HomeMy WebLinkAboutchapter 15 subbasin -15
Chapter 15
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15
Including: Cape Fear River, Cross Creek, Little Cross Creek and Rockfish Creek
15.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-06-15 drains mostly the Sandhills region.
Most of the watershed is forested with extensive
agriculture present. Development is occurring mostly
around Fayetteville and along the southern boundary of
Fort Bragg. Population is expected to grow by 170,000
people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this
subbasin by 2020.
There are six individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 53.3
MGD (Figure 18). The largest are Cross Creek WWTP
(25 MGD) and Rockfish Creek WWTP (24 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
15.3 for Impaired waters.
There are 11 registered swine operations in this subbasin.
There were 14 benthic community samples and seven fish
community samples (Figure 18 and Table 18) collected
during this assessment period. Data were also collected
from 16 ambient monitoring stations including 9
MCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, three DWQ ambient
stations and one shared station. Four reservoirs were also
monitored. 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.
Subbasin 03-06-15 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 600 mi2
Land area: 595 mi2
Water area: 5 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 206,406people
Pop. Density: 344 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 64.2%
Surface Water: 1.6%
Urban: 9.9%
Cultivated Crop: 14.2%
Pasture/Managed
Herbaceous: 10.0%
Counties
Bladen, Cumberland, Harnett,
Hoke, Moore and Robeson
Municipalities
Fayetteville, Hope Mills, Raeford
and Southern Pines
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 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 143
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-15
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 18
Bones Creek
18-31-24-2
From source to Little Rockfish Creek
12.0 FW MilesC NR ND
BF35 /2003NR
CAPE FEAR RIVER
18-(20.7)b
From Lower Little River to a point 8.2 mile upstream of
Carvers Creek
6.0 FW MilesWS-V S SBA471 NCE BA471 NCE
18-(26)a
From City of Fayettville water supply intake to Peares
Mill Creek
6.4 FW MilesC S SBA492 NCE
BA493 NCE
BA492 NCE
BA493 NCE
18-(26)b
From Peares Mill Creek to Grays Creek
13.1 FW MilesC S NR*BA472 NCE Turbidity 7.9 BA472 NCE Turbidity Unknown
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
18-(26)c
From Grays Creek to Lock and Dam 3
4.0 FW MilesC I SBA543 CE Chlor a 26.7 BA543 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown
Cross Creek (Big Cross Creek)
18-27-(3)a
From water supply intake at Murchison Road in
Fayetteville to Hillsboro Street
0.7 FW MilesC NR ND
BF10 /2003NR
18-27-(3)b
From Hillsboro Street to Blounts Creek
1.4 FW MilesC S ND
BB75 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
18-27-(3)c
From Blount Street to Cape Fear River
1.4 FW MilesC S NR*BA490 NCE
BA491 NCE
BA490 NCE
BA491 NCE
Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES
Cross Creek (Big Cross Creek) (Texas Pond, Smith Lake, Rose
18-27-(1)a
From source to Honeycutt Road
2.0 FW MilesWS-IV NR ND
BB6 /1998NR
18-27-(1)c
From Country Club Road to a point 0.5 mile upstream of
water supply intake at Murchison Road in Fayetteville
2.7 FW MilesWS-IV S ND
BB67 /2003GF
BB88 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-15
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-15
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 18
Juniper Creek (MCKietham Pond)
18-31-10
From source to Rockfish Creek
9.0 FW MilesC NR ND
BB203 /2003NR
BF20 /2003NR
Little Cross Creek (Bonnie Doone Lake, Kornbow Lake, Mintz p
18-27-4-(1)a
From source to Bonnie Doone Lake
1.6 FW MilesWS-IV NR ND
BB7 /1998NR
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
18-27-4-(1)b
Bonnie Doone Lake
22.4 FW AcresWS-IV NR NDBL26 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH
18-27-4-(1)c
Kornbow Lake
47.1 FW AcresWS-IV NR NDBL27 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH
18-27-4-(1)d
Mintz Pond
14.9 FW AcresWS-IV NR NDBL28 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH
18-27-4-(1)e
From Kornbow Lake to a point 0.5 mile upstream of
backwaters of Glenville Lake
1.1 FW MilesWS-IV I ND
BB436 /2003F
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
Little Cross Creek (Glenville Lake)
18-27-4-(1.5)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of backwaters of
Glenville Lake to dam at Glenville Lake
25.7 FW AcresWS-IV CA NR NDBL29 NCE Low pH 50 Low pH
18-27-4-(2)
From dam at Glenville Lake to Cross Creek
2.1 FW MilesWS-IV CA I ND
BB451 /2003F
Little Rockfish Creek
18-31-24-(4)
From Unnamed Tributary at Lakewood Lake to
backwaters of Hope Mill Lake
4.0 FW MilesC S ND
BB151 /2003G
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
Little Rockfish Creek (Lake William)
18-31-24-(1)
From source to mouth of Bones Creek
12.4 FW MilesC NR ND
BB201 /2003NR
BF19 /2003NR
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-15
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-15
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 18
Locks Creek
18-28
From source to Cape Fear River
5.7 FW MilesC NR ND
BF45 /2003NR
Nicholson Creek (Mott Lake)
18-31-14
From source to Rockfish Creek
10.9 FW MilesC NR ND
BF34 /2003NR
Puppy Creek
18-31-19
From source to Rockfish Creek
10.5 FW MilesC NR ND
BB200 /2003NR
BF39 /2003NR
Rockfish Creek
18-31-(1)
From source to mouth of Dry Branch
14.4 FW MilesC S ND
BB66 /2001G
18-31-(12)
From mouth of Dry Branch to mouth of Pedler Branch
3.8 FW MilesB I NR*BA500 CE Low pH 88.5
BA501 NCE Low DO 50
BA501 NCE Low pH 100
BA500 NCE
BA501 NCE
Low pH Unknown
18-31-(15)
From mouth of Pedler Branch to mouth of Puppy Creek
5.9 FW MilesC I SBA535 CE Low pH 40 BA535 NCE Low pH Unknown
18-31-(23)
From dam at Old Brower Mill Pond to Cape Fear River
18.8 FW MilesC I NR*BA535 CE Low pH 40
BA536 CE Low pH 69.8
BA537 CE Low pH 21.6
BA538 CE Low pH 50
BA538 NCE Turbidity 7.1
BA535 NCE
BA538 NCE
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Turbidity Unknown
Low pH Unknown
Rockfish Creek [(Upchurches Pond, Old Brower Mill Pond (Number Two Lake)]
18-31-(18)
From mouth of Puppy Creek to dam at Old Brower Mill
Pond Dam
25.0 FW MilesB I SBA503 CE Low pH 52.1
BB293 /2003G
BB293 /2003G
BA503 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Low pH Unknown
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-15
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-15
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 18
Ut near Rosehill Road
18-27-2-(2)
From dam at Country Club Lake to Cross Creek
0.8 FW MilesWS-IV NR ND
BB207 /2003NR
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 49.4 FW Milesm
NR 65.5 FW Milesm
I 60.7 FW Milesm
NR 110.1 FW Acresm
ND 276.0 FW Miles
ND 160.5 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
47.3 FW MilesSm
37.1 FW MilesNR* m
367.2 FW MilesND
270.7 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
451.6 FW MilesIe
270.7 FW AcresIe
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-15
15.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-15 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 (145.1 acres and 57.4 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 175.6 stream miles (38.9 percent) and 110.1 freshwater acres (40.7 percent)
monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 60.7 stream miles
(13.4 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category.
15.3 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.
15.3.1 Cape Fear River [AU#18-(26)b and c]
Current Status
The Cape Fear River was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, NPDES permit limits
were recommended. Refer to Chapter 30 for information on NPDES permitting. The Cape Fear
River [18-(26)c] from Grays Creek to Lock and Dam 3 (4 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life
because the chlorophyll a standard was violated in 27 percent of samples collected at site
BA543. A DWQ study in 2003 noted nutrient levels behind Lock and Dam 3 were high enough
to support nuisance algal blooms and nitrogen was a limiting factor. Studies by UNC and
MCFRBA indicate that nutrients are not limiting due to light limitations and hydraulic mixing
upstream of the lock and dam structure. Continuous monitoring at BA543 indicated that
dissolved oxygen levels were below the standard during the 2001 and 2002 drought. The water
behind the lock and dam structure became more reservoir like with the greatly reduced flow
during the drought. Data from 2003 at this station indicated far fewer exceedances because of
the return of regular to high flows during that summer.
The Cape Fear River [18-(26)b] from Peares Mill Creek to Grays Creek (13.1 miles) is Not
Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site
BA472.
Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 149
2005 Recommendations
DWQ and MCFRBA (Appendix V) will continue to monitor the Cape Fear River. DWQ will
determine if further assessment of the fecal coliform standard is warranted in segment 18-(26)b.
Refer to Chapter 30 for recommendations for discharges into the Cape Fear River.
Segment 18-(26)c 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.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 2003, Sandhills Area Land Trust received a CWMTF minigrant of $25,000 to pay for
transactional costs for purchase of 83 acres of permanent conservation easemsents at Methodist
College along the Cape Fear River (Chapter 34).
15.3.2 Cross Creek [AU#18-27-(1)a, c, 18-27-(3)a, b and c]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that Cross Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach,
and that DWQ would work with the City of Fayetteville stormwater program to improve water
quality.
Current Status
Cross Creek [18-27-(1)a] from source to Honeycutt Road (2 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life
because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB6. Segment 18-27-(1)b
consists of Texas Lake, Smith Lake and Rose Lake, which were not monitored during the
assessment period. Cross Creek [18-27-(1)c] from Country Club Road to Murchinson Road (2.7
miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of Good-Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB67
and BB88.
Cross Creek [18-27-(3)a] from Murchinson Road to Hillsboro Street (0.7 miles) is Not Rated for
aquatic life because a fish community rating could not be assigned at site BF10. Habitat
conditions were poor at this mostly urbanized site, and there were indications of nutrient
enrichment.
Cross Creek [18-27-(3)b] from Hillsboro Road to Blounts Street (1.4 miles) is Supporting
aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB75. The site has been
Fair in the past, and 2003 monitoring indicated no real change in water quality. Habitat
conditions in the creek are poor.
Cross Creek [18-27-(3)c] from Blounts Creek to the Cape Fear River (1.4 miles) is Supporting
aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA490 and BA491. This segment is not
rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites
BA490 and BA491.
A stressor study, completed in 2003, indicated that altered hydrology and sedimentation are the
likely stressors to the benthic community in Cross Creek.
Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 150
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Cross Creek watershed. DWQ will determine if further
assessment of the fecal coliform standard is warranted in segment 18-27-(3)c. DWQ will work
with the City of Fayetteville stormwater program to look for opportunities to improve water
quality in Cross Creek.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 1998, Cape Fear Botanical Garden received a $77,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to stabilize
and restore a streambank on Cross Creek just above the confluence with the Cape Fear River.
Fayetteville Pubic Works Commission (PWC) identified one illicit discharge using photography
of the Cross Creek watershed. In 2005, PWC completed an extensive fecal coliform bacteria
study in the watershed and has identified a tributary with regular excursions of the fecal coliform
bacteria standard. PWC is continuing to find and eliminate potential sources of fecal coliform
bacteria in the Cross Creek watershed. The NCEEP completed 2,400 linear feet of stream
restoration in this watershed (Chapter 34).
15.3.3 Little Cross Creek [AU#18-27-4-(1)a through e (1.5) and (2)]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that Cross Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach,
and that DWQ would work with the City of Fayetteville stormwater program to improve water
quality. This rating did not intend to include ratings for the impoundments on Little Cross (see
15.4 below).
Current Status
Little Cross Creek [18-27-4-(1)a] from source to Bonnie Doone Lake (1.6 miles) is Not Rated for
aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB7 because of the
small size of the stream.
Bonnie Doone Lake [18-27-4-(1)b] (22.4 acres), Kornbow Lake [18-27-4-(1)c] (47.1 acres),
Mintz Pond [18-27-4-(1)d] (14.9 acres), and Glenville Lake [18-27-4-(1.5)] (25.7 acres) are Not
Rated for aquatic life (See 15.4 below for more information).
Little Cross Creek [18-27-4-(1)e] from Kornbow Lake to backwaters of Glenville Lake (1.1
miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB436.
Little Cross Creek [18-27-4-(2)] from Glenville Lake to Cross Creek (2.1 miles) is Impaired for
aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB451. The benthic community
is dominated by tolerant species and the stream bottom was hardpan clay. A few riffles were
formed by urban debris, and the stream is channelized and has little riparian buffer.
A stressor study completed in 2003 indicated that altered hydrology causing bank erosion and
sedimentation are likely stressors to the benthic community in Little Cross Creek. A stressor
survey in 2003 also noted tannin stained waters, trash and urban debris, and elevated ammonia
levels and periphyton growths.
Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 151
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Little Cross Creek watershed. Because the impoundments on
Little Cross Creek are treated separately, it is recommended that 18-27-4-(1)b, c, d and (1.5) be
removed from the 303(d) list. Segments 18-27-4-(1)a, e and (2) will remain on the 303(d) list.
Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing
urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 1998, Fayetteville received a $63,000 CWMTF grant to conduct a nutrient, sediment and
bacteria susceptibility study in this watershed. Fayetteville and PWC have undertaken efforts to
restore water quality in the Little Cross Creek watershed. The study has identified 98 projects to
reduce sediment loading and have prioritized 35 of the projects. In 2002, Fayetteville received a
$766,000 CWMTF grant to design five stormwater structures and to acquire 21 acres for one of
the ponds (Chapter 34).
15.3.4 Rockfish Creek [AU#18-31-(12), (15), (18) and (23)]
Current Status
Little Rockfish Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, Rockfish Creek [18-31-
(12)] from Dry Branch to Pedlar Branch (3.8 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because
pH was below standard in 89 percent of samples collected at site BA500 and 100 percent of
samples at BA501, although a Good benthic community rating was found at site BB66 upstream
of this segment.
Rockfish Creek [18-31-(15)] from Pedlar Branch to Puppy Creek (5.9 miles) is Impaired for
aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 40 percent of samples collected at site BA535.
Raeford WWTP (NC0026514) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit
limits and had three whole effluent toxicity test failures during the last two years of the
assessment period.
Rockfish Creek [18-31-(18) and (23)] from Puppy Creek to the Cape Fear River (43.8 miles) is
Impaired for aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 40, 70, 22, 50 and 52 percent of
samples collected at sites BA535, BA536, BA537, BA538 and BA503. However, a Good
benthic community rating was found at site BB293 in segment 18-31-(18). Turbidity also
exceeded the standard in 7 percent of samples at site BA538 in segment 18-31-(23). This
segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were
exceeded at site BA538.
DWQ performed a statistical trend analysis at site BA503 using total nitrogen, total phosphorus
and total suspended solids data collected from 1990 to 2004. There were no significant trends in
any of the parameters analyzed in Rockfish Creek.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Rockfish Creek watershed to determine if low pH levels are
related to drought conditions or from other sources. DWQ will determine if further assessment
of the fecal coliform standard is warranted in segment 18-31-(23). The NPDES compliance
process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above.
Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 152
All four segments 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.
15.4 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.
15.4.1 Bonnie Doone Lake [AU#18-27-4-(1)b], Glenville Lake [AU#18-27-4-(2)],
Kornbow Lake [AU#18-27-4-(1)c] and Mintz Pond [AU#18-27-4-(1)d]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Bonnie Doone Lake (22.4 acres), Glenville Lake (25.7 acres), Kornbow Lake (47.1 acres) and
Mintz Pond (14.9 acres) are Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 100
percent of lake monitoring samples collected in 2003. However, not enough samples were
collected to assign a use support rating. The pH levels may be due to natural conditions. The
impoundments are in the heavily urbanized and Impaired Little Cross Creek watershed.
Glenville Lake is filling in with sediment, and riparian buffers have been removed at the head of
the impoundment. Fayetteville PWC has an intensive monitoring program for these lakes.
Fayetteville should continue efforts to protect the lakes from further degradation associated with
urban runoff. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore
streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. DWQ will determine if increased
monitoring efforts in these lakes are warranted to better assess water quality.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 1997, Fayetteville received a $502,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 122 acres in
this watershed. In 1998, Fayetteville also received a $63,000 CWMTF grant to conduct a
nutrient, sediment and bacteria susceptibility study in this watershed.
15.4.2 Pedler Branch [AU# 18-31-16]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Pedler Branch from source to Rockfish Creek (2.8 miles) was not assessed for aquatic life during
this assessment period. Pedler Branch drains the Town of Raeford and is impacted by urban
stormwater runoff.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 2000, Raeford received a $194,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 40 acres along
Pedler Branch. The grant included design of a stormwater wetland and pond to treat 55 percent
of runoff from Raeford. In 2002, Raeford received a $296,000 CWMTF grant to construct a
stormwater wetland to treat 50 percent of Raeford’s runoff (964 acres).
Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 153
15.4.3 Puppy Creek [AU# 18-31-19]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Puppy Creek from source to Rockfish Creek (10.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life. Benthic
and fish community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB200 or BF39, although there are
indications of water quality problems. This stream is mostly within Fort Bragg and DWQ
recommends that Fort Bragg implement measures to reduce impacts to Puppy Creek.
15.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-06
The following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are
not specific to particular streams, lakes or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to
waters near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
15.5.1 Fort Bragg BMP Implementation
Fort Bragg has worked with Hoke and Cumberland SWCDs and NRCS in planning and
implementing BMPs on the base to take care of erosion problems that may have been negatively
impacting water quality in the Cross Creek, Rockfish Creek and Lower Little River watersheds.
Chapter 15 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15 154