The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutchapter 11 subbasin -11 Chapter 11 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 Including: Deep River, Big Buffalo Creek, Cedar Creek, Georges Creek and Pocket Creek 11.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-11 drains Triassic basin soils, and many of the streams have very low or zero flow at certain times of year. Most of the watershed is forested. Development is occurring near Sanford. Population is expected to grow by 35,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-11 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 133 mi2 Land area: 132 mi2 Water area: 1 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 19,646people Pop. Density: 98 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 83.8% Surface Water: 1.2% Urban: 3.2% Cultivated Crop: 2.2% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 9.5% Counties Chatham and Lee Municipalities Goldston and Sanford There are seven individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 7.8 MGD (Figure 14). The largest are Sanford WWTP (6.8 MGD) and Gold Kist Inc. (1 MGD). Refer to Appendix VI and Chapter 30 for more information on NPDES permit holders. Issues related to compliance with NPDES permit conditions are discussed below in Section 11.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 11.4 for other waters. There were two benthic community samples and one fish community sample (Figure 14 and Table 14) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from four ambient monitoring stations including one UCFRBA (Appendix V) station and four shared ambient stations. Refer to the 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for more information on monitoring. Waters in the following sections are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d) Impaired waters list and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same. Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 115 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-11 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 14 Big Buffalo Creek 17-40 From source to Deep River 8.0 FW MilesC I ND BF37 /2003F Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES DEEP RIVER 17-(38.7) From Lee County water supply intake to a point 0.4 mile upstream of Rocky Branck 12.0 FW MilesC S NDBA360 NCE BA366 NCE BA360 NCE BA366 17-(43.5) From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Rocky Branch to Cape Fear River (junction with Haw River) 6.0 FW MilesWS-IV NR SBA380 NCE Turbidity 8.33 BA383 NCE BA380 BA383 NCE Turbidity Georges Creek 17-41 From source to Deep River 8.6 FW MilesC NR ND BB368 /2003NR Habitat Degradation Unknown Little Buffalo Creek 17-42 From source to Deep River 9.9 FW MilesC NR ND BB291 /2003NR Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-11 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-11 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 14 AL - Aquatic Life BF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired REC - Recreation BB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated BA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded) BL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment S- DEH RECMON P - Poor NI - Not Impaired CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples Miles/Acres S- Severe Stress NCE-No Criteria Exceeded FW- Fresh Water M-Moderate Stress S- Salt Water N- Natural Results Aquatic Life Rating Summary S 12.0 FW Milesm NR 24.5 FW Milesm I 8.0 FW Milesm ND 68.0 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 6.0 FW MilesSm 106.5 FW MilesND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 6.0 FW MilesIm 106.5 FW MilesIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-11 11.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-11 in the aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and water supply categories. All waters are Impaired on an evaluated basis in the fish consumption category because of fish consumption advice that applies to the entire basin. In the water supply category, all WS classified waters (18.7 miles) are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment plant consultants. Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information on Supporting monitored waters. There were 44.5 stream miles (39.5 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 8 stream miles (7.1 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 11.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2000) or are newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2006 303(d) list. The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Refer to the overview for more information on AUs. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII. 11.3.1 Big Buffalo Creek [AU#17-40] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Sanford address stormwater issues as part of the Phase II NPDES permit process. Big Buffalo Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 basin plan. Current Status Big Buffalo Creek from source to Deep River (8 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair fish community rating at site BF37. The watershed drains the urban areas associated with Sanford. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Big Buffalo Creek. Refer to Chapter 31 for more information and recommendations for urban streams. Big Buffalo Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 119 11.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality problems and concerns have been documented for some waters based on this assessment. While these waters are not Impaired, attention and resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation or facilitate water quality improvement. Waters in the following section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). See overview for more information on AU#s. 11.4.1 Little Buffalo Creek [AU#17-42] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Little Buffalo Creek from source to the Deep River (9.9 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB291. The creek drains urban areas in Sanford and had steep undercut banks and sandbars. A problematic pump station in this watershed is scheduled to be eliminated. Water Quality Initiatives In 1998, Sanford received a $765,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to purchase or acquire permanent easements on 250 acres along Little Buffalo Creek. 11.4.2 Purgatory Branch [AU#17-40-3] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Purgatory Branch from source to Big Buffalo Creek (2.2 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life on an evaluated basis because the Bost Distributing Corporation (NC0081493) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits during the assessment period that could have negatively impacted water quality. Turbidity also exceeded the standard in 8.3 percent of samples collected at site BA380. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 11.4.3 Deep River [AU#17-(38.7) and (43.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Deep River [17-(38.7)] from Lee County water supply intake to upstream of Rocky Branch (12 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA366, although dissolved oxygen was below 5 mg/l in 14 percent of samples collected during the assessment period. Deep River [17-(43.5)] from upstream of Rocky Branch to the Cape Fear River (6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because Moncure Community Health (NC0030384) had significant violations of total suspended solids permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. Although no criteria were exceeded at site BA383, turbidity was above the standard in 8.3 percent of samples collected at site BA380. This segment is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category and will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 120 Because of the historically low dissolved oxygen levels in these segments and because of the downstream Impairment in the Cape Fear River, a permitting strategy will apply to new and expanding discharges (Chapter 30). The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Water Quality Initiatives In 1998, Triangle Land Conservancy received a $1,189,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 563 acres along the Deep River. In 2001, the Triangle Land Conservancy received a minigrant of $25,000 for pre-acquisition of 874 acres along the Deep River. In 2002, Triangle Land Conservancy received a $1,825,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 62 percent of 762 acres along the Deep River (See Chapter 34 for more information on all projects). Chapter 11 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11 121