HomeMy WebLinkAboutchapter 5 subbasin -05
Chapter 5
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05
Including: New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Jordan Reservoir
5.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-06-05 overlies the geology of the Triassic
basin, with all but the largest streams having regular very
low flow periods. Most of the watershed is forested,
with large urban areas in the eastern upland areas.
Jordan Reservoir is a substantial percentage of the
subbasin area. Development is occurring in the Wake
County portion of the subbasin. Population is expected
to grow by 250,000 people in counties with portions or
all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Most of the
growth is expected in Wake County, with only a small
portion in this subbasin.
There are 11 individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 32.4
MGD (Figure 8). The largest are Triangle WWTP (12
MGD) and South Durham WRF (20 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 5.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 5.4 for
other waters.
Apex, Cary, Durham and Morrisville are required to
develop Phase II stormwater programs (Chapter 31).
There were four benthic macroinvertebrate community
samples and one fish community sample (Figure 8 and Table 8) collected during this assessment
period. Data were also collected from six ambient monitoring stations including one DWQ
station, four UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations 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.
Subbasin 03-06-05 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 269 mi2
Land area: 251 mi2
Water area: 18 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 112,558 people
Pop. Density: 419 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 78.2%
Surface Water: 8.2%
Urban: 6.4%
Cultivated Crop: 0.6%
Pasture/ Managed
Herbaceous: 6.6%
Counties
Chatham, Durham, Orange and
Wake
Municipalities
Apex, Cary, Durham and
Morrisville
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 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 50
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-05
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 8
Kit Creek
16-41-1-17-2-(0.7)
From a point 1.3 miles upstream of NC Hwy 55 to
Northeast Creek
4.2 FW MilesWS-IV NS NR ND
BB150 /2003NR
New Hope Creek
16-41-1-(0.5)a
From source to Sandy Creek
17.5 FW MilesC NSW S ND
BB324 /2003GF
16-41-1-(0.5)b
From Sandy Creek to a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Durham County SR 2220
0.7 FW MilesC NSW S ND
BF57 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
16-41-1-(11.5)a
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of Durham County SR
2220 to SR 2220
0.4 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND
BF57 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
16-41-1-(11.5)b
From SR 2220 to I 40
3.5 FW MilesWS-IV NS I NR*BA177 CE Low DO 12.9
BA177 CE Turbidity 12.2
BA177 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES
Turbidity MS4 NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES
16-41-1-(11.5)c
From I-40 to a point 0.8 mile downstream of Durham
County SR 1107
4.0 FW MilesWS-IV NS I SBA181 CE Turbidity 12.2
BA181 NCE Low DO 9.1
BB238 /2003F
BA181 NCE Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES
Turbidity MS4 NPDES
New Hope Creek (including New Hope Creek Arm of New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake)
16-41-1-(14)
From a point 0.8 mile downstream of Durham County SR
1107 to confluence with Morgan Creek Arm of New
Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake
1,415.7 FW AcresWS-IV NS I NDBL14 CE Chlor a 73 Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES
Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-05
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-05
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 8
New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake (below normal pool elevation)
16-41-(0.5)
From source at confluence of Morgan Creek and New
Hope Creek Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake (a east-west
line across the southern tip of the formed penisula) to
Chatham Co
1,199.8 FW AcresWS-IV&B I NDBL12 CE Chlor a 40 Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES
Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES
16-41-(3.5)a
From Chatham County SR 1008 to Haw River Arm of B.
Everett Jordan Lake, Haw River
5,673.3 FW AcresWS-IV&B I NDBL13 CE Chlor a 14.3
BL13 CE Chlor a 20
BL13 CE Chlor a 27
Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES
Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES
Northeast Creek
16-41-1-17-(0.7)a
From US Hwy 55 to Durham Triangle WWTP
3.3 FW MilesWS-IV NS I SBA197 CE Low DO 11.3
BA197 CE Turbidity 14.6
BA197 NCE
BA197 NCE
Turbidity MS4 NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES
16-41-1-17-(0.7)b1
From Durham Triangle WWTP to Kit Creek
3.3 FW MilesWS-IV NS I IBA209 CE Turbidity 10.3 BA209 CE
BA209 NCE
Turbidity MS4 NPDES
16-41-1-17-(0.7)b2
From Kit Creek to a point 0.5 mile downstream of
Panther Creek
3.2 FW MilesWS-IV NS I SBA210 CE Turbidity 14.6 BA210 NCE
BA210 NCE
Turbidity MS4 NPDES
Third Fork Creek
16-41-1-12-(2)
From a point 2.0 miles upstream of NC HWY. 54 to New
Hope Creek
3.9 FW MilesWS-IV NS I NR*BA178 NCE
BA178 CE Turbidity 12.2
BA178 NCE Turbidity MS4 NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES
White Oak Creek
16-41-6-(0.3)
From source to a point 0.6 mile upstream of Jack Branch
3.7 FW MilesC NSW NR ND
BB314 /2003NR
BB314 /2003NR
Habitat Degradation
16-41-6-(0.7)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of Jacks Branch to a
point 0.3 mile upstream of NC Hwy 751
5.9 FW MilesWS-IV NS NR ND
BB314 /2003NR
BB314 /2003NR
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-05
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
CAPE FEAR 03-06-05
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
SubbasinTable 8
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 18.6 FW Milesm
NR 13.9 FW Milesm
I 21.1 FW Milesm
I 8,288.8 FW Acresm
NR 13.2 FW Milese
ND 121.2 FW Miles
ND 2,613.6 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
10.5 FW MilesSm
7.4 FW MilesNR* m
3.3 FW MilesIm
166.8 FW MilesND
10,902.4 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
187.9 FW MilesIe
10,902.4 FW AcresIe
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-05
5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-05 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 (10,902.4 acres and 124.9 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 53.6 stream miles (28.5 percent) and 8,288.8 freshwater acres (76 percent) monitored
during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 21.1 miles (11.2 percent)
and 8,288.8 acres (76 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. There were also 3.3 miles
(1.7 percent) Impaired for recreation in this subbasin.
5.3 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.
5.3.1 B. Everett Jordan Reservoir
New Hope Creek Arm [AU # 16-41-1-(14)]
New Hope River Arm [AU # 16-41-(0.5) and (3.5)a]
Morgan Creek Arm [AU # 16-41-2-(9.5)] (Subbasin 03-06-06)
Haw River Arm [AU # 16-(37.3) and (37.5)] (Subbasin 03-06-04)
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ continue to monitor Jordan Reservoir to assess
impacts from increasing wastewater discharges and development in the watershed and to update
the NSW strategy for the reservoir and its watershed.
Current Status
Jordan Reservoir (9,766.5 acres) is Impaired because the chlorophyll a standard was violated at
stations in all mainstem segments of the reservoir and because modeling indicated violations of
the chlorophyll a standard in the New Hope Creek, Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of the
reservoir. The highest chlorophyll a levels were collected from August to November.
Chlorophyll a levels exceeded the standard in 73 percent of samples in the New Hope River Arm
and in 13 percent of samples in mid reservoir. Blooms of blue-green algae associated with taste
and odor problems in drinking water were observed in July 2003. The reservoir has been
eutrophic since 1982. The Beaver Creek, Parkers Creek and White Oak Creek Arms (2,613.5
Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 55
acres) are Not Rated for aquatic life. Data to assess recreation use support were not collected in
the reservoir.
2005 Recommendations
Refer to Chapter 36 for complete discussions of the Jordan NSW strategy, TMDLs, modeling,
monitoring, HB515 and SB1366. DWQ, with the Jordan stakeholders, will continue to monitor
the reservoir to assess water quality changes associated with implementation of the NSW
strategies.
Segments 16-41-1-(14), 16-41-1-(0.5) and 16-41-2-(9.5) will remain on the 303(d) list. The Haw
River and New Hope River Arms will be added to the 303(d) list. TMDLs are currently being
developed to address the Impairment in Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 36).
5.3.2 New Hope Creek [AU# 16-41-1-(0.5)a, b, and (11.5)a, b and c]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with the stormwater programs to help
improve water quality in New Hope Creek. DWQ also encouraged smaller facilities to connect
to the regional WWTP where possible.
Current Status
New Hope Creek [16-41-1-(0.5)a] from source to Sandy Creek (17.4 miles) is Supporting
aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB324.
New Hope Creek [16-41-1-(0.5)b and (11.5)a] from Sandy Creek to SR 2220 (1.1 miles) is
Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair fish community rating at site BF57. The creek
had no intolerant species indicating degraded water quality.
New Hope Creek [16-41-1-(11.5)b] from SR 2220 to I-40 (3.5 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life
because the dissolved oxygen standard was violated in 13 percent of samples and the turbidity
standard was violated in 12 percent of samples collected during the assessment period at site
BA177. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening
criteria were exceeded at site BA177.
DWQ performed a statistical trend analysis at site BA177 using total nitrogen, total phosphorus
and total suspended solids data collected from 1990 to 2004. There was a significant decrease in
total nitrogen of 0.17 mg/l per year in New Hope Creek. Downward trends were noted for total
phosphorus and total suspended solids, although these trends were not significant.
New Hope Creek [16-41-1-(11.5)c] from I-40 to SR 1107 (4 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life
because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB238. The riparian zone was intact at site
BB238, but the banks were steep and eroding and there was little pool and riffle habitat. The
stream also contains trash from the surrounding urban watershed. DWQ completed a fecal
coliform study in New Hope Creek in 2000 and determined that fecal coliform bacteria did not
exceed the standard in this segment. This segment is Supporting recreation because of this
sampling. There are many single family NPDES permitted discharges in this watershed that may
contribute oxygen-consuming wastes as well as bacteria and nutrients.
Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 56
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the New Hope Creek to identify stressors to the benthic
community. DWQ will continue to work with Durham stormwater program to pursue funding
for BMPs in the New Hope Creek watershed to further decrease nutrient loading into Jordan
Reservoir. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore
streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Segment 16-41-1-(11.5)b and c remain on the 303(d) list. Segments 16-41-(0.5)a and b and 16-
41-(11.5)a will be removed from the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for
identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 1997, Durham County received a $750,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to purchase 340 acres
of conservation easements along New Hope Creek [16-41-1-(0.5)a] and Mud Creek [16-41-1-10]
in this watershed. The Triangle Land Conservancy (Chapter 34) also received a $2,750,000
CWMTF grant to acquire 392 acres along the New Hope Creek Greenway. In 1998, Chapel Hill
received a $502,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 105 acres of permanent easements along Dry
Creek. In 1999, NCEEP (Chapter 34) received a $582,500 CWMTF grant to stabilize and
restore 450 linear feet of Sandy Creek [16-41-1-11] in Duke Forest and to construct a
bioretention areas to treat runoff from 25 acres of urban area. This grant also included
restoration of 8.2 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands in the New Hope Creek watershed.
The NCEEP completed 3,000 linear feet of stream enhancement in the Sandy Creek watershed.
5.3.3 Northeast Creek [AU # 16-41-1-17-(0.7)a, b1 and b2]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with the stormwater programs to help
improve water quality in Northeast Creek.
Current Status
Northeast Creek [16-41-1-17-(0.7)a] from US 55 to Durham Triangle WWTP (3.3 miles) is
Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 15 percent of samples and
the dissolved oxygen standard was violated in 11 percent of samples at sites BA197. This
segment is Supporting recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was not violated
during intensive sampling to assess the standard at site BA197.
Northeast Creek [16-41-1-17-(0.7)b1] from Durham Triangle WWTP to Kit Creek (3.3 miles) is
Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 10.3 percent of samples at
site BA209. This segment is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard
was violated during intensive sampling to assess the standard at site BA209.
Northeast Creek [16-41-1-17-(0.7)b2] from Kit Creek to downstream of Panther Creek (3.2
miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 15 percent of
samples at site BA209. This segment is Supporting for recreation because the fecal coliform
bacteria standard was not violated during intensive sampling at site BA209. DWQ developed a
fecal coliform bacteria TMDL that was approved by EPA in September 2003. The TMDL
recommended a 90 percent reduction in bacteria loading from urban stormwater in Durham
(Chapter 35).
Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 57
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Northeast Creek. DWQ will work with Durham stormwater
services where possible to help reduce the impacts of stormwater and to reduce bacteria loading
by 90 percent. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore
streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
All three segments will remain on the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for
identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing.
5.3.4 Third Fork Creek [AU # 16-41-1-12-(1) and (2)]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ continue to monitor Third Fork Creek to
determine the impacts of development in the watershed.
Current Status
Third Fork Creek [16-41-1-12-(1)] from source to 2 miles upstream of NC 54 (5.2 miles) is Not
Rated on an evaluated basis because Brenntag Southeast Incorporated (NC0086827) failed whole
effluent toxicity (WET) tests five times during the last two years of the assessment period. The
facility is in the headwaters of Third Fork Creek and instream impacts of these failures could not
be assessed. Chemical leaching at Brenntag may be a potential source of toxicity.
Third Fork Creek [16-41-1-12-(2)] from 2 miles upstream of NC 54 to New Hope Creek (3.9
miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 12 percent of
samples collected at site BA178 during the assessment period. This segment is Not Rated for
recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA178.
A TMDL (Chapter 35) was approved in January 2005 for total suspended solids that
recommended a 56 percent reduction in TSS mostly from the Durham stormwater system.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Third Fork Creek. DWQ will work with Durham stormwater
services where possible to help reduce the impacts of stormwater. DWQ will determine if
intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek
(Appendix X). The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit
violations noted above.
Segment 16-41-1-12-(2) will be added to the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed
for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing.
Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP completed 3,200 linear feet of stream restoration in this watershed (Chapter 34).
Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 58
5.4 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.
5.4.1 Beaver Creek [AU# 16-41-10-(0.5)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Beaver Creek from NC 55 to SR 1141 (6 miles) was not assigned a use support rating during this
assessment period. Beaver Creek drains urbanized areas in and around Apex and is likely
impacted by runoff. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to
restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Water Quality Initiatives
The Town of Apex (Chapter 34) received a $387,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 43.2 acres of
riparian floodplain to add to 81.6 acres already owned by the town as part of a greenway system.
5.4.2 Cub Creek [AU # 16-41-2-10-(0.5)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Cub Creek from the source to downstream of SR 1008 (8 miles) is currently Not Rated for
aquatic life on an evaluated basis because Cole Park Plaza (NC0051314) had significant
violations of surfactant permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in the
creek. The NPDES compliance process will continue to be used to address significant permit
violations.
5.4.3 White Oak Creek [AU# 16-41-6-(0.3) and (0.7)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
White Oak Creek from source to NC 751 (9.6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life, and a benthic
community rating could not be assigned at site BB314 because the stream dries in summer
months. The benthic community was impacted by 2002 drought conditions. The upper portions
of White Oak Creek drain urbanized Cary. Further recommendations to protect streams in
urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Water Quality Initiatives
The Town of Cary (Chapter 34) requires 100-foot buffers on all USGS mapped perennial and
intermittent streams. The buffer requirements will help minimize water quality impacts in the
White Oak Creek watershed as development proceeds. In 2000, Cary (Chapter 34) received an
$86,000 CWMTF grant to produce a greenway feasibility study in the White Oak Creek
watershed. In 2001, Cary received a $1,084,000 CWMTF grant to purchase conservation
easements along 197 acres of White Oak Creek to be part of a greenway system.
Chapter 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 59
5.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-05
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.
5.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy
All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-05 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 5 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 60