and enforcement through development of accountability
measures.
5. Find and use all available resources for compliance needs with local, state and nonprofit
groups.
DENR is also in the process of conducting assessment of its enforcement programs. The goal of
the assessment is to identify potential areas for improvement in DENR’s efforts to enforce
environmental laws and ultimately improve compliance. This effort got underway in July 1999
with two focus group meetings. DENR anticipates it will make recommendations for
improvements by October 1999. If you would like to see the Scope of Work for the enforcement
assessment, see DENR’s web page at: http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/EHNR/novs/scope.htm/.
References 273
References
Carolina Power and Light (CP&L). 1996. Sutton Steam Electric Plant 1996 Environmental
Monitoring Report. Carolina Power and Light Company. New Hill, NC.
Center for Watershed Protection. 1995. Blueprint to Protect Coastal Water Quality: A Guide to
Successful Growth Management in the Coastal Region of North Carolina. Report
prepared for the Neuse River Council of Governments under an EPA 205(j) grant
administered by the NC Division of Environmental Management.
CZR Incorporated. 1998. Dioxin Monitoring Study of Fish Tissue from the Cape Fear in the
Vicinity of the International Paper Company Mill at Riegelwood. CZR Incorporated.
Wilmington, NC.
Dohrmann, J. 1995. The Puget Sound Water Quality Initiative - A Case Study in Using the
Tools - I. pp 119-120 in Proceedings - 4th National Watershed Conference. Charleston,
WV. National Watershed Coalition. Lakewood, Colorado.
Duda, A.M. and K.D. Cromartie. 1982. Coastal Pollution from Septic Tank Drainfields.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division ASCE. 108:1265-1279.
Giese, G.L. and Robert R. Mason, Jr. 1993. Low Flow Characteristics of Streams in North
Carolina. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2403.
Herring, J. 1996. A Private Market Approach to On-Site Wastewater Treatment System
Maintenance. The Small Flows Journal. 2:1:16-24.
Mallin, Michael A., Martin H. Posey, G. Christopher Shank, Matthew R. McIver, Scott H.
Ensign and Troy D. Alphin. 1999. Hurricane Effects on Water Quality and Benthos in
the Cape Fear Watershed: Natural and Anthropogenic Impacts. Ecological Applications.
9:1:350-362.
Mallin, M.A., S.E. Williams, E.C. Esham and R.P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 20:(In press).
North Carolina Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Oysters. 1995. Final Report on Studies and
Recommendations. October.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Water Quality. Environmental Sciences Branch. June 1999. Basinwide Assessment
Report Cape Fear River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
References 274
References (con’t)
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
Division of Marine Fisheries. 1997. Fisheries Management Plan for the Cape Fear
River. Division of Inland Fisheries.
____. 1997. Standard Operating Procedures. Biological Monitoring. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Ecosystems Analysis Unit. Biological Assessment Group.
Schueler, T. 1995. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1:3
(pp 100-111).
Tschetter, P. and J. Maiolo. 1984. Social and Economic Impacts of Coastal Zone Development
on the Hard Clam and Oyster Fisheries in North Carolina. Working Paper 84-3. UNC
Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-WP-84-3.
US Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994. 1992 National
Resources Inventory. North Carolina State Office. Raleigh, NC.
____. Natural Resources Conservation Service. November 1995. North Carolina Cooperative
Hydrologic Unit River Basin Study. North Carolina State Office. Raleigh, NC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Areas. 840-B-92-002. Office of Water.

Appendices

Appendix I

NPDES Dischargers
and
Individual Stormwater Permits
in the
Cape Fear River Basin

A-I-1
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0003913 Glen Raven Mills - Altamahaw Division Alamance Winston-Salem Major Non-Municipal 2 55 14 16 0.15 30601 Haw River
NC0024881 Reidsville, City - WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 2 23 26 55 5 30601 Little Troublesome Creek
NC0036994 Rockingham Co School - Monroeton Rockingham Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0042 30601 UT Troublesome Creek
NC0045161 Alamance Co Sch - Altamahaw-Ossi Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.012 30601 Haw River
NC0046019 Episcopal Diocese Conference Center Rockingham Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 13 0.015 30601 UT Haw River
NC0046043 Oak Ridge Academy Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 11 0.04 30601 UT Haw River
NC0046345 Reidsville, City of (WTP) Rockingham Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30601 Reid Lake
NC0046809 Pentecostal Holiness Church Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 11 12 13 0.02 30601 UT Benaja Creek
NC0060259 Willow Oak LLC Rockingham Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.0175 30601 Little Troublesome Creek
NC0065412 Rea Enterprises, LLC Rockingham Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.0235 30601 Little Troublesome Creek
NC0066010 Rockingham Co - Williamsburg Elem Rockingham Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.004 30601 UT Haw River
NC0073571 Countryside Village Retirement Center Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 7 11 0.015 30601 Troublesome Creek
NC0085791 Gas Town, Inc - Bill’s Convenience Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.0504 30601 UT Beaver Creek
NC0000876 Cone Mills - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Major Non-Municipal 55 14 2 1.25 30602 North Buffalo Creek
NC0001210 Monarch Hosiery Mills, Inc. Alamance Winston-Salem Major Non-Municipal 55 2 0.05 30602 Reedy Fork Creek
NC0001384 Burlington Industries - Williamsburg Caswell Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 2 14 0.025 30602 UT Buttermilk Creek
NC0003671 Amoco Oil Company - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30602 UT Horsepen Creek
NC0021211 Graham, City - Gilbreath Street Alamance Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 55 57 59 40 3.5 30602 Haw River
NC0021474 Mebane, City - WWTP / Mebane Alamance Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 55 58 59 2.5 30602 Moadams Creek
NC0022446 Rayco Utilities - Quarry Hills Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.05 30602 Haw River
NC0022691 Autumn Forest Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.082 30602 UT Reedy Fork Creek
NC0023868 Burlington, City - Wwwp / East Side Alamance Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 56 55 31 32 12 30602 Haw River
NC0023876 Burlington, City - WWTP / South Side Alamance Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 55 27 40 67 12 30602 Big Alamance Creek
NC0024325 Greensboro, City - North Buffalo Creek Guilford Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 26 55 57 56 16 30602 North Buffalo Creek
NC0029351 Arrowhead Motor Lodge Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 13 10 0.007 30602 UT Haw Creek
NC0029726 DOC - Guilford Correctional Center Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 11 0.025 30602 UT N.Buffalo Creek
NC0031607 Alamance Co School - Western Middle Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.015 30602 Haw River
NC0038130 Guilford Co Sch - Northwest JR & HS Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.031 30602 UT Moores Creek
NC0038156 Guilford Co Sch - Northeast Senior HS Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.032 30602 UT Reedy Fork Creek
NC0038172 Guilford Co Sch - Mcleansville Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0113 30602 UT S.Buffalo Creek
NC0042528 Saxapahaw Plant - B.E. Jordan Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 6 0 0 0 0.015 30602 Haw River
NC0045144 Alamance Co Sch - West Alamance HS Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0115 30602 Haw River
NC0045152 Alamance Co Sch - Jordan Elem Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0075 30602 Haw River
NC0045292 Graham Mebane WTP - Graham Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30602 Back Creek
NC0047384 Greensboro, City - T.Z. Osborne Guilford Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 55 56 23 31 22 30602 South Buffalo Creek
NC0055271 Shields Mobile Home Park Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.006 30602 Travis Creek
NC0059625 South Saxapahaw Home Owners Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30602 UT Haw River
NC0066966 Quarterstone Farm WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.2 30602 Buffalo Creek
NC0071463 Apex Oil Company Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 39 Not limited 30602 UT Horsepen Creek
NC0077968 Horner Investment Group Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.04 30602 Reedy Fork
NC0078000 Worth Chemical Corporation Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.216 30602 UT South Buffalo Creek
NC0081426 Greensboro, City - N.L.Mitch / WTP Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30602 North Buffalo Creek

A-I-2
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0081671 Greensboro, City - Lake Townsend Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 1.5 30602 Reedy Fork Creek
NC0082082 UNC - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 14 16 15 Not limited 30602 North Buffalo Creek
NC0084328 Haw River Realty, Inc. Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 82 66 0.12 30602 UT Haw River
NC0084778 Harvin Reaction Technology Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.11 30602 UT North Buffalo Creek
NC0085383 Whitsett Texaco - Huffman Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 Not limited 30602 UT Back Creek
NC0085821 Amp, Inc - Greensboro Site Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 82 0.0576 30602 UT North Buffalo Creek
NC0086380 BP Oil - Station 24154 Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 Not limited 30602 UT Horsepen Creek
NC0022098 Cedar Valley Communities, LLC Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 3 0.01 30603 Little Alamance Creek
NC0022675 Country Club MHP Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.043 30603 UT Little Alamance Creek
NC0038164 Guilford Co Sch - Nathaniel Greene Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0045 30603 UT North Prong-Stinking Quarter Ck
NC0048241 Staley Hosiery Mills Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 2 4 0.005 30603 UT Big Alamance Creek
NC0050024 Forest Oaks Country Club *** Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 5 13 0.01 30603 UT Beaver Creek
NC0083828 Burlington, City of Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30603 Big Alamance Creek
NC0084841 Forest Oaks Country Club Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.0288 30603 UT Beaver Creek
NC0020354 Pittsboro, Town - WWTP Chatham Raleigh Minor Municipal 1 0.75 30604 Roberson Creek
NC0035866 Chatham County - Bynum WWTP Chatham Raleigh Minor Municipal 1 0.025 30604 Haw River
NC0040711 Weyerhaeuser Company - Moncure Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 19 16 17 Not limited 30604 Haw River
NC0042285 Trails Property Owners Assoc. Orange Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.04 30604 UT Collins Creek
NC0045128 Alamance Co Sch - Sylvan Elem Alamance Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0014 30604 Cane Creek
NC0051331 Chapel Hill West - Tower Apart Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 7 0.0016 30604 UT Meadow Branch
NC0070378 Hydraulics Ltd. *** Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 22 0.0005 30604 UT Pokeberry Creek
NC0080896 Pittsboro, Town - WTP Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30604 Haw River
NC0026051 Durham County - Triangle WWTP Durham Raleigh Major Municipal 1 59 57 79 33 6 30605 Northeast Creek
NC0042803 Birchwood Mobile Home Park Orange Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.018 30605 UT New Hope Creek
NC0043257 Nature Trails MHP Carlylegroup Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 8 4 0.04 30605 Cub Creek
NC0043559 Fearrington Utilities - Village Center Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.27 30605 UT Bush Creek
NC0047597 Durham, South Water Reclam. Facility Durham Raleigh Major Municipal 1 56 27 57 55 20 30605 New Hope Creek
NC0074446 Hilltop Mobile Home Park Orange Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.012 30605 Old Field Creek
NC0081591 Cary, Town - WWTP / Cary & Apex Wake Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30605 UT White Oak Creek
NC0084093 Jordan Lake WTP Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30605 New Hope River(Jordan Lake)
NC0085260 Mccarthy & Associates Durham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.0086 30605 Burdens Creek
NC0025241 Owasa - Mason Farm WWTP Orange Raleigh Major Municipal 1 9 79 8 30606 Morgan Creek
NC0025305 UNC - Chapel Hill S.E. Power Plant Orange Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 68 0.0922 30606 UT Morgan Creek
NC0048429 Cedar Village Apartments Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 5 7 0.005 30606 UT Cub Creek
NC0051314 North Chatham W&S / Cole Park Place Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.015 30606 UT Cub Creek
NC0056413 Carolina Meadows, Inc. Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.18 30606 UT Morgan Creek
NC0082210 Orange Water & Sewer Authority Orange Raleigh Major Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30606 UT Morgan Creek
NC0084018 Exxon Station No. 4-0779 Orange Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.008 30606 Bolin Creek
NC0084603 Kenan Oil Company Orange Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.0072 30606 UT Chapel Creek
NC0000892 Neste Resins Corporation Chatham Raleigh Major Non-Municipal 31 0.1 30607 Haw River
NC0001899 Allied Signal-Fiber Division Chatham Raleigh Major Non-Municipal 36 16 17 21 2 0.244 30607 Haw River
NC0002861 Sanford, City of - WTP Lee Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 21 49 Not limited 30607 UT Cape Fear River

A-I-3
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0003433 CP&L Cape Fear S.E. (Power Plant) Chatham Raleigh Major Non-Municipal 68 14 10 30607 UT Cape Fear River
NC0007684 Northeast Metropolitan Water District Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30607 Cape Fear River
NC0021636 Lillington WWTP, Town of Harnett Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 14 0.6 30607 Cape Fear River
NC0023442 Willamette Ind / Moncure Division Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 2 0.008 30607 Haw River
NC0028118 Fuquay-Varina, Town - Kenneth Creek Wake Raleigh Major Municipal 1 1.2 30607 Kenneth Creek
NC0030091 Buies Creek WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 11 0.5 30607 Cape Fear River
NC0039586 CP&L Shearon Harris Nuclear Wake Raleigh Major Non-Municipal 17 70 69 2 73 0.05 30607 Harris Reservoir
NC0048101 Senters Rest Home Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 11 0.007 30607 U T Kenneth Creek
NC0055051 Country Lake Estates Association Wake Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 5 8 0.09 30607 UT Buckhorn Creek
NC0059242 Broadway WWTP, Town of Lee Raleigh Minor Municipal 1 0.145 30607 Daniels Creek
NC0063096 Holly Springs, Town of - WWTP Wake Raleigh Minor Municipal 1 2 0.5 30607 Utley Creek
NC0082597 Angier, Town - WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 1 0.5 30607 Cape Fear River
NC0000795 Exxon Co. USA - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0022209 Star Enterprise - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30608 UT Long Branch
NC0024210 High Point - East Side WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 55 56 53 31 16 30608 Richland Creek
NC0025445 Randleman, City - WWTP / Randleman Randolph Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 55 56 1.745 30608 Deep River
NC0026247 Louis Dreyfus Energy Corp. Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 73 Not limited 30608 UT E. Fork Deep River
NC0027758 DOC - Sandy Ridge Corr Center #4435 Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 11 0.0175 30608 UT West Fork Deep River
NC0031046 Colonial Pipeline - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0036366 National Pipe and Plastics, Inc Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 14 15 36 Not limited 30608 UT West Fork Deep River
NC0037117 Guilford Co Sch - Sumner Elem Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.009 30608 UT Hickory Creek
NC0038091 Guilford Co Sch - Southern Elem Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0075 30608 UT Hickory Creek
NC0038229 Guilford Co Sch - South Guilford HS Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.012 30608 UT Hickory Creek
NC0041483 Plaza Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.003 30608 UT Hickory Creek
NC0042501 Triad Terminal Company Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0050792 Rayco Utilities - Melbille Heights Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 5 0.0315 30608 Muddy Creek
NC0051161 Plantation Pipe Line Company Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0055191 Rayco Utilities - Penman Heights Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.025 30608 UT Muddy Creek
NC0055255 Crown Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.042 30608 UT Hickory Creek
NC0065358 Hidden Forest Mfg Homes Comm Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.027 30608 UT Deep River
NC0065803 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0069256 Amerada Hess Corporation Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 39 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0069451 Rimmer Mobile Home Court Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.0204 30608 Muddy Creek
NC0074241 HRS Terminals, Inc. Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 37 38 39 Not limited 30608 UT East Fork Deep River
NC0074578 William Energy Ventures - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 39 73 Not limited 30608 UT Long Branch
NC0081256 High Point, City - WTP Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 10 30608 UT Richland Creek
NC0084492 Carolina Steel Corporation Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 82 Not limited 30608 UT West Fork Deep River
NC0085201 Boren Brick Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 2 41 0.004 30608 UT Polecat Creek
NC0086029 Trinity American Corporation Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.072 30608 Caraway Creek
NC0000639 Sapona Manufacturing Company Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 2 16 17 66 0.01 30609 Deep River
NC0001171 Hooker Furniture Corporation Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 2 14 16 0.02 30609 UT Polecat Creek
NC0007820 Franklinville, Town - WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Municipal 1 0.03 30609 Deep River

A-I-4
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0023299 Woodlake MHP - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.07 30609 UT Polecat Creek
NC0026123 Asheboro WWTP, City of Randolph Winston-Salem Major Municipal 1 9 30609 Hasketts Creek
NC0026565 Ramseur, Town - WWTP / Roundleaf R Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Municipal 1 55 0.48 30609 Deep River
NC0038300 S.S. Construction & Rental, Inc Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.01 30609 UT Brush Creek
NC0040924 Randolph Co BOE - Seagrove Elem Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0088 30609 UT Fork Creek
NC0040941 Randolph Co BOE - Grays Chapel Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 81 0.009 30609 UT Sandy Creek
NC0040975 Randolph Co BOE - Coleridge Elem Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0056 30609 Deep River
NC0042030 Faith Christian School Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0053 30609 UT Deep River
NC0055913 Monroe’s Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.03 30609 Polecat Creek
NC0074454 Ramseur, Town - WTP Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30609 Sandy Creek
NC0084077 Hancock Country Hams, Inc. Randolph Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.1 30609 UT Sandy Creek
NC0084816 Thomasville Furniture Ind. Guilford Winston-Salem Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.0288 30609 UT Polecat Creek
NC0032948 Moore Co BOE – WWTP/Highfalls Elem Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.004 30610 UT Deep River
NC0032964 Moore Co BOE - WWTP/N. Moore HS Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.01 30610 UT Bear Creek
NC0039471 Chatham Co Sch - Bennett Elem Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.005 30610 UT Flat Creek
NC0058548 Star, Town of - WWTP Montgomery Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 55 0.6 30610 Cotton Creek
NC0062855 Robbins, Town - WWTP Moore Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 1 30610 Deep River
NC0085987 Deep River Seafood / E.L. Smith *** Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 10 0.0085 30610 UT Tysons Creek
NC0024147 Sanford, City - WWTP / Big Buffalo Lee Raleigh Major Municipal 1 56 55 33 5 30611 Deep River
NC0030384 Moncure Community Health Center Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 9 0.0025 30611 Deep River
NC0039349 Chatham Co Sch - Waters Elem Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.009 30611 UT Cedar Creek
NC0072575 Golden Poultry / Gold-Kist Lee Raleigh Major Non-Municipal 23 1 30611 Deep River
NC0081493 Bost Distributing Corp. Lee Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 81 0.003 30611 Purgatory Branch
NC0081795 Goldston Gulf Sanitary District Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 21 0.006 30611 Deep River
NC0083852 Lee County Water Treatment Lee Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30611 UT Deep River
NC0026441 Siler City WWTP, Town of Chatham Raleigh Major Municipal 1 4 30612 Loves Creek
NC0038849 Hill Forest Rest Home Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 11 0.003 30612 Bear Creek
NC0039331 Chatham Co Sch - Bonlee Elem Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.007 30612 UT Bear Creek
NC0039381 Chatham Co BOE - Central HS Chatham Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.01 30612 UT Bear Creek
NC0001406 Swift Textiles (Erwin Mills) Harnett Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 55 21 2 2.5 30613 Cape Fear River
NC0038831 Carolina Trace Utilities, Inc. Lee Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 13 5 0.325 30613 Upper Little River
NC0043176 Dunn, City - WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 23 3 30613 Cape Fear River
NC0064521 Erwin, Town - South 20th Street WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 1.2 30613 Cape Fear River
NC0078955 Dunn, City - WTP Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 21 2 30613 Juniper Creek
NC0080560 Erwin WTP, Town of Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30613 UT Cape Fear River
NC0003964 US Army - Fort Bragg WWTP & WTP Cumberland Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 11 21 37 8 30614 Little River
NC0007838 Moore Co WASA / Vass WTP Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 21 0.02 30614 UT Little River
NC0022489 Little River Prop, Inc - Dilton Cumberland Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.015 30614 Little River
NC0030970 Spring Lake, Town - WWTP Cumberland Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 1.5 30614 Lower Little River
NC0031470 Cooper Ranch MHP - Hwy 210 North Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.4 30614 Jumping Run Creek
NC0032956 Moore Co BOE - WWTP / Sandhills Elem Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.0045 30614 UT Little River
NC0057525 Crystal Lake Associates, LLC Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 6 0.012 30614 Mill Creek

A-I-5
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0061719 Woodlake Water & Sewer Company, Inc. Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 6 5 1 30614 Crane Creek
NC0074373 Moore Co WASA / Vass WWTP Moore Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 0.06 30614 Little River
NC0077101 Carolina Water Service - Whispering 4 Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30614 UT Little River
NC0086100 Cameron, Town - Well #5 Moore Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30614 UT Little Crane Creek
NC0003719 Monsanto Cumberland Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 34 14 2 32 73 0.889 30615 Cape Fear River
NC0023957 PWC / Fayetteville-Cross Creek WWT Cumberland Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 40 23 22 30615 Cape Fear River
NC0024481 Days Inn - Fayetteville Cumberland Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 13 0.025 30615 Bakers Swamp
NC0026514 Raeford, City – WWTP / US 401 South Hoke Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 23 55 3 30615 Rockfish Creek
NC0050105 PWC / Fayetteville-Rockfish Creek Cumberland Fayetteville Major Municipal 1 14 30615 Cape Fear River
NC0076783 PWC / Fayetteville - Hoffer WTP Cumberland Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30615 Cape Fear River
NC0001121 Veeder-Root Company Bladen Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 57 14 52 5 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0003522 Alamac Knit Fabics, Elizabethtown Bladen Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 55 14 22 2.5 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0003573 DuPont - Fayetteville Bladen Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 14 22 2 36 2 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0023353 White Lake WWTP, Town of Bladen Fayetteville Minor Municipal 8 6 10 0.8 30616 UT Colly Creek
NC0026671 Elizabethtown, Town - WWTP Bladen Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 55 0.7 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0032913 Bladen Co Sch - East Arcadia Elem Bladen Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.006 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0058297 Cogentrix - Elizabethtown Bladen Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 15 68 Not limited 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0078344 Smithfield Foods, Inc - Tarheel Bladen Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 23 2 3 30616 Cape Fear River
NC0000663 DuPont - Wilmington / Brunswick Brunswick Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 36 31 2 21 14 3.5 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0000817 Wilmington Ind Park /Smith Creek WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 2 40 73 0.1 30617 Smith Creek
NC0001112 Arteva Specialties - Wilmington New Hanover Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 31 36 14 16 2 1.7 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0001228 General Electric Co - Wilm/Castle New Hanover Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 2 14 16 57 58 1.875 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0001422 CP&L Sutton S.E. (Power Plant) New Hanover Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 14 68 69 70 Not limited 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0002879 Wilmington, City - Sweeney WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0003298 Federal Paper Board Co - Riegelwood Columbus Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 18 2 50 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0003395 Wright Corporation Columbus Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 31 14 16 0.135 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0003727 PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 32 15 16 0.28 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0003794 Corning, Inc – North College Road - 310 New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 17 14 73 Not limited 30617 Spring Branch
NC0007064 CP&L Brunswick S.E. (Power Plant) Brunswick Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 14 69 70 2 0.055 30617 Atlantic Ocean
NC0021334 Southport, Town – WWTP / Southport Brunswick Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.8 30617 Cottage Creek
NC0023256 Carolina Beach, Town - WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Major Municipal 1 3 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0023477 Koch Sulfur Prod - Acid Plant New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 14 16 Not limited 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0023639 Holtrachem Manufacturing Co., LLC Columbus Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 14 16 Not limited 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0023965 Wilmington-Northside WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Major Municipal 1 27 56 40 59 8 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0023973 Wilmington-Southside WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Major Municipal 1 27 59 40 12 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0025763 Kure Beach WWTP, Town of New Hanover Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.285 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0027065 Archer Daniels Midland Company Brunswick Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 31 16 17 32 2 3.51 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0028568 JLM Terminals, Inc - Stw/New Han New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 39 37 Not limited 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0029122 US Army - Sunny Point Terminal Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 11 2 0.03 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0029173 New Hanover Co - M. Heights WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.05 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0039527 New Hanover Co - Walnut Hills New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.1 30617 UT Northeast Cape Fear
NC0040061 Brunswick Co - Beaverdam Creek WTP Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 22 0 0 Not limited 30617 Beaverdam Creek

A-I-6
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0040860 Royal Palms MHP, LLC New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 8 0.045 30617 Mott Creek
NC0043788 Columbus Co Sch - Acme Delco HS Columbus Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.01 30617 UT Lindscomb Branch
NC0043796 Columbus Co Sch - Acme Delco Elem Columbus Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.009 30617 UT Pretty Creek
NC0046299 New Hanover Co - Smith Creek Estates New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.1 30617 Smith Creek
NC0049743 New Hanover Co - Landfill WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 72 0.05 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0055107 Inlet Bay Utility - Dolphin Bay New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.08 30617 Snows Cut
NC0057533 Brunswick Co - Hood Creek WTP Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 21 Not limited 30617 Hood Creek
NC0057703 Fairways Utilities / The Cape New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.26 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0058599 Leland, Town - Clairmont S. Center Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 2 10 0.1 30617 Brunswick River
NC0058971 New Hanover Co - Refuse To Steam New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 16 14 21 17 Not limited 30617 UT Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0059234 Takeda Chemical Products USA New Hanover Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 33 66 1 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0059978 Fairways Utilities, Inc. New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 6 0.4 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0061271 New Hanover Co - Churchill E*** New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.025 30617 Smith Creek
NC0064700 Creekside Townhomes - LI Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 6 0.027 30617 Jackeys Creek
NC0065099 Cogentrix - Southport Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 15 16 17 68 70 Not limited 30617 CP&L - Brunswick Canal
NC0065307 Worsley Companies - Dixie Boy #6 New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 10 37 0.004 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0065480 Beau Rivage Plantation New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.1 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0065676 Leland Ind Park – WWTP / NC SR 1431 Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 2 16 17 37 57 0.25 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0066711 Amerada Hess Corporation New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 39 37 61 16 66 Not limited 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0073172 Paktank Corp - Woodbine Street Site New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 73 16 39 Not limited 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0073181 Exxon Chemical Company New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 39 37 Not limited 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0075540 Belville, Town - WWTP Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 1 0.4 30617 Brunswick River
NC0076732 Koch Petroleum Group, LP New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 39 73 66 0.1 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0077691 S&W Ready Mix Concrete Co. *** New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 2 0.0003 30617 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0081507 Federal Paper Boardd Co - Wilmington New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.025 30617 Burnt Mill Creek
NC0081736 New Hanover Co - Airport WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Major Municipal 1 4 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0082295 Fortron Industries New Hanover Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 31 73 0.245 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0082970 CTI of North Carolina New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 37 66 0.0144 30617 Cape Fear River
NC0083658 AAF/Mcquay, Inc. New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 66 0.288 30617 UT Barnards Creek
NC0083895 CP&L Brunswick S.E. (WWTP) Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 2 0.036 30617 Brunswick Channel - Atlantic
NC0085553 Bald Head Island Development Co. Brunswick Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 21 0.006 30617 Bald Head Island Marina Basin
NC0058793 Golden Years Nursing Home Cumberland Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 11 0.05 30618 South River
NC0060747 National Mechanical Carbon Harnett Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 77 57 0.026 30618 Juniper Creek
NC0083135 B&B Produce, Inc Johnston Raleigh Minor Non-Municipal 24 0.025 30618 UT Mingo Swamp
NC0020117 Clinton, Town of - WWTP Sampson Fayetteville Major Non-Municipal 1 23 55 58 3 30619 Williams Old Mill Branch
NC0020346 Magnolia, Town - WWTP / Magnolia Duplin Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.09 30619 UT Millers Creek
NC0021903 Warsaw, Town - WWTP Duplin Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.61 30619 Stewarts Creek
NC0024791 DOT - Sampson Co. US 421 Rest Area Sampson Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 13 0.006 30619 Six Runs Creek
NC0025569 Garland, Town of - WWTP Sampson Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 0.126 30619 Great Coharie Creek
NC0026816 Roseboro WWTP, Town of Sampson Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 0.7 30619 Little Coharie Creek
NC0072877 Newton Grove, Town of - WWTP Sampson Fayetteville Minor Municipal 1 0.2 30619 Beaverdam Swamp
NC0036404 Lake Creek Corp - Bay Tree Lakes Bladen Fayetteville Minor Non-Municipal 6 5 0.02 30620 Bay Tree Lake To Colly Creek

A-I-7
Permit Facility County Region Type Ownership D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Qw Subbasin Stream

NC0085481 Pender Co BOE-Penderlea Elem Pender Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.01 30620 UT Crooked Run
NC0001074 Mount Olive Pickle Company Wayne Washington Major Non-Municipal 24 14 0.4 30621 Barlow Branch
NC0003051 Mount Olive, Town - WTP #3 Way Wayne Washington Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30621 UT Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0020575 Mount Olive, Town of - WWTP Wayne Washington Major Municipal 1 1 30621 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0001970 Dean Pickle & Specialty Products Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 24 14 0.5 30622 UT Panther Branch
NC0002305 Guilford Mills, Inc / Guilford East Duplin Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 55 2 14 1.5 30622 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0002763 National Spinning Company - Warsaw Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 14 22 0 Not limited 30622 UT Grove Creek
NC0002933 Calypso WTP, Town of Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30622 UT Dicks Branch
NC0003344 Swift-Eckrich / Butterball Duplin Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 23 14 16 2 1.5 30622 Rockfish Creek
NC0003450 Wallace, Town - Textile WWTP Duplin Wilmington Major Municipal 55 14 17 5 30622 Little Rockfish Creek
NC0020702 Wallace, Town of - WWTP Duplin Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 1 30622 Rockfish Creek
NC0026018 Beulaville, Town of - WWTP Duplin Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.26 30622 Persimmon Branch
NC0036668 Kenansville, Town of - WWTP Duplin Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.3 30622 Grove Creek
NC0056863 Rose Hill, Town of - WWTP Duplin Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.45 30622 Reedy Branch
NC0058271 Cogentrix - Kenansville Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 16 17 68 70 11 Not limited 30622 UT Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0063711 Albertson Water & Sewer District Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30622 UT Great Branch
NC0066320 House of Raeford - Rose Hill Plant Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 14 Not limited 30622 UT Beaverdam Branch
NC0079707 Southern Products Distribution, Inc Duplin Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 24 0.065 30622 UT Panther Branch
NC0003875 Occidental Chemical Corp. - Cast New Hanover Wilmington Major Non-Municipal 32 2 61 17 22 1.07 30623 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0007757 Thorn Apple Valley / Carolina Division Onslow Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 2 23 0.65 30623 UT Juniper Swamp
NC0021113 Burgaw, Town - WWTP Pender Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.5 30623 Osgood Canal
NC0042251 Pender Co BOE -Pender High School Pender Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 3 0.02 30623 Long Creek
NC0051969 Hermitage House Rest Home New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 11 0.012 30623 UT Prince George Creek
NC0062804 New Hanover Co - Northchase WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 5 0.2 30623 Northeast Cape Fear River
NC0001091 Laque Center for Corrosion Tech New Hanover Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 80 Not limited 30624 Banks Channel
NC0025895 Holly Ridge, Town of - WWTP Onslow Wilmington Minor Municipal 1 0.1 30624 UT Kings Creek
NC0032221 Carolina Water Service - Belvedere Pender Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30624 UT Intracoastal Waterway
NC0081728 Pender Co BOE - Filter Backwash Pender Wilmington Minor Non-Municipal 22 Not limited 30624 UT Old Topsail Creek

A-I-8

LIST OF DISCHARGE CODES

INDICATING TYPES OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGED

1 Domestic Municipal
2 Domestic Industrial / Commercial
3 Domestic Schools
4 Domestic Single Family Residence
5 Domestic Subdivisions
6 Domestic Condominiums
7 Domestic Apartments
8 Domestic Mobile Home Parks
9 Domestic Hospitals
10 Domestic Restaurants
11 Domestic Institutions (colleges, academies, nursing homes, prisons, etc.)
12 Domestic Child Care Facilities
13 Domestic Lodging (hotels, motels, guest houses, campgrounds, rest areas, etc.)
14 Non-Contact cooling water/condensate
15 Contact cooling water
16 Boiler Blowdown
17 Cooling Tower Blowdown
18 Pulp and Paper
19 Wood products
20 Wood treatment
21 Water plants (Surface water)
22 Water plants and Water conditioning (Groundwater)
23 Meat processing and rendering
24 Vegetable and Fruit processing
25 Seafood and Fish processing
26 Tobacco processing
27 Beverage production
28 Agricultural animal waste
29 Fish or Seafood farms
30 Seafood or Fish packing
31 Organic chemical manufacturing
32 Inorganic chemical manufacturing
33 Drug manufacturing
34 Pesticide and Herbicide production
35 Fertilizer production
36 Plastics and Synthetics manufacturing
37 Oil separator
38 Oil refinery
39 Oil terminal
40 Laundry waste
41 Mining and Material processing
42 Mine dewatering
43 Sand dredging
44 Gem mining
45 Swimming pool backwash
46 Peat mining
47 Battery manufacturing
48 Hydroelectric turbines
49 Paint and Ink formulation
50 Printing and Publishing
51 Photo Equipment and Supplies / Film Processing

A-I-9
52 Soap and Detergent manufacturing
53 Dairy product processing
54 Cement manufacturing
55 Textiles
56 Metal plating
57 Metal finishing
58 Metal forming
59 Electrical / Electronic components
60 Railway yards
61 Car wash facilities
62 Porcelain enameling
63 Rubber processing
64 Glass manufacturing
65 Leather tanning and processing
66 Groundwater remediation
67 Non-Ferrous Metals manufacturing
68 Ash Ponds and Coal Piles
69 Metal Cleaning (Steam Electric plants)
70 Low-Volume Wastes (Steam Electric plants)
71 Brick manufacturing wastewater ponds
72 Landfill leachate
73 Stormwater
74 Aquifer depressurization
75 Phosphate rock – Clay Pond wastewater
76 Bakeries and Confectionery products
77 Marine Fisheries Research station
78 Other wastewater from Industrial and Commercial (Not otherwise listed)
79 Laboratory wastewater
80 Saltwater corrosion research
81 Food Preparation (Not classified elsewhere)
82 Contaminated soils
83 Truck washout (Concrete Plant)
84 Inorganic chemical processing
85 Organic chemical processing
86 Animal Shelters / Pounds / Hospitals

Appendices

Appendix II

Water Quality Data
Collected by DWQ

• Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections

• Fish Community Assessments

A-II-1
Appendix II Benthic macroinvertebrate collections in the Cape Fear River Basin, 1983-1998

CPF 01
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Haw R, SR 2109 at Oak Ridge, Guilford B-1 16-(1) 7/98 -/11 -/5.30 Fair
7/93 -/9 -/5.67 Fair
5/85 59/11 6.52/4.85 Fair
Haw R, US 29 Bus, Rockingham B-2 16-(1) 7/98 69/21 6.10/5.17 Good-Fair
7/93 56/20 5.87/5.12 Good-Fair
Haw R, NC 150, Alamance B-3 16-(1) 7/98 -/17 -/4.90 Good-Fair
Haw R, NC 87 nr Altamahaw, Alamance B-4 16-(1) 7/98 57/17 6.69/5.98 Fair
7/93 69/22 5.85/5.14 Good-Fair
7/90 63/12 7.13/5.57 Fair
7/87 65/14 6.41/5.93 Good-Fair
5/85 65/23 6.50/4.91 Good-Fair
Brooks Lake Trib, Scout Camp, Guilford B-5 16-4-1-(1) 6/90 53/15 4.30/2.39 Not Rated
6/85 79/20 4.95/2.47 Not Rated
Candy Cr, SR 2700, Guilford B-6 16-5 6/90 59/10 6.61/5.72 Not Rated
6/85 69/11 6.96/6.17 Not Rated
Troublesome Cr, SR 2422, Rockingham B-7 16-6-(0.7) 7/98 -/14 -/4.85 Good-Fair
7/93 -/18 -/4.88 Good-Fair
L Troublesome Cr, ab Reidsville WWTP, B-8 16-7 11/94 59/18 6.48/5.58 Fair
Guilford 1/92 42/8 6.74/5.63 Fair
12/87 69/18 6.71/5.21 Fair
L Troublesome Cr, be Reidsville WWTP, B-9 16-7 11/94 39/8 7.17/5.80 Fair
Guilford 1/92 33/7 6.83/5.15 Fair
12/87 37/11 6.91/4.16 Fair
L Troublesome Cr, SR 2598, Rockingham B-10 16-7 5/85 36/3 7.72/5.63 Poor
L Troublesome Cr, SR 2600, Rockingham B-11 16-7 7/98 42/3 7.60/7.02 Poor
7/93 42/3 7.22/7.22 Poor

CPF 02
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Haw R, NC 49 at Haw R, Alamance B-1 16-(1) 5/85 58/10 6.85/5.76 Fair
8/84 36/12 6.58/5.70 Fair
Haw R, NC 54 nr Graham, Alamance B-2 16-(1) 7/98 73/21 6/01/4.69 Good-Fair
7/93 64/19 6.11/5.20 Good-Fair
8/89 58/14 6.15/5.55 Good-Fair
8/87 -/13 -/5.43 Fair
7/87 74/20 6.29/5.49 Good-Fair
9/85 60/14 6.49/5.43 Fair
5/84 66/16 6.96/5.44 Fair
8/83 73/15 7.06/5.50 Fair
Haw R, ab Alamance Cr, Alamance B-3 16-(1) 5/84 64/16 7.04/5.03 Fair
Haw R, be Alamance Cr, Alamance B-4 16-(1) 5/84 68/20 7.12/4.61 Fair
Reedy Fk, SR 2128 nr Oak Ridge, Guilford B-5 16-11-(1) 7/98 -/19 -/4.06 Good-Fair
7/93 -/19 -/4.87 Good-Fair
7/88 69/22 5.55/4.44 Good
4/86 77/24 5.50/4.48 Good
Brush Cr, SR 2136 (Fleming Rd), Guilford B-6 16-11-4-(1) 9/98 72/15 6.83/5.00 Fair
Horsepen Cr, US 220, Guilford B-7 16-11-5-(0.5) 7/98 -/7 -/6.45 Fair
7/93 -/9 -/6.10 Fair
4/86 82/22 6.48/5.13 Good-Fair
UT Horsepen Cr, Friendly Rd, Guilford B-8 16-11-5-1-(2) 9/98 51/6 6.80/6.58 Not Rated*
9/92 43/4 7.58/7.04 Not Rated*
Reedy Fk, SR 2728, Guilford B-9 16-11-(9) 7/98 -/18 -/5.63 Good-Fair
7/93 -/16 -/5.99 Good-Fair
Reedy Fk, NC 87 nr Ossippee, Alamance B-10 16-11-(9) 7/98 53/11 7.11/6.15 Fair
7/93 68/20 6.41/5.58 Good-Fair
8/89 67/14 6.88/6.03 Fair

A-II-2
CPF 02 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

7/86 59/10 6.75/6.02 Fair
5/85 49/12 7.69/5.98 Fair
8/83 52/13 7.65/6.69 Fair
N Buffalo Cr, ab Cone Mills, Guilford B-11 16-11-14-1 7/97 43/5 7.49/6.99 Poor
N Buffalo Cr, be Cone Mills, Guilford B-12 16-11-14-1 7/98 -/5 -/7.08 Poor
7/97 50/4 7.81/6.49 Poor
N Buffalo Cr, ab WWTP, Guilford B-13 16-11-14-1 7/97 50/3 7.75/7.00 Poor
11/88 37/3 7.79/7.42 Poor
N Buffalo Cr, SR 2832 be WWTP, Guilford B-14 16-11-14-1 7/98 37/3 8.00/7.00 Poor
7/93 40/4 8.11/6.68 Poor
11/88 32/1 8.50/7.78 Poor
5/85 28/2 8.66/6.05 Poor
S Buffalo Cr, McConnell Rd, Guilford B-15 16-11-14-2 7/98 -/7 -/6.90 Fair
S Buffalo Cr, US 70 ab WWTP, Guilford B-16 16-11-14-2 7/98 46/6 7.68/6.48 Poor
7/93 59/8 7.41/4.89 Fair
8/88 63/9 7.86/4.68 Poor
S Buffalo Cr, SR 2821 be WWTP, Guilford B-17 16-11-14-2 7/98 26/1 8.55/7.78 Poor
7/93 50/2 8.23/----- Poor
8/88 34/1 7.61/7.78 Poor
5/85 36/2 8.47/6.88 Poor
Mile Run Cr, SR 1400, Guilford B-18 16-11-14-2-4 4/86 25/1 8.71/7.00 Poor
Stony Cr, SR 1100, Caswell B-19 16-14-(1) 7/98 -/21 -/5.39 Good
7/93 -/21 -/4.68 Good
2/93 -/27 -/4.03 Good
Jordan Cr, SR 1002, Alamance B-20 16-14-6-(0.5) 7/98 -/16 -/5.02 Good-Fair
2/93 -/23 -/4.78 Good-Fair
Haw Cr, SR 2158, Alamance B-21 16-20-(1) 7/98 -/22 -/4.80 Good
2/93 -/19 -/4.76 Good-Fair

CPF 03
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

L Alamance Cr, SR 3056 ab Rock Cr, Guilford B-1 16-19-3-(4.5) 2/93 69/24 5.48/4.72 Good
UT Rock Cr, SR 2808, Guilford B-2 16-19-8-3.5-(1) 11/88 -/20 -/4.52 Not Rated*
Big Alamance Cr, NC 49, Alamance B-3 16-19-(4.5) 7/98 -/18 -/5.54 Good-Fair
7/93 -/19 -/5.23 Good-Fair
2/93 -/20 -/4.27 Good-Fair
Big Alamance Cr, SR 2309 nr Bellemont, Alam. B-4 16-19-(4.5) 10/89 95/31 5.87/4.47 Good
8/89 79/22 6.11/5.26 Good-Fair
4/89 79/26 5.77/4.41 Good-Fair
2/89 65/22 5.84/4.58 Good-Fair
7/86 80/22 5.84/5.05 Good-Fair
UT Back Cr, off SR 1149, Alamance B-5 16-19-5 4/95 70/28 4.84/3.95 Excellent
UT Back Cr, be Triangle Paving, Alamance B-6 16-19-5 4/95 54/22 5.49/4.76 Good
Gum Cr, SR 1148, Alamance B-7 16-19-7 4/86 67/14 7.52/5.98 Fair
Stinking Quarter Cr, SR 1136, Alamance B-8 16-19-8 7/98 -/23 -/5.06 Good
7/93 -/16 -/5.01 Good-Fair
2/93 -/25 -/4.01 Good-Fair
4/86 91/30 6.05/5.10 Good
Little Alamance Cr, SR 2309, Alamance B-9 16-19-11 7/98 -/6 -/6.85 Poor
7/85 45/8 7.33/6.62 Fair

CPF 04
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Haw R, SR 2158 nr Saxapahaw, Alamance B-1 16-(1) 8/83 54/7 6.90/5.63 Fair
Haw R, SR 1005 nr Saxapahaw, Alamance B-2 16-(1) 11/98 47/15 5.68/4.49 Good-Fair
7/98 65/20 6.17/4.76 Good-Fair
7/93 60/18 5.91/5.27 Good-Fair
7/90 71/20 6.11/5.01 Good-Fair

A-II-3
CPF 04 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

8/89 60/18 6.23/5.42 Good-Fair
7/88 71/21 5.90/5.15 Good-Fair
7/87 71/21 6.11/5.27 Good-Fair
7/87 -/21 -/5.05 Good
7/86 67/19 6.18/5.07 Good-Fair
9/85 64/23 5.63/5.20 Good
5/85 73/24 6.30/5.01 Good-Fair
9/84 61/13 6.53/5.17 Fair
5/84 85/27 6.01/4.76 Good
Marys Cr, SR 2174, Alamance B-3 16-26 2/98 -/17 -/3.88 Fair
Cane Cr, SR 1114, Orange B-4 16-27-(2.5) 7/98 -/27 -/4.33 Good
2/98 -/25 -/4.20 Good
2/98 77/37 4.88/3.49 Excellent
7/93 -/20 -/4.06 Good-Fair
2/93 -/28 -/3.57 Good
4/86 110/33 5.63/4.54 Good
Cane Cr, SR 1100, Orange B-5 16-27-(2.5) 11/84 88/27 5.89/4.87 Good-Fair
Cane Cr, NC 54, Orange B-6 16-27-(7) 4/94 91/28 5.86/4.17 Good-Fair
Cane Cr, SR 1958, Orange B-7 16-27-(7) 4/94 110/37 5.85/4.69 Good
Cane Cr (west), SR 2351, Alamance B-8 16-28 8/98 -/10 -/4.43 NR
12/86 -/12 -/5.75 Fair
Cane Cr (west), off SR 2351, Alamance B-9 16-28 8/98 66/15 5.61/4.41 Good-Fair
Cane Cr (west), NC 87, Alamance B-10 16-28 2/93 -/20 -/4.36 Good-Fair
12/86 -/5 -/4.86 Poor
Collins Cr, SR 1539, Chatham B-11 16-30-(1.5) 2/98 -/19 -/4.53 Good-Fair
12/86 44/4 7.17/4.13 Poor
UT Collins Cr, ab WWTP, Orange B-12 16-30-(1) 8/91 52/17 5.73/4.67 Good-Fair
UT Collins Cr, be WWTP, Orange B-13 16-30-(1) 8/91 63/15 5.83/5.08 Good-Fair
Terrells Cr, NC 87, Chatham B-14 16-31-(2.5) 7/98 -/15 -/4.53 Good-Fair
2/93 -/30 -/3.32 Good
Terrells Cr, SR 1520, Chatham B-15 16-31-(2.5) 12/86 -/13 -/5.07 Fair
Dry Cr, SR 1520, Chatham B-16 16-34-(0.7) 2/98 -/21 -/3.98 Good-Fair
2/93 -/31 -/4.63 Good
12/86 -/5 -/6.02 Poor
Haw R, US 64 nr Pittsboro , Chatham B-17 16-(36.7) 7/98 65/25 5.40/4.34 Good
7/93 63/24 5.19/4.42 Good
7/90 60/24 5.47/4.29 Good
7/88 81/28 5.97/4.70 Good
7/86 69/24 5.73/4.43 Good
5/85 84/27 5.74/4.32 Good
9/84 56/20 5.77/4.69 Good-Fair
6/83 48/14 5.50/4.43 Good-Fair
6/83 51/19 5.49/4.49 Good
6/83 61/19 5.63/4.53 Good
Pokeberry Cr, SR 1711, Chatham B-18 16-37 2/98 -/30 -/3.93 Good
2/93 -/23 -/4.68 Good-Fair
12/86 94/26 5.91/4.24 Good
10/85 86/21 6.06/4.74 Good-Fair
Robeson Cr, US 15/501, Chatham B-19 16-38-(3) 3/97 -/12 -/5.94 Fair
UT Robeson Cr, US 64, Chatham B-20 - 3/97 24/3 7.62/4.03 NR
Robeson Cr, ab Pittsboro WWTP, Chatham B-21 16-38-(3) 3/97 52/7 6.44/6.26 Fair
9/90 66/7 7.58/7.00 Poor
Robeson Cr, be Pittsboro WWTP, Chatham B-22 16-38-(3) 9/90 54/7 7.10/5.90 Fair
4/86 82/11 7.26/5.89 Fair

A-II-4
CPF 05
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

New Hope Cr, SR 1734, Orange B-1 16-41-1-(0.5) 3/93 94/29 5.03/3.85 Good
New Hope Cr, SR 2220, Durham B-2 16-41-1-(11.5) 3/87 53/14 6.71/5.72 Fair
New Hope Cr, I-40, Durham B-3 16-41-1-(11.5) 10/85 49/10 7.76/6.48 Fair
New Hope Cr, SR 1107, Durham B-4 16-41-1-(11.5) 7/98 38/10 6.79/5.77 Fair
10/85 32/5 7.59/6.69 Poor
Third Fork Cr, NC 751, Durham B-5 16-41-1-12-(2) 2/93 39/8 7.63/6.65 Poor
4/85 40/3 8.10/6.84 Poor
Northeast Cr, SR 1102, Durham B-6 16-41-1-17-(0.7) 2/98 -/7 -/6.57 NR
2/93 58/9 6.82/6.05 NR
3/87 29/3 7.72/6.51 NR
Northeast Cr, SR 1100, Durham B-7 16-41-1-17-(0.7) 2/93 35/7 6.82/5.83 Poor
3/87 27/0 7.97/- Poor
12/86 -/4 -/640 Poor
4/85 62/7 7.38/6.09 Poor
Northeast Cr, SR 1731, Chatham B-8 16-41-1-17-(0.7) 7/93 46/8 7.10/6.31 Fair
12/86 -/8 -/5/95 Fair
Burdens Cr, SR 1945, Durham B-9 16-41-1-17-1-(0.7) 4/86 60/10 6.96/5.41 Fair
Cub Cr, SR 1008, Chatham B-10 16-41-2-10-(0.5) 12/86 -/14 -/5.44 Fair
Beartree Cr, SR 1716, Chatham B-11 16-41-5-(2) 2/98 -/22 -/3.94 NR
7/93 -/10 -/6.30 NR
2/93 -/21 -/3.91 NR
4/86 79/29 4.95/3.78 NR
White Oak Cr, SR 1603, Wake B-12 16-41-6-(0.7) 2/98 -/10 -/5.17 NR
White Oak Cr, NC 751, Chatham B-13 16-41-6-(2) 2/93 -/13 -/4.82 Fair

CPF 06
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Little Cr, Pinehurst Dr, Orange B-1 16-41-1-15-(0.5) 2/98 -/5 -/4.84 Poor
2/93 37/7 7.13/4.70 Fair
Bolin Cr, SR 1777, Orange B-2 16-41-1-15-1-(0.5) 3/98 -/23 -/4.23 Good
4/93 -/24 -/4.46 Good
Bolin Cr, Village Rd, Orange B-3 16-41-1-15-1-(0.5) 2/98 59/26 5.10/3.94 Good
4/93 -/24 -/3.90 Good-Fair
Bolin Cr, E Franklin St, Orange B-4 16-41-1-15-1-(4) 3/98 37/13 6.28/6.01 Fair
2/98 -/4 -/6.66 Poor
2/93 32/8 6.53/5.35 Fair
4/86 89/28 6.08/4.35 Good-Fair
Booker Cr, Piney Mt. Rd, Orange B-5 16-41-1-15-2-(1) 3/98 -/10 -/5.80 Fair
Morgan Cr, NC 54, Orange B-6 16-41-2-(1) 2/98 -/31 -/3.64 Good
2/98 80/33 4.38/3.29 Excellent
10/96 64/22 5.03/4.12 Good
7/93 61/21 4.93/3.49 Good
2/93 90/36 4.48/3.23 Excellent
4/85 109/32 5.72/4.69 Good
Morgan Cr, Botanical Trail, Orange B-7 16-41-2-(5.5) 3/98 46/20 6.09/5.40 Good-Fair
4/93 -/16 -/4.94 Fair
2/93 71/26 6.00/4.64 Good-Fair
Morgan Cr, ab OWASA, Orange B-8 16-41-2-(5.5) 9/94 58/9 7.27/6.27 Fair
9/90 63/8 7.16/6.39 Fair
7/88 82/13 6.94/6.35 Fair
Morgan Cr, be OWASA, Orange B-9 16-41-2-(5.5) 3/98 44/11 6.67/5.69 Fair
9/94 47/6 7.61/6.12 Poor
2/93 42/7 7.21/4.93 Fair
9/90 66/8 7.47/5.89 Poor
7/88 52/4 7.80/7.11 Poor
Morgan Cr, SR 1726, Chatham B-10 16-41-2-(5.5) 7/98 41/9 6.63/6.00 Fair
7/93 38/7 6.88/6.54 Fair
7/90 54/8 7.17/6.53 Fair
7/87 35/6 6.82/6.30 Fair

A-II-5
CPF 06 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

4/85 40/5 7.71/5.68 Poor
8/84 50/10 7.06/5.90 Fair
Pritchards Mill Cr, Damascus Rd, Orange B-11 16-41-2-3-(0.5) 4/93 -/22 -/4.31 Good-Fair
Meeting of Waters Cr, Laurel Hill Rd, Orange B-12 16-41-2-7 3/98 -/3 -/7.37 Poor
4/93 -/2 -/7.28 Poor

CPF 07
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Gulf Cr, nr SR 1924, Chatham B-1 18-5-(1) 4/93 34/6 6.68/5.39 NR
UT Gulf Cr, nr SR 1924, Chatham B-2 18-5-(1) 4/93 19/4 6.63/4.50 NR
Parkers Cr, SR 1450, Harnett B-3 18-9 7/98 -/19 -/5.43 Good-Fair
2/98 -/20 -/4.21 Good-Fair
8/93 83/25 5.45/4.52 Good
3/93 -/27 -/4.04 Good
Parkers Cr, off SR 1418, Harnett B-4 18-9 11/88 -/28 -/3.42 Excellent
Avent Cr, SR 1418, Harnett B-5 18-13 11/88 -/25 -/3.93 Excellent
Hector Cr, SR 1412, Harnett B-6 18-15 11/88 100/29 5.20/3.83 Excellent
Neils (Neals) Cr, SR 1441, Harnett B-7 18-16-(0.7) 2/98 -/19 -/5.10 Good-Fair
3/93 -/18 -/4.66 Fair
Neils (Neals) Cr, SR 1403, Harnett B-8 18-16-(0.7) 11/88 -/16 -/4.25 Good-Fair
Kenneth Cr, US 401, Wake B-9 18-16-1-(2) 9/98 67/18 5.97/5.14 NR
Kenneth Cr, nr SR 2772, be F-V, Wake B-10 18-16-1-(2) 9/98 44/6 6.97/5.60 NR
9/90 47/3 7.53/6.51 Poor
Kenneth Cr, SR 1441,Harnett B-11 18-16-1-(2) 2/98 -/5 -/6.22 Poor
3/93 43/7 6.23/5.29 Poor
UT Kenneth Cr, off SR 1447, Harnett B-12 18-16-1-(2) 8/81 50/16 4.14/2.37 NR
Cape Fear R, US 401 nr Lillington, Harnett B-13 18-(16.7) 7/98 75/32 5.99/4.84 Good
8/93 76/28 5.79/4.71 Good
9/90 107/36 6.10/4.73 Good
7/88 93/30 5.95/4.72 Good
7/86 89/29 6.09/4.82 Good
8/85 91/29 6.20/5.04 Good
9/84 94/25 6.01/4.98 Good-Fair
7/83 72/30 5.28/4.54 Good
Cape Fear R, NC 217, Harnett B-14 18-(20.7) 7/98 76/34 5.46/4.25 Excellent
8/93 68/30 5.15/4.36 Excellent

CPF 08
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

E Fk Deep R, SR 1541, Guilford B-1 17-2-(0.3) 7/98 -/13 -/6.01 Fair
2/93 -/12 -/5.86 Fair
UT E Fk Deep R, I-40, Guilford B-2 17-2-(0.3) 9/92 38/5 6.88/5.21 Not Rated*
W Fk Deep R, SR 1850, Guilford B-3 17-3-(0.3) 9/98 46/11 5.59/4.57 Good-Fair
7/98 -/12 -/4.35 Fair
7/93 -/15 -/4.66 Good-Fair
2/93 -/27 -/4.61 Good-Fair
W Fk Deep R, SR 1818, Guilford B-4 17-3-(0.7) 8/83 71/12 -/----- Fair
UT W Fk Deep R, ab LCP, Guilford B-5 17-3-(0.3) 10/88 35/8 5.97/5.31 Not Rated*
UT W Fk Deep R, be LCP, Guilford B-6 17-3-(0.3) 10/88 6/0 8.41/---- Not Rated*
Deep R, SR 1113, Guilford B-7 17-(4) 9/98 55/12 6.62/6.00 Fair
8/88 81/8 7.29/6.74 Fair
8/87 90/17 7.04/6.12 Fair
8/86 87/13 7.06/6.28 Fair
7/85 67/14 6.72/6.45 Fair
8/83 11/0 8.42/---- Poor
Deep R nr Randleman, SR 1921, Guilford B-8 17-(4) 7/90 73/12 7.20/6.12 Fair
7/89 66/16 7.03/6.01 Fair
8/88 78/11 7.28/6.43 Fair

A-II-6
CPF 08 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

7/88 80/18 7.03/6.42 Good-Fair
8/87 78/16 6.99/5.86 Fair
7/87 -/8 -/6.57 Fair
8/86 56/10 7.67/6.70 Fair
8/85 64/11 7.70/6.60 Fair
8/84 39/7 7.40/6.63 Fair
8/83 56/9 7.86/6.47 Poor
Deep R, US 220 Bus at Randleman, Randolph B-9 17-(4) 7/98 77/20 5.98/5.10 Good-Fair
7/93 74/20 6.07/5.39 Good-Fair
08/88 63/12 6.64/6.22 Fair
08/87 81/17 6.66/6.11 Fair
08/86 74/10 7.14/6.22 Fair
08/85 56/9 7.78/6.67 Poor
08/83 60/9 7.22/6.46 Fair
Richland Cr, ab WWTP, Guilford B-10 17-7 08/88 56/10 7.29/5.55 Fair
Richland Cr, SR 1145 be WWTP, Guilford B-11 17-7 07/98 28/5 7.88/6.59 Poor
07/93 53/13 7.09/5.56 Fair
08/88 62/9 7.61/5.78 Poor
08/87 61/9 7.60/6.11 Poor
08/86 40/2 8.19/6.58 Poor
07/85 30/5 8.42/6.81 Poor
08/83 47/9 7.53/6.75 Fair
Hickory Cr, SR 1131, Guilford B-12 17-8-3 07/98 -/12 -/5.31 Not Rated
02/93 -/18 -/3.30 Fair
Muddy Cr, SR 1929, Randolph B-13 17-9 07/98 -/13 -/6.06 Not Rated
02/93 -/22 -/4.71 Good-Fair

CPF 09
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Deep R, SR 2122 at Worthville, Randolph B-1 17-(4) 8/88 74/10 7.28/6.19 Fair
8/87 57/9 7.14/5.97 Fair
8/86 66/10 7.92/6.41 Fair
7/85 47/5 8.22/6.80 Poor
8/83 43/3 8.41/7.02 Poor
Deep R, SR 2226 at Cedar Falls, Randolph B-2 17-(4) 8/88 61/16 6.34/5.29 Good-Fair
8/87 70/17 6.90/5.88 Fair
8/86 61/12 6.89/6.23 Fair
7/85 65/9 7.78/6.70 Poor
8/83 50/5 7.84/6.83 Poor
Deep R, SR 2615 at Ramseur, Randolph B-3 17-(4) 7/98 71/20 5.93/4.79 Good-Fair
7/93 67/17 6.22/5.14 Good-Fair
7/89 73/18 6.11/5.43 Good-Fair
8/87 78/23 6.27/4.96 Good-Fair
8/86 75/21 6.46/5.22 Good-Fair
7/85 74/13 6.92/5.95 Fair
8/83 62/15 7.15/5.92 Fair
Deep R, SR 2628 at Coleridge, Randolph B-4 17-(4) 8/86 89/26 6.69/5.30 Good-Fair
8/85 104/35 5.77/455 Good
8/83 71/19 6.93/5.78 Good-Fair
Deep R, SR 1461 (1456) nr Jugtown, Moore B-5 17-(4) 7/98 83/34 5.24/4.49 Excellent
7/93 80/32 5.04/4.23 Excellent
8/88 96/34 5.04/4.01 Excellent
8/87 111/38 5.11/4.19 Excellent
8/86 87/32 4.96/3.80 Excellent
8/85 99/33 5.22/4.22 Excellent
8/83 94/33 5.25/4.14 Good
Polecat Cr, US 220 Bus, Guilford B-6 17-11-(1) 7/90 78/21 5.76/5.33 Good
Polecat Cr, SR 2113, Randolph B-7 17-11-(1) 2/98 -/31 -/4.04 Good
2/93 -/32 -/4.31 Good

A-II-7
CPF 09 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Polecat Cr, SR 2116, Randolph B-8 17-11-(1) 7/93 -/9 -/5.09 Fair
8/83 77/22 6.27/5.69 Good-Fair
UT Polecat Cr, nr SR 3430, Guilford B-9 17-11-2-(2) 7/90 33/1 8.87/7.42 Poor
L Polecat Cr, SR 2108, Randolph B-10 17-11-3 2/98 -/14 -/4.23 NR
L Polecat Cr, SR 2113, Randolph B-11 17-11-3 2/93 83/32 4.63/3.44 Excellent
8/86 91/20 5.14/4.21 Good
Hasketts Cr, SR 2149, Randolph B-12 17-12 9/98 33/4 7.03/6.41 Poor
2/87 58/12 7.01/5.46 Fair
Hasketts Cr, be SR 2149, Randolph B-13 17-12 2/90 58/10 7.11/6.56 Fair
8/88 66/12 7.64/6.63 Fair
Hasketts Cr, SR 2128, Randolph B-14 17-12 9/98 27/5 7.79/6.86 Poor
2/90 42/9 7.43/5.48 Poor
8/88 35/4 7.92/7.02 Poor
8/87 33/3 7.92/5.85 Poor
2/87 29/3 8.34/5.80 Poor
Sandy Cr, SR 2261, Randolph B-15 17-16-(1) 5/89 81/19 6.44/4.39 Good-Fair
5/88 69/15 6.10/5.24 Good-Fair
Sandy Cr, SR 2481, Randolph B-16 17-16-(1) 7/98 -/35 -/4.43 Excellent
7/93 -/22 -/4.06 Good
2/93 -/27 -/3.28 Good
5/89 83/25 5.39/4/41 Good
5/88 94/32 5.42/4.07 Good
UT Sandy Cr, SR 2261, Randolph B-17 17-16-(1) 5/89 80/22 5.62/4.20 Good
5/88 76/17 6.17/4.84 Good-Fair
Mt Pleasant Cr, SR 2442, Randolph B-18 17-16-3 5/89 80/22 4.99/4.06 Good
Richland Cr, SR 2873, Randolph B-19 17-22 7/98 -/29 -/3.92 Excellent
7/93 -/26 -/3.89 Good
2/93 -/23 -/3.60 Good
5/88 81/27 5.30/3.93 Good
Brush Cr, SR 1102, Chatham B-20 17-23 5/90 -/26 -/4.90 Good
Brush Cr, NC 22, Randolph B-21 17-23 7/98 -/26 -/4.27 Good
2/93 -/23 -/3.58 Good
5/90 -/28 -/4.25 Excellent
8/83 95/26 6.03/4.38 Good
UT Little Brush Cr, SR 1100, Chatham B-22 17-23-2 5/90 -/23 -/5.02 Good
UT Little Brush Cr, SR 1005, Randolph B-23 17-23-2 5/90 -/17 -/4.13 Good-Fair
Flat Cr, SR 2886, Randolph B-24 17-24 2/98 -/22 -/4.72 Good-Fair
2/93 -/17 -/5.07 Fair
Fork Cr, SR 2873, Randolph B-25 17-25 2/98 -/28 -/3.75 Good
2/93 -/22 -/3.38 Good

CPF 10
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Deep R, NC 22, Moore B-1 17-(25.7) 7/89 69/24 5.58/4.83 Good
Wolf Cr, SR 1403, Moore B-2 17-26-4 7/88 -/17 -/5.55 Good-Fair
2/84 91/30 5.36/3.76 Good
Cabin Cr, SR 1400, Moore B-3 17-26-5-(1) 3/98 -/29 -/4.20 Good
2/93 -/27 -/3.62 Good
9/92 -/14 -/4.50 Not Rated
Cabin Cr, private rd off SR 1002, Moore B-4 17-26-5-(1) 9/92 61/11 6.37/3.71 Fair
Cabin Cr, SR 1275, Moore B-5 17-26-5-(1) 9/92 91/27 5.50/3.73 Good
Cotton Cr, SR 1372, Montgomery B-6 17-26-5-3 9/98 38/4 6.61/5.82 Poor
9/92 35/4 6.20/4.19 Fair
7/88 15/0 9.3/0 Poor
2/84 18/2 8.79/6.53 Poor
Cotton Cr, SR 1370, Montgomery B-7 17-26-5-3 9/98 49/11 6.07/4.39 Fair
9/92 42/7 6.60/5.32 Fair
2/84 33/10 7.16/4.76 Fair
Mill Cr, nr SR 1275, Moore B-8 17-26-5-4 7/98 -/20 -/4.20 Good-Fair

A-II-8
CPF 10 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

3/98 76/31 4.79/4.02 Good
8/93 69/22 5.19/3.60 Good
2/93 97/39 4.11/2.90 Excellent
Wet Cr, NC 24, Moore B-9 17-26-5-5 3/98 -/24 -/3.26 Good
2/93 -/34 -/3.95 Good
Bear Cr, NC 705, Moore B-10 17-26-(6) 7/98 82/25 5.70/4.42 Good
8/93 73/22 6.27/4.92 Good-Fair
Falls Cr, SR 1606, Moore B-11 17-27 2/98 -/17 -/4.89 Fair
2/93 -/18 -/4.61 Fair
Buffalo Cr, NC 22, Moore B-12 17-28 2/98 -/27 -/3.93 Good
2/93 -/20 -/3.51 Good-Fair
McLendons Cr, SR 1210, Moore B-13 17-30 11/84 84/28 5.33/4.27 Good
McLendons Cr, SR 1628, Moore B-14 17-30 8/93 61/8 6.75/5.15 Fair
2/93 -/13 -/5.59 Fair
Haystack Cr, off SR 1261, Moore B-15 17-30-1-2 3/86 63/21 4.86/2.63 Good
2/84 65/25 4.20/2.31 Good
Big Governors Cr, SR 1625, Moore B-16 17-32 2/98 45/11 6.64/5.44 Not Rated
2/93 49/10 6.26/4.48 Fair
Crawley Cr, nr SR 1625, Moore B-17 17-32-2 2/98 -/10 -/5.47 Not Rated

CPF 11
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

UT Deep R, nr SR 2140, Chatham B-1 17-(33.5) 9/87 64/13 6.50/5.28 Good-Fair
Indian Cr, SR 2306, Chatham B-2 17-35 3/93 -/10 -/5.18 Poor
Deep R, SR 1007, Lee B-3 17-(36.5) 7/98 61/23 5.93/4.65 Good-Fair
8/93 74/25 5.78/4.90 Good
9/87 99/32 5.76/4.23 Good
Little Pocket Cr, NC 42, Lee B-4 11-37-4 (2) 2/98 -/14 -/4.57 NR
2/93 -/16 -/5.04 NR
Cedar Cr, SR 2142, Chatham B-5 17-39 2/98 -/16 -/5.09 NR
2/93 -/13 -/5.28 NR
Big Buffalo Cr, SR 1403, Lee B-6 17-40 8/93 -/4 -/6.12 Poor
2/93 -/12 -/5.13 Fair
Georges Cr, SR 2142, Chatham B-7 17-41 2/93 -/15 -/4.83 NR
Georges Cr, SR 2150, Chatham B-8 17-41 2/98 -/4 -/4.25 NR
Deep R, US 15/501-NC 87, Lee B-9 17-(41.5) 7/98 72/21 6.39/4.96 Good-Fair
8/93 77/27 5.97/4.65 Good
9/87 88/25 6.09/4.62 Good-Fair
Little Buffalo Cr, SR 1420, Lee B-10 17-42 2/93 -/5 -/7.09 Poor

CPF 12
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Rocky R, US 64, Chatham B-1 17-43-(8) 7/98 78/16 6.40/4.60 Good-Fair
6/97 77/20 6.74/5.08 Good-Fair
7/93 69/12 6.97/5.65 Fair
8/89 57/16 6.70/5.80 Fair
Rocky R, SR 2170, Chatham B-2 17-43-(8) 7/98 69/19 6.24/4.97 Good-Fair
6/97 80/19 6.47/5.29 Good-Fair
7/93 66/19 6.54/5.38 Good-Fair
8/89 56/11 6.77/6.12 Fair
Rocky R, NC 902, Chatham B-3 17-43-(8) 6/97 -/22 -/4.76 Good
8/89 73/24 5.84/4.77 Good-Fair
Rocky R, US 15/501, Chatham B-4 17-43-(8) 7/98 77/26 5.26/3.99 Good
7/93 85/30 5.41/4.22 Good
7/90 98/30 5.54/4.51 Good
Loves Cr, nr SR 2203 ab WWTP, Chatham B-5 17-43-10 6/97 55/8 7.25/6.61 Fair
8/89 52/7 7.50/6.85 Fair
Loves Cr, be WWTP nr SR 2203, Chatham B-6 17-43-10 6/97 36/4 7.41/6.06 Poor

A-II-9
CPF 12 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

8/89 27/2 8.41/6.62 Poor
Tick Cr, US 421, Chatham B-7 17-43-13 2/98 -/18 -/4.86 Good-Fair
7/93 -/5 -/6.57 Poor
8/85 80/19 6.54/5.40 Good-Fair
Tick Cr, SR 2120, Chatham B-8 17-43-13 7/98 -/15 -/5.87 Good-Fair
Landrum Cr, NC 902, Chatham B-9 17-43-14 7/90 -/19 -/3.53 Good-Fair
Harlands Cr, NC 902, Chatham B-10 17-43-15 7/98 -/23 -/4.45 Good
2/98 -/22 -/4.68 Good-Fair
7/90 -/16 -/3.78 Good-Fair
Bear Cr, SR 2333, Chatham B-11 17-43-16 8/91 73/16 6.78/5.56 Fair
Bear Cr, SR 2189, Chatham B-12 17-43-16 8/91 69/15 6.51/5.58 Fair
Bear Cr, SR 2155, Chatham B-13 17-43-16 7/90 -/15 -/4.83 Good-Fair

CPF 13
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Juniper Cr, SR 1144, Lee B-1 18-20-6-(1) 11/88 -/9 -/4.19 Fair
Upper Little R, SR 1222, Harnett B-2 18-20-(8) 7/98 72/21 6.36/5.07 Good-Fair
8/93 56/13 6.17/4.74 Good-Fair
12/88 77/19 5.92/4.16 Good-Fair
Upper Little R, NC 27, Harnett B-3 18-20-(8) 7/98 81/27 5.50/3.92 Good
8/93 81/26 5.51/3.85 Good
Barbeque Cr, SR 1209, Harnett B-4 18-20-13 7/98 -/20 -/3.67 Good
8/93 -/14 -/3.61 Good-Fair
11/88 -/19 -/4.09 Good-Fair
Upper Little R, nr SR 2016 ab Becker, Harnett B-5 18-20-4 7/91 -/23 -/3.89 Good
Upper Little R, nr SR 2016 be Becker, Harnett B-6 18-20-4 7/91 -/17 -/3.00 Good-Fair
Upper Little R, SR 2021 nr Erwin, Harnett B-7 18-20-4 7/98 88/35 5.13/3.69 Excellent
8/93 67/25 5.34/3.86 Good
7/91 -/25 -/3.44 Excellent
7/88 83/27 5.25/3.79 Excellent

CPF 14
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Nicks Cr, NC 22, Moore B-1 18-23-3-(3) 7/98 -/24 -/3.92 Excellent
8/93 -/20 -/3.27 Good
11/88 -/22 -/2.99 Good
(Lower )Little R, SR 2023, Moore B-2 18-23-(10.7) 7/98 75/31 4.69/3.55 Excellent
8/93 70/33 4.54/3.23 Excellent
4/90 -/35 -/3.94 Excellent
12/88 85/35 4.37/2.63 Excellent
Mill Cr, SR 1853, Moore B-3 18-23-11-(2) 7/98 68/30 4.86/3.69 Excellent
UT McDeeds Cr, bel HB/PS, Moore B-4 18-23-11-4 7/93 15/0 8.46/0.00 Not Rated
James Cr, nr SR 2023, Hoke B-5 18-23-13 4/90 -/24 -/3.93 Good
James Cr, at Little River, Moore B-6 18-23-13 11/88 -/22 -/2.75 Good
James Cr, nr Weymouth Springs, Moore B-7 18-23-13-1 3/86 49/11 5.01/2.99 Good
2/84 55/16 4.46/2.63 Good
Horse Cr, Manchester Rd, Hoke B-8 18-23-14 4/90 -/18 -/3.41 Good-Fair
Flat Cr, Manchester Rd, Hoke B-9 18-23-15 4/90 -/21 -/3.52 Good
12/84 74/24 4.98/3.97 Good
Mill Cr, Manchester Rd, Hoke B-10 18-23-17-1 4/90 -/13 -/3.65 Good-Fair
UT in Sicily Drop Zone, Man. Rd, Hoke B-11 18-23-17 4/90 -/2 -/2.37 Poor
Jumping Run Cr, Manchester Rd, Hoke B-12 18-23-20 4/90 -/13 -/4.37 Good-Fair
McPherson Cr, Manchester Rd, Cumber. B-13 18-23-23.7 4/90 -/12 -/4.70 Good-Fair
(Lower) Little R, NC 87/24 at Manchester, B-14 18-23-(24) 7/98 83/40 4.79/3.71 Excellent
Cumberland 8/93 64/18 5.59/4.42 Good-Fair
7/90 73/19 6.04/4.80 Good-Fair
7/88 50/7 7.22/5.23 Fair
6/86 57/8 6.74/3.03 Fair

A-II-10
CPF 14 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

9/84 81/25 5.34/3.73 Good
(Lower) Little R, US 401, Cumberland B-15 18-23-(24) 7/98 87/38 4.64/3.95 Excellent
8/93 70/26 5.06/3.24 Excellent
Jumping Run Cr, NC 210, Cumberland B-16 18-23-29 7/98 -/26 -/4.09 Excellent
8/93 -/16 -/3.24 Good-Fair
Anderson Cr, SR 2031, Harnett B-17 18-23-32 7/98 -/19 -/3.60 Good-Fair
8/93 -/13 -/2.97 Good-Fair

CPF 15
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Cape Fear R, ab Cross Cr, Cumberland B-1 18-(26) 1/86 77/32 5.58/4.13 Good
Cape Fear R, be Cross Cr WWTP, Cumber. B-2 18-(26) 1/86 82/24 6.10/4.10 Good-Fair
Cape Fear R, Person Street, Cumberland B-3 18-(26) 7/98 40/14 6.14/4.74 Not Rated
18-(26) 8/93 48/19 5.38/4.05 Good-Fair
Cape Fear R, be Monsanto, Cumberland B-4 18-(26) 1/86 78/28 5.78/4.46 Good
Cross Cr, ab UT, Cumberland B-5 18-27-(1) 4/90 -/7 -/5.04 Fair
Cross Cr, be UT, Cumberland B-6 18-27-(1) 4/90 -/10 -/5.12 Fair
Cross Cr, NC 87/210, Cumberland B-7 18-27-(3) 8/93 -/10 -/6.01 Fair
Little Cross Cr, ab lake nr Bragg Blvd, Cumb. B-8 18-27-4-(1) 9/98 48/12 5.98/4.58 Not Rated
4/90 -/2 -/2.52 Poor
UT Little Cross Cr, ab Glenville Lake, Cumb. B-9 18-27-4-(1) 9/98 -/8 -/2.93 Not Rated
Little Cross Cr, be Glenville Lake, Cumb. B-10 18-27-4-2 3/98 37/7 6.93/6.10 Fair
Rockfish Cr, Plank Rd, Hoke B-11 18-31-(1) 4/90 -/16 -/3.78 Good-Fair
Juniper Cr, Plank Rd, Hoke B-12 18-31-10 4/90 -/19 -/3.85 Good
Pedler Br, NC 20, Hoke B-13 18-31-16 2/90 36/2 8.29/6.33 Poor
Pedler Br, US 401, Hoke B-14 18-31-16 2/90 16/0 8.46/- Poor
Puppy Cr, Plank Rd, Hoke B-15 18-31-19 4/90 -/15 -/4.35 Good-Fair
Rockfish Cr, SR 1300 (Vass Rd), Cumberland B-16 18-31-(12) 5/94 66/25 5.10/3.94 Good
Rockfish Cr, SR 1432, Hoke B-17 18-31-(23) 7/98 61/26 5.33/3.91 Excellent
5/94 -/24 -/3.68 Good
8/93 61/25 4.81/3.48 Good
6/90 -/16 -/4.24 Good-Fair
Rockfish Cr, SR 1115, Cumberland B-18 18-31-(23) 5/94 76/23 5.40/3.80 Good
6/90 -/17 -/4.53 Good-Fair
Rockfish Cr, US 301 Bus, Cumberland B-19 18-31-(23) 7/83 60/25 5.03/4.11 Excellent
Rockfish Cr, I-95 nr Hope Mills, Cumberland B-20 18-31-(23) 6/90 -/24 -/4.16 Excellent
7/88 77/31 5.17/4.14 Excellent
Rockfish Cr, NC 87, Cumberland B-21 18-31-(23) 7/98 68/32 4.56/3.82 Excellent
8/93 60/23 4.95/3.65 Good
Little Rockfish Cr, Plank Rd, Hoke B-22 18-31-24-(1) 4/90 -/12 -/3.50 Good-Fair
Bones Cr Trib, nr SR 1400, Cumberland B-23 18-31-24-2 1/89 44/17 6.75/5.15 Good-Fair
UT Bones Cr, be Sunset MHP, Cumberland B-24 18-31-24-2 1/89 6/0 9.49/- Poor
Little Rockfish Cr, NC 59, Cumberland B-25 18-31-24-(4) 7/98 -/22 -/4.06 Good
8/93 -/23 -/3.70 Good
Buckhead Cr, off Glenwick Rd, Cumberland B-26 18-31-24-6 5/97 39/1 7.68/6.22 Not Rated
Little Rockfish Cr, SR 1131 be lake, Cumb. B-27 18-31-24-(7) 6/90 -/13 -/4.78 Good-Fair

CPF 16
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Cape Fear R, SR 1355 nr Duarte, Bladen B-1 18-(26) 8/98 48/16 6.74/5.82 Good-Fair
8/93 50/10 6.37/4.69 Fair
Cape Fear R, ab Carolina Foods, Bladen B-2 18-(26) 9/92 47/14 6.19/4.73 Good-Fair
Cape Fear R, be Carolina Foods, SR 1316, B-3 18-(26) 9/92 45/11 6.56/4.77 Fair
nr Tar Heel, Cumberland 6/87 41/7 7.24/5.22 Fair
Cape Fear R, be Lock 2 nr Elizabethtown, B-4 18-(26) 8/98 39/14 6.57/5.37 Good-Fair
Bladen 8/93 53/15 6.74/4.91 Good-Fair
Ellis Cr, NC 53, Bladen B-5 18-44 8/98 -/16 -/3.95 Good-Fair
8/93 -/16 -/3.88 Good-Fair

A-II-11
CPF 16 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Harrison Cr, SR 1318, Bladen B-6 18-42 8/98 -/17 -/3.39 Good-Fair
8/93 -/11 -/3.61 Fair
Turnbull Cr, SR 1511, Bladen B-7 18-46 8/98 -/18 -/3.93 Good
Cape Fear R, SR 1730 at Kelly, Bladen B-8 18-(53.5) 8/98 49/15 6.72/4.82 Good-Fair
8/93 48/11 6.51/4.62 Fair
8/90 44/12 7.42/4.28 Fair
7/88 69/12 7.14/6.35 Fair
6/86 51/6 7.25/6.83 Fair
8/84 52/7 7.20/5.66 Fair

CPF 17
Site DEM # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Cape Fear R, ab Federal Paper, Columbus B-1 18-(59) 7/98 51/13 6.36/5.06 Excellent
8/93 45/8 6.61/4.81 Good-Fair
Cape Fear R, be Federal Paper, Columbus B-2 18-(63) 7/98 36/4 7.00/5.21 Fair
8/93 32/5 7.21/5.34 Fair
Livingston Cr, NC 74, Columbus B-3 18-64 7/98 83/20 6.30/5.31 Good-Fair
8/93 68/9 7.31/5.60 Fair
Livingston Cr, SR1878, Columbus B-4 18-64 8/90 39/4 7.65/4.22 NR
8/90 24/0 8.73/- NR
Hood Cr, US 74/76, Brunswick B-5 18-66 9/98 -/13 -/4.75 Good-Fair
7/98 -/18 -/4.14 Good
3/98 69/20 5.86/4.70 NR
Jumping Run Br, ab 17th St, New Hanover B-6 18-76-1-3 5/95 43/9 6.25/4.08 NR
9/94 58/4 7.46/7.11 NR
Jumping Run Br, be 17th St, New Hanover B-7 18-76-1-3 5/95 28/1 7.73/4.10 NR
9/94 43/3 7.53/6.96 NR
Brunswick R, nr mouth, Brunswick B-8 18-77 6/93 11/1 1.44/- NR
Barnards Cr, US 421, New Hanover B-9 18-80 2/98 45/5 7.72/6.58 Fair-Good*
Town Cr, ab SR 1413, Brunswick B-10 18-81 9/98 -/16 -/4.34 Good-Fair
7/98 -/15 -/5.02 Good-Fair
3/98 71/24 5.86/4.77 NR*
Lewis Swp, SR 1410, Brunswick B-11 18-81-2 3/98 63/14 6.36/5.05 Good-Exc*

Estuarine
Site Site # Index # Date S/A&C S EBI Bioclass

Cape Fear R, Wilmington Main St, New Han. B-12 18-72 7/83 8/0 2.08 NR
Cape Fear R, Wilmington Docks, New Han. B-13 18-72 6/98 22/0 1.24 NR
6/93 9/0 1.33 NR
Cape Fear R, S. Side WWTP, New Hanover B-14 18-72 6/98 30/4 1.66 Elevated
6/93 9/0 1.07 NR
Cape Fear R, Mkr 56, New Hanover B-15 18-72 6/98 31/6 2.08 Moderate
Cape Fear R, Mkr 40, New Hanover B-16 18-72 6/98 19/7 1.92 Moderate
Cape Fear R, Mkr 35, Brunswick B-17 18-72 6/98
Cape Fear R, at Snow’s Marsh, Brunswick B-18 18-(87.5) 6/98 75/12 2.06 Moderate
6/96 94/16 1.99 Moderate
6/93 62/8 1.95 Moderate
7/85 38/0 2.14 NR
Cape Fear R, at Southport, Brunswick B-19 18-88-3.5 10/98 57/6 2.50 Elevated
7/98 85/17 2.29 Moderate
The Basin at Zeke’s Island
nr Wilmington, US421, New Hanover B-20 18-88-8-1 7/85 61/0 2.52 NR
at Rocks, New Hanover B-21 18-88-8-1 7/98 42/4 2.09 NR

A-II-12
CPF 18
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

South R, NC 13, Sampson B-1 18-68-12(0.5) 10/89 -/5 -/5.78 Fair
South R, NC 242, Cumberland B-2 18-68-12(0.5) 10/89 -/26 -/3.91 Excellent
South R, SR 1502, nr Parkersburg, B-3 18-68-12(0.5) 8/98 68/25 5.91/4.46 Good
Sampson/Bladen County line 8/93 75/25 5.36/3.75 Good
6/87 84/29 5.46/3.85 Excellent
9/85 93/30 5.49/3.81 Excellent
7/83 76/25 5.49/4.16 Good
Black R, US 421, Harnett B-4 18-68-12-1 10/89 -/11 -/5.47 Fair
Black R, SR 1780, nr Dunn, Harnett B-5 18-68-12-1 7/84 53/13 6.79/5.93 Fair
Mingo Swamp, NC 55, Sampson/Harnett B-6 18-68-12-2 8/94 18/0 7.78/0 Poor
Mingo Swamp, US 421, Sampson/Harnett B-7 18-68-12-2 8/94 50/10 7.28/6.33 Fair
Starlins Swamp, SR 1005, Sampson B-8 18-68-12-2-4-1 6/98 -/6 -/5.22 Fair
Big Cr, SR 1851, Cumberland B-9 18-68-12-5 6/98 -/12 4.78/4.69 Good-Fair
Big Swamp, SR 1246, Sampson B-10 18-68-12-8 12/89 -/14 -/5.38 Good-Fair

CPF 19
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Great Coharie Cr, SR 1214, Sampson B-1 18-68-1 8/98 39/12 5.88/4.06 Good-Fair
8/93 77/26 5.51/4.23 Good
10/89 -/19 -/4.53 Good
9/88 69/20 5.89/4.47 Good
7/83 62/19 5.53/3.66 Good-Fair
Little Coharie Cr, NC 24, Sampson B-2 18-68-1-17 8/93 -/20 -/4.69 Good
Little Coharie Cr, SR 1214, Sampson B-3 18-68-1-17) 8/98 -/16 -/4.41 Good-Fair
8/93 -/17 -/4.08 Good-Fair
10/89 -/23 -/3.86 Good
Little Coharie Cr, SR 1207 B-4 18-68-1-17 9/88 -/17 -/3.94 Good-Fair
Six Runs Cr, SR 1004, Sampson B-5 18-68-2 11/96 -/9 -/5.43 Fair
12/89 -/21 -/3.78 Good
Six Runs Cr, SR 1960, Sampson B-6 18-68-2 9/98 -/13 -/5.49 Good-Fair
8/98 -/23 -/4.78 Good
8/93 -/28 -/3.39 Excellent
Six Runs Cr, SR 1130, Sampson B-7 18-68-2 10/89 -/26 -/3.39 Excellent
Six Runs Cr, SR 1003, Sampson B-8 18-68-2 9/88 -/25 -/4.07 Excellent
Tenmile Swp, SR 1740, Sampson B-9 18-68-2-4 12/86 58/6 7.45/5.92 Fair
Stewarts Cr, SR 1973, Sampson B-10 18-68-2-10 11/96 -/8 -/5.20 Fair
12/89 -/17 -/4.73 Good-Fair
Crane Cr, SR 1004, Sampson B-11 18-68-2-12 6/98 -/14 -/5.16 Good-Fair
Black R, NC 411 nr Tomahawk, Sampson B-12 18-68 10/98 58/19 5.77/4.51 Good
8/98 77/30 5.42/4.35 Excellent
8/93 96/31 5.49/3.92 Excellent
10/89 -/31 -/3.67 Excellent
7/88 107/37 5.51/4.26 Excellent
9/85 94/30 5.33/3.98 Excellent
CPF 20
Site Site# Index# Date S/EPTS BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Black R, at Turlington’s (3 Sisters Area), Pend. B-1 18-68 9/88 72/22 5.60/4.16 Good
Black R, NC 11 nr Atkinson , Bladen B-2 18-68 7/98 90/28 5.86/4.46 Good
8/93 73/28 5.53/4.39 Good
9/91 100/28 5.79/4.23 Good
8/90 48/18 6.19/4.59 Good-Fair
10/89 -/28 -/3.89 Excellent
6/86 78/23 6.18/4.82 Good
Moores Cr, NC 53, Pender B-3 18-68-18 3/98 -/11 -/4.96 Good*
White Oak Br, SR 1209, Pender B-4 18-68-18-5 12/87 -/17 -/5.02 Good-Fair
Lyons Swamp Canal, NC 11, Bladen B-5 18-68-22-1-1 3/98 -/5 -/6.24 Fair*

A-II-13
CPF 21
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

NE Cape Fear R, SR 1937, Wayne B-1 18-74-(1) 5/93 54/4 7.85/6.87 Poor
6/86 13/0 8.08/- Poor
NE Cape Fear R, NC 403, Duplin B-2 18-74-(1) 5/93 68/13 6.96/5.27 Good-Fair
NE Cape Fear R, SR 1948, Wayne B-3 18-74-(1) 5/93 67/15 6.16/4.88 Good-Fair
Barlow Br, Bell St in Faison, be Mt. Olive, B-4 18-74-2 5/93 26/0 8.88/- Poor
Duplin 6/86 8/0 9.63/- Poor
Polly Run Cr, SR 1501, Duplin B-5 18-74-5 7/86 67/11 6.70/5.52 Fair
Buck Marsh Br, NC 111, Duplin B-6 18-74-8 8/93 -/16 -/3.84 Good-Fair
Grove Cr, SR 1301, ab Kenans. WWTP, Duplin B-7 18-74-21 5/94 61/13 6.35/4.79 NR
Grove Cr, NC 11, be Kenansv. WWTP, Duplin B-8 18-74-21 5/94 63/9 6.99/5.05 NR
Little Rockfish Cr, NC 11, Duplin B-9 18-74-29-6 5/94 24/0 8.27/- Poor

CPF 22
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

NE Cape Fear R, NC 11/903, Duplin B-1 18-74-(1) 8/98 -/17 -/5.49 Good-Fair
8/93 78/23 5.33/3.86 Excellent
7/86 32/8 5.47/4.34 Fair
NE Cape Fear R, NC 41, nr Chinquapin, Duplin B-2 18-74-(25.5) 9/98 40/3 7.00/4.48 Poor
8/98 70/28 5.66/4.92 Good
8/93 82/22 5.43/4.57 Good
10/89 -/26 -/4.17 Excellent
10/89 85/28 5.74/3.95 Good
8/89 -/27 -/4.07 Excellent
8/89 83/30 5.40/4.17 Excellent
9/85 89/31 5.65/4.00 Excellent
Goshen Swp, SR 1302, Wayne B-3 18-74-19 5/93 62/8 6.66/5.30 Fair
Goshen Swp, US 117, Duplin B-4 18-74-19 5/93 51/11 6.68/5.44 Fair
Goshen Swp, NC 403, Duplin B-5 18-74-19 5/93 56/10 6.67/5.57 Fair
Panther Br, NC 50, Duplin B-6 18-74-19-3 12/86 64/11 6.59/5.10 Fair
Panther Br, be Faison UT, Duplin B-7 18-74-19-3 5/93 35/1 8.26/6.22 Poor
12/86 10/0 8.05/0 Poor
Halls Marsh Run, SR 1306, Duplin B-8 18-74-19-11 9/96 -/4 -/5.51 Poor
9/95 67/13 6.55/5.53 Good-Fair
9/94 76/9 6.82/5.23 Fair
9/93 68/12 6.55/5.27 Good-Fair
9/92 69/9 6.36/4.98 Good-Fair
9/91 54/7 6.55/4.88 Fair
9/90 68/11 6.56/4.92 Good-Fair
UT Herrings Marsh Run, SR 1508, Duplin B-9 18-74-19-16 9/93 -/8 -/4.89 Fair
9/92 -/7 -/5.22 Fair
9/91 -/2 -/5.68 Poor
Herrings Marsh Run, SR 1508, Duplin B-10 18-74-19-16 9/93 0/0 0/0 Poor
9/92 -/8 -/4.94 Fair
9/91 -/14 -/4.43 Good-Fair
Herrings Marsh Run, SR 1306, Duplin B-11 18-74-19-16 9/96 48/4 7.03/6.68 Poor
9/95 55/9 6.61/5.50 Good-Fair
9/94 69/8 7.32/5.77 Fair
9/93 71/15 7.02/5.45 Good-Fair
9/92 72/13 6.58/5.13 Good-Fair
9/91 67/11 6.13/4.87 Good-Fair
9/90 74/10 6.79/5.44 Fair
1/90 -/13 -/5.08 Fair
UT Grove (Maple) Cr, SR 1376, Duplin B-12 18-74-21 9/90 62/15 6.29/4.61 Good-Fair
Limestone Cr, NC 111, Duplin B-13 18-74-23 7/95 -/3 -/6.64 NR
Limestone Cr, NC 24, Duplin B-14 18-74-23 4/86 35/1 7.36/6.23 Poor
Limestone Cr, SR 1702, Duplin B-15 18-74-23 8/98 -/14 -/4.85 Good-Fair
7/95 -/4 -/5.48 Poor
8/93 -/26 -/4.50 Excellent
Stockinghead Cr, SR 1953, Duplin B-16 18-74-24 8/98 -/12 -/4.72 Good-Fair

A-II-14
CPF 22 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

8/93 -/13 -/3.99 Good-Fair
Maxwell Cr, SR 1921, Duplin B-17 18-74-24-1 6/85 55/5 6.89/5.52 Fair
UT Beaverdam Cr, SR 1916, Duplin B-18 18-74-24-1-1 4/87 49/4 7.05/5.05 Fair
Cabin Br, SR 1911, Duplin B-19 18-74-24-1-1-1 4/87 37/0 8.16/0 Poor
6/85 48/2 8.72/8.94 Poor
Cabin Br, SR 1915, Duplin B-20 18-74-24-1-1-1 4/87 20/0 9.11/0 Poor
6/85 38/0 8.91/0 Poor
Muddy Cr, NC 41, Duplin B-21 18-74-25 8/98 -/8 -/5.37 Fair
8/93 -/4 -/5.59 NR
Persimmon Br, ab Beulaville, Duplin B-22 18-74-25-1 9/90 45/4 6.98/6.62 NR
Persimmon Br, be Beulaville, Duplin B-23 18-74-25-1 9/90 31/0 7.53/0 NR
Rockfish Cr, NC 41, at Wallace, Duplin B-24 18-74-29 7/88 79/17 6.47/4.84 Good-Fair
Rockfish Cr, SR 1165, Duplin B-25 18-74-29 8/98 44/8 6.87/5.39 Fair
8/93 81/14 6.31/4.79 Good-Fair
Rockfish Cr, I-40, Duplin B-26 18-74-29 10/98 50/6 7.30/6.02 Fair
8/98 62/16 6.97/5.85 Good-Fair
8/93 64/12 6.83/5.26 Fair
CPF 23
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

NE Cape Fear R, nr Watha, Pender B-1 18-74-(29.5) 7/83 44/5 7.30/4.84 NR
NE Cape Fear R, NC 53 ab br, Pender B-2 18-74-(29.5) 5/94 47/10 7.16/5.45 NR
NE Cape Fear R, NC 53 be br, Pender B-3 18-74-(29.5) 5/94 42/6 6.53/5.02 NR
NE Cape Fear R, White Stocking Ramp, Pender B-4 18-74-(29.5) 5/94 40/9 6.91/5.39 NR
NE Cape Fear R at Castlehayne US117, B-5 18-74-(29.5) 7/98 44/9 6.40/5.26 Good
New Hanover 8/93 38/7 6.93/4.84 Good-Fair
6/90 45/7 6.51/5.26 Good-Fair
6/87 41/6 7.32/5.34 Good-Fair
7/85 42/5 7.05/3.97 Fair
Burgaw Cr, at old RR track, Pender B-6 18-74-39 12/87 37/0 8.85/- Poor
Burgaw Cr, NC 117, Pender B-7 18-74-39 12/87 14/0 9.44/- Poor
Burgaw Cr, I-40, Pender B-8 18-74-39 7/98 -/5 -/6.11 Poor
3/98 34/5 7.12/6.46 NR*
Angola Cr, NC 53, Pender B-9 18-74-33-3 7/98 -/9 -/6.06 Fair
11/93 62/10 6.39/4.82 Fair
11/93 56/9 6.33/4.70 NR
8/93 52/11 6.01/4.33 NR
5/93 68/17 6.23/4.93 NR
2/93 61/18 6.20/5.12 NR
Long Cr, NC 53, Pender B-10 18-74-55 3/98 -/2 -/7.00 NR
Cypress Cr, NC 53, Pender B-11 18-74-55-2 3/98 -/9 -/5.70 Good*
3/93 -/9 -/5.88 Good*
Juniper Swp, NC 50, Onslow B-12 18-74-33-4-2 3/98 22/2 6.66/6.25 Good-Exc*
2/97 19/1 7.00/6.23 Good-Exc*
11/93 30/2 6.90/6.30 NR
8/93 25/1 7.30/4.46 NR
5/93 34/2 7.07/5.90 NR
2/93 44/5 7.02/5.85 Good-Exc*
Lillington Cr, SR 1520, Pender B-13 18-74-42 2/97 33/7 5.98/4.75 Fair-Good*
Merrick’s Cr, NC 210, Pender B-14 18-74-49-2 3/98 43/10 6.14/5.02 Good-Exc*
2/97 43/12 6.00/4.58 Fair-Good*
11/93 53/11 6.61/5.50 NR
11/93 52/11 6.38/5.50 NR
5/93 51/13 6.14/4.42 NR
2/93 52/16 6.24/5.21 Good-Exc*
Sandy Run Swp, NC 50, Onslow B-15 18-74-33-2 11/93 36/2 7.27/6.34 NR
8/93 31/0 7.41/- NR
6/93 42/5 6.59/4.89 NR
3/93 39/8 6.40/4.86 NR

A-II-15
CPF 23 (con’t)
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

Shelter Swp, NC50, Onslow B-16 18-74-33-2-2 3/98 28/3 6.74/5.93 Good-Exc*
Burnt Mill Cr, Metts Ave, New Hanover B-17 18-74-63-2 7/98 -/4 -/5.00 Poor
3/98 40/5 7.99/6.69 NR

CPF 24
Estuarine
Site Site # Index # Date S/A&C S EBI Bioclass

Everett Bay, nr point, Onslow B-1 18-87-2 6/98 42/6 2.36 Heavy
Spicer Bay, at neck, Onslow B-2 18-87-4 6/98 54/8 2.24 Heavy
Onslow Canal, ½way down 3rd canal, Onlsow B-3 18-87-(5.5) 6/98
Beckys Cr, Onlsow B-4 18-87-8 6/98
Virginia Cr, Pender B-5 18-87-9 6/98
Topsail Sd, Marker 5, Pender B-6 18-87-10 6/98
Topsail Sd, docks nr Marker 5, Pender B-7 18-87-10 6/93 46/3 1.95 NR
Black Mud Ch, Pender B-8 18-87-13 6/93 24/5 2.80 NR
Futchs Cr, between inlets, Pender B-9 18-87-19 6/98
Pages Cr, upstr bend, New Hanover B-10 18-87-22 6/98
Howe Cr, nr bend, New Hanover B-11 18-87-23 5/94 95/22 2.47 None
2/94 108/17 2.39 Slight
5/93 11/1 2.10 NR
3/93 28/1 2.71 NR
Lees Cut, at Exxon, New Hanover B-12 18-87-24-1 6/98
ICWW, N of US 74, New Hanover B-13 18-87-24 6/93 5/1 1.86 NR
ICWW, Bridgetender Marina, New Hanover B-14 18-87-24 6/93 17/1 1.21 NR
Bradley Cr, US 76, New Hanover B-15 18-87-24-4-(2) 6/98 59/8 1.74 Heavy
2/96 62/5 1.91 Heavy
2/96 67/5 1.70 Heavy
2/96 48/7 1.88 Heavy
1/96 73/8 1.87 Heavy
1/96 48/4 1.44 Heavy
1/96 48/7 1.84 Heavy
5/94 68/9 1.87 Heavy
2/94 60/7 1.84 Heavy
11/93 45/7 1.86 Heavy
2/93 36/2 1.63 NR
Bradley Cr, off fuel dock, New Hanover B-16 18-87-24-4-(2) 2/93 40/5 2.30 NR
Bradley Cr, No Wake Sign, New Hanover B-17 18-87-24-4-(2) 2/93 35/3 1.85 NR
Hewletts Cr, at bend ab docks, New Hanover B-21 18-87-26 6/98 80/10 2.16 Moderate
2/96 97/9 1.95 Moderate
2/96 90/10 1.97 Moderate
2/96 86/9 1.88 Elevated
1/96 91/9 2.15 Moderate
1/96 77/7 1.99 Elevated
1/96 89/6 1.66 Elevated
5/94 105/15 1.95 Moderate
2/94 91/8 2.20 Moderate
11/93 93/9 2.22 Moderate
5/93 42/3 2.20 NR
2/93 42/2 2.02 NR
Masonboro Ch, Masonboro Isl NERR, New H. B-22 18-87-27 6/98 123/25 2.55 No Impact
Whiskey Cr at Marina, New Hanover B-23 18-87-28 6/98
Carolina Inlet Marina, in basin, New Hanover B-24 18-87-(30.5) 6/93 27/0 1.53 NR
ICWW, Marker 156, New Hanover B-25 18-87-(30.5) 6/98 67/14 2.16 Moderate
6/93 21/2 1.94 NR
ICWW spur, Marker 4, New Hanover B-26 18-87-31.2 6/93 11/1 1.15 NR
ICWW spur, Markr 5, New Hanover B-27 18-87-31.2 6/98

A-II-16
Freshwater
Site Site # Index # Date S/EPT S BI/BIEPT Bioclass

UT Hewletts Cr, ab pond, New Hanover B-18 18-87-26 9/94 26/1 6.82/6.20 NR
UT Hewletts Cr, Beasley Rd, New Hanover B-19 18-87-26 9/94 37/1 7.23/6.20 NR
Hewletts Cr, SR 1492, New Hanover B-20 18-87-26 7/98 -/5 -/6.10 Fair
2/98 41/6 7.11/5.95 NR

* Denotes draft swamp stream rating-under revision and not to be used for use support.

A-II-17
Appendix II Fish community assessments in the Cape Fear River Basin, 1992-1998

Subbasin/Stream Road County Map
F#
Index # D.A.
(mi2)
Date NCIBI
Score
NCIBI
Class1
030301
Haw R SR 2109 Guilford F-1 16-(1) 14.1 04/06/98 36 P
Haw R SR 2426 Rockingham F-2 16-(1) 62.1 10/12/98 38 F
04/06/98 26 P
Troublesome Cr SR 1001 Rockingham F-3 16-6-(0.3) 25.6 04/06/98 28 P
11/03/93 30 P
L Troublesome Cr SR 2600 Rockingham F-4 16-7 12.1 10/12/98 22 P
04/06/98 28 P

030602
Reedy Fork SR 2728 Guilford F-1 16-11-(9) 125 10/12/98 48 G-F
04/07/98 40 F
11/03/93 42 F
N Buffalo Cr SR 2770 Guilford F-2 16-11-14-1 43.7 04/07/98 30 P
05/10/94 22 P
S Buffalo Cr US 70 Guilford F-3 16-11-14-2 39.5 04/07/98 24 P
05/10/94 26 P
S Buffalo Cr SR 2821 Guilford F-4 16-11-14-2 43.5 04/07/98 16 P
05/10/94 28 P
Stony Cr SR 1104 Caswell F-5 16-14-(1) 12.4 05/19/94 48 G-F
Jordan Cr SR 1002 Alamance F-6 16-14-6-(0.5) 13.8 11/04/93 46 G-F

030603
Big Alamance Cr SR 3088 Guilford F-1 16-19-(1) 30.5 04/08/98 50 G
L Alamance Cr SR 3039 Guilford F-2 16-19-3-(0.5) 10.1 04/22/98 42 F
Big Alamance Cr SR 2309 Alamance F-3 16-19-(4.5) 242 11/14/93 40 F
Stinking Quarter Cr SR 1136 Alamance F-4 16-19-8 83 04/08/98 40 F
05/19/94 44 G-F
Rock Cr off SR 2409 Alamance F-5 16-19-8-3 11 07/30/92 44 G-F
Rock Cr off SR 2409 Alamance F-6 16-19-8-3 11 07/30/92 50 G
L Alamance Cr SR 2309 Alamance F-7 16-19-11 14.8 04/08/98 30 P
11/04/93 42 F

030604
Cane Cr SR 1114 Orange F-1 16-27-(2.5) 7.5 03/24/94 44 G-F
Collins Cr SR 1539 Chatham F-2 16-30-(1.5) 19.4 04/21/98 32 P
Terrells Cr NC 87 Chatham F-3 16-31-(2.5) 20.9 04/21/98 40 F
04/19/94 42 F
Ferrells Cr SR 1525 Chatham F-4 16-32 15.7 04/21/98 48 G-F

030605
New Hope Cr SR 2220 Durham F-1 16-41-1-(11.5) 52.2 05/18/98 36 P
Third Fork Cr NC 751 Durham F-2 16-41-1-12-(2) 16.5 06/16/93 26 P
Northeast Cr SR 1102 Durham F-3 16-41-1-17-(0.7) 13 06/16/93 42 F
Northeast Cr SR 1100 Durham F-4 16-41-1-17-(0.7) 18.2 06/16/93 32 P

A-II-18

Subbasin/Stream Road County Map
F#
Index # D.A.
(mi2)
Date NCIBI
Score
NCIBI
Class1
030606
Bolin Cr off SR 1750 Orange F-1 16-41-1-15-1-(4) 11.8 05/18/98 36 P
Morgan Cr NC 54 Orange F-2 16-41-2-(1) 8.4 03/24/94 42 F
Morgan Cr SR 1900 Orange F-3 16-41-2-(5.5) 41 05/18/98 34 P

030607
Gulf Cr off SR 1924 Chatham F-1 18-5-(1) 3.1 04/22/93 42 F
Gulf Cr off SR 1916 Chatham F-2 18-5-(1) 4.6 04/22/93 34 P
Avents Cr SR 1418 Harnett F-3 18-13 14.2 09/21/98 42 F
Hector Cr SR 1403 Harnett F-4 18-15 11.2 02/09/94 42 F
Hector Cr SR 1412 Harnett F-5 18-15 17.4 05/06/98 40 F
Kenneth Cr SR 1441 Harnett F-6 18-16-1-(2) 15.2 05/06/98 34 P
02/09/94 32 P

030608
Richland Cr SR 1154 Guilford F-1 17-7 12.5 04/22/98 30 P
Muddy Cr SR 1929 Randolph F-2 17-9 16.8 04/22/98 36 P
03/22/94 42 F

030609
Sandy Cr SR 2481 Randolph F-1 17-16-(1) 45.1 05/04/98 48 G-F
03/22/94 44 G-F

030610
Bear Cr SR 1405 Moore F-1 17-26-(1) 25.2 09/21/98 46 G-F
Cabin Cr SR 1275 Moore F-2 17-26-5-(1) 46.9 05/05/98 50 G
Bear Cr NC 705 Moore F-3 17-26-(6) 137 05/20/94 42 F
Falls Cr SR 1606 Moore F-4 17-27 14.4 05/05/98 50 G
McLendon’s Cr SR 1210 Moore F-5 17-30-(0.5) 14.5 05/05/98 46 G-F
Richland Cr SR 1640 Moore F-6 17-30-5-(2) 24.9 04/24/98 34 P
05/20/94 32 P
Indian Cr SR 2306 Chatham F-7 17-35 25.4 04/23/98 48 G-F

030611
Cedar Cr SR 2145 Chatham F-1 17-39 13 04/11/94 38 F
Big Buffalo Cr SR 1403 Lee F-2 17-40 19.7 04/24/98 26 P
04/11/94 38 F

030612
Rocky R SR 1300 Chatham F-1 17-43-(1) 7.4 05/04/98 38 F
Loves Cr SR 2229 Chatham F-2 17-43-10 7.9 05/04/98 44 G-F
Tick Cr US 421 Chatham F-3 17-43-13 15.5 04/19/94 48 G-F
Bear Cr SR 2187 Chatham F-4 17-43-16 42.4 04/23/98 50 G

030614
Nicks Cr NC 22 Moore F-1 18-23-3-(3) 26.8 05/31/96 40 F
Lower Little R SR 2023 Moore F-2 18-23-(10.7) 112 04/20/94 42 F
Crains Cr US 1 Moore F-3 18-23-16 32.7 05/07/98 40 F
Crains Cr SR 1001 Moore F-4 18-23-16 94.6 04/20/94 30 P
Buffalo Cr SR 1001 Moore F-5 18-23-18 18.3 05/07/98 48 G-F
Anderson Cr SR 2031 Harnett F-6 18-23-32 34.7 05/06/98 40 F

A-II-19

Subbasin/Stream Road County Map
F#
Index # D.A.
(mi2)
Date NCIBI
Score
NCIBI
Class1
030615

Cross Cr NC 87/210 Cumberland F-1 18-27-(3) 15.4 05/03/94 30 P
Big Cross Cr NC 87/210/24 Cumberland F-2 18-27-(3) 25.2 05/21/98 22 P
Puppy Cr SR 1406 Hoke F-3 18-31-19 26 05/21/98 44 G-F

030616

Harrison Cr SR 1318 Bladen F-1 18-42 48.3 05/20/98 46 G-F
05/03/94 48 G-F
Browns Cr NC 87 Bladen F-2 18-45 15 05/20/98 30 P
08/11/92 36 P
Turnbull Cr NC 242 Bladen F-3 18-46 36.6 05/20/98 42 F
Whites Cr SR 1704 Bladen F-4 18-50-5 10.3 05/20/98 52 G

030620

Colly Cr US 701 Bladen F-1 18-68-17 16.6 05/19/98 48 G-F
White Oak Br SR 1206 Pender F-2 18-68-18-5 17 05/19/98 44 G-F

030621

Mathews Cr NC 111/903

Duplin F-1 18-17-13 8.1 05/22/98 50 G
030622

Halls Marsh Run SR 1306 Duplin F-1 18-74-19-11 8.5 11/18/92 34 P
Herrings Marsh Run SR 1306 Duplin F-2 18-74-19-16 8.8 11/18/92 34 P
Grove Cr NC 11/903 Duplin F-3 18-74-21 22.6 05/22/98 48 G-F
06/01/94 52 G
Duff Cr SR 1170 Duplin F-4 18-74-29-2-(2)

21.8 05/22/98 50 G
030623

Burgaw Cr US 117 Pender F-1 18-74-39 8.6 05/19/98 40 F

1 The NCIBI Classifications are: G = Good, G-F = Good-Fair, F = Fair, and P = Poor.

Appendices

Appendix III

Use Support Methodology
and
Use Support Ratings

A-III-1
Use Support: Definitions and Methodology

A. Introduction to Use Support

Waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a waterbody
supports its designated uses (use support status) is another important method of interpreting
water quality data and assessing water quality. Use support assessments are presented in Section
A, Chapter 3 and for each subbasin in Section B.

Surface waters (streams, lakes or estuaries) are rated as either fully supporting (FS), partially
supporting (PS) or not supporting (NS). The terms refer to whether the classified uses of the
water (such as water supply, aquatic life protection and swimming) are fully supported, partially
supported or are not supported. For instance, waters classified for fishing and water contact
recreation (Class C for freshwaters or SC for saltwaters) 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 would be rated as PS or NS, depending on the degree of
exceedence.

An additional use support category, fully supporting but threatened (ST), was used in previous
305(b) reports. In the past, ST was used to identify a water that was fully supporting but had
some notable water quality concerns. ST could represent constant, degrading or improving
conditions. North Carolina’s past use of ST was very different from that of the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which uses it to identify waters that are characterized
by declining water quality (EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water
Quality Assessments [305(b) Reports] and Electronic Updates, 1997). Given the difference
between US EPA’s and North Carolina’s definitions of ST and the resulting confusion that arises
from this difference, North Carolina no longer subdivides the fully supporting category.
However, the waterbodies and the specific concerns remain identified in the basin plans so that
data, management and the need to address the identified concerns is not lost.

Waters that are either partially supporting or not supporting are considered impaired and are
rated based on specific criteria discussed more fully below. There must be a specified degree of
degradation before a waterbody is considered impaired. This differs from the word impacted,
which can refer to any noticeable or measurable change in water quality, good or bad. Waters
which have inconclusive or no data to determine their use support were listed as not rated (NR).

B. Interpretation of Data

The assessment of water quality presented in this document involved evaluation of available
water quality data to determine a waterbody’s use support rating. In addition, an effort was made
to determine likely causes (e.g., habitat degradation or nutrients) and sources (e.g., agriculture,
urban runoff, point sources) of waterbody degradation. Data used in the use support assessments
include biological data, chemical/physical data, lakes assessment data, and shellfish sanitation
surveys from the NC Division of Environmental Health (as appropriate). Although there is a

A-III-2
general procedure for analyzing the data and determining a waterbody’s use support rating, each
waterbody is reviewed individually, and best professional judgment is applied during these
determinations.

Interpretation of the use support ratings compiled by DWQ should be done with caution. The
methodology used to determine the ratings must be understood, as should the purpose for which
the ratings were generated. The intent of use support assessments by basin is to gain an overall
picture of the water quality, to describe how well these waters support the uses for which they
were classified, and to document the relative contribution made by different pollution sources.

The data are not intended to provide precise conclusions about pollutant budgets for specific
watersheds. Since the assessment methodology is geared toward general conclusions, it is
important not to manipulate the data to support policy decisions beyond the accuracy of these
data.

C. Assessment Methodology – Freshwater Streams

Many types of information are used to determine use support assessments and to determine
causes and sources of use support impairment. A use support data file is maintained for each of
the 17 river basins. In these files, stream segments are listed as individual records. All existing
data pertaining to a stream segment are entered into its record. In determining the use support
rating for a stream segment, corresponding ratings are assigned to data values where appropriate.
The following data and the corresponding use support ratings are used in the process.

1. Biological Data

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassification

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent to each
benthic sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPTs) and the Biotic Index (BI), which summarizes tolerance data
for all taxa in each collection. The bioclassifications are translated to use support ratings as
follows:

Bioclassification Rating

Excellent Fully Supporting
Good Fully Supporting
Good-Fair Fully Supporting
Fair Partially Supporting
Poor Not Supporting

Fish Community Structure

The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream’s
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The index

A-III-3
incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish
abundance and fish condition. The index is translated to use support ratings as follows:

NCIBI Rating

Excellent Fully Supporting
Good Fully Supporting
Good-Fair Fully Supporting
Fair Partially Supporting
Poor Not Supporting

Phytoplankton and Algal Bloom Data

Prolific growths of phytoplankton, often due to high concentrations of nutrients, sometimes
result in "blooms" in which one or more species of alga may discolor the water or form visible
mats on top of the water. Blooms may be unsightly and deleterious to water quality, causing fish
kills, anoxia, or taste and odor problems. An algal sample with a biovolume larger than 5,000
mm3/m3, density greater than 10,000 units/ml, or chlorophyll a concentration approaching or
exceeding 40 micrograms per liter (the NC state standard) constitutes a bloom. Best professional
judgment is used on a case-by-case basis in evaluating how bloom data should be used to
determine the use support rating of specific waters. The frequency, duration, spatial extent,
severity of blooms, associated fish kills, or interference with recreation or water supply uses are
all considered.

2. Chemical/Physical Data

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the Ambient Monitoring System as
discussed in Section A, Chapter 3. These data are downloaded from the ambient database, the
Surface Water Information Management System, to a desktop computer for analysis. Total
number of samples and percent exceedences of the NC state standards are used for use support
ratings. Percent exceedences correspond to use support ratings as follows:

Standards Violation* Rating

Criterion exceeded ≤10% Fully Supporting
Criterion exceeded 11-25% Partially Supporting
Criterion exceeded >25% Not Supporting

* Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. A minimum of ten samples is needed.

It is important to note that some waters may exhibit characteristics outside the appropriate
standards due to natural conditions (e.g., many swamp waters are characterized by low pH).
These natural conditions do not constitute a violation of water quality standards.

Data for copper, iron and zinc are not used according to the percent excess scheme outlined
above. Because these metals are generally not bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to
aquatic life because of chemical form, solubility and stream characteristics, they have action
level standards. In order for an action level standard to be violated, there must be a toxicological

A-III-4
test that documents an impact on a sensitive aquatic organism. The action level standard is used
to screen waters for potential problems with copper, iron and zinc. Best professional judgement
is used to determine which streams have metal concentrations at potentially problematic levels.
Streams with high metal concentrations are evaluated for toxicity, and they may be rated as PS or
NS if toxicity tests or biomonitoring (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrate communities) indicate
problematic metal levels.

Fecal coliform bacteria data are not used alone to determine a partially or not supporting rating.
The geometric mean is calculated using monthly samples, and if the geometric mean is above
200 colonies per 100 ml, fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a problem parameter. Because
North Carolina’s fecal coliform bacteria standard is 200 colonies per 100 ml for the geometric
mean of five samples taken in a thirty-day period, fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a cause of
impairment for the 303(d) list only when the standard is exceeded.

3. Source and Cause Data

In addition to the above data, existing information is documented for potential sources and
causes of stream degradation. It is important to note that not all impaired waterbodies have
sources and/or causes listed for them. Additionally, fully supporting waterbodies may have
sources and/or causes of stream degradation as well. Staff and resources do not currently exist to
collect this level of information for all waterbodies. Much of this information is obtained
through the cooperation of other agencies (federal, state and local), organizations and citizens.

Point Source Data

Whole Effluent Toxicity Data: Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity by
their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. Streams that receive a discharge from a facility
that has failed its whole effluent toxicity tests may have that facility listed as a potential source of
pollution.

Daily Monitoring Reports: Streams which receive a discharge from a facility significantly out of
compliance with permit limits may have that facility listed as a potential source of pollution.

Nonpoint Source Data

Nonpoint sources of pollution (i.e., agriculture, urban and construction) are identified by
monitoring staff, other agencies (federal, state and local), land use reviews, and public
workshops.

Problem Parameters

Causes of stream degradation (problem parameters), such as habitat degradation and low
dissolved oxygen, are also identified for specific stream segments where possible. For streams
with ambient water quality stations, those parameters which exceed the water quality standard
11 percent of the time for the review period are listed as a problem parameter. Zinc, copper and
iron are listed as problem parameters if levels are high enough to impact the biological
community (see Chemical/Physical Data section). Fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a

A-III-5
problem parameter if the geometric mean is greater than 200 colonies per 100 ml. For segments
without ambient stations, information from reports, other agencies and monitoring staff is used if
it is available.

Habitat degradation is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change
in habitat quality. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, streambed
scour, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, and loss of woody habitat.

4. Outside Data

DWQ actively solicits outside data and information. Data from outside DWQ, such as USGS
ambient monitoring data, volunteer monitoring data, and data from academic researchers, are
screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient quality and quantity, they are
incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten samples over a period of two
years is needed to be considered for use support assessments. The way the data are used depends
on the degree of quality assurance and quality control of the collection and analysis of the data.
Data of the highest quality are used in the same fashion as DWQ data to determine use support
ratings. Data with lower quality assurance may be used to pinpoint causes of pollution and
problem parameters. They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up
or down a stream from a DWQ monitoring location. Where outside data indicate a potential
problem, DWQ evaluates the existing DWQ biological and ambient monitoring site locations for
adjustment as appropriate.

5. Monitored vs. Evaluated

Assessments are made on either a monitored (M) or evaluated (E) basis depending on the level of
information that was available. Because a monitored rating is based on more recent and site-
specific data, it is treated with more confidence than an evaluated rating.

Refer to the following summary for an overview of assigning use support ratings.

A-III-6
Summary of Basis for Assigning Use Support Ratings to Freshwater Streams
Overall Basis Specific Basis Description
Monitored Monitored (M)

Monitored/Evaluated (ME)
Monitored stream segments1 with data2 ≤53 years old.

Stream segment1 is unmonitored, but is assigned a use support
rating based on another segment of same stream for which data2
≤53 years old are available.
Evaluated Evaluated (E)

Evaluated/Old Data (ED)
Unmonitored streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to
monitored stream segments rated FS. Must share similar land
use to the monitored stream segment.

Monitored stream segments1 with available data2 >53 years old.
Not Rated Not Rated (NR) No data available to determine use support. Includes
unmonitored streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to
stream segments rated PS or NS.
1 A stream segment is a stream, or a portion thereof, listed in the Classifications and Water Quality Standards for a river basin.
Each segment is assigned a unique identification number (index number).
2 Major data sources include benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications, fish community structure (NCIBI), and
chemical/physical monitoring data.
3 From the year that basin monitoring was done.

6. Assigning Use Support Ratings to Freshwater Streams

At the beginning of each assessment, all data are reviewed by subbasin with the monitoring staff.
Discrepancies between data sources are resolved during this phase of the process. For example, a
stream may be sampled for both benthic and fish community structure, and the benthic
bioclassification may differ from the NCIBI (i.e., the bioclassification may be FS while the
NCIBI may be NS). To resolve this, the final rating may defer to one of the samples (resulting in
FS or NS), or it may be a compromise between both of the samples (resulting in PS).

After reviewing the existing data, use support ratings are assigned to the streams. If one data
source exists for the stream, the rating is assigned based on the translation of the data value as
discussed above. If more than one source of data exists for a stream, the rating is assigned
according to the following hierarchy:

Benthic Bioclassification/Fish Community Structure
Chemical/Physical Data
Monitoring Data >5 years old
Compliance/Toxicity Data

This is only a general guideline for assigning use support ratings and not meant to be restrictive.
Each segment is reviewed individually, and the resulting rating may vary from this process based
on best professional judgment, which takes into consideration site-specific conditions.

After assigning ratings to streams with existing data, streams with no existing data are assessed.
Streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to streams rated FS receive the same rating (with an
evaluated basis) if they have no known significant impacts, based on a review of the watershed

A-III-7
characteristics and discharge information. Streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to
streams rated PS or NS, or that have no data, are assigned a NR rating.

D. Assessment Methodology – Lakes

The complex and dynamic ecosystem interactions that link chemical and physical water quality
parameters and biological response variables must be considered when evaluating use support.
In general, North Carolina assesses use support by determining if a lake’s uses, such as water
supply, fishing and recreation, are met; violations of water quality standards are not equated with
use impairment unless uses are not met. In following this approach, use support for agriculture,
aquatic life propagation, maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, recreation and water
supply can be holistically evaluated.

Nutrient enrichment, or eutrophication, is one of the main causes of lake impairment. Several
water quality variables may help to describe the level of eutrophication. These include pH,
chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, turbidity, total dissolved gases, and other
quantitative indicators, some of which have specific water quality standards. It is generally
agreed that excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are the principal culprits in
eutrophication related use impairment. These variables are important concerns; however,
climate, hydrology and biological response factors (chlorophyll, phytoplankton, fish kills, etc.)
are also essential to evaluate because they may control the frequency of episodes related to
potential use impairment. In addition, many of North Carolina’s lakes are human-made
reservoirs that do not mimic natural systems.

North Carolina does not determine eutrophication related use impairment with the quantitative
assessment of an individual water quality variable (i.e., chlorophyll a). Likewise, North Carolina
does not depend on a fixed index composed of several water quality variables, which does not
have the flexibility to adapt to numerous hydrological situations, to determine use impairment.
The weight of evidence approach is most appropriate to determine use support in terms of
nutrient enrichment in lakes. This approach can be flexibly applied depending on the amount
and quality of available information. The approach uses the following sources of information:

• multiple quantitative water quality variables (e.g., dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a)
• third party reports
• analysis of water quality complaints
• algal bloom reports
• macrophyte observations
• reports from water treatment plant operators
• reports from lake associations
• fish kill reports
• taste and odor observations
• aesthetic complaints
• frequency of noxious algal activity
• reports/observations of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission

A-III-8
E. Assessment Methodology – Estuaries

Estuarine waters are delineated according to Division of Environmental Health (DEH) shellfish
management areas (e.g., Outer Banks, Area H-5) for use support assessment (for map of shellfish
management areas, see 1996 305(b) report). As with the freshwater assessments, many types of
information are used to determine use support ratings and to determine causes and sources of use
support impairment for saltwater bodies. The following data sources are used when assessing
estuarine areas:

1. DEH Sanitary Surveys

DEH is required to classify all shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Growing areas are sampled continuously and reevaluated every three years to
determine if their classification is still applicable. Classifications are based on fecal coliform
bacteria sampling, locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource.
Growing waters are classified as follows:

• Approved Area - an area determined suitable for the harvesting of shellfish for direct market
purposes.
• Conditionally Approved-Open - waters that are normally open to shellfish harvesting but are
closed on a temporary basis in accordance with management plan criteria.
• Conditionally Approved-Closed - waters that are normally closed to shellfish harvesting but
are open on a temporary basis in accordance with management plan criteria.
• Restricted Area - an area from which shellfish may be harvested only by permit and
subjected to an approved depuration process or relayed to an approved area.
• Prohibited Area - an area unsuitable for the harvesting of shellfish for direct market
purposes.

2. Chemical/Physical Data

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected monthly through the Ambient Monitoring
System. These data are downloaded from the ambient database, the Surface Water Information
Management System, to a desktop computer for analysis. The total number of samples and
percent exceedences of the NC state standards are used for use support ratings (see methods for
freshwater streams). Parameters are evaluated based on the salt waterbody classification and
corresponding water quality standards.

Fecal coliform bacteria data from DWQ ambient monitoring are considered for SB and SC
waters (saltwaters not classified by DWQ for shellfishing), but are not used alone to determine a
partially or not supporting rating. The geometric mean is calculated using monthly samples, and
if the geometric mean is above 200 colonies per 100 ml, fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a
problem parameter. Because North Carolina’s fecal coliform bacteria standard for SB and SC
waters is 200 colonies per 100 ml for the geometric mean of five samples taken in a thirty-day
period, fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a cause of impairment for the 303(d) list only when
the standard is exceeded.

A-III-9
3. Phytoplankton and Algal Bloom Data

Prolific growths of phytoplankton, often due to high concentrations of nutrients, sometimes
result in "blooms" in which one or more species of algae may discolor the water or form visible
mates on top of the water. Blooms may be unsightly and deleterious to water quality, causing
fish kills, anoxia, or taste and odor problems. An algal sample with a biovolume larger than
5000 mm3/m3, density greater than 10,000 units/ml, or chlorophyll a concentrations approaching
or exceeding 40 micrograms per liter (the NC standard) constitutes a bloom. Best professional
judgment is used on a case-by-case basis in evaluating how bloom data should be used to
determine the use support rating of specific waters. The frequency, duration, spatial extent,
severity of blooms, associated fish kills, or interference with recreation or water supply uses are
all considered.

4. Assigning Use Support Ratings to Estuarine Waters

Saltwaters are classified according to their best use. When assigning a use support rating, the
waterbody’s assigned classification is used with the above parameters to make a determination of
use support. The following table describes how these factors are combined in use support
determination.

DWQ
Classification
DEH Shellfish
Classification
Chemical/
Physical Data1
Fully Supporting
SA Approved or
Conditionally
Approved-Open
standard exceeded ≤10% of measurements
SB & C Does not Apply standard exceeded ≤10% of measurements
Partially Supporting
SA Prohibited2,
Restricted or
Conditionally
Approved-Closed
standard exceeded 11-25% of measurements
SB & SC Does not Apply standard exceeded 11-25% of measurements
Not Supporting
SA Prohibited2 or
Restricted
standard exceeded >25% of measurements
SB & SC Does not Apply standard exceeded >25% of measurements
1 Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. A minimum of ten samples is needed.
2 DEH classifies some SA waters as prohibited, because DEH does not sample them due to the absence of a
shellfish resource. DEH is federally required to prohibit harvesting in such areas, although actual fecal
coliform bacteria concentrations are unknown. These waters are not rated (NR) for use support.

It is important to note that DEH classifies all actual and potential growing areas (which includes
all saltwater and brackish water areas) for their suitability for shellfish harvesting, but different
DWQ use classifications may be assigned to separate segments within DEH management areas.
In determining use support, the DEH classifications and management strategies are only

A-III-10
applicable to those areas that DWQ has classified as SA (shellfish harvest waters). This will
result in a difference of acreage between DEH areas classified as conditionally approved-closed,
prohibited or restricted, and DWQ waterbodies rated as PS or NS. For example, if DEH
classifies a 20-acre waterbody as prohibited, but only 10 acres have a DWQ use classification of
SA, only those 10 acres classified as SA will be rated as partially supporting their uses based on
DEH information. DWQ areas classified as SB and SC are rated using chemical/physical data,
phytoplankton data, and algal bloom and fish kill data.

5. Cause and Source Data

See methods for freshwater streams.

6. Outside Data

See methods for freshwater streams.

F. Revisions to Methodology Since 1992-1993 305(b) Report

Three significant changes to use support methodology have been made since the 1992-1993
305(b) report pertaining to the use of older information and fish consumption advisories.

Methodology for determining use support has been revised to more accurately reflect water
quality conditions. In the 1992-1993 305(b) report, information from older reports and
workshops was included in making use support determinations. Streams assessed using this
information were rated on an evaluated basis, because the reports were considered outdated, and
the workshops relied on best professional judgment since actual monitoring data were not
available. In place of these older reports and workshop information, DWQ is now relying more
heavily on data from its expanded monitoring network. These changes resulted in a reduction in
streams rated on an evaluated basis. The basinwide process allows for concentrating more
resources on individual basins during the monitoring phase. See the discussion above for more
information on how ’monitored’ versus ’evaluated’ is defined.

The rating fully supporting but threatened (ST) is no longer used. Instead, three categories are
now used, including fully supporting (FS), partially supporting (PS) and not supporting (NS).
Waters that are fully supporting but have some notable water quality problems are discussed in
the subbasin chapters of the basinwide plan.

Mercury levels in surface waters are primarily related to increases in atmospheric mercury
deposition from global/regional sources, rather than from local surface water discharges. As a
result, fish consumption advisories due to mercury have been posted in many areas (primarily
coastal areas) of the state. Waters with fish consumption advisories (mercury, dioxin, etc.) are no
longer considered for use support determination. However, these waters will continue to appear
on the 303(d) list, and management strategies will be developed for these waters as required by
the Clean Water Act.
Appendices

Appendix IV

303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology

A-IV-1
303(d) LISTING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

What is the 303(d) List?

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Waters may be excluded from the
list if existing control strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution will improve water
quality to the point that standards or uses are being met. Listed waters must be prioritized, and a
management strategy or total maximum daily load (TMDL) must subsequently be developed for
all listed waters. This draft of the 303(d) list will be submitted to EPA for approval in the year
2000. The latest approved 303(d) list was published on May 15, 1998. A summary of the 303(d)
process follows. More complete information can be obtained from North Carolina’s 1998
303(d) List (DENR, 1998), which can be obtained by calling the Planning Branch of DWQ at
[phone].

303(d) List Development

Generally, there are four steps to preparing North Carolina’s 303(d) list. They are: 1) gathering
information about the quality of North Carolina’s waters; 2) screening those waters to determine
if any are impaired and should be listed; 3) determining if a total maximum daily load (TMDL)
has been developed; and 4) prioritizing impaired waters for TMDL development. This document
also indicates whether the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) intends to develop a TMDL as part
of a Management Strategy (MS) to restore the waterbody to its intended use. The following
subsections describe each of these steps in more detail.

Sources of Information

For North Carolina, the primary sources of information are the basinwide management plans,
305(b) reports and accompanying assessment documents, which are prepared on a five-year
cycle. Basinwide management plans include information concerning permitting, monitoring,
modeling and nonpoint source assessment by basin for each of the 17 major river basins within
the state. Basinwide management allows the state to examine each river basin in detail and to
determine the interaction between upstream and downstream, point and nonpoint pollution
sources. As such, more effective management strategies can be developed across the state.

Listing Criteria

Waters whose use support ratings were not supporting (NS) or partially supporting (PS) based on
monitored information in the 305(b) report were considered as initial candidates for the 303(d)
list. Waters that were listed on the previously approved 303(d) list were evaluated and
automatically included if the use support rating was NS, PS or not rated (NR).

Fish consumption advisory information was then reviewed to determine if other waters should be
added to the list. Fish consumption advisories are no longer considered when determining use
support since a fish advisory for mercury contamination in Bowfin was posted for the entire state
in June 1997. While fish consumption advisories do indicate impairment, DWQ did not want to
mask other causes and sources of impairment by having the entire state (or an entire basin) listed
as impaired due to fish consumption advisories. However, DWQ believes that advisories on
specific waters are cause to include the water on the 303(d) list; therefore, advisories other than

A-IV-2
the statewide Bowfin posting were considered when developing North Carolina’s 303(d) list.
Waters listed due to fish consumption advisories may have overall ratings of fully supporting
(FS) because fish advisories are not considered in the 305(b) use support process.

Guidance from EPA on developing the 1998 303(d) lists indicated that impaired waters without
an identifiable problem parameter should not be included on the 303(d) list. However, DWQ
feels that waters listed in the 305(b) report as impaired for biological reasons, where problem
parameters have not been identified, should remain on the 303(d) list. The Clean Water Act
states that chemical, physical and biological characteristics of waters shall be restored. The
absence of an identified cause of impairment does not mean that the waterbody should not
receive attention. Instead, DWQ should resample or initiate more intensive studies to determine
why the waterbody is impaired. Thus, biologically impaired waters without an identified cause
of impairment are on the draft 303(d) list.

Assigning Priority

North Carolina is required to prioritize its 303(d) list in order to direct resources to those waters
in greatest need of management. The CWA states that the degree of impairment (use support
rating) and the uses to be made of the water (stream classification) are to be considered when
developing the prioritization. In addition, DWQ reviews the degree of public interest and the
probability of success when developing its prioritization schemes. Waters harboring endangered
species are also given additional priority. A method to assign ratings to freshwaters that have
recent data indicating impairment has been devised based on these criteria.

The prioritization process results in ratings of high, medium and low. Generally, waters rated
with the highest priority are classified for water supply use, rated not supporting, and harbor an
endangered species. Waters receiving a high priority are important natural resources for the State
of North Carolina and generally serve significant human and ecological uses. High priority
waters will be addressed first within their basin cycles when technically feasible. TMDLs are not
possible where the pollutant(s) have yet to be identified. TMDLs cannot be attempted without
flow data. Collecting physical/chemical data and accumulating flow data are milestones that
must precede developing TMDLs of any priority.

EPA recently issued guidance that suggested states should develop TMDLs and management
strategies on all of their impaired waters within the next eight to thirteen years. To meet this
federal guidance, the DWQ is striving to address all 303(d) listed waters that have a priority of
high, medium or low within the next 10 years. Numeric TMDLs, if proper technical conditions
exist, and management strategies will be developed for these waters. The DWQ is constantly
reviewing its resource allocations in order to meet this aggressive schedule.

Other priorities have also been assigned to waters. A monitor priority indicates that the
waterbody is listed based on: 1) data older than 5 years; 2) biological impairment without an
identified pollutant; or 3) biological impairment where the criteria used to originally rate the
stream as impaired has been deemed inappropriate. Many low flow streams and swamp waters
were rated as biologically impaired in the past using inappropriate criteria. These waters will be
resampled and rated using specialized criteria currently in development. Until the updated rating
criteria is finalized, these waters will continue to be rated NR and will stay on the 303(d) list.
Further information on the monitoring approaches that have a monitor priority is provided in the
next section.

A-IV-3
The final priority listed on the 303(d) list is N/A for not applicable. This priority was assigned to
waters that DWQ believes will meet their uses based on the current management strategies.
DWQ will not develop a new TMDL or management strategy for these waters unless data
continue to indicate impairment, and sufficient time has passed for the waterbody to respond to
the management action. An example of this priority is a water impaired by a point source, and
the pollutant causing the impairment has been completely removed from the point source.

Additional Guidance on Using the 303(d) List

The column headings in the 303(d) list refer to the following:

Class – The information in this column indicates the classification assigned to the particular
waterbody. Stream classifications are based on the existing and anticipated best usage of the
stream as determined through studies and information obtained at public hearings. The stream
classifications are described in 15A NCAC 2B .0300.

Subbasin – The number in this column refers to the DWQ subbasin in which the waterbody is
located. The NRCS 14-digit hydrologic units nest within the DWQ subbasins.

Cause of Impairment – The cause of impairment as identified in the use support rating process.
When a chemical problem parameter is identified, the parameter listed exceeded the state's water
quality standards for that parameter. Biological impairment is based on data relating to benthic
and fish habitat as well as community structure. There may be other unidentified causes
contributing to the impairment. Causes included in the 303(d) list are listed below:

Chl a – chlorophyll a
Cl – chloride
Cu – copper
DO – dissolved oxygen
Fecal – fecal coliform
bacteria
Hg – mercury
NH3 – ammonia
Nutr – nutrients
Pb – lead
pH – pH
Tox – toxicity
Turb – turbidity
Aq. Weeds – aquatic
weeds

Biological
Impairment –
Impairment based on
benthic/fish data
Fish Advisory – Fish
advisory issued by
DEH

Overall Rating – This column lists the overall use support rating. These values may be NS (not
supporting), PS (partially supporting), FS (fully supporting) and NR (not rated). A rating of not
rated is typically assigned to waters that were sampled using biocriteria that may not apply, or
there are no data available on the water. These waters appeared on earlier lists, and they continue
to be listed for administrative reasons, but no TMDL or management strategy will be developed
until we have updated information that the water continues to be impaired. For waters listed
solely on the basis of fish consumption advisories, the rating may be fully supporting (FS). The
305(b) report describes these use support ratings further. On the 303(d) list of lakes, the overall
use support rating is found in the column entitled “Overall Use Rating.” Ratings for specific
uses are found in the columns entitled “Fish Consumption”, “Aquatic Life and Secondary
Contact”, “Swimming” and “Drinking Water.”

Source – This column indicates which sources are the probable major sources of impairment.

A-IV-4
Approach – This column indicates the approach DWQ will take to restore the waterbody. More
than one approach may be listed. TMDLs are typically developed for DO, nutrients, fecal
coliform, ammonia and metals. Management strategies are typically done for pH, sediment and
turbidity. Further information on each approach is provided below.

TMDL – A numeric TMDL (total, maximum, daily, load), as defined by EPA,
will be developed.

MS – Management Strategy. These waters are on the list based on data collected
within the five years prior to when the use support assessment was completed. A
cause of impairment has been identified, but North Carolina cannot develop a
numeric TMDL as EPA defines it. A management strategy may contain the
following elements: further characterization of the causes and sources of
impairment, numeric water quality goals other than TMDLs, and best
management practices to restore the water.

RES – Resample. This waterbody was identified as being impaired based on
water quality data that were greater than 5 years old or invalid at the time the use
support assessment was performed. This waterbody will be resampled prior to
TMDL or management strategy development to ensure the impairment continues
to exist.

PPI – Problem Parameters Identification. Available chemical data do not show
any parameters in violation of applicable standards, but biological impairment has
been noted within the five years prior to use support assessment. DWQ will
resample these waters for chemical and biological data to attempt to determine the
cause of impairment. TMDLs or management strategies will be developed within
2 basin cycles of pollutant identification.

SWMP – Swamp waters. This water may not actually be impaired. Swamp
waters previously evaluated using freshwater criteria will continue to be
monitored and will be reevaluated when swamp criteria are available.

Priority – Priorities of high, medium and low were assigned for waters identified as being
impaired based on data that were not greater than 5 years of age at the time the use support
assessment was done and for which a cause of impairment has been identified. All waters
assigned a priority of high, medium or low will be addressed within the next two basin cycles.
Priorities of monitor and N/A have also been assigned where appropriate. Further explanation on
each of these is provided below:

High – Waters rated high are important resources for the state in terms of human
and ecological uses. Typically, they are classified as water supplies, harbor
federally endangered species, and are rated as not supporting. These waters will
be addressed first within their basin cycles when technically feasible.

Medium – Waters rated medium may be classified for water supply or primary
recreational use, may have state endangered or other threatened species, and may
be rated as partially or not supporting.

A-IV-5
Low – Waters rated low generally are classified for aquatic life support and
secondary recreation (i.e., Class C waters) and harbor no endangered or threatened
species.

Monitor – The waterbody is included on the 303(d) list based on:

1. Data that are greater than 5 years of age when use support
assessment is done (denoted by RES in approach column).
2. Biological data collected within 5 years of use support assessment,
but no cause of impairment has been identified (available chemical
data show full use support denoted by PPI in approach column).
3. Freshwater biological criteria applied to swamp waters.

In general, waters given this priority based on recent biological data will be
sampled prior to waters listed based on older information. All waters with this
priority will be resampled as resources allow. Waters with a monitor priority will
not have a management strategy or TMDL developed for it before updated
sampling or analyses of the biological criteria is complete. Once updated
sampling is done and problem pollutants have been identified, these waters will be
addressed by either a management strategy or TMDL within two basin planning
cycles (10 years).

N/A – DWQ believes that its current management strategy will address the water
quality impairment, but it may take a number of years before standards are met.
In this case, DWQ plans to continue monitoring the water to determine if
improvements are occurring, but no new management strategy or TMDL will be
developed unless sufficient time has passed for improvement to occur, and data
indicate the water is still impaired.

The lakes table column entitled “Trophic Status” refers to the trophic status of the lake, a relative
description of the biological productivity of the lake. The lake may be hypereutrophic,
eutrophic, mesotrophic or oligotrophic. Oligotrophic lakes are nutrient poor and biologically
unproductive. Mesotrophic lakes have intermediate nutrient availability and biological
productivity. Eutrophic lakes are nutrient rich and highly productive. Hypereutrophic lakes are
extremely eutrophic.
Appendices

Appendix V

Cape Fear River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

A-V-1
Statewide Nonpoint Source Management Program Description

The North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program consists of a broad framework of
federal, state and local resource and land management agencies. More than 2,000 individuals
administer programs that are directly related to nonpoint source pollution management within the
state. A range of responsibilities have been delegated to county or municipal programs including
the authority to inspect and permit land clearing projects or septic system performance. In the
field of agriculture, a well established network of state and federal agricultural conservationists
provide technical assistance and program support to individual farmers.

Staff in the DWQ Water Quality Section’s Planning Branch lead the Nonpoint Source
Management Program, working with various agencies to insure that program goals are
incorporated into individual agencies’ management plans. The goals include:

1. Coordinate implementation of state and federal initiatives addressing watershed protection
and restoration.
2. Continue to target geographic areas and waterbodies for protection based upon best
available information.
3. Strengthen and improve existing nonpoint source management programs.
4. Develop new programs that control nonpoint sources of pollution not addressed by existing
programs.
5. Integrate the NPS Program with other state programs and management studies (e.g.,
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program).
6. Monitor the effectiveness of BMPs and management strategies, both for surface and
groundwater quality.

Coordination between state agencies is achieved through reports in the North Carolina Nonpoint
Source Management Program Update. Reports are intended to keep the program document
current and develop a comprehensive assessment identifying the needs of each agency to meet
the state nonpoint source program goals. Annual reports are developed to describe individual
program priorities, accomplishments, significant challenges, issues yet to be addressed, and
resource needs. A copy of the latest Annual Report (FY1998) is available online:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/nps_mp.htm.

The nature of nonpoint source pollution is such that involvement at the local level is imperative.
Basinwide Water Quality Plans identify watersheds that are impaired by nonpoint sources of
pollution. Identification, status reports and recommendations are intended to provide the best
available information to local groups and agencies interested in improving water quality. The
plans also make available information regarding federal, state and local water quality initiatives
aimed at reducing or preventing nonpoint source pollution.

The following table is a comprehensive guide to contacts within the state’s Nonpoint Source
Management Program. For more information, contact Alan Clark at [phone] ext. 570.

A-V-2
Appendix V Cape Fear River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Descriptions and Contacts

Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the US Department of Agriculture, formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Technical specialists certify waste management plans for
animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; work with landowners on private lands to conserve natural
resources, helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and needs; administer several federal agricultural
cost share and incentive programs; provide assistance to rural and urban communities to reduce erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve
other resource problems; conduct soil surveys; offer planning assistance for local landowners to install best management practices; and offer
farmers technical assistance on wetlands identification.

Area 2
Conservationist
704-637-2400 600 West Innes Street, Salisbury, NC 28144
Area 3
Conservationist
919-734-0961 Federal Building, Room 108, 134 North John Street,
Goldsboro, NC 27530-3676

County District Conservationist Phone Address
Alamance Gary Cox 336-228-1753 x3 Environmental Center, 209 North Graham Hopedale Road,
Burlington, NC 27215
Bladen Samuel G. Warren 910-862-3179 x3 Agriculture Service Center, Room 122, Ice Plant Road,
Elizabethtown, NC 28337-9409
Brunswick Joshua W. Spencer 910-253-2830 Brunswick County Government Center, Highway 17,
PO Box 26, Bolivia, NC 28422-0026
Caswell Warren H. Mincey, Jr. 910-694-4581 Agriculture Building, Main Street,
PO Box 96, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Chatham Michael Sturdivant 919-542-2244 Chatham County Agriculture Building, 45 South Street,
PO Box 309, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Columbus Donna G. Register 910-642-2348 45 Government Complex Road,
PO Box 545, Whiteville, NC 28472-0545
Cumberland John M. Ray, Jr. 910-484-8939 Charlie Rose Agri-Expo Center, Suite 229, 121 East Mountain
Drive, Fayetteville, NC 28306-3422
Duplin Harold D. Jones 910-296-2120 Duplin County Soil Conservation Building, 302 North Main
Street, PO Box 219, Kenansville, NC 28349-0219
Durham 919-560-0558 County Agriculture Building, 721 Foster Street,
Durham, NC 27701
Forsyth Dierdre Debruhl “DeDe” 336-767-0720 Forsyth Agriculture Building, 1450 Fairchild Drive,
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Guilford John W. Andrews 336-333-5401 x3 County Agriculture Center, 3309 Burlington Road,
Greensboro, NC 27405
Harnett Parks V. Blake 910-893-7584 County Office Building, 102 East Front Street,
PO Box 267, Lillington, NC 27546
Hoke John Ray, Jr.* DC
based in Fayetteville FO
910-875-8685 Federal Building, Room 202, 122 West Elmwood Avenue,
Raeford, NC 28376
Johnston Kenneth C. York 919-934-7156 x3 County Agriculture Building, 806 North Street,
Smithfield, NC 27577
Lee Lauren A. Massey 919-776-2633 County Agriculture Building, Room 6,
225 Steele Street, Sanford, NC 27330
Montgomery 910-572-2700 2270 North Main Street,
Troy, NC 27371
Moore Angela V. Hill 910-947-5183 County Agriculture Center, 707 Pinehurst Avenue,
PO Box 908, Carthage, NC 28327
New Hanover Marilyn M. Stowell DC
based in Burgaw FO
910-762-6072 New Hanover SWCD, 414 Chestnut Street, Room 305,
Wilmington, NC 28401

A-V-3

Agriculture (con’t)
Onslow Harry S. Tyson 910-455-4472 x3 Donald A. Halsey Agriculture Building,
604 College Street, Jacksonville, NC 28540
Orange E. Brent Bogue 919-644-1079 x3 County Planning/Agriculture Center, 306D Revere Road,
PO Box 8181, Hillsboro, NC 27278
Pender Marilyn M. Stowell 910-259-4305 Agriculture Building, 801 South Walker Street,
PO Box 248, Burgaw, NC 28425-0248
Randolph B. Barton Roberson 336-629-4449 Federal Building, Room 105, 241 Sunset Avenue,
Asheboro, NC 27203
Robeson Edward V. Holland 910-739-5478 440 Caton Road,
Lumberton, NC 28358
Rockingham John I. Timmons 910-342-8225 County Government Center, 371 NC Highway 65,
PO Box 201, Wentworth, NC 27375-0201
Sampson C. Wilson Spencer 910-592-7963 x3 New Agriculture Building, 84 County Complex Road,
Clinton, NC 28328
Wake Stephen C. Woodruff 919-250-1070 Agriculture Services Building, Suite D,
4001 Carya Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610
Wayne Patricia S. Gabriel 919-731-1532 Wayne Center, Room 104, 208 West Chestnut Street,
Goldsboro, NC 27530
Soil & Water Conservation Districts:
Boards and staff under the administration of the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC). Districts are responsible for:
administering the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at the county level; identifying areas needing soil
and/or water conservation treatment; allocating cost share resources; signing cost share contracts with landowners; providing technical
assistance for the planning and implementation of BMPs; and encouraging the use of appropriate BMPs to protect water quality.
County Board Chairman Phone Address
Alamance Roy Stanley, Jr. 336-226-0477 PO Box 3185, Burlington, NC 27215-0185
Bladen Ronald Allen 910-862-3179 122 Agriculture Services Center, Elizabethtown, NC 28337
Brunswick Bryan Smith 910-253-4448 10 Referendum Drive, PO Box 26, Bolivia NC 28422
Caswell James R. Blackwell 336-694-4581 Agriculture Building, PO Box 96, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Chatham John W. Etchison 919-542-8240 PO Box 309, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Columbus Gilbert J. Anderson 910-642-2348 PO Box 545, Whiteville, NC 28472-0545
Cumberland Wingate Collier 910-484-8479 Agri-Expo Center, 121 East Mountain Drive, Suite 229,
Fayetteville, NC 28306-3422
Duplin G. Rouse Ivey 910-296-2120 PO Box 277, 302 North Main Street,
Kenansville, NC 28349-0277
Durham Ed C. Harrison 919-560-0558 721 Foster Street, Durham, NC 27701-2110
Forsyth Grover McPherson 336-767-0720 1450 Fairchild Drive, Room 11, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Guilford Lewis Brandon III 336-375-5401 3309 Burlington Road., Greensboro, NC 27405
Harnett Gerald Temple 910-893-7584 PO Box 267, Lillington, NC 27546
Hoke George Raz Autry, Jr. 910-875-8685 Federal Building, Room 202, 122 West Elwood Avenue,
Raeford, NC 28376-2800
Johnston James W. Hughes 919-989-5381 County Agriculture Building, 806 North Street,
Smithfield, NC 27577
Lee Michael L. Gaster 919-776-2633 225 South Steele Street, Sanford, NC 27330
Montgomery Mike Haywood 910-572-2700 227-D North Main Street, Troy, NC 27371
Moore Albert F. Troutman, Jr. 910-947-5183 PO Box 908, 707 Pinehurst Avenue, Carthage, NC 28327
New Hanover Daniel Moore 910-762-6072 414 Chestnut Street, Room 305, Wilmington, NC 28401
Onslow Jerome Shaw 910-455-4472 Donald A. Halsey Agriculture Building, 604 College Street,
Jacksonville, NC 28540

A-V-4

Agriculture (con’t)

Orange Charles W. Snipes 919-644-1079 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Pender Don Rawls 910-259-4305 PO Box 248, 801 South Walker Street, Burgaw, NC 28425
Randolph Craig Frazier 336-318-6490 Federal Building, Suite 105, 241 Sunset Avenue,
Asheboro, NC 27203
Robeson William A. Davis 910-739-5478 440 Caton Road, Lumberton, NC 28358
Rockingham Rupert O. Jones, Jr. 336-342-8225 PO Box 201, Wentworth, NC 27375-0201
Sampson Anna S. Sumner 910-592-7963 84 County Complex Road, Clinton, NC 28328
Wake Kay A. Adcock 919-250-1070 4001-D Carya Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610-2921
Wayne Russell Gurley 919-731-1532 Wayne Center, Room 104, 208 West Chestnut Street,
Goldsboro, NC 27530-4708
Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
State agency that administers the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP). Allocates ACSP funds to
the Soil & Water Conservation Districts; and provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and engineering.
Distributes Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee.
Central Office Carroll Pierce 919-715-6110 Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27626
Fayetteville Region Jamie Revels 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Suite 714,
Fayetteville, NC 28301
Raleigh Region Margaret O’Keefe 919-571-4700 1628 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Wilmington Region Brian Gannon 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension,
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Winston-Salem Region Daphne Cartner 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street,
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
NCDA Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture technical specialists: certify waste management plans for animal operations; provide certification training
for swine waste applicators; track, monitor and account for use of nutrients on agricultural lands; operate the state Pesticide Disposal Program;
and enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws with farmers.
Central Office Tom Ellis 919-733-7125 PO Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Region 4 Tim Hall 910-590-2801 104 Jaclane Drive, Clinton, NC 28502-3867
Region 5 Rick Morris 910-866-5485 3184 Old NC 41, Bladenboro, NC 28320
Region 7 Kevin Johnson 919-736-1799 PO Box 1970, Pikeville, NC 27863
Region 8 Robin Watson 336-570-6850 1709 Fairview Street, Burlington, NC 27215
Region 9 David Dycus 919-776-9338 5022 Henley Road, Sanford, NC 27330
Region 10 Tim Hambrick 336-352-5360 192 Davis Road, Mount Airy, NC 27030

A-V-5

Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
County Contact Person Phone Address
Alamance Junius E. “Rett” Davis Jr. 336-570-6740 209-C North Graham-Hopedale Road, Burlington, NC 27217
Bladen Dr. Martha Warner 910-862-4591 PO Box 209, Elizabethtown, NC 28337
Brunswick Phil Ricks 910-253-2610 Brunswick County Government Complex, 25 Referendum
Drive, PO Box 109, Bolivia, NC 28422
Caswell Larry Whitt 336-694-4158 126 Court Square, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Chatham Glenn Woolard 919-542-8202 45 South Street, PO Box 279, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Columbus Jacqueline D. Roseboro 910-640-6605 Columbus County Center, 45 Government Complex Road,
PO Box 569, Whiteville, NC 28472
Cumberland George Autry 910-484-7156 Charlie Rose Agri-Expo Center, 121 East Mountain Drive,
PO Box 270, Fayetteville, NC 28302
Duplin Ed Emory 910-296-2143 PO Box 949, Kenansville, NC 28349
Durham Cheryl L. Lloyd 919-560-0525 Agricultural Building, 721 Foster Street, Durham, NC 27701
Forsyth Maureen Minton 336-767-8213 1450 Fairchild Drive, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Guilford Gwyn F. Riddick 336-375-2295 3309 Burlington Road, Greensboro, NC 27405-7605
Harnett Jennifer S. Walker 910-893-7530 PO Box 1089, 102 East Front Street, Lillington, NC 27546
Hoke Betty A. Green 919-875-2162 116 West Prospect Avenue, PO Box 578, Raeford, NC 28376
Johnston Kenneth R. Bateman 919-989-5380 Agricultural Center, 806 North Street, Smithfield, NC 27577
Lee John V. Hall 919-775-5624 225 South Steele Street, Sanford, NC 27330-4294
Montgomery Roger K. Galloway 910-576-6011 203 West Main Street, Troy, NC 27371
Moore Charles Hammond 910-947-3188 707 Pinehurst Avenue, Carthage, NC 28327
New Hanover C. Bruce Williams 910-452-6393 6206 Oleander Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403
Onslow F. Daniel Shaw 910-455-5873 604 College Street, Room 8, Jacksonville, NC 28540
Orange Fletcher Barber 919-732-8181
x2050
306-E Revere Road, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Pender Michael Jones 910-259-1235 Agricultural Building, 801 South Walker Street,
Burgaw, NC 28425
Randolph Lynne Qualls 336-318-6000 Ira L. McDowell Center, 2222-A Fayetteville Street,
Asheboro, NC 27203
Robeson Everett Davis 910-671-3276 455 Caton Road, PO Box 2280, Lumberton, NC 28359
Rockingham Scott Shoulars 336-342-8230 Rockingham County Center, PO Box 200,
Wentworth, NC 27375-0200
Sampson George P. Upton 910-592-7161 Sampson County Center, 369 Rowan Road,
Clinton, NC 28328
Wake Brent Henry 919-250-1100 4001-E Carya Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610
Wayne Howard Scott 919-731-1520 Wayne County Center, 208 West Chestnut Street,
PO Box 68, Goldsboro, NC 27533-0068
Forestry
Division of Forest Resources:
Develop, protect and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina's forests through professional stewardship, enhancing the quality of our
citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources.
Districts 3,4,6,8,10,11 Rocky Tucker 910-642-5093 1413 Chadbourn Highway, Whiteville, NC 28472
Central Office Bill Swartley 919-733-2162 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1616

A-V-6

Construction/Mining
DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations. Conducts land surveys and studies,
produces maps, and protects the state’s land and mineral resources.

Central Office Mel Nevills 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27626
Fayetteville Region William Vinson 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Suite 714, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Raleigh Region John Holley 919-571-4700 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Wilmington Region Dan Sams 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension,
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Winston-Salem Region Mathew Gantt 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107

Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances.

Town of Apex Robert (Rocky) Ross 919-387-3090 x101 PO Box 250, Apex, NC 27502
City of Asheboro Wendell Holland 336-626-1249 PO Box 1106, Asheboro, NC 27204
City of Burlington Robert C. Patterson, Jr.,
P.E.
336-222-5050 PO Box 1358, Burlington, NC 27215
Town of Chapel Hill W. Calvin Horton
George Small
306 North Columbia Street,
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3699
Durham/Durham County Glen Whisler, P.E. 919-560-0735 120 East Parrish Street, Suite 100, Durham, NC 27701
Forsyth County/
Winston-Salem
Jeff Kopf 336-727-2388 100 Liberty Walk, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
City of Greensboro Michael B. Cramer 336-373-2124 PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402
Guilford County Earl Davis 336-373-3803 PO Box 3427, Greensboro, NC 27402
City of High Point

Brian Sullivan/
Terry Kuneff
336-883-3194 PO Box 230, High Point, NC 27261
New Hanover County Beth Easley 910-341-7139 414 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
Orange County/
Chapel Hill
Warren Faircloth 919-732-8181
ext. 2586
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Southern Pines?? BB Teague, PE/
AH Davis Jr
910-692-1983 140 Memorial Park Court, Southern Pines, NC 28387
Wake County Ken Cromartie [phone] PO Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602

A-V-7

General Water Quality
DWQ Water Quality Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the French Broad and Neuse River Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; conduct stormwater permitting; model water quality;
conduct water quality monitoring; perform wetlands permitting; conduct animal operation permitting and enforcement; and conduct water
quality classifications and standards activities.
NPS Planning Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Urban Stormwater Bradley Bennett 919-733-5083 x525 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Modelling Ruth Swanek 919-733-5083 x503 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Monitoring Jimmie Overton 919-733-9960 x204 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Wetlands John Dorney 919-733-1786 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Animal Operations Dennis Ramsey 919-733-5083 x528 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Classific’ns/Standards Boyd DeVane 919-733-5083 x559 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DWQ Regional Offices:
Conduct permitting and enforcement field work on point sources, stormwater, wetlands and animal operations; conduct enforcement on water
quality violations of any kind; and perform ambient water quality monitoring.
Fayetteville Region Paul Rawls 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Raleigh Region Ken Schuster 919-571-4700 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Wilmington Region Rick Shiver 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension,
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Winston-Salem Region Larry Coble 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Wildlife Resources Commission:
To manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect and regulate the wildlife resources of the state; and to administer the laws enacted by
the General Assembly relating to game, game and non-game freshwater fishes, and other wildlife resources in a sound, constructive,
comprehensive, continuing and economical manner.
Central Office Frank McBride 919-528-9886 PO Box 118, Northside, NC 27564
US Army Corps of Engineers:
Responsible for: investigating, developing and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental resources; constructing and
operating projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and protection; hydropower development; water
supply; water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, and outdoor recreation; responding to emergency relief
activities directed by other federal agencies; and administering laws for the protection and preservation of navigable waters, emergency flood
control and shore protection. Responsible for wetlands and 404 Federal Permits.
Ask for the project manager covering your county.
Wilmington Field
Office
Ernest Jahnke 910-251-4511 Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Raleigh Field Office Ken Jolly 919-876-8441 x22 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
DWQ Groundwater Section:
Groundwater classifications and standards; enforcement of groundwater quality protection standards and cleanup requirements; review of
permits for wastes discharged to groundwater; issuance of well construction permits; underground injection control; administration of the
underground storage tank (UST) program (including the UST Trust Funds); well head protection program development; and ambient
groundwater monitoring.
Central Office Carl Bailey 919-733-3221 Mail Service Center 1636, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Fayetteville Region Art Barnhardt 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Raleigh Region Jay Zimmerman 919-571-4700 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
Wilmington Region Charlie Stehman 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405-2845
Winston-Salem Region Sherri Knight 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107

A-V-8

Solid Waste
DENR Division of Waste Management:
Management of solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment. The Division includes three sections and one program --
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund and the Resident Inspectors program.
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-733-0692 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh, NC 27605
On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Division of Environmental Health and County Health Departments:
Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through the practice of modern environmental health science, the use of
technology, rules, public education, and above all, dedication to the public trust.
Services include:

• Training of and delegation of authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater.
• Engineering review of plans and specifications for wastewater systems 3,000 gallons or larger and industrial process wastewater systems
designed to discharge below the ground surface.
• Technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on soil suitability and other site considerations for on-
site wastewater systems.
Central Office Steve Steinbeck 919-715-3273 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh, NC 27604
Fayetteville
Region
David McCloy 910-692-4118 Southern Pines
Raleigh Region Fred Smith 252-212-0304 Rocky Mount
Wilmington
Region
VACANT
Winston-Salem
Region
Scott Greene 336-431-6736 Archdale, NC
County Primary Contact Phone Address
Alamance Tim Green 336-513-5514 319 North Graham-Hopedale Road, Suite B,
Burlington, NC 27217
Bladen Myra Johnson 910-862-6900 300 Mercer Mill Road., PO Box 188,
Elizabethtown, NC 28337
Brunswick Donald J. Yousey 888-428-4429 25 Courthouse Drive, PO Box 9, Bolivia, NC 28422
Caswell Anne Scott 336-694-4129 County Park Road, PO Drawer H, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Chatham Wayne Sherman 919-542-8266 80 East Street, PO Box 130, Pittsboro, NC 2 7312
Columbus Marian Duncan 910-642-5700 x441 Miller Building, PO Box 810, Whiteville, NC 28472
Cumberland Jesse F. Williams, M. D. 910-433-3700 227 Fountainhead Lane, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Duplin Dr. Harriette E. Duncan 910-296-2130 340 Seminary Street, PO Box 948, Kenansville, NC 28349
Durham Brian Letourneau 919-560-7600 414 East Main Street, Durham, NC 27701
Forsyth Sherman Kahn, M. D. 336-727-2434 799 Highland Avenue, PO Box 686,
Winston-Salem, NC 27102-0686
Guilford Harold Gabel, M. D. 336-373-3283 232 North Edgeworth Street, PO Box 3508,
Greensboro, NC 27401
Harnett A. Wayne Raynor 910-893-7550 307 Cornelius Harnett Boulevard, Lillington, NC 27546
Hoke Donald Womble 910-875-3717 429 East Central Avenue, Raeford, NC 28376
Johnston L. S. Woodall, M. D. 919-989-5200 517 North Bright Leaf Boulevard, Smithfield, NC 27577
Lee Mike Hanes 919-718-4640 x5388 106 Hillcrest Drive, PO Box 1528, Sanford, NC 27331-1528
Montgomery 910-572-1393 217 South Main Street, Troy, NC 27371
Moore Robert R. Whittmann 910-947-3300 705 Pinehurst Avenue, Box 279, Carthage, NC 28327
New Hanover David E. Rice 910-343-6591 2029 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC 28401

A-V-9

On-Site Wastewater Treatment

Onslow 910-347-7042 612 College Street, Jacksonville, NC 28540
Orange Dr. Rosemary Summers 919-732-8181 x2411 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Pender Jack Griffith, Ph. D. 910-259-1230 803 West Walker Street, PO Box 1209, Burgaw, NC 28425
Randolph Mary M. Cooper 336-318-6217 2222 South Fayetteville Street, Asheboro, NC 27203
Robeson William J. Smith 910-671-3200 460 Country Club Road, Lumberton, NC 28360
Rockingham Glenn Martin 336-342-8132 371 NC 65, Suite 204, PO Box 204,
Wentworth, NC 27375-8143
Sampson Wanda Robinson 910-592-1131 360 County Complex Road, Clinton, NC 28328
Wake Ms. Lou Brewer 919-250-4400 10 Sunybrook Road, PO Box 14049, Raleigh, NC 27620-4049
Wayne Robert H. Peck 919-731-1000 310 North Herman Street, Box CC, Goldsboro, NC 27530

• DENR Fayetteville Region Office covers the following counties: Anson, Bladen, Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke,
Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson and Scotland.
• DENR Raleigh Region Office covers the following counties: Chatham, Durham, Edgecome, Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Lee, Nash, Northampton, Orange, Person, Vance, Wake, Warren and Wilson.
• DENR Winston-Salem Region Office covers the following counties: Alamance, Alleghany, Ashe, Caswell, Davidson,
Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Watauga, Wilkes and Yadkin.
• DENR Wilmington Region Office covers the following counties: Brunswick, Columbus, Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow
and Pender.
Appendices

Appendix VI

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

A-VI-1
Glossary

30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in
two years.

7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.

B (Class B) Class B Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities
include frequent and/or organized swimming and other human contact such as skin diving
and water skiing.

basin The watershed of a major river system. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina.

benthic Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate),
macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not
limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these
organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index
and bioclassification for more information.

benthos A term for bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.

best management Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or
practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality.
BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and nonstructural controls, operation and
maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of
practices and not just one at a time.

bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a
stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent.

BMPs See best management practices.

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most
NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged.

C (Class C) Class C Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
others uses.

chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of
chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large
amount of algae resulting from nutrient overenrichment or eutrophication.

coastal counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington.

A-VI-2
Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern two-
fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95).

conductivitiy A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the
concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in
solution.

degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by
pollution or other sources of stress.

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

DO Dissolved oxygen.

drainage area An alternate name for a watershed.

DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality, an agency of DENR.

dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), "black-water" lakes which are rich in organic matter. Dystrophic
lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are stressed by low
pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the Coastal Plain
and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat deposits.
NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes.

effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant.

EMC Environmental Management Commission.

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.

EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three orders
of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies).

eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic
lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal
blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur.

eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient,
organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal
growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause
unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems.

fall line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain
regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on
rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast.

FS Fully supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality.

A-VI-3
GIS Geographic Information System. An organized collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate,
analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.

habitat degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality.
This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.

headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed.

HQW High Quality Waters. A supplemental surface water classification.

HU Hydrologic unit. See definition below.

Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed.

hydrologic unit A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging units. A hierarchical code consisting
of two digits for each of the above four levels combined to form an eight-digit hydrologic
unit (cataloging unit). An eight-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an average of 975
square miles. There are 54 eight-digit hydrologic (or cataloging) units in North Carolina.
These units have been further subdivided into eleven and fourteen-digit units.

hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability.
Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or
periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant
growth.

impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that has a use support rating of partially supporting (PS) or
not supporting (NS) its uses.

impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.

kg Kilograms. To change kilograms to pounds multiply by 2.2046.

lbs Pounds. To change pounds to kilograms multiply by 0.4536.

loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr)

macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones
(invertebrate).

macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye.

mesotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available
nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while
supporting a good diversity of aquatic life.

MGD Million gallons per day.

A-VI-4
mg/l Milligrams per liter (approximately 0.00013 oz/gal).

NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a
population of fish in a given waterbody.

NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen.

nonpoint source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The
quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover
and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from
forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than runoff
from urban lands.

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

NPS Nonpoint source.

NR Not rated. A waterbody that is not rated for use support due to insufficient data.

NS Not supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that does not support its designated uses and
has poor water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and NS are called
impaired.

NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Waters classified as NSW include the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Chowan River basins; the New River watershed in the White Oak basin; and
the watershed of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (including the entire Haw River watershed).

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The units used to quantify turbidity using a turbidimeter.
This method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample under
defined conditions with the intensity of the light scattered by a standard reference
suspension under the same conditions.

oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients.
Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in
undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality.

ORW Outstanding Resource Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended to
protect unique and special resource waters having excellent water quality and being of
exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. No new or expanded
wastewater treatment plants are allowed, and there are associated stormwater runoff controls
enforced by DWQ.

pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14.
Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and
approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution.

phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries.

A-VI-5
Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North
Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains region.

PS Partially supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that only partially supports its
designated uses and has fair water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and
NS are called impaired.

riparian zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ.

river basin The watershed of a major river system. North Carolina is divided into 17 major river
basins: Broad, Cape Fear, Catawba, Chowan, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Lumber, Neuse, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, Watauga, White Oak
and Yadkin River basins.

river system The main body of a river, its tributary streams and surface water impoundments.

runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and
into waterbodies.

SA Class SA Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters that have sufficient
water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting.

SB Class SB Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact.

SC Class SC Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality to support secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival.

sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead
organisms).

silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry.

SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management
Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to
surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution
within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular
parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to
facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to
the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance).

streamside The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect
management streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms.
zone (SMZ)

subbasin A designated subunit or subwatershed area of a major river basin. Subbasins typically
encompass the watersheds of significant streams or lakes within a river basin. Every river
basin is subdivided into subbasins ranging from one subbasin in the Watauga River basin to
24 subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 133 subbasins statewide. These

A-VI-6
subbasins are not a part of the national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council (see hydrologic unit).

Sw Swamp Waters. A supplemental surface water classification denoting waters that have
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities. These waters are
common in the Coastal Plain and are often naturally discolored giving rise to their nickname
of “blackwater” streams.

TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate
and maintain its uses and water quality standards.

TN Total nitrogen.

TP Total phosphorus.

tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody.

trophic classification Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake's biological productivity, which is
the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The
productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics,
including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal growth
and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity:
unproductive lakes are termed "oligotrophic"; moderately productive lakes are termed
"mesotrophic"; and very productive lakes are termed "eutrophic".

TSS Total Suspended Solids.

turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may
scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity.

UT Unnamed tributary.

watershed The region, or land area, draining into a body of water (such as a creek, stream, river, pond,
lake, bay or sound). A watershed may vary in size from several acres for a small stream or
pond to thousands of square miles for a major river system. The watershed of a major river
system is referred to as a basin or river basin.

WET Whole effluent toxicity. The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by an
aquatic toxicity test.

WS Class WS Water Supply Water Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters used
as sources of water supply. There are five WS categories. These range from WS-I, which
provides the highest level of protection, to WS-V, which provides no categorical restrictions
on watershed development or wastewater discharges like WS-I through WS-IV.

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant.