HomeMy WebLinkAboutchapter 4 subbasin -04
Chapter 4
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04
Including: Haw River, Robeson Creek and Jordan Reservoir Haw River Arm
4.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-06-04 is in the Carolina slate belt
characterized by low flowing streams during summer
months. Most of the watershed is forested with extensive
agriculture present. Development is occurring around
Pittsboro and north along the US 15/501 corridor.
Population is expected to grow by 60,000 people in
counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin
by 2020.
Subbasin 03-06-04 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 331 mi2
Land area: 327 mi2
Water area: 4 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 59,718 people
Pop. Density: 181 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 73.0%
Surface Water: 1.7%
Urban: 0.3%
Cultivated Cropland: 3.0%
Pasture/ Managed
Herbaceous: 22.0%
Counties
Alamance, Chatham and Orange
Municipalities
Pittsboro
There are six individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 0.83
MGD (Figure 7). The largest is Pittsboro WWTP (0.75
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 4.3 for Impaired waters.
There are no municipal areas in this subbasin required to
develop stormwater programs (Chapter 31).
There are two registered swine operations and 18
registered cattle operations in this subbasin. Issues
related to agricultural activities are discussed below in
Section 4.3 for Impaired waters.
There were 15 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community samples
(Figure 7 and Table 7) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from
three ambient monitoring stations including one DWQ station, one UCFRBA (Appendix V)
station, and one shared ambient station. Three 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.
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 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 39
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-04
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 7
Brooks Creek (Branch)
16-36
From source to Haw River
7.3 FW MilesWS-IV&B S ND
BB309 /2001NI
Cane Creek (Cane Creek Reservoir)
16-27-(2.5)a
From a point 0.4 miles upstream of Turkey Creek to UT
0.5 miles downstream of SR 1114
1.2 FW MilesWS-II HQ S ND
BB241 /2003GF
BB241 /2003GF
BB241 /2003GF
16-27-(2.5)b
From UT 0.5 miles downstream of SR1114 to dam at
Cane Creek Reservoir
25.1 FW AcresWS-II HQ NR NDBL10 NCE Chlor a 66 Chlorophyll a Agriculture
Collins Creek
16-30-(1.5)
From a point 0.8 miles downstream of Orange County SR
1005 to Haw River
3.7 FW MilesWS-IV NS I ND
BB310 /2003GF
BF44 /2003P
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Dry Creek
16-34-(0.7)
From a point 0.3 miles downstream of Chatham County
SR 1506 to Haw River
10.1 FW MilesWS-IV NS I ND
BB307 /2003F
BB307 /2003F
Turbidity Land Clearing
Habitat Degradation Unknown
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-04
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-04
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 7
HAW RIVER
16-(28.5)
From a point 0.4 miles downstream of Cane Creek (South
side of Haw River) to a point 0.4 miles downstream of
Brooks Branch
11.4 FW MilesWS-IV NS S SBA135 NCE BA135 NCE
16-(36.3)
From a point 0.4 miles downstream of Brooks Branch to
Pittsboro water supply intake (located 0.3 miles upstream
of Pokeberry Creek)
0.5 FW MilesWS-IV NS S SBA139 NCE BA139 NCE
16-(36.7)
From Pittsboro water supply intake to a point 0.5 mile
downstream of U.S. Hw. 64
3.8 FW MilesWS-IV NS S S
BB443 /2002G
16-(37.3)
From a point 0.5 mile downstream of US Hwy 64 to
approximately 1.0 mile below US Hwy 64
53.2 FW AcresWS-IV NS I NDBL1 CE Chlor a 33
BL1 CE High pH 23.5
High pH Agriculture
High pH Impervious Surface
High pH MS4 NPDES
High pH WWTP NPDES
Chlorophyll a Agriculture
Chlorophyll a Impervious Surface
Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES
Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES
Haw River (B. Everett Jordan Lake below normal pool elevatio
16-(37.5)
From approximately 1.0 mile below U.S. Hwy. 64 to dam
at B. Everett Jordan Lake)
1,392.3 FW AcresWS-IV&B I NDBA150 CE Chlor a 24
BL1 CE Chlor a 33
BL1 CE High pH 23.5
High pH Agriculture
High pH Impervious Surface
High pH MS4 NPDES
High pH WWTP NPDES
Chlorophyll a Agriculture
Chlorophyll a Impervious Surface
Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES
Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-04
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-04
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 7
Marys Creek
16-26
From source to Haw River
10.1 FW MilesC NSW S ND
BB377 /2003GF
BB377 /2003NR
BB377 /2000GF
Habitat Degradation
Pokeberry Creek
16-37
From source to Haw River
8.0 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND
BB320 /2003GF
BB320 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation Land Clearing
Robeson Creek
16-38-(3)b
Pittsboro Lake
16.7 FW AcresWS-IV NS NR NDBL11 NCE Chlor a 100 Chlorophyll a Impervious Surface
Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES
16-38-(3)c
From Pittsboro Lake to UT across from SR 1951
2.4 FW MilesWS-IV NS I ND
BB12 /2001F
BB16 /2001F
BB45 /2001F
Habitat Degradation ND land app site
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES
16-38-(3)d
From UT across from SR 1951 to Jordan Reservoir
3.1 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND
BB189 /2001GF
BB189 /2001F
BF16 /2003G
Habitat Degradation
Terrells Creek (Ferrells Creek) (North Side Haw River)
16-32
From source to Haw River
7.6 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND
BF43 /2003G
Terrells Creek (South Side Haw River)
16-31-(2.5)
From Cattail Creek to Haw River
6.7 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND
BB158 /2003GF
BB158 /2003F
BF9 /2003E
Low Dissolved Oxygen
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-04
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-04
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 7
Turkey Creek
16-38-4
From source to Robeson Creek
4.1 FW MilesWS-IV NS NR ND
BB226 /2001NR
BB227 /2001NR
BB423 /2001NR
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 59.8 FW Milesm
NR 4.1 FW Milesm
I 16.1 FW Milesm
NR 41.8 FW Acresm
I 1,445.5 FW Acresm
NR 9.4 FW Milese
ND 167.8 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
15.7 FW MilesSm
241.4 FW MilesND
1,487.3 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
1,392.3 FW AcresIm
257.1 FW MilesIe
95.0 FW AcresIe
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-04
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-04 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 (1,434.6 acres and 132.5 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 80 stream miles (31.1 percent) and 1,487.3 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored
during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 16.1 miles (6.3 percent)
and 1,445.5 acres (97.2 percent) of Impaired waters in this category.
4.3 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.
4.3.1 Collins Creek [AU # 16-30-(0.5) and (1.5)]
Current Status
Collins Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan; however, Collins Creek [16-30-(1.5)]
from 0.8 miles downstream of SR 1005 to the Haw River (3.7 miles) is currently Impaired for
aquatic life because of a Poor fish community rating at site BF44. There are indications of
nutrient enrichment in Collins Creek, and the fish community has been adversely affected by
drought conditions during the assessment period. Habitat and riparian area were stable at site
BF44. The watershed is experiencing rapid growth but is currently in rural residential
development.
Collins Creek [16-30-(0.5)] from source to downstream of SR 1005 (8.5 miles) is currently Not
Rated on an evaluated basis for aquatic life because Trails WWTP (NC0042285) had significant
violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits during the last two years of the assessment
period that could have adversely impacted aquatic life. The facility is currently upgrading and
expanding.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Collins Creek watershed to document the effects of
development and the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). The NPDES
compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. In
Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 45
addition to implementing BMPs on agricultural lands, BMPs need to be installed during and
post-development activities. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and
to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Segment 16-30-(1.5) 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.
4.3.2 Dry Creek [AU # 16-34-(0.7)]
Current Status
Dry Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basinwide plan; however, Dry Creek from 0.3 miles
downstream of SR 1506 to the Haw River (10.1 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life
because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB307. There are indications of low
dissolved oxygen in Dry Creek, although no ambient monitoring data were collected. The
benthic community may have been adversely affected by drought conditions during the
assessment period, although the creek has had low community ratings in past collections.
Habitat and riparian area were stable at site BB307. Pools were filled with sediment and habitat
variety was lacking. A new development in a tributary to Dry Creek is a potential source of
sediment. The DLR has inspected the site and indicated that BMPs were in place. Haw River
Watch monitoring indicates frequent high levels of turbidity downstream of the development.
There are concerns that the BMPs are not adequate to protect water quality in Dry Creek.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Dry Creek watershed to document the effects of development
and the implementation and effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs). In addition to
implementing BMPs on agricultural lands, BMPs need to be installed and maintained during and
post-development activities. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and
to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Dry 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.
4.3.3 Haw River [AU # 16-(28.5), (36.3), (36.7), (37.3) and (37.5)]
Current Status
Haw River [16-(28.5)] from downstream of Cane Creek to downstream of Brooks Branch to
Pittsboro water supply intake (11.4 miles) was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basinwide plan and
is currently Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA135. Total
nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) trend analyses were completed for the 19-year period
from 1985 to 2003 at site BA135. The analyses indicated a significant 57 percent decrease in TP
over the time period. There was no trend observed for TN. Possible explanations for the
decrease in TP include the phosphate detergent ban (1988) and improved TP removal from
wastewater discharges upstream of site BA135.
Haw River [16-(36.3) and 16-(36.7)] from downstream of Brooks Branch to downstream of
US64 (4.3 miles) was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basinwide plan and is currently Supporting
aquatic life because of a Good benthic community rating at site BB443. Bynum WWTP
Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 46
(NC0035866) had significant violations of pH permit limits during the last two years of the
assessment period.
The Haw River [16-(37.3) and (37.5) from 0.5 miles downstream of US 64 to 1 mile downstream
of US 64 (53.2 acres) and from 1 mile downstream of US 64 to B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Dam
(1,392.3 acres) are considered part of Jordan Reservoir and are discussed with the remainder of
the reservoir in Chapter 5. The Haw River Arm [16-(37.5)] is also Impaired on a monitored
basis in the fish consumption category.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Haw River. Although there has been a decrease in TP in the
Haw River; DWQ recommends NPDES discharges continue to improve TP and TN removal
capabilities, and all land-disturbing activities utilize appropriate BMPs to reduce TP and TN
delivery to the Haw River watershed. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address
the significant permit violations noted above. Segment 16-(37.5) will be placed on the 303(d)
list for aquatic life and fish consumption.
Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP has also preserved 32,000 linear feet of stream in this watershed (Chapter 34).
4.3.4 Marys Creek [AU # 16-30-(1.5)]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that Marys Creek be resampled to determine stressors to the
biological community and the effects of agricultural BMPs installation.
Current Status
Marys Creek from source to the Haw River (10.1 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a
Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB377. The benthic community has been impacted
by drought conditions, but was able to recover by time of sampling in 2003.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Marys Creek watershed. Marys Creek was removed from the
2002 303(d) list of Impaired waters because of the improved biological community rating.
Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP completed 2,500 linear feet of stream restoration in this watershed (Chapter 34).
4.3.5 Pittsboro Lake and Robeson Creek [AU # 16-38-(3)a, b, c and d]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that Robeson Creek and Pittsboro Lake be resampled and that
local governments work to protect water quality in the watershed. The 2000 basin plan
improperly identified the lower portion of Robeson Creek. A portion Impaired for chlorophyll a
is actually an embayment of Jordan Reservoir and is discussed in Chapter 5.
Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 47
Current Status
Robeson Creek [16-38-(3)a] from source to Pittsboro Lake (0.9 miles) is Not Rated on an
evaluated basis for aquatic life because Haw River Assembly information indicate habitat
degradation and a pollution tolerant benthic community. Agriculture, as well as impervious
surfaces associated with Pittsboro, are potential sources of degradation.
Pittsboro Lake [16-38-(3)b] a 16.7-acre impoundment of Robeson Creek is Not Rated for aquatic
life because all chlorophyll a samples exceeded the water quality criterion; however, only three
samples were collected. A minimum of 10 samples are needed to assign a use support rating
(Appendix X). The chlorophyll a levels were the highest recorded for the lake by DWQ.
Robeson Creek [16-38-(3)c] from Pittsboro Lake to a UT across from SR 1951 (2.4 miles) is
Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB45, BB16 and
BB12. There are indications of nutrient enrichment in Robeson Creek. Habitat and riparian area
were stable downstream in segment 16-38-(3)d at site BF16 and BB189. This lower segment
(3.1 miles) is Supporting. The watershed drains Pittsboro and is experiencing rapid growth. The
benthic communities were stressed by habitat degradation associated with runoff from urban
areas and nutrients from Townsend Foods spray fields. Townsend Foods reduced capacity so
that the waste generated could be managed on the spray field.
A TMDL for phosphorus was developed that called for 71 percent reduction from urban runoff
and the Pittsboro WWTP. The TMDL for phosphorus was targeted at the lower portion of
Robeson Creek. This segment has since been identified as part of the Haw River arm of Jordan
Reservoir. The TMDL will be applied to Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 5).
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Robeson Creek and Pittsboro Lake watershed to document the
effects of continued development and the removal of the Pittsboro WWTP discharge as
recommended in the TMDL. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas
and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Pittsboro Lake [16-38-(3)b] and Robeson Creek [16-38-(3)a and c] will remain on the 303(d) list
of Impaired waters. A TMDL is being developed for aquatic weeds in Pittsboro Lake. Segment
[16-38-(3)d] will be removed because of the improved biological community ratings. Segment
[16-38-(5)] will be added to the list because it is a part of Jordan Reservoir and is Impaired
because of chlorophyll a. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within
8-13 years of listing.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 1999, NCSU received a $210,000 Section 319 grant (Chapter 34) to conduct watershed
assessment and support monitoring stations to assist in development of the TMDL for the
Robeson Creek watershed. The Haw River Assembly (Chapter 34) Stream Stewards Campaign
has also received 319 grants to conduct citizen stream assessments in the Robeson Creek
watershed and to encourage business participation in decreasing runoff into Robeson Creek. The
NCSU Water Quality Group has worked with Pittsboro to form the Robeson Creek Watershed
Council. The council meets regularly and includes members from state and federal resource
agencies, local governments, businesses, residents and the Haw River Assembly.
Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 48
4.4 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.
4.4.1 Cane Creek (Cane Creek Reservior) [AU# 16-27-(2.5)b]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Cane Creek Reservoir (25.1 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because 66 percent of chlorophyll
a samples exceeded the water quality standard; however, not enough samples were collected to
assign a use support rating. Nutrient levels in the reservoir were higher than in previous years
and blue-green algal blooms occurred throughout the summer months. These blooms can cause
taste and odor problems in treated drinking water. Cattle have also been observed in tributary
streams to Cane Creek. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are
warranted to better assess water quality. DWQ will also contact DSWC staff to evaluate if
BMPs can be implemented in this watershed to exclude cattle.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 1997, Orange Water and Sewer Authority (Chapter 34) received a $1,042,500 CWMTF grant
to acquire 1,265 acres in the Cane Creek watershed to help protect the water supply. In 2001,
Orange Water and Sewer Authority received a $687,000 CWMTF grant to acquire an additional
150 acres in the Cane Creek watershed to help protect the water supply. In 2003, the Haw River
Assembly (Chapter 34) received a minigrant of $25,000 for transactional costs to purchase six
tracts along Cane Creek and the Haw River. Also in 2003, Orange Water and Sewer Authority
received a minigrant of $25,000 for transactional costs to purchase 144 acres and conservation
easements on 467 acres in the Cane Creek watershed. The NCEEP also completed 9,700 linear
feet of stream restoration in this watershed (Chapter 34).
4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-04
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.
4.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy
All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-04 potentially
contribute nutrients to Jordan Reservoir in subbasins 03-06-04 and 03-06-05. The reservoir is
Impaired for aquatic life because chlorophyll a violated the standard in all segments of the
reservoir. Refer to Chapter 36 for more information on this strategy.
Chapter 4 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04 49