The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCape Fear Plan 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan October 2005 NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Planning Section 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 This Document was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission on October 13, 2005 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality for carrying out its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities in the Cape Fear River basin. This plan is the third five-year update to the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission in October 1996. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................xxi Introduction................................................................................................................................xxxi What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?.................................................................xxxi Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.................................................................xxxi Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning...........................................................xxxiii Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations ...................................................xxxiii How You Can Get Involved ........................................................................................xxxiii Other Reference Materials .............................................................................................xxxv How to Read the Basinwide Plan...................................................................................xxxv Chapter 1..........................................................................................................................................1 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01................................................................................................1 Including: Haw River, Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek..................................1 1.1 Subbasin Overview.....................................................................................................1 1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................6 1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................6 1.3.1 Haw River [AU# 16-(1)a and b and d1]...................................................6 1.3.2 Little Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-7a and b]..........................................8 1.3.3 Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-6-(0.3) and 16-6-(3)].................................9 1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................10 1.4.1 Mears Fork [AU# 16-3]..........................................................................10 1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-01 ....................................11 1.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.........11 Chapter 2........................................................................................................................................12 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02..............................................................................................12 Including: Haw River, Buffalo Creek, Reedy Fork Creek and Greensboro Reservoirs..............12 2.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................12 2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................20 2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............20 2.3.1 Brush Creek [AU# 16-11-4-(1)a1, a2 and a3]........................................20 2.3.2 Haw River [AU# 16-(1)d2, d3 and e].....................................................21 Table of Contents i 2.3.3 Horsepen Creek [AU# 16-11-5-(0.5)a and b and 16-11-5-(2)] and Unnamed Tributary at Guilford College [AU#16-11-5-1-(2)]...............22 2.3.4 North Buffalo Creek [AU# 16-11-14-1a1, a2 and 1b]...........................24 2.3.5 Reedy Creek [AU# 16-11-(1)a and b]....................................................25 2.3.6 Reedy Fork (Hardys Mill Pond) [AU# 16-11-(9)a1, a2, a3 and b].........25 2.3.7 Ryan Creek [AU # 16-11-14-2-3]...........................................................26 2.3.8 South Buffalo Creek [AU# 16-11-14-2a, b and c]..................................27 2.3.9 Town Branch [AU# 16-17].....................................................................27 2.3.10 Varnals Creek [AU#16-21a and b].........................................................28 2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................28 2.4.1 Back Creek (Graham-Mebane Reservoir) [AU# 16-18-(1.5)]................29 2.4.2 Blackwood Creek [AU# 16-11-14-2-4]..................................................29 2.4.3 MoAdams Creek (Latham Lake) [AU# 16-18-7]...................................29 2.4.4 Muddy Creek [AU# 16-11-14-1-3].........................................................29 2.4.5 Philadelphia Lake (Buffalo Lake and White Oak Lake) [AU# 16-11-14- 1-2b]........................................................................................................29 2.4.6 Richland Creek [AU# 16-11-7-(1)a].......................................................30 2.4.7 Stony Creek (Lake Burlington) [AU# 16-14-(1)a, b and c]....................30 2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-02 ....................................30 2.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.........30 2.5.2 Greensboro Collection System SOC.......................................................31 Chapter 3........................................................................................................................................32 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03..............................................................................................32 Including: Little Alamance Creek, Big Alamance Creek and Stinking Quarter Creek...............32 3.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................32 3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................36 3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............36 3.3.1 Little Alamance Creek [AU# 16-19-11].................................................36 3.3.2 Big Alamance Creek [AU# 16-19-(4.5)a and b].....................................37 3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................37 3.4.1 North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek [AU# 16-19-8-1]..........................38 3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-03 ....................................38 3.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.........38 3.5.2 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification........................38 Chapter 4........................................................................................................................................39 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04..............................................................................................39 Including: Haw River, Robeson Creek and Jordan Reservoir Haw River Arm ..........................39 4.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................39 Table of Contents ii 4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................45 4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............45 4.3.1 Collins Creek [AU # 16-30-(0.5) and (1.5)]...........................................45 4.3.2 Dry Creek [AU # 16-34-(0.7)]................................................................46 4.3.3 Haw River [AU # 16-(28.5), (36.3), (36.7), (37.3) and (37.5)]..............46 4.3.4 Marys Creek [AU # 16-30-(1.5)]............................................................47 4.3.5 Pittsboro Lake and Robeson Creek [AU # 16-38-(3)a, b, c and d].........47 4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................49 4.4.1 Cane Creek (Cane Creek Reservior) [AU# 16-27-(2.5)b]......................49 4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-04 ....................................49 4.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.........49 Chapter 5........................................................................................................................................50 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05..............................................................................................50 Including: New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Jordan Reservoir .........................................50 5.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................50 5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................55 5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............55 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)......55 5.3.2 New Hope Creek [AU# 16-41-1-(0.5)a, b, and (11.5)a, b and c]...........56 5.3.3 Northeast Creek [AU # 16-41-1-17-(0.7)a, b1 and b2]..........................57 5.3.4 Third Fork Creek [AU # 16-41-1-12-(1) and (2)]...................................58 5.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................59 5.4.1 Beaver Creek [AU# 16-41-10-(0.5)].......................................................59 5.4.2 Cub Creek [AU # 16-41-2-10-(0.5)].......................................................59 5.4.3 White Oak Creek [AU# 16-41-6-(0.3) and (0.7)]...................................59 5.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-05 ....................................60 5.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.........60 Chapter 6........................................................................................................................................61 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06..............................................................................................61 Including: Morgan Creek, Bolin Creek, Booker Creek, Little Creek and University Lake ........61 6.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................61 6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................66 6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............66 Table of Contents iii 6.3.1 Bolin Creek [AU#16-41-1-15-1-(0.5) a and b and 16-41-1-15-1-(4)]....66 6.3.2 Booker Creek [AU# 16-41-1-15-2-(1), (4) and (5)]...............................67 6.3.3 Little Creek [AU#16-41-1-15-(0.5) and (3)]..........................................68 6.3.4 Meeting of the Waters [AU#16-41-2-7].................................................69 6.3.5 Morgan Creek [AU#16-41-2-(5.5)a and b].............................................69 6.3.6 Morgan Creek University Lake [AU#16-41-2-(1.5)].............................70 6.4 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-06 ....................................71 6.4.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.........71 Chapter 7........................................................................................................................................72 Cape Fear River River Subbasin 03-06-07....................................................................................72 Including: Cape Fear River, Neills Creek and Parkers Creek .....................................................72 7.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................72 7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................79 7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............79 7.3.1 Cape Fear River [AU# 18-(1), (4.5a), (10.5), (16.3), (16.7) and (20.7)]79 7.3.2 East Buies Creek [AU#18-18-1-(2)].......................................................80 7.3.3 Gulf Creek [AU#18-18-1-(2)].................................................................80 7.3.4 Kenneth Creek [AU#18-16-1-(1) and (2)]..............................................80 7.3.5 Lick Creek [AU#18-4-(2)]......................................................................82 7.3.6 Neills Creek [AU#18-16-(0.3), (0.7)a, b and c1]....................................82 7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................83 7.4.1 Avents Creek [AU# 18-13-(2)]...............................................................83 7.4.2 Daniels Creek [AU# 18-10-(2)]..............................................................83 7.4.3 Haw River [AU# 16-(42)].......................................................................83 7.4.4 Shaddox Creek [AU# 16-43]..................................................................84 7.4.5 Utley Creek [AU# 18-7-5.5]...................................................................84 Chapter 8........................................................................................................................................85 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08..............................................................................................85 Including: East Fork Deep River, West Fork Deep River, Deep River, Randleman Reservoir, Richland Creek, Hickory Creek, Muddy Creek and Oak Hollow Lake ...........................85 8.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................85 8.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ..........................................................................91 8.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............91 8.3.1 Deep River [AU# 17-(3.3), (3.7), (4)a, b, c, (10.5)a and b]....................91 8.3.2 Deep River (High Point Lake) [AU#17-(1)]...........................................93 8.3.3 East Fork Deep River [AU# 17-2-(0.3)a and b and (0.7)]......................93 8.3.4 Hickory Creek [AU# 17-8.5-(1)a, b and (3)]..........................................94 8.3.5 Jenny Branch [AU# 17-8-2]....................................................................95 Table of Contents iv 8.3.6 Long Branch [AU# 17-2-1-(1) and (2)]..................................................95 8.3.7 Muddy Creek [AU# 17-9-(1) and (2)]....................................................96 8.3.8 Reddicks Creek [AU# 17-8-(0.5) a]........................................................96 8.3.9 Richland Creek [AU# 17-7-(0.5) and (4)]..............................................96 8.3.10 West Fork Deep River [AU# 17-3-(0.7)a]..............................................97 Chapter 9........................................................................................................................................98 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09..............................................................................................98 Including: Hasketts Creek, Deep River, Polecat Creek and Sandy Creek...................................98 9.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................98 9.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................103 9.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............103 9.3.1 Deep River [AU# 17-(10.5)d and e1]...................................................103 9.3.2 Haskett Creek [AU#17-12a and b].......................................................104 9.3.3 Penwood Branch [AU#17-12-1]...........................................................104 9.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................105 9.4.1 Polecat Creek [AU#17-11-1a]..............................................................105 9.4.2 Sandy Creek (Sandy Creek Reservior) [AU# 17-19-(1)b and (3.5)]...105 9.4.3 UT at Cone Mills Club [AU#17-11-2-(2)]............................................106 Chapter 10....................................................................................................................................107 Cape Fear River River Subbasin 03-06-10..................................................................................107 Including: Deep River, McLendons Creek, Bear Creek, Cabin Creek and Mill Creek.............107 10.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................107 10.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................112 10.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............112 10.3.1 Cabin Creek [AU#17-26-5-(1)b and c].................................................112 10.3.2 Cotton Creek [AU#17-26-5-3a,b and c]...............................................112 10.3.3 Deep River [AU#17-(10.5)e2, (25.7) and (32.5)a]...............................113 10.3.4 Indian Creek [AU#17-35].....................................................................114 10.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................114 10.4.1 Killets Creek (Carthage City Lake)[AU#17-30-3-(1)].........................114 10.4.2 McLendons Creek [AU#17-30]............................................................114 Chapter 11....................................................................................................................................115 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11............................................................................................115 Including: Deep River, Big Buffalo Creek, Cedar Creek, Georges Creek and Pocket Creek...115 11.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................115 Table of Contents v 11.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................119 11.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............119 11.3.1 Big Buffalo Creek [AU#17-40]............................................................119 11.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................120 11.4.1 Little Buffalo Creek [AU#17-42].........................................................120 11.4.2 Purgatory Branch [AU#17-40-3]..........................................................120 11.4.3 Deep River [AU#17-(38.7) and (43.5)]................................................120 Chapter 12....................................................................................................................................122 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12............................................................................................122 Including: Rocky River, Loves Creek, Tick Creek and Bear Creek..........................................122 12.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................122 12.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................127 12.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............127 12.3.1 Loves Creek [AU#17-43-10a, b and c].................................................127 12.3.2 Rocky River [AU#17-43-(1)a and b and 17-43-(8)a]...........................128 12.3.3 Tick Creek [AU#17-43-13a].................................................................129 12.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................130 12.4.1 Bear Creek [AU#17-43-16a].................................................................130 Chapter 13....................................................................................................................................131 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13............................................................................................131 Including: Upper Little River and Barbeque Creek...................................................................131 13.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................131 13.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................131 13.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............134 13.3.1 Upper Little River [AU#18-20-(24.5) and (8)a]...................................134 Chapter 14....................................................................................................................................135 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14............................................................................................135 Including: Lower Little River, Nicks Creek, Juniper Creek, Anderson Creek and Crane Creek .........................................................................................................................................135 14.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................135 14.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................140 14.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............140 14.3.1 Crane Creek [AU#18-23-16a and 16b2]...............................................140 Table of Contents vi 14.3.2 Lower Little River [AU#18-23-(10.7) and (24)]..................................141 14.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................141 14.4.1 Buffalo Creek [18-23-18].....................................................................142 14.4.2 Mill Creek [18-23-18]...........................................................................142 14.4.3 Nicks Creek [18-23-3-(3)]....................................................................142 Chapter 15....................................................................................................................................143 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15............................................................................................143 Including: Cape Fear River, Cross Creek, Little Cross Creek and Rockfish Creek..................143 15.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................143 15.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................149 15.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............149 15.3.1 Cape Fear River [AU#18-(26)b and c].................................................149 15.3.2 Cross Creek [AU#18-27-(1)a, c, 18-27-(3)a, b and c]..........................150 15.3.3 Little Cross Creek [AU#18-27-4-(1)a through e (1.5) and (2)]............151 15.3.4 Rockfish Creek [AU#18-31-(12), (15), (18) and (23)].........................152 15.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................153 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].......................................................................................................153 15.4.2 Pedler Branch [AU# 18-31-16].............................................................153 15.4.3 Puppy Creek [AU# 18-31-19]...............................................................154 15.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-06 ..................................154 15.5.1 Fort Bragg BMP Implementation .........................................................154 Chapter 16....................................................................................................................................155 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16............................................................................................155 Including: Cape Fear River, Harrison Creek, Turnbull Creek, Brown Creek and White Lake.155 16.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................155 16.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................160 16.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............160 16.3.1 Browns Creek [AU#18-45]...................................................................160 16.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................160 16.4.1 Cape Fear River [AU#18-(26)d and (58.5)].........................................161 16.4.2 Beaverdam Creek [AU# 18-61-4].........................................................161 16.4.3 Hammond Creek [AU#18-50]..............................................................161 16.4.4 Harrisons Creek (Little Alligator Swamp) [AU#18-42b].....................161 16.4.5 Jones Lake [AU#18-46-7-1].................................................................162 16.4.6 Little Singletary Lake [AU#18-44-2-1]................................................162 Table of Contents vii 16.4.7 Mulford Creek [AU#18-47]..................................................................162 16.4.8 Salters Lake [AU#18-44-4]...................................................................162 16.4.9 Suggs Mill Pond [AU#18-44-1]...........................................................162 16.4.10 Turnbull Creek [AU#18-46].................................................................163 16.4.11 White Lake [AU#18-46-8-1]................................................................163 Chapter 17....................................................................................................................................164 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17............................................................................................164 Including: Cape Fear River, Cape Fear River Estuary, Livingston Creek and Town Creek.....164 17.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................164 17.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................175 17.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............175 17.3.1 Atlantic Ocean [99-(2) and (3)b]..........................................................175 17.3.2 Bald Head Creek [AU# 18-88-8-4].......................................................176 17.3.3 Beaverdam Creek [AU# 18-88-9-1-(0.5) and (1.5)].............................176 17.3.4 Cape Fear River Estuary Brunswick River [AU#18-77] Cape Fear River [AU#18-(63)a and b, (71)a and (71)b] Cape Fear River [AU#18-(87.5)a, c and d]...........................................176 17.3.5 Coward Creek [AU# 18-88-9-2-5-1]....................................................178 17.3.6 Dennis Creek [AU# 18-88-9-2-3] and Piney Point Creek [AU# 18-88-9- 2-4]........................................................................................................178 17.3.7 Dutchman Creek [AU# 18-88-9-3-(2.5)], Dutchman Creek Outlet Channel [AU# 18-88-9-3-3], and Dutchman Creek Shellfish Area [AU# 18-88-9-3-(4)].......................................................................................178 17.3.8 Elizabeth River [AU# 18-88-9-2-(1)], Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area [AU# 18-88-9-2-(2)] and Molasses Creek Shellfish Area [AU# 18-88-9- 2-5]........................................................................................................178 17.3.9 Fishing Creek [AU# 18-88-8-4-1]........................................................178 17.3.10 Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) [AU#18-88-9a and b]........................179 17.3.11 Town Creek [AU# 18-81].....................................................................179 17.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................180 17.4.1 Greenfield Lake [AU# 18-76-1]...........................................................180 17.4.2 Southport Restricted Area [AU# 18-88-3.5].........................................180 Chapter 18....................................................................................................................................181 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18............................................................................................181 Including: South River, Little Black River and Big Creek........................................................181 18.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................181 18.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................184 18.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............184 Table of Contents viii 18.3.1 Black River (Little Black) [AU#18-68-12-(0.5)a]................................184 18.3.2 South River [AU#18-68-12-(0.5)a and 8.5]..........................................184 Chapter 19....................................................................................................................................186 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19............................................................................................186 Including: Black River, Six Runs Creek, Great Coharie Creek and Little Coharie Creek ........186 19.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................186 19.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................190 19.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............190 19.3.1 Black River [AU# 18-68a]...................................................................190 19.3.2 Stewarts Creek River [AU#18-68-2-10] and UT at Magnolia [18-68-2- 10-3-1]...................................................................................................190 19.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................191 19.4.1 Great Coharie Creek [AU# 18-68-1]....................................................191 19.4.2 Little Coharie Creek [AU# 18-68-1-17a and b]....................................191 19.4.3 Millers Creek [AU# 18-68-2-10-3].......................................................192 19.4.4 Six Runs Creek [AU# 18-68-2-(0.3) and (11.5)]..................................192 Chapter 20....................................................................................................................................193 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20............................................................................................193 Including: Black River, Colly Creek, Moores Creek and Singletary Lake ...............................193 20.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................193 20.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................196 20.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............196 20.3.1 Moores Creek [AU# 18-68-18a and b]................................................196 20.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................196 20.4.1 Black River [AU# 18-68b]...................................................................197 20.4.2 Colly Creek [AU# 18-68-17]...............................................................197 20.4.3 Lake Drain [AU# 18-68-17-1].............................................................197 20.4.4 Singletary Lake [AU# 18-68-17-5-1]..................................................197 Chapter 21....................................................................................................................................198 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21............................................................................................198 Including: Northeast Cape Fear River and Matthews Creek .....................................................198 21.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................198 21.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................198 21.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............201 Table of Contents ix 21.3.1 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU# 18-74-(1)a, b and c1].......................201 Chapter 22....................................................................................................................................202 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22............................................................................................202 Including: Northeast Cape River, Rockfish Creek, Muddy Creek and Limestone Creek.........202 22.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................202 22.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................206 22.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............206 22.3.1 Goshen Swamp [AU#18-74-19a and b]................................................206 22.3.2 Muddy Creek [AU#18-74-25]..............................................................207 22.3.3 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU#18-74-(1)c2, (25.5) and (29.5)]........207 22.3.4 Panther Creek [AU#18-74-19-3a and b]...............................................208 22.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................208 22.4.1 Cabin Creek [AU#18-74-23-2].............................................................208 22.4.2 Little Rockfish Creek [AU#18-74-29-6]..............................................208 22.4.3 Limestone Creek [AU#18-74-23].........................................................209 Chapter 23....................................................................................................................................210 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23............................................................................................210 Including: Northeast Cape Fear River, Burnt Mill Creek, Smith Creek and Burgaw Creek.....210 23.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................210 23.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................215 23.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............215 23.3.1 Burgaw Creek [AU#18-74-39a]...........................................................215 23.3.2 Burnt Mill Creek [AU#18-74-63-2]......................................................216 23.3.3 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU#18-74-(47.5)]....................................217 23.3.4 Long Creek [AU#18-74-55a and b]......................................................217 23.3.5 Smith Creek [AU#18-74-63]................................................................217 23.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................218 23.4.1 Angola Creek [AU# 18-74-33-3]..........................................................218 23.4.2 Dero Creek [AU# 18-74-32].................................................................218 23.4.3 Holly Shelter Creek [AU# 18-74-33]...................................................218 23.4.4 Prince George Creek [AU# 18-74-53]..................................................218 23.4.5 Shaken Creek [AU# 18-74-33-4]..........................................................219 23.4.6 Shelter Swamp Creek [AU# 18-74-33-2-2]..........................................219 23.4.7 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU# 18-74-(47.5) and (52.5)]..................219 Chapter 24....................................................................................................................................220 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24............................................................................................220 Table of Contents x Including: Masonboro Sound, Topsail Sound and ICWW........................................................220 24.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................220 24.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ........................................................................220 24.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............234 24.3.1 Banks Channel [AU# 18-87-10-1b and 18-87-24-3]............................234 24.3.2 Batts Mill Creek [AU# 18-87-6], County Line Branch [AU# 18-87-6-1] and Cypress Branch [AU# 18-87-6-2]..................................................234 24.3.3 Beckys Creek [AU# 18-87-8a and b]....................................................235 24.3.4 Everett Bay [AU# 18-87-2]..................................................................235 24.3.5 Everett Creek [AU# 18-87-29].............................................................235 24.3.6 Futch Creek [AU# 18-87-19a and b]....................................................235 24.3.7 Hewletts Creek [AU# 18-87-26a and b]...............................................235 24.3.8 Howe Creek [AU# 18-87-23]...............................................................235 24.3.9 Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) [AU# 18-87, 18-87-(5.5), (11.5), (23.5)a, b and c]....................................................................................236 24.3.10 Masonboro Sound ORW Area (ICWW) [AU# 18-87-25.7a, b, c and d]236 24.3.11 Mill Creek [AU# 18-87-14]..................................................................237 24.3.12 Virginia Creek [18-87-9a and b] and Mullett Run [AU# 18-87-9-1]...237 24.3.13 Nixons Creek [AU# 18-87-11].............................................................237 24.3.14 Old Mill Creek [AU# 18-87-7].............................................................237 24.3.15 Old Topsail Creek [AU# 18-87-12a and b]..........................................237 24.3.16 Pages Creek [AU# 18-87-22a and b]....................................................237 24.3.17 Stump Sound [18-87-3] and Stump Sound ORW Area [AU# 18-87-0.5]238 24.3.18 Topsail Sound [AU# 18-87-10a, b, c and d].........................................238 24.3.19 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area [AU# 18-87-11.7a, b, c, d, e and f]..................................................................................................238 24.3.20 Turkey Creek [AU# 18-87-1a and b]....................................................238 24.3.21 Whiskey Creek [AU# 18-87-28]...........................................................238 24.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................239 24.4.1 Kings Creek Restricted Area [AU# 18-87-4].......................................239 Chapter 25....................................................................................................................................240 North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications......................................................240 25.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards .................................240 25.2 Classifications Summary ........................................................................................240 25.3 Water Quality Standards and Rules........................................................................241 25.4 High Quality Waters (HQW)..................................................................................241 25.4 Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW)..................................................................241 25.5 Primary Recreation (B, SB and SA).......................................................................243 25.6 Water Supply (WS-II to WS-V).............................................................................243 25.7 Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)...........................................................................245 Table of Contents xi 25.8 Pending and Recent Reclassifications ....................................................................245 Chapter 26....................................................................................................................................246 Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality.....................................................246 26.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................246 26.2 Impacts of Increased Wastewater Discharges.........................................................246 26.3 Impacts of Growth and Development.....................................................................247 Chapter 27....................................................................................................................................249 Water Quality Stressors ...............................................................................................................249 27.1 Stressor Identification.............................................................................................249 27.1.1 Introduction and Overview ...................................................................249 27.1.2 Altered Hydrology as the Ultimate Stressor Source.............................249 27.1.3 Overview of Stressors Identified in the Cape Fear River Basin...........250 27.1.4 Overview of Stressor Sources Identified in the Cape Fear River Basin253 27.2 Aquatic Life Stressors-Habitat Degradation...........................................................256 27.2.1 Introduction and Overview ...................................................................256 27.2.2 Sedimentation .......................................................................................256 27.2.3 Lack of Organic Aquatic Habitats ........................................................257 27.2.4 Channelization ......................................................................................258 27.3 Aquatic Life Stressors - Water Quality Standards Violations ................................259 27.3.1 Introduction and Overview ...................................................................259 27.3.2 Arsenic..................................................................................................259 27.3.3 Chlorophyll a Algal Blooms.................................................................259 27.3.4 Low Dissolved Oxygen.........................................................................260 27.3.5 pH..........................................................................................................260 27.3.6 Total Suspended Solids.........................................................................260 27.3.7 Toxic Impacts........................................................................................260 27.3.8 Turbidity ...............................................................................................261 27.4 Recreation Stressors - Pathogens............................................................................261 27.4.1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria........................................................................261 27.4.2 Enterrococcus-Recreational Beach Monitoring ....................................262 27.5 Fish Consumption Stressors - Mercury ..................................................................262 27.6 Shellfish Harvesting Stressors - Fecal Coliform Bacteria ......................................263 Chapter 28....................................................................................................................................264 Agriculture and Water Quality.....................................................................................................264 28.1 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas.................................................................264 28.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices Funding Opportunities ..........................264 28.2.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)...264 Table of Contents xii 28.2.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program ....................................................265 28.2.3 Agricultural Sediment Initiative ...........................................................265 Chapter 29....................................................................................................................................266 Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin .........................................................................................266 29.1 Impacted Streams in Forestland..............................................................................266 29.2 Forestland Ownership.............................................................................................266 29.3 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina..........................................267 29.3.1 Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality (FPGs) and Randleman Buffer Rules..........................................................................................267 29.3.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations ..............................268 29.3.3 Water Quality Foresters........................................................................268 29.3.4 Forestry Best Management Practices....................................................268 29.4 Forest Resources.....................................................................................................269 29.4.1 Forest Products Industry .......................................................................269 29.4.2 Forest Management...............................................................................269 29.4.3 Urban Forestry ......................................................................................269 29.5 Forestry Accomplishments .....................................................................................270 Chapter 30....................................................................................................................................271 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ...........................................................................................271 30.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary...................................................271 30.2 NPDES Wastewater Compliance Summary ...........................................................273 30.3 NPDES Permitting Strategies.................................................................................273 30.3.1 Haw River Jordan Reservoir.................................................................273 30.3.2 Randleman Watershed Permitting Strategy..........................................273 30.3.3 Deep River from Randleman Reservoir to Carbonton Dam .................273 30.3.4 Deep River from Carbonton Dam to the Haw River ............................274 30.3.5 Cape Fear River from Jordan Dam to Buckhorn Dam .........................274 30.3.6 Cape Fear River from Buckhorn Dam to L&D 3 .................................274 30.3.7 Cape Fear River from L&D 3 to L&D1................................................275 30.3.8 Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #1 to the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary ..................................................................................................275 30.4 Animal Operations Wastewater Treatment and Disposal.......................................275 30.5 Septic Systems and Straight Piping ........................................................................279 Chapter 31....................................................................................................................................280 Stormwater Programs...................................................................................................................280 31.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................280 Table of Contents xiii 31.2 DWQ Stormwater Programs ...................................................................................280 31.2.1 NPDES Phase I .....................................................................................280 31.2.2 NPDES Phase II....................................................................................281 31.2.3 State Stormwater Program ....................................................................281 31.2.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules.........................................285 31.3 Local Government Role in Addressing Runoff Impacts.........................................285 31.3.1 The Role of Local Governments...........................................................285 31.3.2 Maintain and Reestablish Riparian Buffers ..........................................287 31.3.3 Protecting Headwaters..........................................................................287 31.3.4 Reduce Impacts of Future Development...............................................288 Chapter 32....................................................................................................................................290 Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers ...........................................290 32.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units.................................................................................290 32.2 Minimum Streamflow.............................................................................................291 32.2.1 Deep River Hydroelectric Projects .......................................................291 32.2.2 Haw River Hydroelectric Projects........................................................292 32.2.3 Rockfish Creek Hydroelectric Projects.................................................292 32.2.4 Rocky River Hydroelectric Projects .....................................................292 32.2.5 Lake Mackintosh (Big Alamance Creek) Burlington Water Supply ....292 32.2.6 Back Creek (Graham-Mebane Reservoir) Graham-Mebane Water Supply...................................................................................................292 32.2.7 Bones Creek (Lake Rimm)...................................................................293 32.2.8 Bransom Creek (Forest Lake Dam)......................................................293 32.2.9 Little Cross Creek (below Glenville Lake)...........................................293 32.2.10 Deep River (Randleman Dam)..............................................................293 32.2.11 Mill Creek (Reservoir Park Dam Southern Pines)................................293 32.2.12 Nick’s Creek (Town of Carthage Water Supply).................................293 32.2.13 Reedy Fork Creek (Lake Townsend)....................................................294 32.2.14 Rocky River (Rocky River Reservoir)..................................................294 32.2.15 Haw River (Greensboro Emergency Intake).........................................294 32.2.16 Little Rockfish Creek (Hope Mills Dam).............................................294 32.2.17 Juniper Branch (Forest Creek Golf Club).............................................294 32.3 Interbasin Transfers ................................................................................................294 32.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought ...............................................................297 Chapter 33....................................................................................................................................298 Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species ........................................................298 33.1 Ecological Significance of the Cape Fear River Basin...........................................298 33.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species............................................298 33.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Cape Fear River Basin..........................299 33.3.1 Cape Fear Shiner Aquatic Habitats.......................................................300 Table of Contents xiv 33.3.2 Sandhills Megasite................................................................................300 33.3.3 Bladen Lakes Megasite .........................................................................300 33.3.4 Black and South Rivers.........................................................................300 33.3.5 Lower Cape Fear River.........................................................................301 33.3.6 Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain .................................................301 33.3.7 Pine Savannas .......................................................................................301 33.3.8 Holly Shelter/Angola Bay Megasite .....................................................301 33.3.9 Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex ..............................................303 33.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in Cape Fear River Basin..........................................303 33.5 Public Lands............................................................................................................305 Chapter 34....................................................................................................................................306 Water Quality Initiatives..............................................................................................................306 34.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives........................................................................306 34.1.1 Cape Fear Assembly .............................................................................307 34.1.2 Haw River Assembly/Haw River Watch/Stream Steward Campaign ..307 34.1.3 Piedmont Triad Council of Governments.............................................308 34.1.4 Triangle J Council of Governments......................................................308 34.1.5 UNC Wilmington Center for Marine Science Research Programs ......308 34.2 Federal Initiatives....................................................................................................309 34.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program..............................................309 34.3 State Initiatives........................................................................................................309 34.3.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program...............................309 34.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund..................................................311 34.3.2 NCSU Water Quality Group.................................................................314 Chapter 35....................................................................................................................................315 TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin .........................................................................................315 35.1 Introduction to TMDLs...........................................................................................315 35.2 Approved TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin ...................................................315 35.3 Scheduled TMDLs in the Cape River Basin...........................................................316 35.4 TMDL Implementation Efforts...............................................................................316 35.5 Impaired Waters Update .........................................................................................316 Chapter 36....................................................................................................................................317 Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy.......................................................317 36.1 Introduction and Overview .....................................................................................317 36.1 Jordan Reservoir Stakeholder Processes.................................................................319 36.2 The Clean Water Responsibility Act of 1997 (House Bill 515, Senate Bill 1366)319 Table of Contents xv 36.3 Nutrient Response and Watershed Loading Modeling...........................................320 36.4 TMDL and Management Targets............................................................................321 36.5 Point Source Management Strategies .....................................................................322 36.5.1 Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Reservoir .........................................322 36.5.2 Haw River Arm of Jordan Reservoir ....................................................323 36.6 Nonpoint Source Management Strategies...............................................................324 36.6.1 Introduction and Overview ...................................................................324 36.6.2 Agriculture Strategy..............................................................................325 36.6.3 Urban Stormwater Strategy...................................................................326 36.6.4 Buffer Protection Strategy ....................................................................327 36.6.5 Nutrient Application Management Strategy.........................................327 36.6.6 Wastewater Land Application Strategy ................................................328 36.6.7 Proposed Rule-making Schedule for the Nutrient Management Strategy.328 Chapter 37....................................................................................................................................329 Cape Fear River Estuary Modeling and TMDL ..........................................................................329 37.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................329 37.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Watershed Loading Modeling...........................................329 37.3 TMDL Development...............................................................................................330 37.4 Lower Stakeholder Process.....................................................................................330 37.5 City of Wilmington Modeling Efforts ....................................................................330 References....................................................................................................................................331 Table of Contents xvi APPENDICES I Population and Growth Trends in the Cape Fear River Basin II Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Cape Fear River Basin III Land Cover in the Cape Fear River Basin IV DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Cape Fear River Basin V Other Water Quality Data in the Cape Fear River Basin VI NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin VII 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology VIII Cape Fear River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts IX Cape Fear River Basin Workshop Summaries X Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings XI Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Appendices xvii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 General Map of the Cape Fear River Basin ...................................................................xxiii Figure 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)...............................................................xxxi Figure 3 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices ...............................................................xxxiv Figure 4 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01....................................................................................2 Figure 5 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02..................................................................................13 Figure 6 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03..................................................................................33 Figure 7 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04..................................................................................40 Figure 8 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05..................................................................................51 Figure 9 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06..................................................................................62 Figure 10 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07..................................................................................73 Figure 11 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08..................................................................................86 Figure 12 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09..................................................................................99 Figure 13 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10................................................................................108 Figure 14 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-11................................................................................116 Figure 15 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12................................................................................123 Figure 16 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13................................................................................132 Figure 17 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14................................................................................136 Figure 18 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-15................................................................................144 Figure 19 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16................................................................................156 Figure 20 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17................................................................................165 Figure 21 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18................................................................................182 Figure 22 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19................................................................................187 Figure 23 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20................................................................................194 Figure 24 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21................................................................................199 Figure 25 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22................................................................................203 Figure 26 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23................................................................................211 Figure 27 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24................................................................................221 Figure 28 ORWs and HWQs in the Cape Fear River Basin ............................................................242 Figure 29 Water Supply Watersheds in the Cape Fear River Basin ................................................244 Figure 30 Noted Stressors to Impaired Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin...........................250 Figure 31 Noted Stressors to Impaired Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin................................251 Figure 32 Noted Stressors to Impaired Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.................251 Figure 33 Noted Stressors to Impacted Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin...........................252 Figure 34 Noted Stressors to Impacted Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin...............................252 Figure 35 Noted Stressors to Impacted Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.................253 Figure 36 Sources of Stressors to Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin....................................254 Figure 37 Sources of Stressors to Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin........................................255 Figure 38 Sources of Stressors to Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.........................255 Figure 39 Ownership of Forestland in the Cape Fear River Basin ..................................................267 Figure 40 Registered Animal Operations in the Cape Fear River Basin..........................................278 Figure 41 Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary......................................287 Figure 42 Cape Fear River Basin Managed Lands and Significant Heritage Areas ........................302 Figure 43 Jordan Reservoir Segments..............................................................................................318 Figure 44 Sources of Nutrient Loads to Jordan Reservoir (1997-2000)..........................................321 List of Figures xviii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Impaired Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.........................................xxiv Table 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)..............................................................xxxii Table 3 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan ........................xxxii Table 4 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-01 ...............................................................................................................3 Table 5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary of Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-02 .............................................................................................................14 Table 6 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-03 .............................................................................................................34 Table 7 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-04 .............................................................................................................41 Table 8 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-05 .............................................................................................................52 Table 9 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-06 .............................................................................................................63 Table 10 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-07 .............................................................................................................74 Table 11 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-08 .............................................................................................................87 Table 12 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-09 ...........................................................................................................100 Table 13 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-10 ...........................................................................................................109 Table 14 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-11 ...........................................................................................................117 Table 15 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-12 ...........................................................................................................124 Table 16 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-13 ...........................................................................................................133 Table 17 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-14 ...........................................................................................................137 Table 18 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-15 ...........................................................................................................145 Table 19 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-16 ...........................................................................................................157 Table 20 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-17 ...........................................................................................................166 Table 21 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-18 ...........................................................................................................183 Table 22 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-19 ...........................................................................................................188 Table 23 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-20 ...........................................................................................................195 List of Tables xix Table 24 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-21 ...........................................................................................................200 Table 25 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-22 ...........................................................................................................204 Table 26 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-23 ...........................................................................................................212 Table 27 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-06-24 ...........................................................................................................222 Table 28 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications ..............................................240 Table 29 Summary of Agricultural Sediment Initiative Surveys....................................................265 Table 30 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Cape Fear River Basin (October 2004).................................................................................................................272 Table 31 Registered Animal Operations in the Cape Fear River Basin (October 2004)................277 Table 32 Communities in the Cape Fear River Subject to Stormwater Requirements...................282 Table 33 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Cape Fear River Basin ..................................................290 Table 34 Interbasin Transfers in the Cape Fear River Basin ..........................................................296 Table 35 List of Rare Species associated with Aquatic Habitats in the Cape Fear River Basin ....298 Table 36 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319.................................................310 Table 37 Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (July 2004)..............................................................................................................311 Table 38 EPA approved TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin.....................................................315 Table 39 Nutrient Load Reduction Targets from 1997-2001 Baseline...........................................322 Table 40 Wasteload Allocations for Facilities Great Than 100,000 Gallons Per Day ...................323 Table 41 Wasteload Allocations for Facilities Greater Than 100,000 Gallons Per Day ................324 Table 42 Loading Goals by Subwatershed .....................................................................................325 List of Tables xx Executive Summary This document is the third five-year update of the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Basinwide water quality planning is a 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 (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in the state. Each basinwide plan is revised at five-year intervals. While these plans are prepared by the DWQ, their implementation and the protection of water quality entail 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 1995 and the second in 2000. The format of this third plan was revised in response to comments received during the first and second planning cycles. A greater emphasis is placed on watershed level information in order to facilitate protection and restoration efforts. DWQ considered comments from five public workshops held in the basin in spring 2004 and subsequent discussions with local resource agency staff and citizens during draft plan development. This input will help guide continuing water quality management activities in the basin over the next five years. The goals of basinwide planning are to: Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters. Identify and protect high value resource waters. Protect unimpaired waters yet allow for reasonable economic growth. DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives: Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies. Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity. Better evaluate cumulative effects of pollution. Improve public awareness and involvement. Noteable Themes in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan • New impairments on the mainstems of the Cape Fear River (Chapter 7 and 15) and Deep River (Chapter 10) • Development of TMDLs to address fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity (Chapter 35) • Jordan Reservoir impairment, TMDL and proposed management strategies (Chapter 36) • Development of lower Cape Fear River TMDL (Chapter 37) • Population growth and land cover changes (Chapter 26) • Stormwater runoff control programs (Chapter 31) Executive Summary xxi Basin Overview The Cape Fear River basin drains the middle portion of North Carolina and includes portions of 26 counties and 115 municipalities (Figure 1). It is also one of four river basins completely within North Carolina (Figure 2). DWQ subdivides all river basins into subbasins. The Cape Fear River basin contains 24 subbasins (Figure 1). Maps of each subbasin are included in each subbasin chapter. The basin is composed of five major drainages: Haw River, Deep River, Northeast Cape Fear River, Black River and the Cape Fear River. Population Growth and Land Cover Changes Chapter 26 provides an overview of population growth in the Cape Fear River basin and associated land cover changes. The overall population (2000) of the basin based on the percent of the counties that are partially or entirely in the basin is 1,834,545, with approximately 197 persons/square mile. Refer to Appendices I and III for more information on population and land cover changes. The most populated areas are located in and around the Triad, Triangle, Fayetteville and Wilmington. Counties in the upper basin and along the coast are experiencing high population growth that will add increased drinking water demands and wastewater discharges. There will also be a loss of natural areas and an increase in impervious surfaces associated with construction of new homes and businesses. At the current growth rate as much as one million acres of land will be in development by 2020. Many of the water quality problems summarized below are associated with urban and urbanizing areas. Most of the impaired streams in the basin are in heavily urbanized areas. Chapter 31 reviews the various stormwater programs in place to help prevent degradation to streams as urban areas increase in the Cape Fear River basin. Cape Fear River Basin Statistics Total Area: 9,149 sq. miles Freshwater Stream Miles: 6,386 mi Freshwater Lakes Acres: 31,135 ac Estuarine Acres: 31,753 ac Coastline Miles: 61 mi No. of Counties: 26 No. of Municipalities: 115 No. of Subbasins: 24 Population (1990): 1,465,451 Population (2000): 1,834,545* Pop. Density (2000): 197 persons/sq. mi.* * Estimated based on % of county land area that is partially or entirely within the basin. Water Quality Standards and Classifications Chapter 25 discusses water quality classifications and standards, including maps showing water supply watersheds (WS), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW) and shellfish harvesting waters (SA). Definitions of each classification and summaries of the miles and acres of the different classifications are provided. The classifications and standards are the basis for use support assessment. Executive Summary xxii Use Support Summary Appendix X provides DWQ methods for using current data and information to determine if a waterbody is supporting classified uses. Table 1 presents a summary of Impaired waters (in all categories) in the Cape Fear River basin that were monitored by DWQ within the five-year assessment period. Current status and recommendations for restoration of water quality for each Impaired water are discussed in each subbasin chapter (Chapters 1-24). Maps showing current use support ratings for waters in the Cape Fear River basin are presented in each subbasin chapter as well. Table 1 Summary of Impaired Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin Use Support Category Units Stream Length or Waterbody Area Percent of All Waters for Each Category Aquatic Life Freshwater acres (impoundments) 10,833.9 35.2 Aquatic Life Freshwater miles (streams) 425.4 6.9 Aquatic Life Estuarine acres 6,527.4 20.6 Recreation Freshwater miles 39.2 0.6 Recreation Estuarine acres 96.6 0.3 Recreation Coastline miles (Atlantic Ocean) 4.7 7.7 Shellfish Harvesting Estuarine acres 6,500.7 41.4 Water Quality Stressors Identified in the Cape Fear River Basin Within this plan, attempts were made to identify stressors for Impaired waters as well as for waters with noteable impacts. Stressors identified during this assessment are discussed below and in more detail in Chapter 27. Certain stressors are associated with specific use support categories. For example, in the recreation category, violations of the fecal coliform bacteria standard are the reason for impairment; therefore, fecal coliform bacteria is the stressor for Impaired waters in this category. In the shellfish harvesting category, a growing area classification that is not approved by Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Sanitation Section results in impairment. The growing area classification is based on fecal coliform bacteria monitoring by DEH; therefore, fecal coliform bacteria is the stressor for Impaired waters in this category as well. In the aquatic life category, Impaired waters result from violations of one or more numerical water quality standards or because a biological community sample (fish or benthic-bottom dwelling aquatic animals) did not meet use support criteria. Stressors to aquatic life can be numerical water quality standards that are violated, or a host of aquatic habitat quality indicators such as excessive sediment or lack of organic habitat. The following discussion summarizes stressors identified during this assessment period and possible sources of the stressors. DWQ identifies the source of a stressor as specifically as possible depending on the amount of information available in a watershed. Most often the source is based on the predominant land use in a watershed. Stressor sources identified in the Cape Fear River basin during this Executive Summary xxiv assessment period include urban or impervious surface areas, construction sites, road building, land clearing, agriculture and forestry. Because land disturbance is one of the main stressor sources there has been increased funding to the Division of Land Resources to help address these sources. Point source discharges are also water quality stressor sources. Habitat Degradation In the Cape Fear River basin, over 140 stream miles are Impaired where at least one form of habitat degradation is the stressor. Quantifying the amount of habitat degradation is very difficult in most cases. The most common stressors associated with physical habitat degradation are sediment, lack of organic material and stream channelization. Sediment fills in pools and embeds or covers riffle habitat areas. Sediment may come from disturbed land in the watershed via runoff through storm sewers, ditches and roads or may be from stream banks that are eroded during high flow events. In many disturbed and developed watersheds, increased surface runoff becomes more common as impervious surfaces prevent infiltration of rain into the ground. In addition to the loss of instream habitat as noted above, sediment also can alter fish feeding and damage gills. During high flow events, suspended sediment can scour habitats as well as fish and insects. Organic materials (wood and leaf) in streams are important as habitat and as a food source. A lack of organic habitat can reduce the diversity of benthic and fish species. A lack of organic habitat may also result from reduced riparian area quality associated with unstable stream banks and a lack of stream shading. Organic material in streams can form temporary dams that slow waters during high flows, reducing stream bank erosion and providing increased habitat. Channelized streams are characterized by having little habitat diversity. Straightened stream channels allow for increased velocity of water during rain events and prevents the formation of pools and riffles seen in naturally sinuous streams. Streams can become channelized due to watershed development, where streams are moved and straightened to allow for roads and structures to be built. This type of channelization is most common in highly urbanized areas where the streams are usually a stormwater conveyance. Streams are also channelized by ditching to drain land for forestry, agriculture and development. These streams are often maintained as ditches and are not allowed to recover to a more natural state. Channelization can also occur by the force of large amounts of water running off the land. These high flows overrun natural bends and the sediment from eroded stream banks is deposited in the stream, resulting in low diversity aquatic habitats. These streams are most closely associated with urbanized and urbanizing areas. To assess instream habitat degradation requires extensive technical and monetary resources. Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address this issue, local efforts are needed to prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been impacted by activities that caused habitat degradation. As discharges become less of a source of water quality impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation need to be addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers. DWQ recommends the use of careful planning to maintain riparian buffers and the use of good land use management practices during all land disturbing activities to prevent habitat degradation. In addition, watersheds that are being developed need to maintain management Executive Summary xxv practices for long periods to prevent excessive runoff that is the ultimate source of the habitat degradation noted above. Arsenic In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, 7 miles of the Deep River are Not Rated due to arsenic standards violations (Chapter 8). Chlorophyll a In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were over 10,000 freshwater acres and over 10 stream miles Impaired because of chlorophyll a standards violations. There were also over 2,160 freshwater acres and over 50 stream miles where chlorophyll a levels were elevated enough to be of concern. These violations were detected behind dams on the Deep River (Chapter 10) and Cape Fear River (Chapter 15), as well as in three reservoirs (Chapter 2 and 5) including Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 5 and 36). Low Dissolved Oxygen In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were over 6,527 estuarine acres and over 40 stream miles Impaired because of dissolved oxygen (DO) standards violations. This includes a large portion of the Cape Fear Estuary (Chapter 17 and 37) and small streams draining mostly urban areas in the upper subbasins. There were also over 400 stream miles where dissolved oxygen levels were low enough to be of concern, although many of these streams are in swampy areas where low DO levels are likely a natural condition. pH In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were over 6,360 estuarine acres, 1,392 freshwater acres, and over 97 stream miles Impaired because of pH standards violations (Chapters 5, 13, 14 and 15). The low pH was associated with the Cape Fear estuary and Sandhills streams. The elevated pH was associated with the 1,392-acre Haw River Arm of Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 5). There were also over 4,131 freshwater acres and 108 stream miles where pH levels were low enough to be of concern, although many of these streams are in swampy areas where low pH levels are likely a natural condition. Turbidity In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were over 57 stream miles Impaired because of turbidity standards violations. The turbidity violations were mostly associated with areas downstream of urban and urbanizing areas in the upper subbasins (Chapter 2 and 9). There were also over 200 stream miles where turbidity levels were high enough to be of concern. Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Enterroccus During this assessment period, there were 41 stream miles where the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated and these waters are Impaired for recreation. Most of these violations were associated with urban and urbanizing areas in the upper subbasins. There were also 97 estuarine acres (Chapter 17) and 5 miles of Atlantic coastline (Chapter 24) Impaired for recreation because of permanent postings of swimming advisories by the DEH Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program. This program uses enterroccus as an indicator of potential pathogen contamination. A total of 19,339 acres, 1,120 stream miles and 49 coastline miles were monitored for recreation. Executive Summary xxvi Fecal coliform bacteria are also the stressor for Impaired shellfish harvesting in Class SA waters. In the Cape Fear River basin, there are 2,654 acres of prohibited waters, 94 acres of conditionally approved-closed waters, and 3,822 acres of conditionally approved-open waters. All of these waters (6,571 acres or 41 percent) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. The Impaired waters are associated with local coastal draining watersheds and not from basinwide sources (Chapter 17 and 24). Mercury in Fish Tissue DWQ has sampled fish tissue from 13 locations in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 1,392 freshwater acres and 281freshwater miles Impaired on a monitored basis in the Cape Fear River basin. Because of statewide fish consumption advice for several species of fish, all waters in the basin are Impaired on an evaluated basis in the fish consumption category. The source of mercury is most likely airborne and will have to be addressed on a regional and global scale. Agriculture and Water Quality Chapter 28 provides information related to the impacts of agriculture on water quality. Cultivated cropland was 16 percent (947,100 acres) of the land use in the Cape Fear River basin in 1997. While still a large portion of the basin land use, this is 20 percent (1,177,000 acres) less cultivated cropland than reported in 1982 (USDA-NRCS, 2001). In the Cape Fear River basin, there are nearly 265 Impaired stream miles that may be impacted by agricultural activities. Impacts to water quality from agricultural sources may decrease over the next basin cycle due to substantial increases in urban/built-up areas throughout the river basin. DWQ will identify streams where agricultural activities may be impacting water quality and aquatic habitat. This information will be related to local Division of Soil and Water Conservation and Natural Resources Conservation Service staff to investigate impacts in these watersheds and to reduce these impacts. The DSWC Ag Cost Share Program has spent nearly $5 million on various management practices in the Cape Fear River basin. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support for agricultural BMPs be continued and increased. Refer to Appendix VIII for agricultural nonpoint source agency contact information. Forestry and Water Quality Chapter 29 provides information related to the impacts of forestry on water quality. Forestland was 60 (3,531,100 acres) percent of the land use in the Cape Fear River basin in 1997. While still the largest portion of the basin land use, this is six percent less forestland than reported in 1982 (USDA-NRCS, 2001). In the Cape Fear River basin, there are no stream miles Impaired by forest harvesting activities. Most land clearing activities around urban areas are for development and usually not associated with forest harvesting. DWQ will identify streams where forest harvesting may be impacting water quality and aquatic habitat. This information will be related to Division of Forest Resources staff to investigate the impacts in these watersheds and to recommend BMPs to reduce impacts. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support for forestry BMPs be continued and increased. Refer to Appendix VIII for forestry nonpoint source agency contact information. Executive Summary xxvii Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Currently, there are 244 permitted wastewater discharges in the Cape Fear River basin with a permitted flow of approximately 425 MGD. Chapter 30 provides summary information (by type and subbasin) about the discharges. This chapter also provides guidance for permitting in various watersheds that may be water quality limited and also contains general information related to wastewater treatment disposal associated with registered animal operations. Maps of permitted facilities are provided in each subbasin chapter. For a complete listing of permitted facilities in the basin, refer to Appendix VI. The majority of NPDES permitted wastewater discharges into the waters of the Cape Fear River basin are from major municipal wastewater treatment plants. Nonmunicipal discharges also contribute substantial wastewater into the Cape Fear River basin. There were 52 significant NPDES permit violations in the last two years of the assessment period. There are 156 Impaired stream miles where point sources may have negatively impacted the water quality. Facilities, large or small, where recent data show problems with a discharge are discussed in each subbasin chapter. DWQ will determine if the violations are ongoing and address them using the NPDES permitting process. Many other waters are adversely impacted by the cumulative effects of discharges and nonpoint source runoff. Stormwater Programs As described above, there have been large increases in population in the Cape Fear River basin. Water quality impacts associated with increased population are numerous. Streams with the worst water quality in the basin are closely associated with existing urban areas. In the Cape Fear River basin, there are over 300 miles of Impaired streams that drain urban or urbanizing watersheds. Chapter 31 describes the various stormwater programs and rules designed to prevent further impacts associated with population growth and development, as well as recommendations for local governments to further address impacts associated with the increased growth. There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these programs affect many communities in the Cape Fear River basin. The goal of the DWQ stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs try to accomplish this goal by controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include NPDES Phase I and II, coastal county stormwater requirements, HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply Watershed Program. Local governments that are or may be affected by these programs are presented in this chapter. Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers Chapter 32 contains an overview of minimum streamflow requirements for many hydroelectric and water supply dams in the Cape Fear River basin. There is also a table that associates the federal and state watersheds by hydrologic units. There is extensive discussion of interbasin transfers and summary of transfers, and discussion of drought conditions during the assessment period for this plan. Executive Summary xxviii Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species The Cape Fear River basin is high in natural diversity with rare mussels and fish in the basin that are found nowhere else. There are four rare mollusks, eight rare insects, two rare crustaceans, and 19 rare fish in the basin. The Natural Heritage Program identifies sites (terrestrial or aquatic) that have particular biodiversity significance. A site’s significance may be due to the presence of rare species, rare or high quality natural communities, or other important ecological features. Over 450 individual natural areas have been identified in the Cape Fear River basin. Several of these areas are discussed in Chapter 33. A table of rare animals associated with aquatic habitats in the Cape Fear River basin is also provided. Water Quality Initiatives As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. Information about local efforts particular to a watershed or subbasin is included in Chapters 1-24. DWQ encourages local agencies and organizations to learn about and become active in their watersheds. An important benefit of local initiatives is that people make decisions that affect change in their own communities. There are a variety of state agency limitations that local initiatives can overcome, including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources, the state rule-making process, and many others. Local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed. This allows groups to holistically understand the challenges and opportunities of different water quality efforts. Involving a wide array of people in water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests, and encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects. By working in coordination across jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding opportunities are available, and it is easier to generate necessary matching or leveraging funds. This will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for success. The collaboration of these local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state. Chapter 34 highlights local organizations and agencies in order to share their efforts towards water quality improvement. Specific projects are described in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 24). Chapter 34 also summarizes monies spent by federal and state programs to help implement water quality improvement projects. Just over $2 million was granted by the Clean Water Act Section 319 program for 12 projects in the basin and over $54 million was made available through the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. This chapter also contains information about the Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody Executive Summary xxix can be used for the purposes the state had designated. The calculation must also account for seasonal variation and critical conditions in water quality. For each waterbody limited segment Impaired by a pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a TMDL must be developed. A TMDL includes a water quality assessment that provides the scientific foundation for an implementation plan. Seven TMDLs are completed and approved by EPA (Chapter 35); five are for fecal coliform bacteria, one for chlorophyll a and one for turbidity. There are seven TMDLs in progress including one for Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 36) and the Cape Fear River Estuary (Chapter 37). Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy Chapter 36 describes the Jordan Reservior stakeholder process, the Clean Water Responsibility Act and the modeling performed to support the nutrient management strategy. Most of the reservoir is Impaired because of chlorophyll a violations associated with excess nutrient loading to the reservoir. The nutrient TMDL recommends reductions from both point and nonpoint sources. Chapter 36 provides the framework for making these reductions through a rule-making process. Cape Fear River Estuary TMDL The Cape Fear river Estuary from Bryants Creek to Snows Cut is Impaired for aquatic life because of dissolved oxygen standard violations. This portion of the estuary has been considered Impaired since the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan and was included on the 1998 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Data used in the water quality assessment of the estuary were collected by DWQ and the Lower Cape Fear River Program. Chapter 37 discusses the water quality assessment in detail. Sources of the low dissolved oxygen levels include the many discharges of oxygen-consuming waste into this segment of the estuary and to tributary streams. There is also a considerable volume of naturally occurring blackwater that may contribute natural sources of oxygen- consuming materials. This portion of the estuary is influenced by tides and high flows from the entire basin, and therefore goes through many extreme changes in water column chemistry over the course of a year. The Cape Fear River Estuary continues to violate the dissolved oxygen water quality standard as of this assessment cycle. Therefore, a TMDL is required for the estuary. The DWQ obtained an EPA grant of $253,000 in order to mount an extensive field monitoring project. This field monitoring includes the installation of continuous monitoring devices by the US Geological Survey, sediment oxygen demand measurements, dye studies, and intensive chemical monitoring. A major portion of the monitoring was completed in 2004; however, hurricanes prevented the completion of the study. The study is scheduled to be completed in 2005. Executive Summary xxx Monitored Impaired Waters in Cape Fear River Basin Subbasin Stream Name AU Number Length/Area 03-06-01 HAW RIVER 16-(1)d1 1.3 FW Miles 03-06-01 Little Troublesome Creek 16-7b 5.1 FW Miles 03-06-01 Troublesome Creek 16-6-(3) 1.8 FW Miles 03-06-02 Brush Creek 16-11-4-(1)a3 1.6 FW Miles 03-06-02 HAW RIVER 16-(1)d3 2.1 FW Miles 03-06-02 Horsepen Creek 16-11-5-(0.5)b 3.2 FW Miles 03-06-02 Horsepen Creek 16-11-5-(2) 1.8 FW Miles 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-1b 8.1 FW Miles 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-1a1 7.5 FW Miles 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-1a2 1.6 FW Miles 03-06-02 Reedy Creek 16-11-(1)b 4.2 FW Miles 03-06-02 Reedy Fork (Hardys Mill Pond)16-11-(9)a2 2.2 FW Miles 03-06-02 Reedy Fork (Hardys Mill Pond)16-11-(9)b 8.6 FW Miles 03-06-02 Ryan Creek 16-11-14-2-3 4.2 FW Miles 03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-2c 4.8 FW Miles 03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-2b 4.7 FW Miles 03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-2a 15.4 FW Miles 03-06-02 Town Branch 16-17 4.2 FW Miles 03-06-02 Unnamed Tributary at Guilford College 16-11-5-1-(2) 1.3 FW Miles 03-06-02 Varnals Creek 16-21a 4.6 FW Miles 03-06-03 Big Alamance Creek (Alamance Cr)(Lk Macintoch)16-19-(4.5)a 5.6 FW Miles 03-06-03 Little Alamance Creek (Gant Lake, Mays Lake)(Alamance County 16-19-11 12.6 FW Miles 03-06-04 Collins Creek 16-30-(1.5) 3.7 FW Miles 03-06-04 Dry Creek 16-34-(0.7) 10.1 FW Miles 03-06-04 HAW RIVER 16-(37.3) 53.2 FW Acres 03-06-04 Haw River (B. Everett Jordan Lake below normal pool elevatio 16-(37.5) 1,392.3 FW Acres 03-06-04 Robeson Creek 16-38-(3)c 2.4 FW Miles 03-06-05 New Hope Creek 16-41-1-(11.5)c 4.0 FW Miles 03-06-05 New Hope Creek 16-41-1-(11.5)b 3.5 FW Miles 03-06-05 New Hope Creek (including New Hope Creek Arm of New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake) 16-41-1-(14) 1,415.7 FW Acres 03-06-05 New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake (below normal pool elevation) 16-41-(3.5)a 5,673.3 FW Acres 03-06-05 New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake (below normal pool elevation) 16-41-(0.5) 1,199.8 FW Acres 03-06-05 Northeast Creek 16-41-1-17-(0.7 3.3 FW Miles 03-06-05 Northeast Creek 16-41-1-17-(0.7 3.3 FW Miles 03-06-05 Northeast Creek 16-41-1-17-(0.7 3.2 FW Miles 03-06-05 Third Fork Creek 16-41-1-12-(2) 3.9 FW Miles 03-06-06 Bolin Creek (Hogan Lake)16-41-1-15-1-(0 3.1 FW Miles 03-06-06 Morgan Creek 16-41-2-(5.5)b 4.1 FW Miles 03-06-06 Morgan Creek (including the Morgan Creek Arm of New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake) 16-41-2-(9.5) 836.2 FW Acres 03-06-07 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(1) 3.2 FW Miles Cape Fear River Basin Executive Summary Subbasin Stream Name AU Number Length/Area 03-06-07 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(4.5)a 0.5 FW Miles 03-06-07 East Buies Creek 18-18-1-(2) 6.2 FW Miles 03-06-07 Kenneth Creek 18-16-1-(2) 3.9 FW Miles 03-06-07 Lick Creek 18-4-(2) 10.3 FW Miles 03-06-07 Neills Creek (Neals Creek)18-16-(0.7)c1 6.7 FW Miles 03-06-07 Neills Creek (Neals Creek)18-16-(0.7)a 2.0 FW Miles 03-06-07 Neills Creek (Neals Creek)18-16-(0.3) 2.6 FW Miles 03-06-07 Neills Creek (Neals Creek)18-16-(0.7)b 1.3 FW Miles 03-06-08 DEEP RIVER(including High Point Lake at normal pool elevation) 17-(1) 263.3 FW Acres 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River 17-2-(0.7) 0.8 FW Miles 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River 17-2-(0.3)b 4.8 FW Miles 03-06-08 Hickory Creek 17-8.5-(1)a 3.0 FW Miles 03-06-08 Jenny Branch 17-8-2 3.2 FW Miles 03-06-08 Long Branch 17-2-1-(2) 0.5 FW Miles 03-06-08 Long Branch 17-2-1-(1) 3.5 FW Miles 03-06-08 Muddy Creek 17-9-(1) 6.9 FW Miles 03-06-08 Reddicks Creek 17-8-(0.5)a 5.1 FW Miles 03-06-08 Richland Creek 17-7-(0.5) 6.4 FW Miles 03-06-08 Richland Creek 17-7-(4) 1.7 FW Miles 03-06-08 West Fork Deep River(Oak Hollow Reservoir)17-3-(0.7)a 0.5 FW Miles 03-06-09 DEEP RIVER 17-(10.5)e1 6.7 FW Miles 03-06-09 Haskett Creek 17-12a 6.3 FW Miles 03-06-09 Haskett Creek 17-12b 1.3 FW Miles 03-06-09 Penwood Branch 17-12-1 6.1 FW Miles 03-06-10 Cotton Creek 17-26-5-3c 3.7 FW Miles 03-06-10 Cotton Creek 17-26-5-3b 2.5 FW Miles 03-06-10 Cotton Creek 17-26-5-3a 0.3 FW Miles 03-06-10 DEEP RIVER 17-(32.5)a 4.0 FW Miles 03-06-10 DEEP RIVER 17-(10.5)e2 2.8 FW Miles 03-06-10 Indian Creek 17-35 7.4 FW Miles 03-06-11 Big Buffalo Creek 17-40 8.0 FW Miles 03-06-11 DEEP RIVER 17-(43.5) 6.0 FW Miles 03-06-12 Loves Creek 17-43-10b 2.5 FW Miles 03-06-12 Loves Creek 17-43-10c 0.4 FW Miles 03-06-12 Tick Creek 17-43-13a 8.2 FW Miles 03-06-14 Little River (Lower Little River)18-23-(10.7) 12.6 FW Miles 03-06-14 Little River (Lower Little River)18-23-(24) 25.6 FW Miles 03-06-15 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(26)c 4.0 FW Miles 03-06-15 Little Cross Creek (Bonnie Doone Lake, Kornbow Lake, Mintz p 18-27-4-(1)e 1.1 FW Miles 03-06-15 Little Cross Creek (Glenville Lake)18-27-4-(2) 2.1 FW Miles 03-06-15 Rockfish Creek 18-31-(23) 18.8 FW Miles 03-06-15 Rockfish Creek 18-31-(12) 3.8 FW Miles 03-06-15 Rockfish Creek 18-31-(15) 5.9 FW Miles Cape Fear River Basin Executive Summary Subbasin Stream Name AU Number Length/Area 03-06-15 Rockfish Creek [(Upchurches Pond, Old Brower Mill Pond (Number Two Lake)] 18-31-(18) 25.0 FW Miles 03-06-16 Browns Creek (Cross Pond)18-45 10.5 FW Miles 03-06-16 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(26)d 21.3 FW Miles 03-06-17 Atlantic Ocean 99-(3)b 4.7 Coast Miles 03-06-17 Bald Head Creek 18-88-8-4 79.9 S acres 03-06-17 Beaverdam Creek 18-88-9-1-(1.5) 11.3 S acres 03-06-17 Brunswick River 18-77 743.7 S acres 03-06-17 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(87.5)a 769.2 S acres 03-06-17 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(63)a 3.8 FW Miles 03-06-17 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(87.5)d 17.7 S acres 03-06-17 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(71)a 5,616.7 S acres 03-06-17 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(87.5)c 322.6 S acres 03-06-17 Coward Creek 18-88-9-2-5-1 5.9 S acres 03-06-17 Denis Creek 18-88-9-2-3 34.2 S acres 03-06-17 Dutchman Creek 18-88-9-3-(2.5) 75.8 S acres 03-06-17 Dutchman Creek Outlet Channel 18-88-9-3-3 78.3 S acres 03-06-17 Dutchman Creek Shellfish Area 18-88-9-3-(4) 37.9 S acres 03-06-17 Elizabeth River 18-88-9-2-(1) 83.5 S acres 03-06-17 Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area 18-88-9-2-(2) 205.6 S acres 03-06-17 Fishing Creek 18-88-8-4-1 7.9 S acres 03-06-17 Intracoastal Waterway 18-88-9b 96.6 S acres 03-06-17 Intracoastal Waterway 18-88-9a 222.6 S acres 03-06-17 Molasses Creek 18-88-9-2-5 1.0 S acres 03-06-17 Piney point Creek 18-88-9-2-4 11.5 S acres 03-06-17 Town Creek (Rattlesnake Branch)18-81 32.1 FW Miles 03-06-18 South River 18-68-12-(8.5) 45.4 FW Miles 03-06-19 Black River 18-68a 31.9 FW Miles 03-06-19 Great Coharie Creek (Blackmans Pond)18-68-1 42.6 FW Miles 03-06-20 Black River 18-68b 40.5 FW Miles 03-06-20 Moores Creek 18-68-18b 9.9 FW Miles 03-06-22 Goshen Swamp 18-74-19a 16.6 FW Miles 03-06-22 Muddy Creek 18-74-25 14.0 FW Miles 03-06-22 Northeast Cape Fear River 18-74-(25.5) 19.5 FW Miles 03-06-23 Burnt Mill Creek 18-74-63-2 4.6 FW Miles 03-06-23 Long Creek 18-74-55a 7.7 FW Miles 03-06-23 Long Creek 18-74-55b 21.5 FW Miles 03-06-23 Northeast Cape Fear River 18-74-(47.5) 15.6 FW Miles 03-06-23 Smith Creek 18-74-63 11.1 FW Miles 03-06-24 Banks Channel 18-87-10-1b 4.2 S acres 03-06-24 Banks Channel 18-87-24-3 111.1 S acres 03-06-24 Batts Mill Creek (Barlow Creek)18-87-6 40.8 S acres 03-06-24 Beckys Creek (Bishops Creek)18-87-8b 66.4 S acres 03-06-24 Beckys Creek (Bishops Creek)18-87-8a 42.5 S acres 03-06-24 County Line Branch 18-87-6-1 1.0 S acres Cape Fear River Basin Executive Summary Subbasin Stream Name AU Number Length/Area 03-06-24 Cypress Branch 18-87-6-2 1.0 S acres 03-06-24 Everett Bay 18-87-2 240.6 S acres 03-06-24 Everett Creek 18-87-29 0.7 S acres 03-06-24 Futch Creek 18-87-19b 14.3 S acres 03-06-24 Futch Creek 18-87-19a 13.7 S acres 03-06-24 Hewletts Creek 18-87-26b 19.9 S acres 03-06-24 Hewletts Creek 18-87-26a 78.3 S acres 03-06-24 Howe Creek 18-87-23 28.6 S acres 03-06-24 Intracaostal Waterway 18-87-(5.5) 159.6 S acres 03-06-24 Intracoastal Waterway 18-87-(11.5) 112.9 S acres 03-06-24 Intracoastal Waterway 18-87-(23.5)c 70.4 S acres 03-06-24 Intracoastal Waterway 18-87-(23.5)b 63.1 S acres 03-06-24 Intracoastal Waterway 18-87 76.2 S acres 03-06-24 Masonboro Sound ORW Area 18-87-25.7d 64.3 S acres 03-06-24 Masonboro Sound ORW Area 18-87-25.7c 215.9 S acres 03-06-24 Masonboro Sound ORW Area 18-87-25.7b 99.5 S acres 03-06-24 Mill Creek (Betts Creek)18-87-14 18.2 S acres 03-06-24 Mullett Run 18-87-9-1 7.5 S acres 03-06-24 Nixons Creek 18-87-11 5.8 S acres 03-06-24 Old Mill Creek 18-87-7 0.1 S acres 03-06-24 Old Topsail Creek 18-87-12a 16.5 S acres 03-06-24 Old Topsail Creek 18-87-12b 12.4 S acres 03-06-24 Pages Creek 18-87-22a 48.4 S acres 03-06-24 Pages Creek 18-87-22b 28.5 S acres 03-06-24 Stump Sound 18-87-3 87.3 S acres 03-06-24 Stump Sound ORW Area 18-87-0.5 939.9 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound 18-87-10d 12.7 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound 18-87-10b 56.2 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound 18-87-10c 1,144.5 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area 18-87-11.7c 272.5 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area 18-87-11.7d 2.7 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area 18-87-11.7e 2.7 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area 18-87-11.7f 6.8 S acres 03-06-24 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area 18-87-11.7b 2.1 S acres 03-06-24 Turkey Creek 18-87-1a 79.5 S acres 03-06-24 Turkey Creek 18-87-1b 59.6 S acres 03-06-24 Virginia Creek 18-87-9b 73.6 S acres 03-06-24 Virginia Creek 18-87-9a 23.5 S acres 03-06-24 Whiskey Creek (Purviance Creek)18-87-28 13.0 S acres Cape Fear River Basin Executive Summary Introduction What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning? Basinwide water quality planning is a 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 (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in the state (Figure 2 and Table 2). Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan is a five-year process, which is broken down into three phases (Table 3). While these plans are prepared by the DWQ, their implementation and the protection of water quality entail the coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments and stakeholder groups in the state. The first cycle of plans was completed in 1998, but each plan is updated at five-year intervals. Figure 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007) Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning The goals of basinwide planning are to: Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters. Identify and protect high value resource waters. Protect unimpaired waters yet allow for reasonable economic growth. DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives: Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies. Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity. Better evaluate cumulative effects of pollution. Improve public awareness and involvement. Introduction xxxi Table 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007) Basin DWQ Biological Data Collection Draft for Public Review Plan Receives EMC Approval Begin NPDES Permit Issuance Chowan Summer 2000 5/2002 7/2002 11/2002 Pasquotank Summer 2000 5/2002 7/2002 12/2002 Neuse Summer 2000 5/2002 7/2002 1/2003 Broad Summer 2000 11/2002 2/2003 7/2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee Summer 2001 1/2003 3/2003 9/2003 Lumber Summer 2001 9/2003 12/2003 7/2004 Tar-Pamlico Summer 2002 12/2003 3/2004 9/2004 Catawba Summer 2002 7/2004 9/2004 12/2004 French Broad Summer 2002 2/2005 4/2005 9/2005 New Summer 2003 7/2005 9/2005 3/2006 Cape Fear Summer 2003 4/2005 8/2005 4/2006 Roanoke Summer 2004 6/2006 10/2006 1/2007 White Oak Summer 2004 9/2006 12/2006 6/2007 Savannah Summer 2004 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007 Watauga Summer 2004 12/2006 3/2007 9/2007 Hiwassee Summer 2004 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007 Little Tennessee Summer 2004 1/2007 4/2007 10/2007 Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during the first cycle (1993 to 1998). This schedule represents the second and/or third cycle for each. Table 3 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan Years 1 – 2 Water Quality Data Collection and Identification of Goals and Issues • Identify sampling needs • Conduct biological monitoring activities • Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities • Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies to continue to implement goals within current basinwide plan Years 2 – 3 Data Analysis and Public Input • Gather and analyze data from sampling activities • Develop use support ratings • Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities • Coordinate with local stakeholders and agencies to establish goals and objectives and identify and prioritize issues for the next basin cycle • Develop preliminary pollution control strategies Years 3 – 5 Preparation of Draft Basinwide Plan, Public Review, Approval of Plan, Issue NPDES Permits and Begin Implementation of Plan • Develop draft basinwide plan based on water quality data, use support ratings, and recommended pollution control strategies • Circulate draft basinwide plan for review and revise plan after public review period • Submit plan to Environmental Management Commission for approval • Issue NPDES permits • Coordinate with other agencies and local interest groups to prioritize implementation actions • Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities Introduction xxxii Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning Basinwide planning and management benefits water quality by: • Focusing resources on one river basin at a time. • Using sound ecological planning and fostering comprehensive NPDES permitting by working on a watershed scale. • Ensuring better consistency and equitability by clearly defining the program's long-term goals and approaches regarding permits and water quality improvement strategies. • Fostering public participation to increase involvement and awareness about water quality. • Integrating and coordinating programs and agencies to improve implementation of point and nonpoint source pollution reduction strategies. Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations For more information on the above documents, DWQ activities or contacts, please visit http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ or call (919) 733-5083 and ask for the basin planner responsible for your basin of interest. Feel free to contact the appropriate Regional Office for additional information (Figure 3). For general questions about the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, contact the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748. How You Can Get Involved To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important for citizens and local stakeholders to participate in all phases of the planning process. You may contact the basinwide planner responsible for your basin anytime during the plan’s development. Upon request, the basin planner can also present water quality information and basin concerns to local stakeholder groups. To make the plan more inclusive, DWQ is coordinating with the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), council of governments, NC Cooperative Extension Service, the county Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and stakeholder groups to develop language and identify water quality concerns throughout the basin. Citizens and local communities can also be involved during the planning process by contacting their county extension service or local SWCD. During the public comment period, the draft plan is available online and by request for a period of at least 30 days. DWQ welcomes written comments and questions during this phase of the planning process and will incorporate comments and suggestions when appropriate. Introduction xxxiii Other Reference Materials There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality: • A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in North Carolina. August 2000. This document includes general information about water quality issues and programs to address these issues. It is intended to be an informational document on water quality. Visit the website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ to download document. • Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report. June 2004. This technical report presents physical, chemical and biological data collected in the Cape Fear River basin. • Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. October 1996 and July 2000. These first basinwide plans for the Cape Fear River basin present water quality data, information and recommended management strategies for the first two five-year cycles. • NC Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch website at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/. • 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. • Watershed Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin. July 2001. DWQ NC Wetlands Restoration Program. How to Read the Basinwide Plan Chapters 1 - 24: Subbasin and Watershed Information • Summarizes information and data by subbasin, including: recommendations from previous basin plan, achievements, current priority issues and concerns, Impaired waters, and goals and recommendations for the next five years by subbasin. Chapter 25 - 37 • Presents information on various topics of interest to the protection and restoration of water quality in the basin, including: stream classifications, population and land cover changes, stressors to water quality, agricultural, forestry and permitting activities in the basin, water and natural resources, and water quality initiatives. Appendices • Population and land use changes over time, local governments in the basin. • Describes water quality data collected by DWQ, use support methodology and 303(d) listing methodology. • Lists NPDES dischargers and individual stormwater permits. • Points of contact and a glossary of terms and acronyms. Introduction xxxv Chapter 1 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 Including: Haw River, Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek 1.1 Subbasin Overview This subbasin is a piedmont watershed characterized by highly erodible soils. Most of the watershed is forested with extensive agriculture. Development is occurring north of Greensboro and around Reidsville. Population is expected to grow by 140,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are 11 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 7.8 MGD (Figure 4). The largest is Reidsville WWTP (7.5 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 1.3 for Impaired waters. There are no municipal areas in this subbasin required to develop a stormwater program (Chapter 31). There is one registered cattle, two registered swine, and four registered dairy operations, as well as one registered horse farm in this subbasin. Issues related to agricultural activities are discussed below in Section 1.3 for Impaired waters. There were 11 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and two fish community samples (Figure 4 and Table 4) collected during this assessment period. Some sites were not sampled because of high flows in 2003, and low flows in 2001 and 2002 may have had impacts on the biological communities as well. Data were collected from eight ambient monitoring stations including four DWQ stations, two UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, and two shared stations. Two 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 03-06-01 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 189 mi2 Land area: 187 mi2 Water area: 2 mi2 Population 2000 Est. Pop.: 66,449 people Pop. Density: 352 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 58.6 % Water: 2.0 % Urban: 1.7 % Cultivated Crop: 7.1 % Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 30.6 % Counties Alamance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford and Rockingham Municipalities Reidsville and Stokesdale Waters in the following sections are identified by an 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 unit is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same. Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 1 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-01 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 4 HAW RIVER 16-(1)a From source to SR 2109 7.8 FW MilesC NSW S NR*BA2 NCE BA2 NCE Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Habitat Degradation Agriculture Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 16-(1)b From SR 2109 to SR 2426 12.5 FW MilesC NSW S SBA3 NCE BF61 /1998G BA3 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 16-(1)c From SR 2426 to NC 87 21.2 FW MilesC NSW S SBA15 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BA16 NCE BB163 /2003GF BF61 /1998G BA15 NCE Habitat Degradation Unknown Turbidity Land Clearing Turbidity Agriculture 16-(1)d1 From NC 87 to Subbasin 01/02 boundary 1.3 FW MilesC NSW S IBA17 NCE BA17 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Little Troublesome Creek 16-7a From source to Reidsville WWTP 3.5 FW MilesC NSW NR ND BB208 /2001NR BB415 /2001NR BB86 /2000NR Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface 16-7b From Reidsville WWTP to Haw River 5.1 FW MilesC NSW I SBA14 NCE Turbidity 9.3 BB161 /2001F BB161 /2000F BB400 /2003F BB400 /2001F BB400 /2001F BB400 /2000F BF63 /1998P BF63 /2003GF BA14 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity Impervious Surface Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation Road Construction Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-01 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-01 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 4 Troublesome Creek 16-6-(0.3) From source to Rockingham County SR 2423 16.4 FW MilesWS-III NS S ND BB212 /2002GF BB392 /2002GF BB395 /2002GF BB396 /2002GF Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES 16-6-(3) From dam at Lake Reidsville to Haw River 1.8 FW MilesC NSW I SBA10 CE Low DO 12.8 BA10 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BA10 NCE Turbidity Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Impoundment Troublesome Creek (Lake Reidsville) 16-6-(0.7) From Rockingham County SR 2423 to dam at Lake Reidsville (City of Reidsville water supply intake) 667.5 FW AcresWS-III NS NR NDBL17 NCE Chlor a 66 Turbidity Agriculture Chlorophyll a Agriculture Low Dissolved Oxygen Agriculture Unnamed Tributary to Troublesome Creek (Lake Hunt) 16-6-2-(1) From source to dam at Lake Hunt 176.4 FW AcresWS-III&B S NDBL18 NCE CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-01 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-01 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 4 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 59.2 FW Milesm NR 3.5 FW Milesm I 6.8 FW Milesm S176.4FW Acresm NR 667.5 FW Acresm ND 34.9 FW Miles ND 24.8 FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 40.5 FW MilesSm 7.8 FW MilesNR* m 1.3 FW MilesIm 54.8 FW MilesND 868.7 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 104.5 FW MilesIe 868.7 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-01 1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-01 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 (Chapter 27) that applies to the entire basin. In the water supply category, all WS classified waters (843.9 acres and 24.3 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 69.6 stream miles (66.6 percent) and 843.9 freshwater acres (97 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 6.8 miles (6.5 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. There were also 1.3 stream miles (1.2 percent) Impaired for recreation in this subbasin. 1.3 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. 1.3.1 Haw River [AU# 16-(1)a and b and d1] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that no new discharges be permitted in these segments of the Haw River, and that further monitoring be done to determine the extent of agricultural impacts and to identify stressors to the biological community. Current Status The Haw River [16-(1)a] from the source to SR 2109 (7.8 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA2 although dissolved oxygen was below 5 mg/l in 17 percent of samples collected during the assessment period. Previous benthic community ratings were Fair at this site, although a benthic community sample was not collected during the most recent assessment period due to high flows. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA2. The Oak Ridge Military Academy (NC0046043) had significant violations of the fecal coliform bacteria permit limits in the last two years of the assessment period as well. The discharge is into an unnamed tributary of the Haw River off NC 68. Oak Ridge Military Academy has had violations of other parameters in 2004 that were handled with notice of violations (NOV) and enforcement actions by DWQ. Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 6 The Haw River [16-(1)b] from SR 2109 to SR 2426 (12.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good fish community rating at site BF61. The site has regular high flows that have made sampling difficult at site BF61. In 2003, flow was too high and the water was too turbid to collect fish community samples. Dissolved oxygen was below 5 mg/l in 14 percent of samples at site BA3 about six miles downstream of BF61. No new dischargers have been permitted into these two segments. The western portion of the watershed is currently experiencing rapid development from Greensboro and Kernersville. The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) identified runoff from impervious surfaces and streambank erosion as stressors to the biological community in both segments. The Haw River [16-(1)c] from SR 2426 to NC 87 (21.2 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB163 and a Good fish community rating at site BF61. Turbidity was above the standard in 7 percent of samples at site BA15. The Haw River [16-(1)d1] from NC 87 to the subbasin boundary (1.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA17. This segment is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA17. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor these segments of the Haw River and work with DSWC staff to further implement BMPs to reduce the impacts of development and agriculture in this watershed. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. The NPDES compliance process will continue to be used to address the significant permit violations noted above and any ongoing violations. Segment 16-(1)a will remain on the 303(d) list due to an Impaired biological community from 1998 sampling. Segment 16-(1)b will be removed from the 303(d) list because of the improved biological community rating. Segment 16-(1)d1 will be added to the 303(d) list because it is Impaired for recreation. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) estimates that over $1.2 million is needed in this watershed to preserve 1,000 acres of farmland, repair 20,000 feet of streambank, and install BMPs on 525 acres of cropland. An urban conservationist is also recommended to help address impacts in this watershed associated with conversion of cropland to development. In 1998, the Haw River Assembly received a $24,500 CWMTF grant to preserve four acres around the headwater springs of the Haw River. In 2002, the Piedmont Land Conservancy received a minigrant of $25,000 for pre-acquisition of 500 acres along the Haw River and Troublesome Creek. In 2001, the Haw River Assembly received a minigrant of $14,500 for pre- acquisition of six tracts in the headwaters of the Haw River. The NCEEP has also preserved 3,628 linear feet of stream in this watershed (See Chapter 34 for information on all projects). Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 7 1.3.2 Little Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-7a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work on a detailed study of Little Troublesome Creek as part of the WARP project to assess the effects of nonpoint source runoff on the creek. Current Status Little Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-7a] from the source to the Reidsville WWTP (3.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB208, BB415 and BB86 because of the small size of the stream. Little Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-7b] from Reidsville WWTP to the Haw River (5.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB161 and BB400. The fish community at site BF63 improved from Poor to Good-Fair after the Reidsville WWTP discharge was moved to the Haw River in 1998. Turbidity also exceeded the water quality standard in 9 percent of samples at site BA14. A WARP study completed in November 2002 identified toxicity, organic enrichment, and widespread habitat degradation from storm sewers and runoff as being stressors to the biological communities in both segments. An assessment made as part of the Little Troublesome Creek Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 34) indicated that 43 to 59 percent of the buffer had been disturbed in the upper watershed and greater than 10 percent was disturbed in the lower watershed. The assessment also concluded that sediment from agricultural land was not a problem in the watershed. The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) identified runoff from impervious surfaces, urban development, unpaved roads, road construction, cropland erosion and streambank erosion as stressors to the biological community in both segments. DWQ developed a fecal coliform bacteria TMDL (Chapter 35), approved by EPA in September 2002, that recommended a 40 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria loading to Little Troublesome Creek. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to work with all agencies and local governments involved in the Local Watershed Planning (Chapter 34) process to identify funding for and implementation of restoration, BMPs and preservation projects in the watershed. The City of Reidsville should develop measures to help protect Little Troublesome Creek from stormwater impacts and to reduce fecal coliform loading to the TMDL target of 40 percent. Both segments of Little Troublesome Creek will remain on the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The Ag Sediment Initiative (Chapter 28) estimates that over $160,000 is needed in this watershed to install field borders on 74 acres of cropland, 34 acres of cropland conversion, and other BMPs to help improve water quality from agriculture areas in the watershed. In 2001, the NCEEP initiated a Local Watershed Planning effort for Troublesome and Little Troublesome Creeks. The two watersheds present sharp contrasts: Troublesome Creek is Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 8 relatively large, predominantly rural, and includes the Reidsville Lake water supply reservoir; Little Troublesome Creek’s watershed is much smaller, heavily urbanized in its headwater reaches, and includes a significant reach of mainstem that is characterized by impaired water quality and degraded aquatic habitat. The two major watershed management issues, therefore, relate to (1) protection/preservation of streams, riparian buffers and wetlands within the Troublesome Creek system – especially as encroaching development is rapidly spreading northward from Guilford County and Greensboro; and (2) opportunities for stream restoration and urban storm water BMP projects/retrofits in the greater Reidsville area within the Little Troublesome Creek watershed. Numerous watershed project opportunities have been identified within both these watersheds, and NCEEP staff are working with local resource professionals and landowners in an effort to begin design and construction on the priority sites. The Local Watershed Plan may be downloaded at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Troublesome_Creek/troublesome.htm 1.3.3 Troublesome Creek [AU# 16-6-(0.3) and 16-6-(3)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that no new discharges be permitted in these two segments of Troublesome Creek and that further monitoring be done to determine the extent of agricultural impacts and to identify stressors to the biological community. Current Status Troublesome Creek [16-6-(0.3)] from the source to SR 2423 (16.4 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of Good-Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB212, BB392, BB395 and BB396. A special study conducted in April 2002 found the benthic communities was slightly more degraded than the reference stream, but there were no indications of toxicity or nutrient impacts. There were indicators of low dissolved oxygen instream, although no ambient water quality data were collected in this segment. The sandy stream bottom is thought to be a natural condition in upper piedmont streams. Monroeton Elementary School (NC0036994) had significant violations of the biological oxygen demand permit limit in the last two years of the assessment period. The discharge was into an unnamed tributary of Troublesome Creek off SR 2422 just upstream of site BB396. This facility is no longer discharging and the permit has been rescinded. Lake Reidsville [16-6-(0.7)], a 667.5-acre impoundment of Troublesome Creek, is Not Rated for aquatic life. Although dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a and turbidity exceeded water quality standards during lakes monitoring, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. Dissolved oxygen saturation was elevated, and nutrient levels were higher than in previous years as well. Reidsville uses the reservoir as a water supply and has implemented a 100-foot buffer on the impoundment and 50-foot buffers on all tributaries. Reidsville should continue to protect the water supply by implementing BMPs where possible to reduce nutrient loading and turbidity in the watershed. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. Troublesome Creek [16-6-(3)] from dam at Reidsville Lake to the Haw River (1.8 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen levels violated the standard in 13 percent of samples at site BA10 during the assessment period. Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 9 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Troublesome Creek and work with DSWC staff to further implement BMPs to reduce the impacts of agriculture in this watershed. DWQ will investigate releases from the Reidsville Lake Dam to determine if the source of the low DO is from dam releases. Segment 16-6-(0.3) will be removed from the 303(d) list because of the improved biological community rating. Segment 16-6-(3) will be added to the 303(d) list because of the dissolved oxygen standard violation. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives In 2002, the Piedmont Land Conservancy (Chapter 34) received a minigrant of $25,000 to pay for pre-acquisition of 500 acres along the Haw River and Troublesome Creek. NCEEP has initiated a local watershed planning effort that includes this watershed. The plan is discussed above with Little Troublesome Creek. NCEEP has purchased a 52-acre parcel of riparian wetlands in the Troublesome Creek watershed to aid in the preservation of water quality. The Local Watershed Plan may be downloaded at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Troublesome_Creek/troublesome.htm 1.4 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 these waters during this assessment. Attention and resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix X. Waters in the following section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). See overview for more information on AU#s. 1.4.1 Mears Fork [AU# 16-3] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Mears Fork from source to Haw River, was not assessed for use support determination. This stream is near high growth areas north of Greensboro. This stream as well tributaries may be adversely impacted by poor development practices. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Water Quality Initiatives Mears Fork Conservation Plan. In 1999, the Haw River Assembly (Chapter 34) received a $200,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 46 acres of land and for landowner permanent conservation easements on another 60 acres in this watershed. Chapter 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 10 1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-01 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. 1.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-01 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 1 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-01 11 Chapter 2 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 Including: Haw River, Buffalo Creek, Reedy Fork Creek and Greensboro Reservoirs 2.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-02 is an outer piedmont watershed characterized by highly erodible soils. Most of the watershed is forested or in agriculture, with increasing urban development that can have negative water quality impacts. Development is occurring along the I-85/40 corridor in Greensboro and Burlington. Population is expected to grow by 165,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are 30 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 76.6 MGD (Figure 5). The largest are Burlington Eastside WWTP (12.0 MGD), Graham WWTP (3.5 MGD), Mebane WWTP (2.5 MGD), North Buffalo WWTP (16 MGD) and T.Z. Osborne WWTP (40 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 2.3 for Impaired waters. In this subbasin, Burlington, Graham, Greensboro, Haw River and Mebane are required to develop stormwater programs (Chapter 31). There is one registered swine operation, one registered cattle operation and five registered dairy operations in this subbasin. Issues related to agricultural activities are discussed below in Section 2.3 for Impaired waters. Land and Water Area Total area: 562 mi2 Land area: 555 mi2 Water area: 7 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 247,449 people Pop. Density: 441 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 58.9% Surface Water: 2.5% Urban: 8.5% Cultivated Crop: 2.3% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 27.9% Counties Alamance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford and Orange Municipalities Burlington, Graham, Green Level, Greensboro, Haw River and Mebane Subbasin 03-06-02 at a Glance There were 22 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and 13 fish community samples (Figure 5 and Table 5) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from 34 ambient monitoring stations including four DWQ stations, nine UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, four shared ambient stations, and 16 City of Greensboro (Appendix V) stations. Three DWQ bacterial special study stations were also sampled as well as six reservoirs. 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. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 12 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-02 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 5 Back Creek 16-18-(6) From dam at Graham-Mebane Reservoir to Haw River 6.2 FW MilesC NSW NR ND BB340 /1999NR Back Creek (Graham-Mebane Reservoir) 16-18-(1.5) From .3 mile upstream of NC Hwy 119 to dam at Graham-Mebane Res 693.3 FW AcresWS-II HQ NR NDBL7 NCE Chlor a 33 Chlorophyll a Unknown Blackwood Creek 16-11-14-2-4 From source to Buffalo Creek 5.6 FW MilesC NSW S NR*BA755 NCE BA755 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Brush Creek 16-11-4-(1)a1 From source to UT at SR 2085 2.4 FW MilesWS-III NS NR ND BB93 /2003NR 16-11-4-(1)a2 From UT at SR 2085 to UT 0.3 miles downstream fo SR 3820 1.8 FW MilesWS-III NS S ND BF69 /1999G 16-11-4-(1)a3 From UT 0.3 miles downstream of SR 3820 to a point 0.5 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 2190 1.6 FW MilesWS-III NS I NR*BA761 NCE Turbidity 10 BB364 /2003F BA761 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES Brush Creek(Lake Higgins) 16-11-4-(2) From a point 0.5 mile downstream of Guilford SR 2190 to Lake Brandt, Reedy Fork 79.2 FW AcresWS-III NS S NDBL4 NCE Haw Creek 16-20-(4) From N.C. Hwy. 54 to Haw River 3.8 FW MilesC NSW S ND BB374 /2003GF BB374 /1999NR BF55 /2003G CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-02 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 5 HAW RIVER 16-(1)d2 From Subbasin 01/02 boundary to Service Creek 10.1 FW MilesC NSW S SBA59 NCE Turbidity 9.8 BA59 NCE BA59 NCE BA746 NCE Turbidity Impervious Surface Turbidity MS4 NPDES Turbidity Agriculture 16-(1)d3 From Service Creek to a NC 49 2.1 FW MilesC NSW S IBA74 NCE Turbidity 9.6 BA74 CE BA74 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Turbidity Unknown 16-(1)e From NC 49 to a point 0.4 mile downstream of Cane Creek (South side of Haw River) 18.5 FW MilesC NSW S NR*BA117 NCE BA118 NCE BA76 NCE Turbidity 9.8 BA90 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BB220 /2002GF BB220 /1998GF BA118 NCE BA76 NCE BA90 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Turbidity Unknown Horsepen Creek 16-11-5-(0.5)a From source to Ballinger Road 1.8 FW MilesWS-III NS NR ND BB205 /2001NR BB205 /2000NR BB369 /2001NR BB369 /2000NR Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 16-11-5-(0.5)b From Ballinger Road to U.S. Hwy 220 3.2 FW MilesWS-III NS I NR* BB61 /2000P BA762 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 16-11-5-(2) From U.S. Hwy 220 to Lake Brandt, Reedy Fork 1.8 FW MilesWS-III NS I NR* BB427 /2003P BB427 /2001NR BB427 /2000F BF71 /1999GF BA759 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-02 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 5 Jordan Creek 16-14-6-(0.5) From source to a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth 10.6 FW MilesWs-II HQW S SBA70 NCE BB214 /2003GF BF46 /2003GF BA70 NCE Moadams Creek (Latham Lake) 16-18-7 From source to Back Creek 4.6 FW MilesC NSW NR NR*BA87 NCE BA88 NCE BB342 /1999NR BB9 /1999NR BA87 NCE BA88 NCE Muddy Creek 16-11-14-1-3 From source to North Buffalo Creek 3.7 FW MilesC NSW S NR*BA748 NCE BA748 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown North Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-1a1 From source to Philadelphia Lake 7.5 FW MilesC NSW I NR* BF36 /1999P BF64 /1999P BA750 NCE BA751 NCE Habitat Degradation Unknown 16-11-14-1a2 From Philadelphia Lake to North Buffalo Creek WWTP 1.6 FW MilesC NSW S I BF11 /1999P BF11 /2003GF BA42 NCE BA742 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES 16-11-14-1b From North Buffalo Creek WWTP to Buffalo Creek 8.1 FW MilesC NSW I NR*BA44 NCE Turbidity 7.4 BA45 NCE BB407 /2003P BA44 NCE BA45 NCE BA747 NCE Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES Philadelphia Lake (Buffalo lake, and White Oak Lake) 16-11-14-1-2b White Oak Lake 18.0 FW AcresC NSW S NR*BA749 NCE Turbidity 10 BA749 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-02 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 5 Reedy Creek 16-11-(1)a From source to UT 0.7 miles downstream of SR 2128 8.1 FW MilesWS-III NS S SBA760 NCE BB362 /2003GF BB362 /2001G BB386 /2003GF BA760 NCE Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface 16-11-(1)b From SR 2128 to a point 0.4 mile downstream of Moores Creek 4.2 FW MilesWS-III NS I ND BF54 /1999F Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Reedy Fork (Hardys Mill Pond) 16-11-(9)a1 From Lake Townsend Dam to UT at SR 2782 6.7 FW MilesC NSW S SBA757 NCE BA757 NCE 16-11-(9)a2 From UT at SR 2782 to UT at SR 2778 2.2 FW MilesC NSW I ND BB404 /2003F BF65 /2003G 16-11-(9)a3 From Ut at SR 2778 to Buffalo Creek 3.0 FW MilesC NSW S SBA38 NCE BA38 NCE 16-11-(9)b From Buffalo Creek to Haw River 8.6 FW MilesC NSW S IBA58 NCE BA58 CE BA58 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Reedy Fork(including Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend below nor 16-11-(3.5)a Lake Brandt 760.0 FW AcresWS-III NS S NDBL2 NCE 16-11-(3.5)b Lake Townsend 1,404.7 FW AcresWS-III NS S NDBL3 NCE Richland Creek (Richland Lake) 16-11-7-(1)a From source to backwaters of Richland Lake 3.1 FW MilesWS-III NS S NR*BA758 NCE BA758 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Ryan Creek 16-11-14-2-3 From source to South Buffalo Creek 4.2 FW MilesC NSW I NR*BA754 CE Turbidity 14 BA754 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-02 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 5 South Buffalo Creek 16-11-14-2a From source to McConnell Rd 15.4 FW MilesC NSW I NR*BA50 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BA752 CE Turbidity 14 BA756 NCE BB406 /2003P BA50 NCE BA752 NCE BA753 NCE Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES 16-11-14-2b From McConnell Rd to US 70 4.7 FW MilesC NSW I ND BF73 /2003P Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 16-11-14-2c From US 70 to Buffalo Creek 4.8 FW MilesC NSW I NDBA54 CE Turbidity 10.5 BA54 NCE Turbidity MS4 NPDES Stony Creek (Lake Burlington) 16-14-(1)a From source to Benton Branch 4.3 FW MilesWs-II HQW S ND BF26 /2003GF Habitat Degradation 16-14-(1)b From Benton Branch to backwaters of Lake Burlington 2.7 FW MilesWs-II HQW S ND BB231 /2003GF Habitat Degradation 16-14-(1)c Lake Burlington 738.0 FW AcresWs-II HQW NR NDBL5 NCE Chlor a 33 Chlorophyll a Agriculture Stony Creek (Stony Creek Reservoir) 16-14-(5.5) From Buttermilk Creek to dam at Stony Creek Reservoir 118.0 FW AcresWS-II HQ S NDBL6 NCE Town Branch 16-17 From source to Haw River 4.2 FW MilesC NSW S IBA78 NCE BA78 NCE BA78 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Unnamed Tributary at Guilford College 16-11-5-1-(2) From dam at Guilford College bathing lake to Horsepen Creek 1.3 FW MilesWS-III NS I ND BB68 /2001P CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-02 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 5 Varnals Creek 16-21a From source to Rock Creek 4.6 FW MilesC NSW I ND BB390 /2000F 16-21b From Rock Creek to Haw River 2.8 FW MilesC NSW S ND BB359 /2000G 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 101.3 FW Milesm NR 15.0 FW Milesm I 63.5 FW Milesm S 2,379.9 FW Acresm NR 1,431.3 FW Acresm ND 213.4 FW Miles ND 498.0 FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 38.5 FW MilesSm 77.2 FW MilesNR* m 16.5 FW MilesIm 18.0 FW AcresNR* m 261.0 FW MilesND 4,291.2 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 393.2 FW MilesIe 4,309.2 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02 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. 2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-02 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 (4,201.1 acres and 182.3 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 179.8 stream miles (45.7 percent) and 3,811.2 freshwater acres (88.4 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 63.5 miles (16.2 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. There were also 16.5 stream miles (4.2 percent) Impaired for recreation in this subbasin. 2.3 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. 2.3.1 Brush Creek [AU# 16-11-4-(1)a1, a2 and a3] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that Brush Creek be resampled and that DWQ work with the City of Greensboro to improve water quality where possible. Current Status Brush Creek [16-11-4-(1)a1] from source to SR 2085 (2.4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB93 because of the small size of the stream. Brush Creek [16-11-4-(1)a2] from SR 2085 to 0.3 miles downstream of SR 3820 (1.8 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good fish community rating at site BF69. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 20 Brush Creek [16-11-4-(1)a3] from SR 3820 to 0.5 miles downstream of SR 2190 (1.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB364. Turbidity also exceeded the water quality standard in 10 percent of samples at site BA761. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA761. The Brush Creek watershed drains large impervious areas from the Piedmont Triad International Airport as well as residential areas west of the airport. Road construction along the I-85 corridor has also impacted water quality in Brush Creek. DWQ staff noted several storm sewers draining directly into the creek and evidence of very high storm flows. There is no riparian area on Brush Creek as it flows through a golf course. A stressor survey conducted in 2003 found habitat degradation caused by modified watershed hydrology resulting in streambank erosion and sedimentation continues to stress the benthic community in Brush Creek. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Brush Creek watershed. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at site BA761 and submit these data to DWQ. Construction of the FEDEX project should use and maintain BMPs to minimize further disturbance to the Brush Creek watershed. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Segments 16-11-4-(1)a1 and a3 will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Segment 16- 11-4-(1)a2 will be removed from the 303(d) list because of the Good fish community rating. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. 2.3.2 Haw River [AU# 16-(1)d2, d3 and e] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that a TMDL be developed for turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria in this segment of the Haw River. The plan also noted that improvements to the Buffalo/Reedy Fork watersheds were also needed. Current Status The Haw River [16-(1)d2] from the subbasin boundary to Service Creek (10.1 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA59 and BA746, although turbidity exceeded the standard in 9.8 percent of samples collected at site BA59. The fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded during the assessment period, but bacteria levels were below the standard during resamples the following summer at sites BA59 and BA746. This segment is Supporting recreation. The Haw River [16-(1)d3] from Service Creek to NC 49 (2.1 miles) is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA74. Although this segment is Supporting aquatic life, the turbidity standard was exceeded in 10 percent of samples collected at site BA74. Turbidity violated the standard in two storm events monitored by DWQ. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 21 A TMDL, completed in 2004 and approved in January 2005, recommended a 61 percent reduction in Total Suspended Solids and a 77 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria from both point and nonpoint sources to meet the turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria standards in these two segments of the Haw River (Chapter 35). The Haw River [16-(1)e] from NC 49 to Cane Creek (18.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB220; however, the turbidity standard was exceeded in 7 and 10 percent of samples collected at site BA76 and BA90. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA76, BA90 and BA118. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will work with nonpoint source agencies and local governments to identify funding sources and BMP opportunities to implement reductions in TSS and fecal coliform bacteria as recommended in the TMDL. DWQ will continue to monitor the Haw River. Segment 16-(1)d2 will be removed from the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because the fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity standards were not violated. Segment 16-(1)d3 will remain on the 303(d) until water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are met, although turbidity will be removed as a cause of impairment based on data from site BA74. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The Ag Sediment initiative estimates that $650,000 is needed to install field agriculture BMPs and livestock exclusion to reduce agriculture loading of turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria to this segment of the Haw River. The survey also noted urban development, impervious surfaces, and streambank erosion in addition to agriculture as sources of sediment. In 1999, Graham received a $20,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to study the feasibility of a greenway between I-85 and NC 54 along the Haw River [16-(1)e]. In 2001, Graham received a $140,000 CWMTF grant to purchase 22 acres along the Haw River as part of the greenway system. In 2001, Piedmont Triad COG (Chapter 34) received a $65,000 CWMTF grant to develop a riparian corridor plan targeting 214 parcels along the Haw River. 2.3.3 Horsepen Creek [AU# 16-11-5-(0.5)a and b and 16-11-5-(2)] and Unnamed Tributary at Guilford College [AU#16-11-5-1-(2)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Horsepen Creek be resampled and that DWQ work with the City of Greensboro to improve water quality where possible. DWQ, with the CWMTF, conducted a detailed study of the watershed as part of WARP project to identify stressors and recommend solutions to water quality problems. Current Status Horsepen Creek [16-11-5-(0.5)a] from source to Ballinger Road (1.8 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB369 and BB205. Amoco Greensboro Terminal (NC0003671) had significant violations of phenolics permit limits Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 22 during the last two years of the assessment period. The problem has been remedied and there were no violations in 2004. The unnamed tributary [16-11-5-1-(2)] from dam at Guilford College Bathing Lake to Horsepen Creek (1.3 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB68. Horsepen Creek [16-11-5-(0.5)b] from Ballinger Road to US 220 (3.2 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB61. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA762. Horsepen Creek [16-11-5-(2)] from US 220 to Lake Brandt (1.8 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of Poor and Fair benthic community ratings at site BB427. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA759. A WARP study was completed in December 2002 in the Horsepen Creek watershed. The study identified potential toxicity, organic enrichment and habitat degradation from scour, channel modification, culverting and impervious surface runoff as stressors to the benthic community. To view the entire report and recommendations to restore water quality in the Horsepen Creek watershed visit http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/swpu/. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will work with nonpoint source agencies and the City of Greensboro Stormwater Program to identify funding sources for restoration projects and BMP implementation recommended in the WARP study. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites BA762 and BA759 on Horsepen Creek and submit these data to DWQ. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. All three segments of Horsepen Creek will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters and the Unnamed Tributary at Guilford College Bathing Lake 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 In 2000, Greensboro received a $6,000 Section 319 grant (Chapter 34) to convert two retention ponds to bioretention BMPs as part of an urban BMP demonstration project. The bioretention BMPs are located on Downwind Road and Terrault Drive. The NCEEP completed 1.77 acres of riverine restoration in this watershed (Chapter 34). Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 23 2.3.4 North Buffalo Creek [AU# 16-11-14-1a1, a2 and 1b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that North Buffalo Creek be resampled and that TMDLs be developed for identified stressors. DWQ also recommended that no new discharges be permitted to North Buffalo Creek and that Cone Mills connect to the Greensboro Metro WWTP as soon as possible. Current Status North Buffalo Creek [16-11-14-1a1] from source to Philadelphia Lake (7.5 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Poor fish community ratings at sites BF36 and BF64. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA751 and BA750. North Buffalo Creek [16-11-14-1a2] from Philadelphia Lake to North Buffalo WWTP (1.6 miles) is Supporting for aquatic life because of a Good-Fair fish community rating at site BF11. The fish community rating improved after the Cone Mills discharge was removed and connected to the Metro WWTP on South Buffalo Creek in January 2001. This segment is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA742. Fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were also exceeded at site BA42. North Buffalo Creek [16-11-14-1b] from North Buffalo WWTP to Buffalo Creek (8.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor fish community rating at sites BF66 and a Poor benthic community rating at site BB407. Prolific algal growths were noted at site BB407. Turbidity also exceeded the water quality standard in 7 percent of samples collected at site BA44. The North Buffalo Creek WWTP (NC0024325) had significant violations of the cyanide permit limits and three whole effluent toxicity test failures during the last two years of the assessment period. The facility is conducting a cyanide study to determine the source of the violations. The smell of treated effluent has been noted at site BF66, 8.5 miles downstream of the WWTP. There have been odor problems reported and sanitary sewer overflows in the watershed as well. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA747, BA44 and BA45. A fecal coliform bacteria TMDL was completed for North Buffalo Creek in 2004. The Piedmont-Triad COG and partners completed a fecal coliform bacteria source-tracking project to assist in TMDL development. The TMDL recommended reductions of 60 to 100 percent depending on the source and climatic conditions. Exfiltrating sewers, sanitary sewer overflows, pets and illicit discharges were identified as sources of fecal coliform bacteria. 2005 Recommendations DWQ recommends that the reductions called for in the TMDL be implemented by the various sources to reduce fecal coliform bacteria loading to North Buffalo Creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites on North Buffalo Creek and submit these data to DWQ. These data will be helpful in measuring the success of TMDL implementation. DWQ will continue to monitor North Buffalo Creek to identify stressors to the biological community. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 24 Segments 16-11-14-1a1 and 1b will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Segment 16- 11-14-1a2 may be removed from the list, although any restoration efforts or TMDLs for stressors to the biological community will target the entire watershed. This segment will remain on the 303(d) list for the recreation impairment. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The City of Greensboro is pursuing funding to rehabilitate the wastewater collection system to reduce exfiltration and sanitary sewer overflows. 2.3.5 Reedy Creek [AU# 16-11-(1)a and b] Current Status Reedy Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan and no recommendations were made. Reedy Creek [16-11-(1)b] from SR 2128 to 0.4 miles downstream of Moores Creek (4.2 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair fish community rating at site BF54. Habitat degradation was noted by eroding streambanks and few pools and riffles. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor this segment of Reedy Creek to identify stressors to the fish community. This portion of the watershed could experience growth in the next few years. Every effort should be made to minimize impacts to Reedy Creek. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. This segment of Reedy 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. 2.3.6 Reedy Fork (Hardys Mill Pond) [AU# 16-11-(9)a1, a2, a3 and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with Greensboro to reduce impacts to Reedy Fork. Reedy Fork [16-11-(9)b] was Partially Supporting in the 2000 plan. Current Status Reedy Fork [16-11-(9)a1] from Lake Townsend Dam to UT at SR 2782 (6.7 miles) is Supporting recreation because no criteria were exceeded at site BA757. Although Autumn Forest Manufactured Homes (NC0022691) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period, the facility had no violations of bacteria limits in 2004. This segment is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA757, although Lake Townsend WTP (NC0081617) had significant violations of solids permit limits. Reedy Fork [16-11-(9)a2] from the UT at SR 2782 to SR 2778 (2.2 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB404. The benthic community may have been adversely impacted by low dissolved oxygen releases from Lake Townsend dam during drought conditions. Northeast Middle and Senior High School (NC0038156) discharges into an unnamed tributary in this segment and had significant violations of ammonia permit Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 25 limits during the last two years of the assessment period as well. The schools are under a special order of consent (SOC# S91039) that expires in June 2005. The schools are expected to be connected to the City of Greensboro collection system and cease discharging by March 2005. Segment 16-11-(9)a3 is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA38. Reedy Fork [16-11-(9)b] from Buffalo Creek to the Haw River (8.6 miles) is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA58. This segment is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA58. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor this segment of Reedy Fork to identify stressors to the fish community. This portion of the watershed could experience growth in the next few years. Every effort should be made to minimize impacts to Reedy Fork. Flow conditions should be maintained below Lake Townsend to minimize adverse impacts to the downstream benthic community (Chapter 32). DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites on Reedy Fork. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Segments 16-11-(9)a2 will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters and 16-11-(9)b will remain on the list because of the recreation impairment and because of past biological impairment. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. 2.3.7 Ryan Creek [AU # 16-11-14-2-3] Current Status Ryan Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 basin plan; however, Ryan Creek [16-11-14-2-3] from source to South Buffalo Creek (4.2 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated at site BA754 in 14 percent of samples. Ryan Creek is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA754. 2005 Recommendations DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality in Ryan Creek and submit these data to DWQ. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Ryan Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because of the turbidity violations. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 26 2.3.8 South Buffalo Creek [AU# 16-11-14-2a, b and c] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that South Buffalo Creek be resampled and that TMDLs be developed for identified stressors, and that the City of Greensboro stormwater program work to improve water quality in this creek. Current Status South Buffalo Creek [all segments] from source to Buffalo Creek (24.9 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 14 and 11 percent of samples at sites BA752 and BA54, Fair and Poor benthic community ratings at sites BB444 and BB406, and Fair and Poor fish community ratings at sites BF18 and BF73. The stream is filled with debris and has undercut banks. Periphyton covered rocks at the site below the Metro WWTP. The Metro WWTP (NC0047384) also had significant violations of cyanide permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in the creek. The facility is conducting a cyanide study to determine the source of the violations. South Buffalo Creek is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA50, BA752 and BA753. 2005 Recommendations DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality on South Buffalo Creek and submit these data to DWQ. DWQ will continue to work with the City of Greensboro to identify measures that can be used to reduce stormwater impacts to the creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). 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 of Impaired waters. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives In 1997, Greensboro received a $800,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 40 acres to construct a stormwater wetland along South Buffalo Creek. In 2002, Greensboro received a $570,000 CWMTF grant to construct a 20-acre stormwater wetland along South Buffalo Creek treating runoff from 13 square miles of urban land. NCEEP has completed 1,752 linear feet of stream restoration in Benbow Park, 2,748 linear feet in Brown Park, 5,963 linear feet in Hillsdale Park and 1,776 linear feet in Price Park. Also completed were 5,963 linear feet of stream restoration and 1,200 linear feet of stream enhancement at Gillespie Golf Course (Chapter 34). 2.3.9 Town Branch [AU# 16-17] 2000 Recommendations Town Branch was Impaired in the 1996 basin plan, but limited sampling resulted in a Not Rated status in the 2000 basin plan. The 2000 plan recommended that Town Branch be resampled. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 27 Current Status Town Branch from source to the Haw River (4.2 miles) is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA78. The stream is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA78. A TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria was approved for Town Branch in September 2002. The TMDL called for 70 percent reduction in bacteria loading from urban areas in Burlington and Graham. The TMDL also indicated leaking sewer systems, sanitary sewer overflows and failing septic systems in the lower portion of the watershed as a source of bacteria. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Town Branch. DWQ recommends that Burlington and Graham reduce fecal coliform bacteria loading as called for in the TMDL. It is also recommended that Graham annex homes in the lower portion of the watershed and connect them to municipal sewer system. The towns should also pursue funding to upgrade the wastewater collection system to reduce leaking lines and sanitary sewer overflows. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. This segment will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors other than fecal coliform bacteria within 8-13 years of listing. 2.3.10 Varnals Creek [AU#16-21a and b] Current Status Varnals Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan; however, Varnals Creek [16-21a] from source to Rock Creek (4.6 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB390. Varnals Creek was studied in 2000 to determine if it would qualify for a supplemental HQW classification. Because of the Impaired benthic community, the creek did not qualify for the HQW classification. Varnals Creek [16-21b] from Rock Creek to the Haw River (2.8 miles) is Supporting based on a Good benthic community rating at site BB359. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Varnals Creek to identify stressors to the biological community in the upper watershed. This watershed is predominately agriculture and DWQ will work with DSWC staff to further implement BMPs to reduce the impacts of agriculture in this watershed. This segment 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. 2.4 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 Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 28 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. 2.4.1 Back Creek (Graham-Mebane Reservoir) [AU# 16-18-(1.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Graham Mebane Reservoir (693.3 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because 33 percent of chlorophyll a samples exceeded the water quality criterion; however, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. Nutrient levels in the reservoir were higher than in previous years and nuisance algal blooms were present in summer months. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 2.4.2 Blackwood Creek [AU# 16-11-14-2-4] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Blackwood Creek from source to Buffalo Creek (5.6 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA755. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites in Blackwood Creek. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). 2.4.3 MoAdams Creek (Latham Lake) [AU# 16-18-7] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations MoAdams Creek from source to Back Creek (4.6 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA87 and BA88. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). 2.4.4 Muddy Creek [AU# 16-11-14-1-3] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Muddy Creek from source to North Buffalo Creek (3.7 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA748. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites in Muddy Creek. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix methods). 2.4.5 Philadelphia Lake (Buffalo Lake and White Oak Lake) [AU# 16-11-14-1-2b] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Philadelphia Lake (18 acres) is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA749. Turbidity also exceeded the standard in 10 percent of samples at site BA749. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites in Philadelphia Lake. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this lake (Appendix X). Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 29 2.4.6 Richland Creek [AU# 16-11-7-(1)a] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Richland Creek from source to Richland Lake (3.1 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA758. DWQ recommends that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at sites in Philadelphia Lake. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this lake (Appendix X). 2.4.7 Stony Creek (Lake Burlington) [AU# 16-14-(1)a, b and c] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Stony Creek [16-14-(1)a] from source to Benton Branch (4.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair fish community rating at site BF26; however, this is a lower rating than the Excellent rating from 1994. There was evidence of past streambank erosion at the site. Stony Creek [16-14-(1)b] from Benton Branch to backwaters of Lake Burlington (2.7 miles) is Not Rated because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB231 due to small size stream. There were indications of increased sedimentation, and only one small riffle area was found. Drought conditions in 2001 and 2002 likely have had impacts on these communities. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in this watershed and contact DSWC staff to determine if noted habitat impacts are from agricultural activities or from development in the area. Lake Burlington [16-14-(1)c] (738 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because 33 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 nuisance algal blooms that can cause taste and odor problems in treated drinking water were present. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-02 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. 2.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-02 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 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 30 2.5.2 Greensboro Collection System SOC The City of Greensboro collection system (WQCS00006) is currently under a special order of consent (SOC) because the North Buffalo WWTP is hydraulically overloaded, causing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in the WWTP service area that includes the North Buffalo Creek watershed and portions of the Reedy Fork watershed. The SOC (WQS04012) was issued because Greensboro was unable to comply with collection system permit conditions which prohibit SSOs. The SOC contains dates by which specific actions must be accomplished. The SSOs are occurring most often from Hill Street to the WWTP. Greensboro will be building new pump stations to divert wastewater out of the North Buffalo Creek watershed and enlarging the primary outfall. Greensboro must build one of the new pump stations in the Reedy Fork watershed by March 2005. The SOC also provides for payment of penalties for any SSOs between Hill Street and the WWTP during anything less than a 10-year 24-hour storm event. DWQ will continue to work with Greensboro or ensure timely compliance with the conditions in the SOC. Chapter 2 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 31 Chapter 3 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 Including: Little Alamance Creek, Big Alamance Creek and Stinking Quarter Creek 3.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-03 is a piedmont watershed characterized by highly erodible soils. Most of the watershed is forested with extensive agriculture present. Development is occurring along the I-85/40 corridor in and around Burlington. Population is expected to grow by 120,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-03 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 263 mi2 Land area: 262 mi2 Water area: 1 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 132,837 people Pop. Density: 508 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 59.4% Surface Water: 0.2% Urban: 5.8% Cultivated Crop: 2.2% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 32.4% Counties Alamance, Guilford and Randolph Municipalities Alamance, Burlington, Elon and Graham There are six individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 12.1 MGD (Figure 6). The largest is South Burlington WWTP (12 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 3.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 3.4 for other waters. Burlington and Graham are the only municipal areas in this subbasin required to develop stormwater programs (Chapter 31). There are three registered swine operations and two registered dairy operations in this subbasin. Issues related to agricultural activities are discussed below in Section 3.3 for Impaired waters. There were six benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and five fish community samples (Figure 6 and Table 6) 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. One reservoir was 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 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 32 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-03 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 6 Big Alamance Creek (Alamance Cr)(Lk Macintoch) 16-19-(2.5) From a point 2.4 miles downstream of Guilford County SR 3045 to dam at Lake Macintosh 67.7 FW AcresWS-IV NS S NDBL8 NCE BL9 NCE 16-19-(4.5)a From Dam at Lake Macintosh to confluence with Stinking Quarter Creek 5.6 FW MilesC NSW I ND BB130 /2003F Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 16-19-(4.5)b From confluence with Stinking Quarter Creek to Haw River 4.6 FW MilesC NSW NR NR*BA112 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BA114 NCE BA112 NCE Big Alamance Creek (Alamance Creek) 16-19-(1) From source to a point 2.4 miles downstream of Guilford County SR 3045 18.0 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND BF68 /1999G BF68 /1999F BF68 /2003GF Little Alamance Creek (Gant Lake, Mays Lake)(Alamance County 16-19-11 From source to Big Alamance Creek 12.6 FW MilesC NSW I ND BB131 /2003P BB193 /2003P BB388 /2003F BB78 /2003P BF60 /2003G Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Little Alamance Creek (Guilford County) 16-19-3-(0.5) From source to a point 0.3 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 3073 15.0 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND BF67 /2003GF Little Alamance Creek(Guilford County) 16-19-3-(4.5) From a point 0.3 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 3073 to Lake Macintosh, Big Alamance Creek 3.6 FW MilesWS-IV NS S SBA98 NCE BA98 NCE CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-03 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-03 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 6 North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek 16-19-8-1 From source to Stinking Quarter Creek 18.3 FW MilesC NSW S ND BF27 /2003G South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek 16-19-8-2-(2) From dam at Kimesville Lake to Stinking Quarter Creek 8.3 FW MilesC NSW S ND BF28 /2003E Stinking Quarter Creek 16-19-8 from source to Big Alamance Creek 4.6 FW MilesC NSW S ND BB249 /2003GF BB249 /2003F Habitat Degradation 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 67.8 FW Milesm NR 4.6 FW Milesm I 18.2 FW Milesm S 67.7 FW Acresm ND 110.4 FW Miles ND 3.0 FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 3.6 FW MilesSm 4.6 FW MilesNR* m 192.9 FW MilesND 70.7 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 201.1 FW MilesIe 70.7 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-03 3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-03 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 (70.7 acres and 77 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 90.6 stream miles (45.1 percent) and 67.6 freshwater acres (95.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 18.2 miles (9.1 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. 3.3 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. 3.3.1 Little Alamance Creek [AU# 16-19-11] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Little Alamance Creek be resampled and the City of Burlington address stormwater issues in the creek as part of the Phase II stormwater program. Current Status Little Alamance Creek from source to Big Alamance Creek (12.6 miles) is Impaired because of Fair and Poor benthic community ratings at sites BB388, BB193, BB131 and BB78. A DWQ TMDL stressor study found that urban runoff from large impervious surface areas in the watershed have caused stream channelization with associated habitat degradation. Pollutants associated with urban runoff as well as riparian area removals are also noted stressors to the benthic community. Streambank erosion was noted and many storm sewers discharge into the stream. In the lower watershed, land clearing was noted associated with many residential developments. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Little Alamance Creek watershed and work with the Burlington and Graham stormwater programs to reduce further impacts due to new development and to implement BMPs and restore instream habitat in Little Alamance Creek. Chapter 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 36 Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Little Alamance Creek will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. 3.3.2 Big Alamance Creek [AU# 16-19-(4.5)a and b] Current Status Big Alamance Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan; however, Big Alamance Creek [16-19-(4.5)a] from dam at Lake Macintosh to Stinking Quarter Creek (5.6 miles) is currently Impaired because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB130. Runoff from agriculture and urbanizing areas in the watershed are impacting water quality in Big Alamance Creek. The channel is entrenched and severe streambank erosion was noted. Effects of drought and high flows late in the assessment period may have impacted the benthic community as well. Big Alamance Creek [16-19-(4.5)b] from Stinking Quarter Creek to the Haw River (4.6 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA112. This segment is Supporting aquatic life, although turbidity exceeded the standard in 7 percent of samples collected at site BA112. Burlington Southside WWTP (NC0023876) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. The violation occurred during a period of extremely wet weather and likely did not impact water quality at that time. There has been only one violation since the installation of new equipment. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Big Alamance Creek watershed and work with the Burlington stormwater programs to reduce further impacts due to new development and to implement BMPs and restore instream habitat in Big Alamance Creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). DWQ will continue to work with DSWC staff to assure that agricultural impacts are minimized in this watershed. Big Alamance 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. 3.4 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. Chapter 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 37 3.4.1 North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek [AU# 16-19-8-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek from source to Stinking Quarter Creek (18.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good fish community rating at site BF27. Nathaniel Greene Elementary School (NC0038164) had significant violations of pH limits during the last two years of the assessment period that may have adversely impacted water quality in this creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the permit violations. The school is planning to move the discharge point further downstream. DWQ will work with the school to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment plant and make any changes needed to maintain compliance with permit limits. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in this watershed. 3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-06-03 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. This section also identifies those surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification, and therefore, may be eligible for reclassification to a High Quality Water (HQW) or an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). For more information regarding water quality standards and classifications, please refer to Chapter 25. 3.5.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-03 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. 3.5.2 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek [AU# 16-19-8-2-(2)] South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek from dam at Kimesville Lake to Stinking Quarter Creek (8.3 miles) is Supporting because of an Excellent fish community rating at site BF28. DWQ will consider pursuing reclassification of this creek to include a supplemental classification of ORW (Chapter 25). Chapter 3 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-03 38 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 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 Chapter 6 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 Including: Morgan Creek, Bolin Creek, Booker Creek, Little Creek and University Lake 6.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-06 is in the Carolina slate belt characterized by low flowing streams during summer months. Most of the watershed is forested with urban areas and development around Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Population is expected to grow by 55,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are four individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 14.8 MGD (Figure 9). The largest is Mason Farm WWTP (14.5 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 6.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 6.4 for other waters. Carrboro and Chapel Hill are required to develop Phase II stormwater programs (Chapter 31). There were 11 benthic community samples and four fish community samples (Figure 9 and Table 9) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from two ambient monitoring stations including one UCFRBA (Appendix V) station and one shared ambient station. Two 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 03-06-06 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 75 mi2 Land area: 74 mi2 Water area: 1 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 23,470 people Pop. Density: 315 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 84% Surface Water: 1.4% Urban: 5.3% Cultivated Crop: 0.6% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 8.6% Counties Chatham, Durham and Orange Municipalities Carrboro and Chapel Hill 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 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 61 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-06 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 9 Bolin Creek 16-41-1-15-1-(4) From US Hwy 501 Business to Little Creek 0.9 FW MilesWS-IV NS S ND BF14 /2001GF Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Bolin Creek (Hogan Lake) 16-41-1-15-1-(0.5)a From source to Pathway Drive 5.3 FW MilesC NSW S ND BB330 /2001GF BB330 /2001NR BB330 /2000G BF47 /2001G 16-41-1-15-1-(0.5)b From Pathway Drive to US Hwy 501 Business 3.1 FW MilesC NSW I ND BB449 /2002F BB449 /2001F BB449 /2001P BB62 /2002P BB62 /2001P BB71 /2001P BB71 /2001P BF8 /2001G Booker Creek 16-41-1-15-2-(4) From dam at eastwood Lake to US Hwy 15 1.2 FW MilesC NSW NR ND BB450 /2001NR BB450 /2001NR 16-41-1-15-2-(5) From US Hwy 15 to Little Creek 0.9 FW MilesWS-IV NS NR ND BB450 /2001NR BB450 /2001NR Booker Creek (East-wood Lake) 16-41-1-15-2-(1) From source to dam at Eastwood Lake 3.5 FW MilesB NSW NR ND BB198 /2001NR BB198 /2001NR BB30 /2001NR BB30 /2001NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-06 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-06 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 9 Little Creek 16-41-1-15-(0.5) From source to a point 0.7 mile downstream of Durham County SR 1110 4.9 FW MilesWS-IV NS NR ND BB197 /2001NR BB197 /2001P Morgan Creek 16-41-2-(1) From source to a point 1.4 miles downstream of NC Hwy 54 7.1 FW MilesWs-II HQW S ND BB146 /2003G BB146 /2003GF BB146 /2003GF BB146 /2003NR BB146 /2002NR BB146 /2000E BB146 /2003NR Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES 16-41-2-(5.5)a From Orange County SR 1919 to Meeting of the Waters 4.0 FW MilesWS-IV NS S NR*BA227 NCE BA227 NCE 16-41-2-(5.5)b From Meeting of the Waters to Chatham County SR 1726 (Durham County SR 1109) 4.1 FW MilesWS-IV NS I ND BB53 /2003F BF15 /1999F Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Morgan Creek (including the Morgan Creek Arm of New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake) 16-41-2-(9.5) From Chatham County SR 1726 (Durham County SR 836.2 FW AcresWS-IV NS I SBA230 NCE BL16 CE Chlor a 66.7 BA230 NCE Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES Morgan Creek (University Lake) 16-41-2-(1.5) From a point 1.4 miles downstream of NC Hwy 54 to dam at University Lake 163.2 FW AcresWS-II HQ NR NDBL15 NCE Chlor a 100 Chlorophyll a Agriculture Tanbark Branch 16-41-1-15-1-3 From source to Bolin Creek 1.2 FW MilesC NSW NR ND BB416 /2002NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-06 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-06 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 9 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 17.4 FW Milesm NR 11.8 FW Milesm I 7.2 FW Milesm NR 163.2 FW Acresm I836.2FW Acresm NR 5.0 FW Milese ND 36.1 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 4.0 FW MilesNR* m 836.2 FW AcresSm 73.4 FW MilesND 163.2 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 77.4 FW MilesIe 999.4 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-06 6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-06 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 (999.4 acres and 57.2 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 36.3 stream miles (46.9 percent) and 999.4 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 7.2 miles (9.3 percent) and 836.2 acres (83.7 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. 6.3 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. 6.3.1 Bolin Creek [AU#16-41-1-15-1-(0.5) a and b and 16-41-1-15-1-(4)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with Chapel Hill as they develop a stormwater program to help improve water quality in Bolin Creek. Current Status Bolin Creek [16-41-1-15-1-(0.5)a] from source to Pathway Drive (5.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB330 and a Good fish community rating at site BF47, although intolerant fish species were absent from this site. Bolin Creek [16-41-1-15-1-(0.5)b] from Pathway Drive to US 501 (3.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB449 and Poor benthic community ratings at sites BB71 and BB62. The fish community rating was Good at site BF8, although intolerant fish species were absent from this site. DWQ regional office staff indicates that grease clogging has caused sanitary sewer overflows that may have negative impacts on water quality in this segment. A WARP study completed in June 2003 identified toxicity, low dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, scour and widespread habitat degradation from sedimentation from storm sewers and runoff from impervious surfaces as stressors to the biological communities of Bolin Creek. Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 66 For more information on Bolin Creek, visit the Little Creek Watershed Assessment Report at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/swpu/. Bolin Creek [16-41-1-15-1-(4)] from US 501 to Little Creek (0.9 mile) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BF14, although intolerant fish species were absent from this site and a high percentage of fish exhibited disease symptoms. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Bolin Creek. The WARP project also recommends retrofitting existing stormwater discharges and preventing increased sedimentation to the watershed during future development. DWQ will work with the Chapel Hill stormwater program to help identify stormwater retrofit opportunities. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Segment 16-41-1-15-1-(4) will be removed from the 303(d) list, and segment 16-41-1-15-1- (0.5)b will be added to the list based on data collected as part of the WARP study. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives In 2002, Carrboro received a $202,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to help purchase 28 acres along Bolin Creek. This watershed is also included in the NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, discussed under Little Creek in this chapter. The Final Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, completed in 2004, may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm 6.3.2 Booker Creek [AU# 16-41-1-15-2-(1), (4) and (5)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with Chapel Hill as they develop a stormwater program to help improve water quality in Booker Creek. Current Status Booker Creek [all segments] from source to Little Creek (5.6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB198, BB30 and BB450. A WARP study completed in June 2003 identified toxicity, low dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, scour and widespread habitat degradation from sedimentation from storm sewers and runoff from impervious surfaces as being stressors to the biological communities Booker Creek. The study also indicates that the impoundments on Booker Creek are also a stressor to the biological community. For more information on Booker Creek, visit the Little Creek Watershed Assessment Report at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/swpu/. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Booker Creek. The WARP project recommends retrofitting existing stormwater discharges and preventing increased sedimentation to the watershed during future development. DWQ will work with the Chapel Hill stormwater program to help identify stormwater retrofit opportunities. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 67 All three segments will remain on 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 This watershed is also included in the NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, discussed under Little Creek in this chapter. The Final Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, completed in 2004, may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm 6.3.3 Little Creek [AU#16-41-1-15-(0.5) and (3)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with Chapel Hill as they develop a stormwater program to help improve water quality in Little Creek. Current Status Little Creek [16-41-1-15-(0.5)] from source to downstream of SR 1110 (4.9 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB197. This site previously received a Poor benthic community rating. Segment [16-41-1-15-(3)] (0.8 miles) has never been monitored and is in a swampy area associated with Army Corps of Engineers flow easements south of NC 54. A WARP study completed in June 2003 identified toxicity, low dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, scour and widespread habitat degradation from sedimentation from storm sewers and runoff from impervious surfaces as being stressors to the biological communities Little Creek. For more information, visit the Little Creek Watershed Assessment Report at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/swpu/. These creeks exhibit or are threatened with habitat degradation, sediment, fecal coliform bacteria, toxicity and low dissolved oxygen. Urban runoff and effluent from wastewater treatment are possible sources of degradation. In upper Morgan Creek, agriculture is also a possible source of degradation. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Little Creek. The WARP project recommends retrofitting existing stormwater discharges and preventing increased sedimentation to the watershed during future development. DWQ will work with the Chapel Hill stormwater program to help identify stormwater retrofit opportunities. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Both segments will remain on the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The focus of the NCEEP local watershed planning activity is on upper Morgan Creek (30 square miles), lower Morgan Creek (19.9 square miles), and Little Creek (Booker and Bolin Creeks, with 24.6 square miles). The Local Watershed Plan recommends restoration and preservation projects through the implementation of: Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 68 • 25 Best Management Practices to treat water quality in 600 acres of priority subwatersheds • 11 stream restoration projects to gain 28,000 linear feet of restored stream • 137 priority preservation parcels to protect over 600 acres of priority habitat In addition, proposed changes to local rules are advocated to support Low Impact Development and prevent future degradation from occurring in the watershed. The Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, completed in 2004, may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm 6.3.4 Meeting of the Waters [AU#16-41-2-7] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with Chapel Hill as they develop a stormwater program to help improve water quality in Meetings of the Waters. Current Status This stream was not resampled during this assessment period, and previous benthic community ratings have been changed to Not Rated because the stream was too small to assign a rating. The stream is in a highly urbanized area of Chapel Hill. Meeting of the Waters will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Water Quality Initiatives This watershed is also included in the NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, discussed under Little Creek in this chapter. The Final Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, completed in 2004, may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm 6.3.5 Morgan Creek [AU#16-41-2-(5.5)a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with Chapel Hill as they develop a stormwater program to help improve water quality in Morgan Creek. Current Status Morgan Creek [16-41-2-(5.5)a] from SR 1919 to SR 1726 at Meeting of the Waters (4 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA227. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA227. Morgan Creek [16-41-2-(5.5)b] from Meeting of the Waters to SR 1109 (4.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair benthic and fish community ratings at sites BB53 and BF15. The water was turbid at the sample site and smelled of sewage. Suitable aquatic habitat was limited to stream margins and woody debris as the stream bottom was entirely sand. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA227, and because Mason Farm WWTP (NC0025241) and Carolina Meadows WWTP (NC0056413) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 69 two years of the assessment period. The violations at Mason Farm occurred during plant upgrades and are not ongoing. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Morgan Creek. The WARP project recommends retrofitting existing stormwater discharges and preventing increased sedimentation to the watershed during future development. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). DWQ will work with the Chapel Hill stormwater program to help identify stormwater retrofit opportunities. Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31. Segment 16-41-2-(5.5)b will remain on the 303(d)list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives This watershed is also included in the NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, discussed under Little Creek in this chapter. The Final Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, completed in 2004, may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm The NCEEP has also completed 10 acres of riverine restoration in the Morgan Creek floodplain (Chapter 34). 6.3.6 Morgan Creek University Lake [AU#16-41-2-(1.5)] Current Status University Lake was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan. University Lake (163.2 acres) is currently Not Rated for aquatic life because 100 percent of the three chlorophyll a samples exceeded the water quality criterion; however, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. Nutrient levels in the reservoir were high and the lake has been hypereutrophic as noted in previous years. Dissolved oxygen saturation was elevated. Mild to severe algal blooms occurred throughout the summer months of 2003. Some of the blue-green algal blooms can cause taste and odor problems in treated drinking water. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor University Lake. It is recommended that OWASA continue efforts to protect the water supply from nutrient loading that causes algal blooms. Water Quality Initiatives OWASA has continued to pursue funding to protect this watershed from further increases in nutrient loading. This watershed is also included in the NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, discussed under Little Creek in this chapter. The Local Watershed Plan for Morgan and Little Creeks, completed in 2004, may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm Chapter 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 70 6.4 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. 6.4.1 Jordan Haw River Watershed Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy All land uses and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-06 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 6 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-06 71 Chapter 7 Cape Fear River River Subbasin 03-06-07 Including: Cape Fear River, Neills Creek and Parkers Creek 7.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-07 contains streams that drain Triassic basin soils, the coastal plain and the Piedmont. The Cape Fear River starts in this subbasin at the confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers. Most of the watershed is forested, with extensive agriculture present. Development is occurring in the northern portion near Fuquay-Varina. Population is expected to grow by 435,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Most growth is expected in Wake County. There are 16 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 17.6 MGD (Figure 10). The largest are Progress Energy (10 MGD), Holly Springs WWTP (2.4 MGD), Erwin Mills (2.5 MGD), Shearon Harris (1.6 MGD) and Kenneth Creek WWTP (1.2 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 7.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 7.4 for other waters. There are two registered swine operations in this subbasin. There were 16 benthic community samples and four fish community samples (Figure 10 and Table 10) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from 15 ambient monitoring stations including eight MCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, one UCFRBA (Appendix V) station, one DWQ station, and two 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. Subbasin 03-06-07 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 415 mi2 Land area: 403 mi2 Water area: 12 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 106,866people Pop. Density: 257 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 69.6% Surface Water: 2.9% Urban: 1.6% Cultivated Crop: 21.4% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 4.6% Counties Chatham, Harnett, Lee and Wake Municipalities Angier, Broadway, Coats, Erwin, Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs, Lillington and Sanford 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 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 72 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-07 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 10 Avents Creek 18-13-(2) From a point 1.3 miles upstream of Harnett County SR 1418 to Cape Fear River 5.5 FW MilesWS-IV HQ S NR*BA399 NCE BB285 /2000G BB290 /2003E BF41 /2003GF BA399 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Buckhorn Creek 18-7-(2) From Norfolk Southern Railroad to backwaters of Harris Lake 2.2 FW MilesB S ND BB243 /2003G Buckhorn Creek (Harris Lake) 18-7-(11) From dam at Harris Lake to Cape Fear River 4.3 FW MilesC S NDBA397 NCE Buies Creek 18-18 From source to Cape Fear River 8.2 FW MilesWS-IV NR NR*BA411 NCE Low pH 9.1 BF12 /2003NR BA411 NCE BA413 NCE Low pH Unknown Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-07 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-07 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 10 CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(1) From junction of Haw River and Deep River to a point 3.2 FW MilesWS-IV I SBA391 NCE High pH 9.59 BA391 CE Chlor a 23.5 BA391 NCE High pH Chlorophyll a 18-(10.5) From a point 0.6 mile downstream of mouth of Daniels Creek to a point 0.2 mile dwonstream of Neils Creek 9.5 FW MilesWS-IV S ND BB437 /2003GF BB437 /2002NR BB437 /2003GF 18-(16.3) From a point 0.2 mile downstream of Neills Creek to Lillington water supply 0.5 FW MilesWS-IV CA S ND BB437 /2003GF BB437 /2002NR BB437 /2003GF 18-(16.7) From Lillington water supply intake to Upper Little River 9.0 FW MilesWS-IV S SBA407 NCE Turbidity 10 BB437 /2003GF BB437 /2002NR BB437 /2003GF BA407 NCE Turbidity Unknown 18-(20.7)a From Dunn water supply intake to Lower Little River 5.4 FW MilesWS-V S SBA431 NCE BA431 NCE 18-(4.5)a From a point 0.5 mile upstream of NC Hwy 42 to NC 0.5 FW MilesWS-IV CA I SBA391 NCE High pH 9.59 BA391 CE Chlor a 23.5 BA391 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown High pH Unknown Coopers Branch 18-15-1 From source to Hector Creek 2.9 FW MilesWS-IV HQ S ND BB284 /2003G East Buies Creek 18-18-1-(2) From a point 0.2 mile downstream of NC Hwy 55 to Buies Creek 6.2 FW MilesWS-IV I NR*BA412 CE Low DO 21.7 BA412 NCE Low pH 8.7 BA412 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Low pH Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-07 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-07 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 10 HAW RIVER 16-(42) From dam at B. Everett Jordan Lake to Cape Fear River (junction with Deep River) 4.3 FW MilesWS-IV S SBA256 NCE 25 BA257 NCE 13.6 BA256 NCE BA257 NCE Hector Creek 18-15-(0.7) From a point 1.1 miles upstream of Harnett County SR 1415 to Cape Fear River 8.9 FW MilesWS-IV HQ S ND BB289 /2003E BB292 /2003G BF40 /2003E Hughes Creek 18-4-7 From source to Lick Creek 3.9 FW MilesWS-IV NR ND BB213 /2003NR Kenneth Creek 18-16-1-(1) From source to Wake-Harnett County Line 4.9 FW MilesC S ND BB228 /2003G BB435 /1998NR 18-16-1-(2) From Wake-Harnett County Line to Neils Creek 3.9 FW MilesWS-IV I SBA404 NCE BB295 /2003P BF42 /2003G BA404 NCE Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Lick Creek 18-4-(2) From dam at Olhams Lake to Cape Fear River 10.3 FW MilesWS-IV I NR*BA388 CE Low DO 15.6 BA388 NCE Turbidity 7.8 BA388 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES Little Branch 18-7-6-1-1 From source to Big Branch 3.4 FW MilesC NR ND BB253 /2003NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-07 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-07 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 10 Neills Creek (Neals Creek) 18-16-(0.3) From source to a point 0.3 mile upstream of Wake- Harnett County Line 2.6 FW MilesC I ND BB294 /2003P Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Habitat Degradation Pasture Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 18-16-(0.7)a From a point 0.3 mile upstream of Wake-Harnett County Line to SR 1441 2.0 FW MilesWS-IV I ND BB294 /2003P Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Habitat Degradation Pasture Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 18-16-(0.7)b From SR 1441 to Kenneth Creek 1.3 FW MilesWS-IV I ND BB294 /2003P Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Habitat Degradation Pasture Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 18-16-(0.7)c1 From Kenneth Creek to 0.4 miles upstream of US 401 6.7 FW MilesWS-IV I ND BB283 /2003F 18-16-(0.7)c2 From US 401 to the Cape Fear River 1.6 FW MilesWS-IV S SBA401 NCE BA401 NCE Parkers Creek 18-9 From source to Cape Fear River 6.0 FW MilesC HQW S ND BB287 /2003NI BB297 /2003G Turbidity Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-07 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-07 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 10 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 65.1 FW Milesm NR 15.5 FW Milesm I 36.7 FW Milesm S 2.9 FW Milese NR 16.6 FW Milese ND 174.2 FW Miles ND 4,154.2 FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 27.9 FW MilesSm 30.2 FW MilesNR* m 252.9 FW MilesND 4,154.2 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 311.0 FW MilesIe 4,154.2 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-07 7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-07 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 (4,4145.7 acres and 199.8 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 117.4 stream miles (37.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 36.7 stream miles (11.8 percent) Impaired in this same category. 7.3 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. 7.3.1 Cape Fear River [AU# 18-(1), (4.5a), (10.5), (16.3), (16.7) and (20.7)] Current Status The Cape Fear River was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basinwide plan; however, the Cape Fear River [18-(1) and (4.5a)] from confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers to NC 42 (3.7 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because chlorophyll a exceeded the standard in 24 percent of samples at site BA391. Algal blooms have been common in this segment of the river upstream of Buckhorn Dam and pH levels were commonly elevated at site BA391 as well. Discharges in the Haw and Deep Rivers, as well as nutrient laden runoff from upstream urban and agricultural land uses, are contributing nutrients into this slow-moving segment. Algal activity was especially high during the summer of 2002 when flow was extremely low due to drought conditions. The Cape Fear River [18-(10.5), (16.3) and (16.7)] from downstream of Daniels Creek to the Upper Little River (19 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB437; however, turbidity was above the water quality standard in 10 percent of samples collected at site BA407. Runoff from upstream land uses in the Haw and Deep River watersheds are the likely source of the increased turbidity. The Cape Fear River [18-(20.7)a)] from Dunn water supply intake to Lower Little River (5.4 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA431. This segment of the Cape Fear River is Not Rated on an evaluated basis for recreation because the Erwin WWTP (NC0064521) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits. Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 79 2005 Recommendations DWQ and MCFRBA (Appendix V) will continue to monitor water quality in this segment of the Cape Fear River. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Segments 18-(1) and (4.5) 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. Water Quality Initiatives In 2000, Erwin received a $300,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to upgrade the WWTP including a new inflow channel, clarifier baffles, aeration equipment and sludge digestion storage equipment. 7.3.2 East Buies Creek [AU#18-18-1-(2)] Current Status East Buies Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 basinwide plan; however, East Buies Creek from NC 55 to Buies Creek (6.2 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below the standard in 21.7 percent of samples at site BA412. Samples collected at site BA412 were also below the pH standard in 8.7 percent of samples. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA412. 2005 Recommendations It is recommended that MCFRBA (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality in East Buies Creek and work with DWQ to determine if the low dissolved oxygen levels are natural in this watershed. Station BA412 has been moved because the previous location ceased flowing during summer months. DWQ will reassess data at the new station during the next assessment period to determine if dissolved levels exceed criteria. East Buies 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. 7.3.3 Gulf Creek [AU#18-18-1-(2)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that DWQ would resample Gulf Creek. Gulf Creek was Partially Supporting and Not Supporting in the 2000 plan. The benthic community ratings on Gulf Creek have been changed to Not Rated because criteria have not been developed to assign ratings to Triassic basin streams. This stream will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 7.3.4 Kenneth Creek [AU#18-16-1-(1) and (2)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that local programs work to protect Kenneth Creek and that DWQ would resample the creek. It was also recommended that any new or expanding discharges to Kenneth Creek meet permit limits of 5 mg/l BOD5 and 2 mg/l NH3-N. Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 80 Current Status Kenneth Creek [18-16-1-(1)] from source to Wake-Harnett county line (4.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good benthic community rating at site BB228. However, Kenneth Creek WWTP (NC0028118) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in this segment and in the downstream segments. Kenneth Creek [18-16-1-(2)] from Wake-Harnett county line to Neills Creek (3.9 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB295. No criteria were exceeded at site BA404, and there was a Good fish community rating at site BF42. This segment is Supporting recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were not exceeded at site BA295; however, Senters Rest Home (NC0048101) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. Senters is under a special order consent (SOC# S94026) that expires in March 2006. 2005 Recommendations It is recommended that MCFRBA (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality in Kenneth Creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Segment 18-16-1-(1) will be removed from the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because of the improved biological community. Segment 18-16-1-(2) will remain on the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Water Quality Initiatives The NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Harris Lake and Tributaries, completed in 2004, includes Kenneth Creek. This plan area encompasses three local watersheds that are parallel drainages to the Cape Fear River and are located within portions of Chatham, Wake, and Harnett Counties in the North Carolina Piedmont. The total land area is approximately 180 square miles. The watersheds include parts of the towns of Apex, Holly Springs, and Fuquay-Varina and the portion of Raven Rock State Park north and east of the Cape Fear River. This watershed is approximately 46 square miles in size, extending south from the Town of Fuquay-Varina to Lillington, and east from US 401 to the Town of Angier. It is the most urbanized of the three watersheds in the study area. Kenneth Creek is a tributary to Neills Creek, which flows to the Cape Fear River near Lillington. A portion of Kenneth Creek was rated as impaired on the 2000 303(d) list. The water resources in the study area exhibit signs of stress with future development likely to cause additional impacts. Given the vulnerable condition of these natural resources, it is vital to expedite implementation of the recommended efforts. The Local Watershed Plan for Middle Cape Fear and Kenneth/Harris Creeks may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kenneth/Harris-Kenneth.htm Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 81 7.3.5 Lick Creek [AU#18-4-(2)] Current Status Lick Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basinwide plan; however, Lick Creek from Olhams Lake Dam to the Cape Fear River (10.3 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below the standard in 16 percent of samples at site BA388. Turbidity was also above the standard in 8 percent of samples. Lick Creek is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA388. 2005 Recommendations It is recommended that MCFRBA (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality in Lick Creek and work with DWQ to determine if the low dissolved oxygen levels are natural in this watershed. Lick 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. 7.3.6 Neills Creek [AU#18-16-(0.3), (0.7)a, b and c1] Current Status Neills Creek was Fully Supporting and Not Rated in the 2000 basin plan; however, Neills Creek [18-16-(0.3), (0.7)a, b and c1] from source to US 401 (12.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Poor and Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB294 and BB283. Site BB294 declined from Good-Fair to Poor in 2003. This decline was initially thought to be due to the drought in 2002, but other area streams did not show this decline. The stream may have been impacted by a toxic spill or other disturbance that prevented recovery of the benthic community. Neills Creek [18-16-(0.7)c2] from US 401 to the Cape Fear River (1.6 miles) is Supporting aquatic life and recreation because no criteria were exceeded at site BA401. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Neills Creek to evaluate recovery and investigate other disturbances that may have caused the decline in benthic community rating. It is recommended that MCFRBA (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality in Neills Creek. Segments 18-16-(0.3), (0.7)a, b and c1 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 The NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Harris Lake and Tributaries, completed in 2004, includes Neills Creek. The plan findings are discussed under Kenneth Creek. The Final Local Watershed Plan for Middle Cape Fear and Kenneth/Harris Creeks may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kenneth/Harris-Kenneth.htm Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 82 7.4 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. 7.4.1 Avents Creek [AU# 18-13-(2)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Avents Creek from upstream of SR 1418 to the Cape Fear River (5.5 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA399. DWQ will determine if intensive sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X). Water Quality Initiatives The NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Harris Lake and Tributaries includes Avents Creek, Parkers Creek and Hector Creek. This watershed is approximately 54 square miles in size, and is located almost entirely within Harnett County. Raven Rock State Park is located along the Cape Fear River on the southern boundary of the watershed. There are no municipalities within the watershed. Most of the land area is part of the water supply watershed for the Town of Lillington, located farther downstream along the Cape Fear River. The three mainstem streams in this watershed, Parkers Creek, Avents Creek and Hector Creek, all have High Quality Waters designations. The Final Local Watershed Plan for Middle Cape Fear and Kenneth/Harris Creeks may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kenneth/Harris-Kenneth.htm Current Status and 2005 Recommendations 7.4.2 Daniels Creek [AU# 18-10-(2)] Daniels Creek from the source to the Cape Fear River (8.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life on an evaluated basis because Broadway WWTP (NC0059242) had significant violations of dissolved oxygen permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in the creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 7.4.3 Haw River [AU# 16-(42)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Haw River from the Jordan Dam to the Cape Fear River (4.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA256 or BA257. However, Moncure Plywood (NC0023442) had significant violations of dissolved oxygen permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in this segment. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 83 7.4.4 Shaddox Creek [AU# 16-43] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Shaddox Creek from source to Haw River (8.1 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life on an evaluated basis because Sierrapine Limited (NC0040701) had significant violations of total suspended solids permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in this stream. The facility installed screens that have solved the TSS violations. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 7.4.5 Utley Creek [AU# 18-7-5.5] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Utley Creek from source to Harris Lake (4.6 miles) was Not Rated in the 2000 plan, and no data were collected to assign a use support rating during this assessment period. Earlier studies indicated the Holly Springs WWTP was a significant contributor of nutrients to the creek that could cause algal blooms and subsequent fish kills downstream. Because of the water quality problems noted above, the 2000 basin plan recommended that Holly Springs pursue other alternatives to a discharge into Utley Creek. It was also recommended that land use planning be used to prevent further increases in nutrient loading from the developing watershed. DWQ continues to recommend that Holly Springs find another wastewater disposal alternative. 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 NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Harris Lake and Tributaries includes Utley Creek. This watershed is approximately 80 square miles in size, extending south from the Town of Apex to the Cape Fear River and east from the Chatham/Wake County line to the Town of Holly Springs. Both Apex and Holly Springs span the ridgeline that separates the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins. The watershed contains Harris Lake, an impoundment of Buckhorn Creek, which is used by Progress Energy’s Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant for cooling. The Local Watershed Plan for Middle Cape Fear and Kenneth/Harris Creeks may be viewed at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kenneth/Harris-Kenneth.htm Chapter 7 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 84 Chapter 8 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 Including: East Fork Deep River, West Fork Deep River, Deep River, Randleman Reservoir, Richland Creek, Hickory Creek, Muddy Creek and Oak Hollow Lake 8.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-08 is a piedmont watershed containing the headwaters of the Deep River. The watershed is forested in the south, but has large developed areas in the northern portion. Development is occurring between Greensboro and High Point. Population is expected to grow by 265,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are 23 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 29.4 MGD (Figure 11). The largest are Eastside WWTP (16 MGD), Ward WTP (10 MGD) and Randleman WWTP (1.7 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 8.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 8.4 for other waters. There are five registered dairy operations in this subbasin. There were 16 benthic community samples and five fish community samples (Figure 11 and Table 11) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from 14 ambient monitoring stations including four UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, four DWQ stations, three DWQ special study stations, two Greensboro stations, and two shared ambient stations. One reservoir was 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 03-06-08 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 179 mi2 Land area: 177 mi2 Water area: 2 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 91,181people Pop. Density: 510 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 58.4% Surface Water: 1.7% Urban: 13.0% Cultivated Crop: 1.5% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 25.4% Counties Forsyth, Guilford and Randolph Municipalities Archdale, Greensboro, Highpoint, Kernersville and Randleman 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 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 85 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-08 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 11 Bull Run 17-5-(1) From a source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth 7.2 FW MilesWS-IV *S SBA763 NCE BF13 /1999GF BA763 NCE 17-5-(2) From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to Randleman Reservoir, Deep River 0.6 FW MilesWS-IV CA S ND BF30 /2003GF DEEP RIVER 17-(10.5)a From dam at Randleman Reservoir to US 220 Business 1.6 FW MilesC S NR*BA299 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BA299 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Turbidity Unknown 17-(10.5)b From US 220 business to Subbasin 03-06-08 and 03-06- 09 boundary 2.2 FW MilesC S NR*BA301 NCE Turbidity 8.3 BA301 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Turbidity Unknown 17-(4)a From dam at Oakdale Cotton Mills, Inc. to SR 1113 2.0 FW MilesWS-IV CA NR NR*BA273 NCE BB239 /1998F BA273 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 17-(4)b From Kivett Drive to Coltrane Mill Road 6.6 FW MilesWS-IV CA NR NR*BA277 CE Arsenic 17.6 BA278 CE Low DO 10.1 BB248 /2003GF BB251 /2003F BA277 CE BA277 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Arsenic Unknown 17-(4)c From Coltrane Mill Road to dam at Randleman Reservoir (located 1.6 mile upstream of US Hwy 220 Business) 7.4 FW MilesWS-IV CA NR NR*BA287 NCE BB429 /2003GF BA287 NCE BA292 NCE BA743 CE BA744 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown DEEP RIVER(including High Point Lake at normal pool elevation) 17-(1) From source in backwaters of High Point Lake to dam at High Point Lake(City of High Point water supply intake) 263.3 FW AcresWS-IV CA I NDBL19 CE Chlor a 20 Chlorophyll a Pasture Chlorophyll a Agriculture Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-08 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-08 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 11 East Fork Deep River 17-2-(0.3)a From source to Thatcher Road 1.9 FW MilesWS-IV *S ND BB414 /2003GF Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 17-2-(0.3)b From Thatcher Road to a point 0.4 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 1541 4.8 FW MilesWS-IV *I IBA267 CE Turbidity 10.9 BB312 /2003F BB313 /2003F BA267 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES 17-2-(0.7) From a point 0.4 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 1541 to High Point Lake, Deep River 0.8 FW MilesWS-IV CA I NDBA267 CE Turbidity 10.9 BA267 CE Hickory Creek 17-8.5-(1)a From source to Rolling Brook Drive 3.0 FW MilesWS-IV *I ND BB60 /2003F 17-8.5-(1)b From Rolling Brook Drive to a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth 1.3 FW MilesWS-IV *S ND BB240 /2003GF 17-8.5-(3) From a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth to Randleman Reservoir, Deep River 0.9 FW MilesWS-IV CA S ND BB247 /2003GF Habitat Degradation Jenny Branch 17-8-2 From source to Reddicks Creek 3.2 FW MilesWS-IV *I ND BB64 /2003F Long Branch 17-2-1-(1) From source to a point 0.5 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 1541 3.5 FW MilesWS-IV *I ND BB87 /2003F 17-2-1-(2) From a point 0.5 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 1541 to East Fork Deep River 0.5 FW MilesWS-IV CA I ND BB87 /2003F CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-08 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-08 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 11 Muddy Creek 17-9-(1) From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth 6.9 FW MilesWS-IV *NR I BA745 CE Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES 17-9-(2) From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to Randleman Reservoir 0.8 FW MilesWS-IV CA NR NR* BB339 /2003F BF50 /2003G Reddicks Creek 17-8-(0.5)a From source to Groomtown Road 5.1 FW MilesWS-IV *I ND BB59 /2003F Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 17-8-(0.5)b From Groomtown Road to a point 0.9 mile upstream of mouth 1.8 FW MilesWS-IV *S SBA764 NCE BB77 /2003GF BA764 NCE 17-8-(3) From a point 0.9 mile upstream of mouth to Randleman Reservoir, Deep River 1.6 FW MilesWS-IV CA S SBA764 NCE BA764 NCE Richland Creek 17-7-(0.5) From source to a point 0.4 mile upstream of Guilfors 6.4 FW MilesWS-IV *NR IBA275 NCE Turbidity 7.3 BA275 CE BA275 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Turbidity MS4 NPDES 17-7-(4) From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Guilford County SR 1154 to Randleman Reservoir, Deep River 1.7 FW MilesWS-IV CA I ND BF31 /2003F Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES West Fork Deep River 17-3-(0.3) From source to a point 0.3 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 1850 5.4 FW MilesWS-IV *S ND BB333 /2003GF BB333 /2003GF BB333 /1998GF Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-08 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-08 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 11 West Fork Deep River(Oak Hollow Reservoir) 17-3-(0.7)a From a point 0.3 mile downstream of Guilford County SR 1850 to SR 1818 0.5 FW MilesWS-IV CA I NR*BA262 CE Turbidity 22.9 BA262 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES 17-3-(0.7)b From SR 1818 to dam at Oak Hollow Reservoir 705.4 FW AcresWS-IV CA S NDBL22 NCE 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 24.3 FW Milesm NR 30.1 FW Milesm I 23.1 FW Milesm S705.4FW Acresm I263.3FW Acresm ND 28.3 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 10.5 FW MilesSm 21.1 FW MilesNR* m 18.1 FW MilesIm 56.1 FW MilesND 968.7 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 105.8 FW MilesIe 968.7 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-08 8.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-08 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 (968.7 acres and 107.2 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 77.5 stream miles (73.3 percent) and 968.7 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 23.1 stream miles (21.8 percent) and 263.3 acres (27.2 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. There were also 18.1 miles (17.1percent) Impaired for recreation in this subbasin. 8.3 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. 8.3.1 Deep River [AU# 17-(3.3), (3.7), (4)a, b, c, (10.5)a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that the Deep River be resampled and that a TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria be developed. Current Status The Deep River [17-(4)a] from dam at Oakdale Cotton Mill to SR 1113 (2 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because this segment will be inundated by Randleman Reservoir. The fish community rating at site BB239 was Fair, and dissolved oxygen was low 24 percent of samples collected at site BA273. Data from these sites suggest water quality problems that would result in an Impaired rating for a flowing stream in the piedmont. The Deep River [17-(4)b] from SR 1113 (Kivett Drive) to SR 1921 (Coltrane Mill Road) (6.6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because this segment will be inundated by Randleman Reservoir. Dissolved oxygen violated the standard in 10 percent of samples collected at site BA278. Data from this site suggest water quality problems that would result in an Impaired rating for a flowing stream in the piedmont. This segment is Not Rated for recreation, although the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 91 Dissolved oxygen also violated water quality standards in 10 percent of samples, and arsenic violated water quality standards in 17.6 percent of samples at site BA277. The benthic community rating at site BB251 was also Fair. High Point Eastside WWTP (NC0024210) had significant violations of the biological oxygen demand permit limit during the assessment period, which may have contributed to the low dissolved oxygen levels noted above. High Point Eastside has nearly completed an expansion and upgrade of the facility to 26 MGD and experienced much better operations in 2004. This discharge will be relocated to the main body of the reservoir and sites BB251 and BA277 will be inundated by Randleman Reservoir; therefore, these sites were not used to assign use support ratings to Richland Creek or the Deep River. The Deep River [17-(4)c] from SR 1921 to Randleman dam (7.4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because this segment will be inundated by Randleman Reservoir. The benthic community rating at site BB429 has been Good-Fair since 1983. The smell of sewage has been noted at this site and the water is turbid after heavy rains. There were also indicators of low dissolved oxygen at this site. Hidden Forest Estates WWTP (NC0065358) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. This segment is Not Rated for recreation, although the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated. The WWTP has had only one violation since 2003. A TMDL developed for these three segments called for a 75 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria in order the meet the standard. Sources of fecal coliform bacteria include the Greensboro and High Point MS4s. The Deep River [17-(10.5)a] from dam at Randleman Reservoir to US 220 Business (1.6 miles) is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA299. These segments of the Deep River were Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan. The Deep River [17- (10.5)b] from US 220 to subbasin boundary (2.2 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA301. The Randleman WWTP (NC0025445) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will monitor Randleman Reservoir as part of the lakes monitoring program, collecting appropriate data to assign use support ratings in reservoirs. It is recommended that High Point and Greensboro address water quality problems identified above through their respective stormwater programs, including the reductions in fecal coliform bacteria specified in the TMDL. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Segments 17-(3.3), (3.7), (4)a, b and c will be inundated by the Randleman Reservoir project. These segments will be considered for removal from the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because the sites used to initially assign use support ratings will not be resampled due to inundation. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 92 8.3.2 Deep River (High Point Lake) [AU#17-(1)] Current Status High Point Lake was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin; however, High Point Lake (263.3 acres) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because 20 percent of chlorophyll a samples violated the water quality standard. Nutrient levels in the reservoir were high, and the lake has been hypereutrophic as noted in previous years. Dissolved oxygen has been low in the lake, and High Point has installed a forced air destratification system to address the problem. Algal blooms have been noted and numerous complaints have been received of taste, odor and aesthetic problems in treated drinking water. Filamentous algae have formed in thick mats that have clogged water intakes and fouled boat motors. Pesticides have also been a noted problem in the lake. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor High Point Lake. It is recommended that High Point and Greensboro address water quality problems identified above through their respective stormwater programs, including reductions in nutrient loading that are driving algal blooms in High Point Lake. High Point Lake will be added to the 303(d) list, which will require TMDL development within 8-13 years of listing. Once a TMDL is developed and approved, Greensboro and High Point will be required to address the pollutant(s) through their stormwater and collection systems permits. 8.3.3 East Fork Deep River [AU# 17-2-(0.3)a and b and (0.7)] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that the East Fork Deep River be resampled and TMDLs be developed for fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity and to work with the City of Greensboro stormwater program to improve water quality. Current Status The East Fork Deep River [17-2-(0.3)a] from source to Thatcher Road (1.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB414. This segment is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at sites monitored by PTCOG (discussed below). The East Fork Deep River [17-(0.3)b and (0.7)] from Thatcher Road to High Point Lake (5.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB313 and BB312. Also the turbidity standard was violated in 10.9 percent samples at site BA267. A TMDL stressor study completed in 2003 found that sedimentation, habitat degradation and scour from storm flows were stressors to the benthic community. This lower segment is also Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA267 and at sites in the watershed sampled as part of a bacteria source tracking study by PTCOG (Appendix V). The approved TMDL called for between a 63 and 75 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria and a 62 percent reduction in total suspended solids in order to meet the turbidity standard. Sources of fecal coliform include the Greensboro and High Point sewer systems and other urban watershed inputs. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 93 A stressor survey conducted in 2003 found habitat degradation caused by modified watershed hydrology resulting in streambank erosion and sedimentation continues to stress the benthic community in East Fork Deep River. The survey also noted storm sewer discharges into the stream. The watershed drains heavily urbanized areas of Greensboro including the Piedmont Triad International Airport as well many petroleum storage sites. DWQ performed a statistical trend analysis at site BA267 using total nitrogen, total phosphorus and total suspended solids data collected from 1990 to 2004. There was a significant decrease in total phosphorus of 0.0033 mg/l per year in East Fork of Deep River. There were no trends noted in the other parameters. Two unnamed tributaries to East Fork Deep River were sampled in 2000 to evaluate impacts from the Millwood School Road construction. The sites were Not Rated, but comparisons of upstream and downstream sites indicated a significant decline in water quality downstream of the construction. 2005 Recommendations DWQ and the UCFRBA will continue to monitor these segments of the East Fork Deep River. It is recommended that High Point and Greensboro address water quality problems identified above through their respective stormwater programs, including the reductions in fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity specified in the TMDL. Greensboro and High Point will be required to submit information on outfalls and other potential sources of TSS and fecal coliform bacteria, as well as a monitoring plan to DWQ as required in their stormwater permits. Segment 17-2-(0.3)a will be removed from the 303(d) list. Segments 17-2-(0.3)b and 17-2-(0.7) will remain on the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. 8.3.4 Hickory Creek [AU# 17-8.5-(1)a, b and (3)] Current Status Hickory Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 plan; however, Hickory Creek [17-8.5-(1)a] from source to Rolling Brook Drive (3 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB60. Hickory Creek [17-8.5-(1)b and (3)] from Rolling Brook Drive to the Deep River (2.2 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at sites BB240, BB247 and BB248, and a Good fish community rating at site BF29. Southern Elementary School (NC0038091) and Crown Mobile WWTP (NC0055255) had significant violations of dissolved oxygen permit limits, and Southern Guilford High School (NC0038229) had significant violations of pH permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. These facilities discharge into unnamed tributaries of Hickory Creek upstream of BB248. Southern Guilford High School is under a special order of consent (SOC# S91039) that expires in June 2005. The schools are expected to be connected to the City of Greensboro collection system and cease discharging by March 2005. Crown Mobile WWTP has had operational problems and has made recent upgrades to help improve treatment. While these facilities are small in size, they could have negative impacts on water quality especially during low flow years. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 94 A stressor survey conducted in 2003 found that high flows after rain events were impacting aquatic habitat in Hickory Creek. The survey also noted large amounts of periphyton on rocks in the upper watershed and high dissolved oxygen levels indicated algal activity. Conductivity was also high in the creek. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Hickory Creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. It is recommended that Crown Mobile continue to improve treatment to avoid permit violations. The lower segment of Hickory Creek (sites BB248 and BF29) will be inundated by Randleman Reservoir and will be sampled by the lake monitoring program in the future. Segment 17-8.5-(1)b will be removed from the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because of the improved benthic community rating and 17-8.5-(3) will be removed because of the Good fish community rating. Segement 17-8.5-(1)a will be added to the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. 8.3.5 Jenny Branch [AU# 17-8-2] Current Status Jenny Branch was Not Rated in the 2000 plan; however, Jenny Branch from source to Reddicks Creek (3.2 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB64. A TMDL stressor study completed in 2003 found that sedimentation, habitat degradation and urban runoff were stressors to the benthic. 8.3.6 Long Branch [AU# 17-2-1-(1) and (2)] Current Status Long Branch was Not Rated in the 2000 plan; however, Long Branch from source to East Fork Deep River (4 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB87. Greensboro Colonial Pipeline Terminal (NC0031046) and Williams Terminals (NC0074578) had significant violations of the total phenolics permit limit during the assessment period, which could have adversely affected water quality in Long Branch. Colonial Pipeline may have been experiencing reporting problems. Williams Terminals did not experience any violations in 2004. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Jenny Branch and it will be added to the 303(d) list. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Long Branch. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. DWQ will work with Colonial Pipeline to evaluate reporting and data entry procedures to assure that phenolics permit limits are being properly assessed. Long Branch will be added the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 95 8.3.7 Muddy Creek [AU# 17-9-(1) and (2)] Current Status Muddy Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, Muddy Creek from source to Randleman Reservoir (7.7 miles) is currently Not Rated for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB339. Instream habitat was sparse; banks eroded, and the water was turbid at BB339. Some improvements were noted in the fish community, rated Good at site BF50. Sites BB339, BF50, BA743, BA744 and BA292 will be inundated by Randleman Reservoir. Muddy Creek is Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA745 during a special study of Muddy Creek. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Muddy Creek and it will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because of the recreation impairment. A TMDL (Chapter 35) was approved in May 2004 that recommended an 80 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria loading into Muddy Creek. 8.3.8 Reddicks Creek [AU# 17-8-(0.5) a] Current Status Reddicks Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 plan; however, Reddicks Creek from source to Groomtown Road (5.1 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB59. A TMDL stressor study completed in 2003 found that sedimentation, habitat degradation and urban runoff were stressors to the benthic community. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Reddicks Creek and it 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. 8.3.9 Richland Creek [AU# 17-7-(0.5) and (4)] 2000 Recommendations DWQ recommended resampling of Richland Creek to determine stressors to the biological community. It was also recommended that a TMDL be developed for fecal coliform bacteria. Current Status Richland Creek from source to Randleman Reservoir (8.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair fish community rating at site BF31. Streambanks were steep and habitat was sparse. These segments are also Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA275. A TMDL (Chapter 35) was approved in May 2004 that recommended an 82 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria loading into Richland Creek. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 96 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Richland Creek and it will remain on the 303(d) list. DWQ will further investigate the sources of arsenic in the watershed. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. DWQ recommends that High Point Eastside continue to improve operations and treatment at this facility. 8.3.10 West Fork Deep River [AU# 17-3-(0.7)a] Current Status The West Fork Deep River was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan; however, West Fork Deep River [17-3-(0.7)a] from SR 1850 to SR 1818 (0.5 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 23 percent of samples at site BA262. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor West Fork Deep River and it will be added to the 303(d) list. Chapter 8 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 97 Chapter 9 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 Including: Hasketts Creek, Deep River, Polecat Creek and Sandy Creek 9.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-09 is mostly in the Carolina slate belt with a small portion in the piedmont. Most of the watershed is forest and pasture land. Development is occurring around Asheboro. Population is expected to grow by 220,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are 13 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 9.8 MGD (Figure 12). The largest is Asheboro WWTP (9 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 9.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 9.4 for other waters. There are six registered dairy operations, one registered cattle operation, one registered poultry operation and seven swine operations in this subbasin. There were 11 benthic community samples and three fish community samples (Figure 12 and Table 12) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from seven ambient monitoring stations including three UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, two DWQ stations and two shared ambient stations. Two 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 03-06-09 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 446 mi2 Land area: 445 mi2 Water area: 1 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 80,068 people Pop. Density: 180 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 68.7% Surface Water: 0.6% Urban: 1.1% Cultivated Crop: 2.8% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 26.9% Counties Chatham, Guilford, Moore and Randolph Municipalities Asheboro, Franklinville, Liberty, Ramseur and Seagrove 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 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 98 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-09 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 12 Brush Creek 17-23a From source to Little Brush Creek 19.0 FW MilesC S ND BF24 /2003G 17-23b From Little Brush Creek to Deep River 5.0 FW MilesC S ND BB113 /2003GF DEEP RIVER 17-(10.5)d From Haskett Creek to Brush Creek 20.9 FW MilesC S NR*BA309 NCE Chlor a 7.4 BA317 NCE Turbidity 8.4 BA318 NCE Turbidity 9.8 BA320 NCE BB452 /2003G BA309 NCE BA318 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown Turbidity Unknown Habitat Degradation Unknown Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 17-(10.5)e1 From Brush Creek to Subbasin 03-06-09 and 03-06-10 boundary 6.7 FW MilesC I SBA322 CE Turbidity 10.9 BA322 NCE Turbidity Unknown Fork Creek 17-25 From source to Deep River 15.1 FW MilesC S ND BF23 /2003G Haskett Creek 17-12a From source to SR 2149 6.3 FW MilesC I NR*BA304 NCE Turbidity 7.5 BB302 /2003P BB370 /1998P BB370 /2003F BB426 /2003P BB428 /2003P BA304 NCE Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 17-12b From SR 2149 to Deep River 1.3 FW MilesC I NR*BA307 NCE BB363 /2003P BB363 /1998P BA307 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-09 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-09 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 12 Penwood Branch 17-12-1 From source to Haskett Creek 6.1 FW MilesC I ND BB378 /2003F BB382 /2003F Polecat Creek 17-11-(1)b From Ut at Cone Mills Club to a point 0.4 mile downstream of Randolph County SR 2116 16.4 FW MilesWS-III S ND BF53 /2003G Richland Creek 17-22 From source to Deep River 14.6 FW MilesC S ND BB409 /2003G Sandy Creek 17-16-(1)a From source to SR 2495 16.1 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB398 /2003G BB398 /2002G BB398 /2001E BB398 /2003G BF62 /1999E BF62 /2003G 17-16-(1)b From SR 2495 to a point 0.6 mile upstream of NC Hwy 22 19.3 FW AcresWS-III NR NDBL20 NCE Chlor a 66 Chlorophyll a Agriculture Chlorophyll a Impervious Surface 17-16-(3.5) From a point 0.6 mile upstream of NC Hwy 22 to Ramseur water supply 4.6 FW AcresWS-III CA NR NDBL21 NCE Chlor a 66 Chlorophyll a Agriculture Chlorophyll a Impervious Surface CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-09 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-09 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 12 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 107.1 FW Milesm I 20.4 FW Milesm NR 23.9 FW Acresm NR 4.2 FW Milese ND 182.4 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 6.7 FW MilesSm 28.5 FW MilesNR* m 279.0 FW MilesND 23.9 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 314.2 FW MilesIe 23.9 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-09 9.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-09 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 (23.9 acres and 68.9 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 127.5 stream miles (40.6 percent) and 23.9 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 20.4 stream miles (6.5 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 9.3 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. 9.3.1 Deep River [AU# 17-(10.5)d and e1] Current Status The Deep River [17-(10.5)d] from Haskett Creek to Brush Creek (20.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good benthic community rating at site BB452. There was a lack of pool and riffles, but streambank and riparian areas were intact. Turbidity was above the water quality standard in 9.8 of samples collected at site BA318. Chlorophyll a was above the standard in 7.4 percent of samples at site BA309, which is in a backwater of a dam just downstream of Hasketts Creek. The Ramseur WWTP (NC0026565) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. The WWTP has had no violations since 2003. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at sites BA309 and BA318. The Deep River [17-(10.5)e1] from Brush Creek to the subbasin boundary (6.7 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated at site BA322 in 11 percent of samples collected during the assessment period. Site BA322 is subbasin 03-06-10. 2005 Recommendations DWQ and the UCFRBA will continue to monitor these segments of the Deep River. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 103 Segment 17-(10.5e1) 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 1998, Ramseur received a $344,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to rehabilitate 7,500 linear feet of the wastewater collection system in order to reduce inflow and infiltration that was causing operational problems at the plant. In 1999, Franklinville received a $1,052,000 CWMTF grant to replace the WWTP and install UV disinfection and backup emergency power. In 2003, Ramseur received a $278,000 CWMTF grant to rehabilitate another 3,000 linear feet of the wastewater collection system and to purchase a backup generator. 9.3.2 Haskett Creek [AU#17-12a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that these segments of Hasketts Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach to determine problem parameters. Current Status Haskett Creek [17-12a] from source to SR 2149 (6.3 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Poor and Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB426, BB428, BB302 and BB370. Turbidity was also above the water quality standard in 7.5 percent of samples collected at site BA304. This segment is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA304. Haskett Creek [17-12b] from SR 2149 to the Deep River (1.3 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB363. The Asheboro WWTP (NC0026123) had significant violations of chlorine permit limits in the last two years of the assessment period. Instream toxicity testing downstream of the WWTP in August 2003 indicated no toxicity, and the facility has had only one violation since 2003. A stressor study completed in the Hasketts Creek watershed indicated that habitat degradation from urban runoff were stressors to the benthic community. Streambank erosion, inadequate riparian areas and channelization were also noted stressors. Hasketts Creek is subjected to rapid increases in flow after rainfall events due to urban runoff. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Hasketts Creek watershed. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Refer to Chapter 31 for more information and recommendations for urban streams. Both segments will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 9.3.3 Penwood Branch [AU#17-12-1] Current Status Penwood Branch was Not Rated in the 2000 plan; however, Penwood Branch [17-12-1] from source to Hasketts Creek (6.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Poor benthic community ratings at sites BB378 and BB382. A stressor study completed in the Hasketts Creek watershed (including Penwood Branch) indicated that habitat degradation from urban runoff Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 104 were stressors to the benthic community. Streambank erosion, inadequate riparian areas and channelization were also noted stressors. Hasketts Creek is subjected to rapid increases in flow after rainfall events due to urban runoff. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Penwood Branch watershed. Refer to Chapter 31 for more information and recommendations for urban streams. Penwood Branch 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. 9.4 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. 9.4.1 Polecat Creek [AU#17-11-1a] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Polecat Creek from source to UT at Cone Mills Club (2.8 miles) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis for aquatic life because Monroe Mobile Home Park (NC0055913) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits in the last two years of the assessment period that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. The facility continued to have occasional violations of BOD in 2004. The lower 16.4 miles are Supporting aquatic life because of a Good fish community rating at site BF53. DWQ will continue to monitor the Polecat Creek. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 9.4.2 Sandy Creek (Sandy Creek Reservior) [AU# 17-19-(1)b and (3.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Sandy Creek Reservoir (23.9 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because 33 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. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. Water Quality Initiatives In 1997, the Piedmont Land Conservancy received a $134,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 144 acres of permanent easements in this watershed (Chapter 34). Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 105 9.4.3 UT at Cone Mills Club [AU#17-11-2-(2)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations UT at Cone Mills Club from Cone Mills Lake Club Dam to Polecat Creek (1.4 miles) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis because the Woodlake Mobile Home Park (NC0023299) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits in the last two years of the assessment period that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. The facility has new owners that hired a new operator and plan to upgrade the facility. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the permit violations. Chapter 9 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-09 106 Chapter 10 Cape Fear River River Subbasin 03-06-10 Including: Deep River, McLendons Creek, Bear Creek, Cabin Creek and Mill Creek 10.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-10 is primarily in the Carolina slate belt, with some streams draining Triassic basin soils and the Sandhills. Almost the entire watershed is forested with very few urban areas. Population is expected to grow by 105,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020; however, most of the growth will be in portions of the counties outside of this subbasin. There are three individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 1.9 MGD (Figure 13). The largest is Robbins WWTP (1.3 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 10.3 for Impaired waters. There is one registered dairy, one registered cattle operation and three registered swine operations in this subbasin. There were 10 benthic community samples and six fish community samples (Figure 13 and Table 13) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from five ambient monitoring stations including one UCFRBA (Appendix V) station, two DWQ stations and two shared ambient station. One reservoir was 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 03-06-10 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 448 mi2 Land area: 446 mi2 Water area: 2 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 45,209 people Pop. Density: 101 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 80.0% Surface Water: 0.9% Urban: 0.4% Cultivated Crop: 0.9% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 17.9% Counties Chatham, Montgomery, Moore and Randolph Municipalities Biscoe, Carthage, Robbins and Star 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 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 107 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-10 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 13 Bear Creek 17-26-(1) From a source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of Cabin Creek 14.9 FW MilesWS-III S ND BF38 /2003G 17-26-(4.5) From a point 0.5 mile upstream of Cabin Creek to Robbins water supply intake 0.2 FW MilesWS-III CA S SBA344 NCE BB152 /2003G BA344 NCE 17-26-(6) From Robbins water supply intake to Deep River 6.3 FW MilesC S SBA344 NCE BB152 /2003G BA344 NCE Habitat Degradation Unknown Buffalo Creek 17-28 From source to Deep River 16.5 FW MilesC S ND BB112 /2003GF BF5 /2003G Cabin Creek 17-26-5-(1)a From source to Cotton Creek 8.7 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB279 /2003G BB279 /2002NR BB279 /2003GF 17-26-5-(1)c From SR 1281 to Moore County SR 1434 10.5 FW MilesWS-III S ND BF32 /1999E BF32 /1999E BF32 /1999G BF32 /2003GF CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-10 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-10 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 13 Cotton Creek 17-26-5-3a From source to Center Street 0.3 FW MilesWS-III I NR*BA339 NCE BB276 /2001P BA339 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES 17-26-5-3b From Center Street to SR 1371 2.5 FW MilesWS-III I NR*BA339 NCE BB276 /2001P BB277 /1998P BA339 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES 17-26-5-3c From SR 1371 to Cabin Creek 3.7 FW MilesWS-III I ND BB274 /2001F BB275 /1998F Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES DEEP RIVER 17-(10.5)e2 From Subbasin 03-06-09 and 03-06-10 boundary to Grassy Creek 2.8 FW MilesC I SBA322 CE Turbidity 10.9 BB298 /2002G BB298 /2003E BA322 NCE Turbidity Unknown 17-(25.7) From Grassy Creek to a point 1.0 mile upstream of Tysons Creek 12.4 FW MilesC HQW S SBA347 NCE Turbidity 7.94 BA347 NCE Turbidity Unknown 17-(32.5)a From mouth of Big Governors Creek to Carbonton Dam 4.0 FW MilesWS-IV I NDBA355 NCE Low DO 6.8 BA355 CE Chlor a 13.2 BA355 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown Indian Creek 17-35 From source to Deep River 7.4 FW MilesWS-IV I ND BF59 /2003F Habitat Degradation Land Clearing Killets Creek 17-30-3-(1) From source to dam at Carthages water supply reservoir 8.0 FW AcresWS-III CA NR NDBL23 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH Mill Creek 17-26-5-4 From source to Cabin Creek 11.7 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB167 /2003G CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-10 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-10 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 13 Wet Creek 17-26-5-5 From source to Cabin Creek 10.6 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB119 /2003G BF6 /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 91.9 FW Milesm I 20.7 FW Milesm NR 8.0 FW Acresm NR 1.2 FW Milese ND 283.3 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 21.7 FW MilesSm 2.8 FW MilesNR* m 372.5 FW MilesND 8.0 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 397.1 FW MilesIe 8.0 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-10 10.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-10 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 (8 acres and 165.4 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 112.6 stream miles (28.4 percent) and 8 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 20.7 stream miles (5.2 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 10.3 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. 10.3.1 Cabin Creek [AU#17-26-5-(1)b and c] Current Status Cabin Creek [17-26-5-(1)b] from Cotton Creek to SR 1281 (1.2 miles) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis for aquatic life because it is impacted by the Star WWTP discharging to Cotton Creek (see below). The conductivity has been up to ten times higher than in nearby streams. Cabin Creek [17-26-5-(1)c] from SR 1281 to SR 1434 (10.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of Good-Fair fish community rating at site BF32. The fish community has been rated Excellent in the past and is expected to recover after the drought and high flows in 2003. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Cabin Creek to evaluate recovery of the fish community and the reduced impacts of the Star WWTP. Segment 17-26-5-(1)b will remain on the 303(d) list. 10.3.2 Cotton Creek [AU#17-26-5-3a,b and c] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Star WWTP maintain the highest quality effluent possible to protect aquatic life in Cotton Creek, and a 303(d) sampling approach would be conducted by DWQ. Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 112 Current Status Cotton Creek from source to Cabin Creek (6.5 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Poor and Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB276 and BB274. The Star WWTP (NC0058548) had significant violations of cyanide permit limits and many whole effluent toxicity test failures during the last two years of the assessment period. The Star WWTP has decreased flow and improved effluent quality after a significant industrial user ceased discharging to the plant in 2003. Due to changes in the influent to the Star WWTP, the facility was in compliance in 2004. The downstream benthic community site was severely stressed by the WWTP toxicity. Segment [17-26-5-3b] is Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA339. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Cotton Creek. Fayetteville Regional Office staff will continue to monitor improvements at the Town of Star WWTP. DWQ recommends that Star pursue other wastewater disposal options to Cotton Creek. Cotton Creek will remain on the 303(d) list and closely evaluated during the next assessment period. 10.3.3 Deep River [AU#17-(10.5)e2, (25.7) and (32.5)a] Current Status These segments of the Deep River were Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin; however, NPDES permit limits were recommended in this segment (Chapter 30). The Deep River [17-(10.5)e2] from the subbasin boundary to Grassy Creek (2.8 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the turbidity standard was violated in 10.9 percent samples at site BA322. The benthic community was rated Excellent at site BB298. The Deep River [17-(25.7)] from Grassy Creek to upstream of Tysons Creek (12.4 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA347; however, turbidity was above the standard in 7.9 percent samples at site BA347. The Robbins WWTP (NC0062855) also had significant violations of mercury permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. Robbins conducted mercury investigations during 2002 and isolated several sources. A review of data for 2003 and 2004 indicated no violations of mercury permit limits. The Deep River [17-(32.5)a] from Big Governors Creek to Carbonton Dam (4 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because the chlorophyll a standard was violated in 13 percent of samples at site BA355. Site BA355 is in the backwaters of Carbonton Dam. Nutrient loading from upstream land uses has caused increased algal growth behind other dams in the Deep River as well. 2005 Recommendations DWQ and UCFRBA (Appendix V) will continue to monitor the Deep River. Segments 17-(10.5)e2 and 17-(32.5)a 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 1998, Triangle Land Conservancy received a $1,189,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 563 acres along the Deep River (Chapter 34). Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 113 10.3.4 Indian Creek [AU#17-35] Current Status Indian Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 basin plan; however, Indian Creek from source to Deep River (7.4 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair fish community rating at site BF59. Indian Creek was a regional reference site because of habitat characteristics and was rated Excellent in 1998. The habitat has been extremely degraded since 1998 due to extensive land clearing in the immediate watershed that has left only a narrow buffer of mature trees. High flows and drought conditions during the assessment period have also impacted the fish community in Indian Creek. The land clearing was to establish pastureland and was not related to forest harvesting. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Indian Creek and work with DSWC staff to identify BMPs to minimize further degradation to the creek. Land clearing activities should use forestry BMPs (Chapter 29) to minimize impacts to local streams. Adequate buffers should be maintained for all land clearing activities. 10.4 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. 10.4.1 Killets Creek (Carthage City Lake)[AU#17-30-3-(1)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Carthage City Lake (8 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because 100 percent of pH samples were below the water quality standard. However, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. Increased nutrient and turbidity levels were noted in the lake compared to previous monitoring. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 10.4.2 McLendons Creek [AU#17-30] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives McLendons Creek (28 acres) from source to the Deep River was not assessed during this assessment period. Previous biological assessments indicated that the low summer flow of this Triassic basin stream did not meet criteria to assign use support ratings. McLendons Creek has been impacted by nutrients and sediment from agriculture land uses. In 1996, NCSU received a $198,000 Section 319 grant (Chapter 34) to implement BMPs on dry litter poultry farms, exclude cattle from streambanks, and to start a volunteer monitoring program. Chapter 10 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-10 114 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 Chapter 12 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 Including: Rocky River, Loves Creek, Tick Creek and Bear Creek 12.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-12 is in the Carolina Slate belt and is characterized by seasonally low flowing streams. Most of the watershed is forested, with extensive pastureland as well. Development is occurring along the US 64 corridor between Siler City and Pittsboro. Population is expected to grow by 110,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are four individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 4.02 MGD (Figure 15). The largest is Siler City WWTP (4 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 12.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 12.4 for other waters. There is one registered dairy, three registered cattle operations and one registered swine operation in this subbasin. Issues related to agricultural activities are discussed below in Section 12.3 for Impaired waters. There were 12 benthic community samples and four fish community samples (Figure 15 and Table 15) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring stations including two UCFRBA (Appendix V) stations and one DWQ ambient station. One reservoir was 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 03-06-12 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 244 mi2 Land area: 243 mi2 Water area: 1 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 20,039people Pop. Density: 82 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 68.9% Surface Water: 0.6% Urban: 1.3% Cultivated Crop: 2.5% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 26.8% Counties Alamance, Chatham and Randolph Municipalities Siler City 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 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 122 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-12 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 15 Bear Creek 17-43-16b From SR 2189 to SR 2187 2.0 FW MilesC S ND BF56 /1999GF BF56 /1999F BF56 /2003GF 17-43-16c From SR 2187 to Rocky River 7.3 FW MilesC NR ND BB372 /2003NR Habitat Degradation Harlands Creek(Hollands Creek) 17-43-15 From source to Rocky River 10.2 FW MilesC S ND BB166 /2003GF Habitat Degradation Loves Creek 17-43-10a From source to Chatham Avenue 3.3 FW MilesC NR ND BB221 /2003NR BB36 /2003NR Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 17-43-10b From Chatham Avenue to Siler City WWTP 2.5 FW MilesC I ND BB210 /2003F BB29 /2003F BF58 /2003GF Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES 17-43-10c From Siler City WWTP to Rocky River 0.4 FW MilesC I ND BB174 /2003F Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Meadow Creek 17-43-12 From source to Rocky River 5.0 FW MilesC NR ND BB206 /2003NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-12 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-12 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 15 Rocky River 17-43-(1)a From source to upper Rocky River Reservoir 10.6 FW MilesWS-III S ND BF33 /2003GF 17-43-(1)b From upper Rocky River Reservoir to a point 0.3 mile downstream of Lacy Creek 3.9 FW MilesWS-III S NDBL24 NCE Chlorophyll a Agriculture Chlorophyll a Pasture 17-43-(8)a From dam at lower supply reservoir for Siler City to Varnal Creek 6.7 FW MilesC NR SBA373 NCE BB442 /2003NR BA373 NCE Turbidity Unknown Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface 17-43-(8)b From Varnal Creek to Deep River 21.6 FW MilesC S SBA374 NCE BA376 NCE BB376 /2003GF BB376 /2002NR BA374 NCE BA376 NCE Habitat Degradation Pasture Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Tick Creek 17-43-13a From source to US 421 8.2 FW MilesC I ND BF72 /2003F 17-43-13b From US 421 to Rocky River 4.9 FW MilesC S ND BB360 /2003GF Habitat Degradation Agriculture Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Habitat Degradation Pasture CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-12 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-12 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 15 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 53.2 FW Milesm NR 22.4 FW Milesm I 11.1 FW Milesm NR 14.9 FW Milese ND 59.6 FW Miles ND FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 28.3 FW MilesSm 132.9 FW MilesND FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 161.2 FW MilesIe FW Acres CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-12 12.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-12 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 (42 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 86.7 stream miles (51.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 11.1 stream miles (6.6 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 12.3 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. 12.3.1 Loves Creek [AU#17-43-10a, b and c] 2000 Recommendations These segments of Loves Creek were recommended for resampling using the 303(d) approach. Siler City was encouraged to develop a stormwater program and other watershed initiatives to improve water quality in this creek. Current Status Loves Creek [17-43-10b and c] from Chatham Avenue to the Rocky River (2.9 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB29, BB174 and BB210. The upper 3.3 miles are Not Rated because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB221 and BB36. A stressor study completed in the Loves Creek watershed indicated toxic chemicals in runoff from Siler City are the main stressors to the benthic community. Streambank erosion, sedimentation and excessive algal growth are also stressors. The WWTP was not the main stressor, and agricultural land uses are also a source. The survey noted runoff from animal operations in the upper watershed may be contributing nutrients and bacteria to the creek. Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 127 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Loves Creek watershed. DWQ will work with DSWC to evaluate if BMPs can be implemented to reduce nutrients from animal operations in the watershed. Refer to Chapter 31 for more information and recommendations for urban streams. All segments will remain on 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 The NCEEP initiated a Local Watershed Planning that included Loves Creek. The preliminary findings are discussed under the Rocky River in this chapter. 12.3.2 Rocky River [AU#17-43-(1)a and b and 17-43-(8)a] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that the Rocky River be resampled and that agricultural BMPs, including fencing cattle out of streams be implemented. Current Status Rocky River [17-43-(1)a] from source to upper Rocky River Reservoir (10.6 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair fish community rating at site BF33. Upper Rocky River Reservoir [17-43-(1)b] from upper Rocky River Reservoir to downstream of Lacy Creek (3.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded during lakes monitoring in 2003. The reservoir is hypereutrophic. In August 2003, chlorophyll a levels were elevated and there indications that animal operations (both cattle and horse) may be contributing nutrients to the reservoir and downstream. Rocky River [17-43-(8)a] from dam at Siler City water supply to Varnal Creek (6.7 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because of numerous reports of nuisance periphyton growth in the river. During summer months algal mats have been observed to cover areas down to the confluence with the Deep River. No criteria were exceeded at site BA373; however, nutrient levels were elevated. The Siler WWTP, as well as agriculture and residential activities, are potential sources of nutrients. The watershed is predominately forested, but development is increasing. Agriculture, as well as the Loves Creek WWTP in Siler City, are likely the main sources of nutrients. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Rocky River watershed. DWQ will work with DSWC staff to further implement BMPs to reduce the impacts of development and agriculture in this watershed. DWQ will work with Siler City to evaluate nutrient reduction strategies from urban areas as well as from the WWTP. Segment 17-43-(1)a will be removed from the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because of the improved fish community rating. Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 128 Water Quality Initiatives In 2002, Liberty received a $203,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to rehabilitate 7,556 linear feet of the wastewater collection system and rehabilitate or replace 43 manholes. The NCEEP initiated a Local Watershed Planning project focusing on three local watersheds comprising the upper and middle Rocky River drainage system. The study area is located primarily in northwestern Chatham County, including Siler City and portions of Randolph and Alamance counties. The planning area addresses the Rocky River mainstem and tributary watersheds, including N. Prong Rocky River, Greenbriar Creek, Varnal Creek, Loves Creek, Tick Creek, Bear Creek and others. A technical advisory team consisting of local resource professionals and municipal staff from the counties and towns in the planning area was formed to help guide the watershed assessment and plan development work. This team will also help identify optimal watershed project sites with cooperative landowners for the establishment of long-term conservation easements. Watershed projects to be identified include traditional stream and stream buffer restoration/enhancement sites, wetlands and buffer preservation sites, and sites for the implementation of urban stormwater or agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The Preliminary Findings Report was completed in February 2005. The Phase II assessment & modeling of watershed conditions, and subsequent development of watershed restoration and protection strategies, are slated for completion by summer of 2005. To date, over 60 potential stream restoration sites and dozens of high-quality preservation tracts have been identified. 12.3.3 Tick Creek [AU#17-43-13a] Current Status This segment of Tick Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, Tick Creek from source to US 421 (8.2 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair fish community rating at site BF72. Cattle have unrestricted access to the stream and under story vegetation has been heavily damaged by hoof traffic. Bare dirt and severely eroded banks were also noted at the sample site. Bonlee Elementary School (NC0039331) had significant violations of ammonia permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Tick Creek watershed. DWQ will also contact DSWC staff to prioritize BMP implementation in this watershed to limit cattle access to the stream. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. This segment 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 The NCEEP initiated a Local Watershed Planning that included Tick Creek. The preliminary findings are discussed under the Rocky River in this chapter. Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 129 12.4 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. 12.4.1 Bear Creek [AU#17-43-16a] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Bear Creek [17-43-16a] from source to SR 2189 (14.9 miles) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis for aquatic life because Hill Forest Rest Home (NC0038849) had significant violations of ammonia permit limits in the last two years of the assessment period that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Water Quality Initiatives The NCEEP initiated a Local Watershed Planning that included Bear Creek. The preliminary findings are discussed under the Rocky River in this chapter. Chapter 12 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-12 130 Chapter 13 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13 Including: Upper Little River and Barbeque Creek 13.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-13 includes the entire Upper Little River watershed draining Triassic basin, piedmont and the coastal plain. Most of the watershed is forested or with extensive agriculture. Development is occurring around Sanford in the western region of the subbasin. Population is expected to grow by 65,000 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 9 MGD (Figure 16). The largest are Erwin Mills (2.5 MGD), Dunn WWTP (3 MGD) and Erwin WWTP (1.2 MGD). Refer to Appendix VI and Chapter 30 for more information on NPDES permit holders. There are eight registered swine operations in this subbasin. There was one benthic community sample (Figure 16 and Table 16) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from one ambient monitoring station shared by UCFRBA (Appendix V) and DWQ. 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 03-06-13 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 221 mi2 Land area: 219 mi2 Water area: 2 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 35,654 people Pop. Density: 162 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 65.2% Surface Water: 2.0% Urban: 1.3% Cultivated Crop: 23.4% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 8.1% Counties Harnett and Lee Municipalities Broadway and Sanford 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. 13.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-13 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 Chapter 13 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13 131 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-13 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 16 Upper Little River 18-20-(24.5) From a point 0.6 mile downstream of Juniper Branch to Cape Fear River 15.6 FW MilesWS-IV S SBA429 NCE Low pH 9.1 BA429 NCE Low pH Unknown 18-20-(8)a From dam at Lake Trace to Corndack Creek 4.3 FW MilesC S NR BB261 /2003GF Habitat Degradation Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES 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 19.9 FW Milesm ND 209.3 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 15.6 FW MilesSm 4.3 FW MilesNR e 209.3 FW MilesND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 229.2 FW MilesIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-13 basin. In the water supply category, all WS classified waters (37.5 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 19.9 stream miles (8.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are no stream miles identified as Impaired in this category. 13.3 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. 13.3.1 Upper Little River [AU#18-20-(24.5) and (8)a] Current Status Upper Little River was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, Upper Little River [18-20- (24.5)] from downstream of Juniper Branch to the Cape Fear River (15.6 miles) is currently Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA429 although pH was below the standard in 9 percent of samples. Upper Little River [18-20-(8)a] from Lake Trace to Corndack Creek (4.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB261, although moderate streambank erosion was noted at this site. Upper Little River was tannin stained, and the low pH levels may represent natural conditions. Carolina Trace (NC0038831) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period and the segment is Not Rated for recreation. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Upper Little River watershed and reestablish benthic community sites that could not be monitored in 2003 because of high flows. Reestablishing these sites will allow DWQ to determine if the low pH values are due to natural swamp conditions. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Segment 18-20-(24.5) 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. Chapter 13 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-13 134 Chapter 14 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 Including: Lower Little River, Nicks Creek, Juniper Creek, Anderson Creek and Crane Creek 14.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-14 drains the Sandhills region. Most of the watershed is forested. Development is occurring in the western portion of the subbasin. Population is expected to grow by 150,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-14 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 484 mi2 Land area: 478 mi2 Water area: 6 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 80,611people Pop. Density: 166 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 78.8% Surface Water: 2.2% Urban: 2.4% Cultivated Crop: 8.2% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 8.4% Counties Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Lee and Moore Municipalities Carthage, Linden, Pinhurst, Spring Lake, Southern Pines and Taylortown There are nine individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 10.5 MGD (Figure 17). The largest are Fort Bragg WWTP and WTP (8 MGD) and Spring Lake WWTP (1.5 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 14.3 for Impaired waters. There is one registered dairy and five registered swine operations in this subbasin. There were 13 benthic community samples and 14 fish community samples (Figure 17 and Table 17) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring stations including one MCFRBA (Appendix V) station, one DWQ ambient station and one shared station. One reservoir was 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 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 135 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-14 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 17 Anderson Creek 18-23-32 From source to Little River 5.4 FW MilesC S ND BB353 /2000G BB353 /2003G BF52 /2003NR Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface Beaver Creek 18-23-16-8 From source to Cane Creek 7.2 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB332 /2002GF BF49 /2002NR Buffalo Creek 18-23-18 From source to Little River 7.6 FW MilesWS-III NR ND BF21 /2003NR Crane Creek (Craine Creek) 18-23-16a From source to Lake Surf 16.3 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB331 /2003GF BB331 /2002G BB349 /2002GF BB418 /2002G BF48 /2002NR BF51 /2002NR BF70 /2002NR 18-23-16b2 From Lake Surf to Little River 6.3 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB350 /2002G Cypress Creek 18-23-16-10 From source to Lake Surf, Cane Creek 5.4 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB236 /2002NI BF25 /2002NR Flat Creek 18-23-15 From source to Little River 6.2 FW MilesWS-III NR ND BF1 /2003NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-14 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-14 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 17 Herds Creek 18-23-16-3 From source to Cane Creek 8.1 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB117 /2002NI BF7 /2002NR James Creek 18-23-13 From source to Little River 14.4 FW MilesWS-III NR ND BF17 /2003NR Jumping Run Creek 18-23-29 From source to Little River 10.0 FW MilesC NR ND BF2 /2003NR Little Cane Creek (White Oak Creek) 18-23-16-4a From source to SR 24 and 27 5.0 FW MilesWS-III NR ND BB118 /2003NR 18-23-16-4b From SR 24 and 27 to Cane Creek 4.4 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB191 /2003GF Little River (Lower Little River) 18-23-(1) From source to backwaters of Thagards Lake 14.9 FW MilesWS-III HQ NR ND BF4 /2003NR 18-23-(10.7) From Vass water supply intake to Crane Creek 12.6 FW MilesWS-III HQ I SBA456 CE Low pH 67.9 BB352 /2002GF BB352 /2003GF BA456 NCE Low pH Unknown 18-23-(24) From Fort Bragg lower water supply intake to Cape Fear River 25.6 FW MilesC I SBA459 CE Low pH 31.6 BA461 CE Low pH 26.6 BA459 NCE BA461 NCE Low pH Unknown Mill Creek 18-23-11-(1) From source to dam at old Southern Pines Water Supply 58.1 FW AcresWS-III HQ NR NDBL25 NCE Low pH 66 Low pH Unknown Mill Creek (Warrior Lake, Crystal Lake) 18-23-11-(2) From dam at old Southern Pines water supply to dam at Crystal Lake 8.6 FW MilesWS-III&B S ND BB335 /2000E CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-14 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-14 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 17 Muddy Creek (Overhills Lake) 18-23-26 From source to Little River 9.4 FW MilesC NR ND BF22 /2003NR Nicks Creek 18-23-3-(3) From Carthage water supply intake to Little River 2.0 FW MilesWS-III S ND BB111 /2003GF BF3 /2003NR Habitat Degradation Impoundment 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 63.6 FW Milesm NR 67.5 FW Milesm I 38.2 FW Milesm NR 58.1 FW Acresm ND 256.1 FW Miles ND 1,274.3 FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 38.2 FW MilesSm 387.2 FW MilesND 1,332.4 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 425.4 FW MilesIe 1,332.4 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-14 14.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-14 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 (1,332.4 acres and 279.3 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 169.3 stream miles (39.7 percent) and 58.1 freshwater acres (4.4 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 38.2 stream miles (9 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 14.3 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. 14.3.1 Crane Creek [AU#18-23-16a and 16b2] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Crane Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach, and that local initiatives were needed to address agricultural impacts. Current Status Crane Creek [18-23-16a] from source to Lake Surf (16.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of Good-Fair benthic community ratings at sites BB331 and BB349 and Good at site BB418. Crane Creek was intensively studied in 2002 at the request of NCEEP (Chapter 34) to support development of a Local Watershed Plan. No Impaired drainages were identified during the study. The Plan identified 28 stream restoration sites representing 27,000 linear feet of stream and 111 acres of wetland sites. See the website for more information . http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Cranes_Creek/cranes_creek_lwp.pdf Crane Creek [18-23-16b2] from Lake Surf to the Lower Little River (6.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good benthic community rating at site BB350. Chapter 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 140 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Crane Creek watershed. DWQ will also work with NCEEP and other agencies to implement projects identified in the Local Watershed Plan. Crane Creek will be recommended for removal from the 303(d) list. 14.3.2 Lower Little River [AU#18-23-(10.7) and (24)] Current Status Lower Little River was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, Lower Little River [18-23- (10.7)] from Vass water supply intake to Crane Creek (12.6 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because pH was below standard in 68 percent of samples collected at site BA456. The low pH levels may be from natural sources. The benthic community at site BB352 was Good-Fair. Riparian areas were intact and streambanks and instream habitat were stable and plentiful. This site has been rated Excellent in past sampling and the lower rating is likely related to drought impacts. Lower Little River [18-23-(24)] from Fort Bragg water supply to the Cape Fear River (25.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 32 and 27 percent of samples collected at sites BA459 and BA461. The low pH levels may be from natural sources. Fort Bragg WTP and WWTP (NC0003964) had significant violations of ammonia permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period that may have negatively impacted aquatic life. Fort Bragg has made repairs and modifications to the WWTP to address this issue. Spring Lake WWTP (NC0030970) also had significant violations of total suspended solids permit limits and is under a special order of consent (SOC# S03006) that expires in December 2005. The SOC includes requirements to submit plans for collection system repairs. Spring Lake is actively constructing additional treatment units to address noncompliance. The town is also addressing infiltration and inflow problems that will help NPDES compliance. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Lower Little River watershed to determine if low pH levels are natural or related to drought conditions. Both 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. Water Quality Initiatives The NCEEP completed 1,100 linear feet of stream restoration in this watershed (Chapter 34). 14.4 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. Chapter 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 141 14.4.1 Buffalo Creek [18-23-18] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Buffalo Creek from source to the Little River (7.6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a fish community rating could not be assigned at site BF21. The site had the lowest diversity of any sand hills site, and only 14 fish were collected in 2003, compared to 28 in 1998. DWQ will continue to monitor Buffalo Creek and work to develop fish community criteria for sand hills streams so that community ratings can be assigned and use support determinations can be made. 14.4.2 Mill Creek [18-23-18] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Old Town Reservoir (58.1-acre impoundment of Mill Creek) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the water quality standards in 66 percent of samples collected during lake monitoring in 2003. However, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. Water quality is considered good in the reservoir and the low pH may be related to natural conditions. Activities on adjacent lands should use BMPs during land-disturbing activities in order to maintain good water quality in Old Town Reservoir. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 14.4.3 Nicks Creek [18-23-3-(3)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Nicks Creek from Carthage water supply intake to the Little River (2 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB111. Above site BB111, there is a newly constructed dam and rip-rap channel. It appears that the benthic and fish community sites may have been negatively impacted by construction and maintenance of the dam. The stream appears to be channelized around the dam structure. Site BB111 has been rated Good in the past. Refer to Chapter 32 for more information on dam operation. Chapter 14 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-14 142 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 Chapter 16 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 Including: Cape Fear River, Harrison Creek, Turnbull Creek, Brown Creek and White Lake 16.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-16 includes the Cape Fear River and many streams that drain coastal plain wetlands and bay lakes. Most of the watershed is forested with some agriculture present. Development is occurring in the Cumberland County portion of the subbasin. Population is expected to grow by 100,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020; however, most of the growth is expected in portions of the county outside of this subbasin. There are seven individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 13.7 MGD (Figure 19). The largest are Smithfield Tarheel Plant (3 MGD), Alamac Knits (2.5 MGD) and Dupont (2 MGD). Refer to Appendix VI and Chapter 30 for more information on NPDES permit holders. There are also 50 registered swine operations in this subbasin. There were five benthic community samples (Figure 19 and Table 19) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from 21 ambient monitoring stations including 12 MCFRBA (Appendix V) stations, three LCFRP (Appendix V) stations, four DWQ ambient stations and two shared stations. 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 03-06-16 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 438 mi2 Land area: 430 mi2 Water area: 8 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 37,095 people Pop. Density: 85 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 78.7% Surface Water: 2.5% Urban: 0.6% Cultivated Crop: 12.7% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 5.6% Counties Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland and Pender Municipalities Dublin, East Acadia, Elizabethtown, Tar Heel and White Lake 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 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 155 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-16 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 19 Browns Creek (Cross Pond) 18-45 From source to Cape Fear River 10.5 FW MilesC S SBA559 NCE Low pH 12.5 BB155 /2003M BA559 NCE CAPE FEAR RIVER 18-(26)d From Lock and Dam 3 to NC 41 21.3 FW MilesC NR SBA544 NCE Chlor a 57.1 BA545 NCE BA546 NCE BA547 NCE Low DO 7.14 BA549 NCE BA553 NCE BA556 NCE BA544 NCE BA545 NCE BA546 NCE BA547 NCE BA549 NCE BA553 NCE BA556 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown 18-(26)e From NC 41 to Browns Creek 1.8 FW MilesC NR SBA557 NCE Chlor a 10 BA558 NCE Chlor a 42.9 BA557 NCE BA558 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown 18-(26)f From Browns Creek to mouth of Hammond Creek 10.0 FW MilesC S SBA561 NCE BA561 NCE 18-(49) From mouth of Hammond Creek to mouth of Drunken Run (near mile 53) 8.1 FW MilesWS-V S SBA564 NCE BA564 NCE 18-(53.5) From mouth of Drunken Run (near mile 53) to a point 0.6 mile upstream of Lock #1 near Acme 12.0 FW MilesWS-IV S SBA571 NCE BA571 NCE 18-(58.5) From a point 0.6 mile upstream of Lock #1 near Acme to Lock #1 (City of Wilmington water supply intake) 0.8 FW MilesWS-IV CA NR SBA572 NCE Low pH 10.6 BA572 NCE Low pH Unknown 18-(59) From US Corps of Engineers Lock #1 near Acme to a point 0.5 mile upstream of raw WSI at Fed. Paper Board Corp. (Riegelwood) 7.7 FW MilesWS-IV Sw S SBA573 NCE BA575 NCE BA573 NCE BA575 NCE Ellis Creek 18-44 From source to Cape Fear River 11.8 FW MilesC S ND BB143 /2003GF CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-16 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-16 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 19 Hammond Creek 18-50 From source to Cape Fear River 11.4 FW MilesC NR SBA562 NCE Low DO 8.9 BA562 NCE Low pH 14.3 BA562 NCE Low pH Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Harrisons Creek (Little Alligator Swamp) 18-42a From source to 0.3 miles downstream of SR 1318 9.9 FW MilesC S ND BB271 /2003GF 18-42b From 0.3 miles downstream of SR 1318 to Cape Fear River 4.8 FW MilesC NR NR*BA550 NCE Low pH 89.8 BA550 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Low pH Unknown Jones Lake 18-46-7-1 From source to Lake Drain 214.1 FW AcresB NR NDBL31 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH Unknown Salters Lake 18-44-4 Entire lake and connecting stream to Ellis Creek 315.4 FW AcresC NR NDBL30 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH Unknown Turnbull Creek 18-46 From source to Cape Fear River 31.6 FW MilesC S SBA554 NCE Low DO 13.8 BA554 NCE Low pH 100 BA560 NCE Low pH 100 BB120 /1999NR BB305 /2003GF BA554 NCE BA560 NCE Low pH Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown White Lake 18-46-8-1 From source to Lake Drain 1,063.8 FW AcresB NR NDBL32 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-16 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-16 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 19 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 101.5 FW Milesm NR 40.1 FW Milesm NR 1,593.2 FW Acresm ND 131.4 FW Miles ND 917.6 FW Acres Recreation Rating Summary 115.1 FW MilesSm 4.8 FW MilesNR* m 153.1 FW MilesND 2,510.8 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 31.8 FW MilesIm 241.2 FW MilesIe 2,510.8 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-16 16.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-16 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 (82.7 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 141.6 stream miles (51.9 percent) and 1,593.2 freshwater acres (63.5 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were no stream miles identified as Impaired in this category. 16.3 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. 16.3.1 Browns Creek [AU#18-45] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Browns Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach and that local initiatives were needed to address water quality. Current Status Browns Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (10.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Moderate benthic community rating at site BB155. No intolerant species were found at site BB155. The low pH (12.5 percent below standard) at site BA559 is likely from natural swamp drainage. Browns Creek is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Browns Creek watershed. This creek will be evaluated to determine if a supplemental Sw classification is warranted. Browns Creek will remain on the 303(d) list because of the fish consumption impairment. 16.4 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 Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 160 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. 16.4.1 Cape Fear River [AU#18-(26)d and (58.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Cape Fear River [18-(26)d] from Lock and Dam 3 to NC 41 (21.3 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because Alamac Knits (NC0003522) had significant violations of pH permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. This facility ceased discharging in 2003. Dissolved oxygen was also below 4 mg/l in 7 percent of samples at site BA547. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Chlorophyll a exceeded the standard in 57 percent of samples collected at BA544; however, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. 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. The segment just upstream of Lock and Dam 3 is Impaired and is discussed in Chapter 15. The Cape Fear River [18-(58.5)] just above Lock and Dam 1 (0.8 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 11 percent of samples collected at site BA572. The low pH is likely from swamp streams that drain into the Cape Fear River in this subbasin. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this segment. The Cape Fear River below Lock and Dam 1 is Class C Sw. 16.4.2 Beaverdam Creek [AU# 18-61-4] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Beaverdam Creek from source to Cape Fear River (6.7 miles) was not assessed during this assessment period, but is in a watershed that has experienced growth along the NC 87 corridor. Water Quality Initiatives In 2003, Sandyfield received a $161,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to purchase 43 wetland acres along Beaverdam Creek. 16.4.3 Hammond Creek [AU#18-50] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Hammond Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (11.4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 14 percent of samples collected at site BA562. The low pH is likely from swamp stream drainage. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this segment. 16.4.4 Harrisons Creek (Little Alligator Swamp) [AU#18-42b] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Harrisons Creek from downstream of SR 1318 to the Cape Fear River (4.8 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard in 90 percent of samples collected at site Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 161 BA550. The low pH is likely from swamp stream drainage. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this segment. The upstream segment is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB271. Intolerant species were found at this site suggesting good water quality in Harrisons Creek. 16.4.5 Jones Lake [AU#18-46-7-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Jones Lake (214.1 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard during summer 2003 lake monitoring. However, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. The low pH is likely from swamp stream drainage. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this lake. DWQ will also determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 16.4.6 Little Singletary Lake [AU#18-44-2-1] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives Little Singletary Lake (626 acres) was not assessed for use support determination. In 1999, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission received a $1,810,406 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 9,740 acres around this lake. 16.4.7 Mulford Creek [AU#18-47] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives Mulford Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (2 miles) was not assessed for use support determination. In 2001, the NC Division of Forest Resources received a $345,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 273 acres of riparian wetland along Mulford Creek. The overall project included 777 acres. 16.4.8 Salters Lake [AU#18-44-4] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Salters Lake (315.4 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard during summer 2003 lake monitoring. However, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. The low pH is likely from swamp stream drainage. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this lake. DWQ will also determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 16.4.9 Suggs Mill Pond [AU#18-44-1] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives Suggs Mill Pond (200.3 acres) was not assessed for use support determination. In 1997, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission received a $2,250,500 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 9,740 acres around the Suggs Mill Pond Complex. Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 162 16.4.10 Turnbull Creek [AU#18-46] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Turnbull Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (31.6 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB305. Intolerant species were found, suggesting good water quality in Turnbull Creek. Dissolved oxygen exceeded the standard in 14 percent of samples at site BA554, and pH was below the standard in 100 percent of samples collected at sites BA554 and BA560. The low pH and low dissolved oxygen are likely from swamp stream drainage. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this segment. Water Quality Initiatives In 1999, the Cape Fear RC&D received an $18,550 CWMTF grant to purchase a no-till drill to make available to farmers in this watershed (Chapter 34). 16.4.11 White Lake [AU#18-46-8-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations White Lake (1,063.8 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard during summer 2003 lake monitoring. However, not enough samples were collected to assign a use support rating. The low pH is likely from swamp stream drainage. DWQ will determine if a supplemental classification of Sw is warranted for this lake. DWQ will also determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. Chapter 16 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16 163 Chapter 17 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 Including: Cape Fear River, Cape Fear River Estuary, Livingston Creek and Town Creek 17.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-17 is in the coastal plain with slow- moving tannin stained tributary streams and the large Cape Fear River estuary and tidal creeks. Most of the watershed is forested with urban areas growing on the west side of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County. Population is expected to grow by 140,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are 41 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 99.9 MGD (Figure 20). The largest are International Paper (50 MGD), Progress Energy (3.5 MGD), New Hanover County WWTP (4 MGD), Northside WWTP (16 MGD) and Southside WWTP (12 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 17.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 17.4 for other waters. There are seven registered swine operations in this subbasin. There were eight benthic community samples (Figure 20 and Table 20) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from 17 ambient monitoring stations including nine LCFRP (Appendix V) stations, two DWQ ambient stations and four shared stations. Two reservoirs were also monitored. Refer to the 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html. Subbasin 03-06-17 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 547 mi2 Land area: 498 mi2 Water area: 49 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 78,348 people Pop. Density: 143 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 74.7% Surface Water: 9.3% Urban: 4.1% Cultivated Crop: 7.6% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 4.3% Counties Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover and Pender Municipalities Bellville, Boiling Springs, Bolton, Carolina Beach, Caswell Beach, Kure Beach, Leland, Long Beach, Navassa, Northwest, Wilmington and Yaupon Beach 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 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 164 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 Allen Creek (Boil 18-85-1-(1) From source to Boiling Springs Lake Dam 331.6 FW AcresB Sw NR NDBL37 NCE Low pH 100 Atlantic Ocean 99-(2) The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous with that portion of the Cape Fear River Basin that extends from the eastern edge of the Lumber River Basin to the eastern end of Bald Head Island 5.6 Coast MilesSB ND NR*S-14 NCE S-15 NCE Enterrococcus Stormwater Outfall 99-(3)b The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that portion of the Cape Fear River Basin from S. Fort Fisher Blvd. Along Kure Beach to the subbasin 17/24 boundary. 4.7 Coast MilesSB ND I S-18 NCE S-19 NCE S-19a NCE S-19b CE S-20 NCE Enterrococcus Stormwater Outfall Bald Head Creek 18-88-8-4 From source to Cape Fear River 79.9 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Barnards Creek 18-80 From source to Cape Fear River 3.9 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB438 /2003M Bay Creek 18-88-8-3-1 From source to Cape Creek 80.6 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 Beaverdam Cree 18-88-9-1-(0.5) From source to mouth of Polly Gully Creek 1.0 S acresSC Sw HQ NR ND BB17 /1999NR BB204 /1999NR BB39 /1999NR 18-88-9-1-(1.5) From mouth of Polly Gully Creek to Intracoastal Waterway 11.3 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Bowensville Cree 18-88-6 From Muddy Slough to Cape Fear River 5.2 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Brunswick River 18-77 From source to Cape Fear River 743.7 S acresSC I SBA707 CE Low DO 14.3 BA707 CE Low pH 19.6 BA707 NCE Low pH Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Burris Creek 18-88-8-2-3 From Muddy Slough to Buzzard Bay 12.7 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Buzzard Bay 18-88-8-2 Entire Basin 578.1 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Cape Creek 18-88-8-3 From source to Cape Fear River 198.4 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 CAPE FEAR RI 18-(63)a From raw water supply intake at Federal Paper Board corporation (Riegelwood) to Bryant Mill Creek 3.8 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA585 NCE BA587 NCE Chlor a 33.3 BA585 NCE BA587 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown 18-(63)b From Bryant Mill Creek to upstream mouth of Toomers Creek 18.5 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA589 NCE Low DO 8.8 BA639 NCE Low DO 13.8 BA640 NCE Low DO 11 BA589 NCE BA639 NCE BA640 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-(71)a From upstream mouth of Toomers Cr. to a line across the river Between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut 5,616.7 S acresSC I SBA642 CE Low DO 42.9 BA642 CE Low pH 38.5 BA642 NCE Turbidity 8.8 BA644 CE Low DO 37.1 BA644 CE Low pH 37.1 BA708 CE Low DO 16.4 BA708 CE Low pH 10.4 BA709 CE Low DO 29.5 BA709 CE Low pH 20.5 BA713 CE Low DO 23.2 BA713 CE Low pH 19.6 BA716 CE Low DO 10.4 BA642 NCE BA644 NCE BA708 NCE BA709 NCE BA713 NCE BA716 NCE Turbidity Unknown Low pH Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-(71)b From a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut to a line across the river from Snows Point to Federal Marsh 7,856.7 S acresSC S SBA722 NCE BA722 NCE S-44 NCE CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 18-(87.5)a Prohibited area north of Southport Restricted Area and west of ICWW in Cape Fear River 769.2 S acresSA HQW S S IPROBA734 NCE S-43 NCE BA734 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-(87.5)b Approved area east of ICWW in Cape Fear River 4,784.2 S acresSA HQW S S SAPPBA734 NCE BA734 NCE 18-(87.5)c Prohibited area south of Southport Restricted Area 322.6 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-(87.5)d Prohibited area east of ICWW in Cape Fear River 17.7 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Cedar Creek 18-88-8-2-4 From Cape Fear River to Buzzard Bay 105.1 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Coward Creek 18-88-9-2-5-1 From source to Molasses Creek 5.9 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Deep Creek 18-88-8-3-1-1 From source to Bay Creek 31.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Denis Creek 18-88-9-2-3 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 34.2 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 Dutchman Creek 18-88-9-3-(2.5) From CP&L Discharge Canal to Intracoastal Waterway 75.8 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Dutchman Creek 18-88-9-3-3 From Intracoastal waterway to Dutchman Creek 78.3 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Dutchman Creek 18-88-9-3-(4) That section of Dutchman Creek within a line beginning at a point of marsh at the junction of Dutchman Creek and Elizabeth River and running due north to a point of marsh 37.9 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Elizabeth River 18-88-9-2-(1) That section of Elizabeth River exclusive of the Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area 83.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Elizabeth River S 18-88-9-2-(2) That section of Elizabeth River within a line beginning at the mouth of Molasses Creek and running northeast to a point of marsh at the junction of Elizabeth River and Du 205.6 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Fishing Creek 18-88-8-4-1 From source to Bald Head Creek 7.9 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 Greenfield Lake 18-76-1 Entire Lake 75.3 FW AcresC Sw NR NDBL36 NCE Chlorophyll a MS4 NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Hood Creek 18-66 From source to Cape Fear River 13.8 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB447 /2003M BB447 /1999GF BB447 /1998GF Intracoastal Wat 18-88-9a From Channel Marker F1, R. "22" to Dutchmans Creek outlet channel 222.6 S acresSA HQW ND S IPROS-41 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-88-9b From Dutchmans Creek outlet channel to mouth of Cottage Creek 96.6 S acresSA HQW I I IPROBA740 CE Low DO 11.1 S-42 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Enterrococcus Unknown Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Jump and Run C 18-88-9-3-2 From source to Dutchman Creek 1.0 S acresSC Sw NR ND BB182 /1999NR Lewis Branch 18-81-2-2 From source to Lewis Swamp 3.8 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB288 /2003N CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 Livingston Creek 18-64 From source to Cape Fear River 21.8 FW MilesC Sw S SBA584 NCE Low DO BB446 /2003GF BA584 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Middle Creek 18-88-5 From Muddy Slough to Cape Fear River 10.8 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Molasses Creek 18-88-9-2-5 From source to Elizabeth River 1.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Muddy Slough 18-88-7 Entire Slough 1.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Piney point Cree 18-88-9-2-4 From source to Denis Creek 11.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Shellbed Creek 18-88-4 From Muddy Slough to Cape Fear River 1.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Southport Restri 18-88-3.5 Beginning at a point on the west bank of the Cape Fear River 1000 yards upstream of Price Creek, thence in an easterly direction to the eastern border of the Lower Cape F 715.3 S acresSC S SBA736 NCE BA736 NCE CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 Still Creek 18-88-8-2-2 From Muddy Slough to Buzzard Bay 32.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP The Basin 18-88-8-1 Entire Basin 384.0 S acresSA HQW ND S SAPPS-18a NCE Town Creek (Rat 18-81 From source to Cape Fear River 32.1 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB13 /1999NR BB13 /1999N BB13 /1998NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-17 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 20 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 GA Status- DEH SS Growing Area Status Results Aquatic Life Rating Summary S 14,125.4 S acresm NR 2.0 S acresm I 6,457.0 S acresm S 75.4 FW Milesm NR 22.3 FW Milesm NR 406.9 FW Acresm ND 2,859.2 S acres ND 215.4 FW Miles ND 844.5 FW Acres ND 22.8 Coast Mile Recreation Rating Summary 21,092.3 S acresSm 96.6 S acresIm 44.1 FW MilesSm 5.6 Coast MileNR* m 4.7 Coast MileIm 2,254.6 S acresND 269.1 FW MilesND 1,251.5 FW AcresND 12.5 Coast MileND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 35.9 FW MilesIm 23,443.5 S acresIe 277.3 FW MilesIe 1,251.5 FW AcresIe 22.8 Coast MileIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-17 17.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-17 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 (1.6 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. In the aquatic life category, 97.8 stream miles (31.2 percent), 407 freshwater acres (32.5 percent), and 20,592 estuarine acres (87.8 percent) were monitored during this assessment period. There were 6,457 estuarine acres (27.5 percent) identified as Impaired in this category. In the recreation category, 21,188.9 estuarine acres (90.4 percent), 44.1 freshwater miles (14.1 percent), and 10.3 coastline miles (45.2 percent) were monitored during the assessment period. There were 96.6 estuarine acres (<1 percent) and 4.7 coastline miles (20.6 percent) identified as Impaired in this category. In the shellfish harvesting category, 8,286.1 estuarine acres (100 percent) were monitored during the assessment period. There were 2,061.6 estuarine acres (24.8 percent) identified as Impaired in this category. 17.3 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. For Impaired Class SA waters presented below, refer to Chapter 27 for more information and recommendations on shellfish harvesting use support. All waters identified as Impaired in the shellfish harvesting category 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. 17.3.1 Atlantic Ocean [99-(2) and (3)b] Current Status These segments of the Atlantic Ocean were not individually identified in the 2000 basin plan, and no specific recommendations were made in the 2000 basin plan. Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 175 The Atlantic Ocean [99-(3)b] from the subbasin boundary to South Fort Fisher Boulevard (4.7 coastline miles) is Impaired for recreation because of permanent postings of swimming advisories and the 18 known storm drains that periodically discharge onto the beach in this segment. Segment 99-(2) is Not Rated for recreation because of the presence of storm drains that periodically discharge into these waters, although no criteria were exceeded at sites S-14 and S-15. 17.3.2 Bald Head Creek [AU# 18-88-8-4] Current Status Bald Head Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (79.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-2. Bald Head Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 17.3.3 Beaverdam Creek [AU# 18-88-9-1-(0.5) and (1.5)] Current Status Beaverdam Creek [18-88-9-1-(0.5)] from source to Polly Gully Creek (1 mile) is Not Rated for aquatic life because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB17, BB39 and BB204 in 1999. The watershed was studied in 1999 to evaluate the effects of ditching associated with the St. James Plantation development. Large amounts of silt in the creek promoted a shift toward silt tolerant species. The Brunswick WTP discharge provided permanent flow and increased the pH of the stream above what would be natural for streams in this area. A surprisingly pollution intolerant benthic community was present in some areas of the watershed. Beaverdam Creek [18-88-9-1-(1.5)] from Polly Gully Creek to ICWW (11.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Beaverdam Creek. It is recommended that further development in this area avoid ditching and use BMPs to prevent further siltiation of streams in this watershed. Segment 18-88-9-1-(1.5) will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 17.3.4 Cape Fear River Estuary Brunswick River [AU#18-77] Cape Fear River [AU#18-(63)a and b, (71)a and (71)b] Cape Fear River [AU#18-(87.5)a, c and d] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that a TMDL be developed for dissolved oxygen and that the TMDL be used to guide wasteload allocations for new and expanding discharges. Refer to Chapter 30 for information on NPDES permitting. Current Status The Brunswick River [18-77] from source to the Cape Fear River (743.7 acres) is Impaired for aquatic life because the dissolved oxygen standard was violated in 14.3 percent of samples at site BA707. The dissolved oxygen standard for SC classified waters is 5 mg/l. The pH standard was Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 176 also below the standard in 19.6 percent of samples. The low pH may be associated with swamp drainage from the Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Clairmont Shopping Center (NC0058599) had significant violations of ammonia permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period as well. The Cape Fear River [18-(63)a] from International Paper intake to Bryant Mill Creek (3.8 miles) is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category. The Cape Fear River [18-(63)b] from Bryant Mill Creek to Toomers Creek (18.5 miles) is Not Rated because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 11 and 13.8 of samples collect at sites BA640 and BA639. This segment is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low pH. Also, BASF (NC0059234) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits, and Leland Industrial Park WWTP (NC0065676) had significant violations of total suspended solids permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. BASF is under a special order of consent (SOC# S0314) that expires in August 2005. The Cape Fear River [18-(71)a] from Toomers Creek to Snows Cut (5,616.7 acres) is Impaired for aquatic life because the dissolved oxygen standard was violated in 42.9, 37.1, 16.4, 29.5, 23.2 and 10.4 percent of samples collected at sites BA642, BA644, BA708, BA709, BA713 and BA716. The dissolved oxygen standard for SC waters is 5 mg/l. The pH standard was also below the standard in 38.5, 37.1, 10.4, 20.5 and 19.6 percent of samples at the same sites. The low pH may be associated with swamp drainage from the Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. The segment of the Cape Fear River upstream of this area has a supplemental classification of Sw that acknowledges that swamp streams may have lower dissolved oxygen and pH. The Cape Fear River [18-(71)b] from Snows Cut to Federal Marsh (7,856.7 acres) is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA722, although Kure Beach WWTP (NC0025763) had significant violations of total suspended solids permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. The Cape Fear River [18-(87.5)a, c and d] from Polly Gully Creek to ICWW (11.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing areas B-1 and B-4. Segment 18-(87.5)a is Supporting aquatic life and recreation because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA722 and S-43. Segment 18-(87.5)b is Supporting shellfish harvesting and aquatic life because this area is approved and no criteria were exceeded at site BA734. 2005 Recommendations DWQ is developing a TMDL to address the low dissolved oxygen in these segments. TMDL targets and allocations will be addressed as part of the process. Modeling efforts will include a watershed model of the Northeast Cape Fear River and hydrodynamic and water quality modeling of the estuary. The TMDL is scheduled to be submitted to EPA in late 2005. Until the TMDL is approved by EPA, new and expanding discharges will be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Refer to Chapter 30 for information on NPDES permitting and Chapter 37 for information on the modeling and monitoring efforts. Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 177 Segments 18-(71)a and 18-77 will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters replacing the Cape Fear (DEH Area) B10 listing. Segments 18-(63)a and 18-(87.5)a, c and d will be added to the list. Water Quality Initiatives In 2005, a NOAA grant was used to implement BMPs at the Carolina Beach State Park Marina. The BMPs included two rain gardens to treat runoff from parking lots and two inlet slip filters to filter sediment, oils and grease from runoff. 17.3.5 Coward Creek [AU# 18-88-9-2-5-1] Current Status Coward Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (5.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. Coward Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 17.3.6 Dennis Creek [AU# 18-88-9-2-3] and Piney Point Creek [AU# 18-88-9-2-4] Current Status Dennis Creek and Piney Point Creek south of the ICWW (45.7 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. These creeks will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 17.3.7 Dutchman Creek [AU# 18-88-9-3-(2.5)], Dutchman Creek Outlet Channel [AU# 18-88-9-3-3], and Dutchman Creek Shellfish Area [AU# 18-88-9-3-(4)] Current Status Dutchman Creek, the Outlet Channel and Shellfish Area north of the ICWW (192 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. These creeks will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 17.3.8 Elizabeth River [AU# 18-88-9-2-(1)], Elizabeth River Shellfishing Area [AU# 18- 88-9-2-(2)] and Molasses Creek Shellfish Area [AU# 18-88-9-2-5] Current Status Elizabeth River, Shellfish Area and Molasses Creek south of the ICWW (290.1 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. These creeks will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 17.3.9 Fishing Creek [AU# 18-88-8-4-1] Current Status Fishing Creek from source to Bald Head Creek (7.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. Fishing Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 178 17.3.10 Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) [AU#18-88-9a and b] 2000 Recommendations This segment of the ICWW was not individually identified in the 2000 basin plan, but was considered Not Supporting because it was closed to shellfish harvesting. No specific recommendations were made in the 2000 basin plan. Current Status The Intracoastal Waterway [18-88-9a] from channel marker F1 to Dutchmans Creek Outlet Channel (226.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1. This segment is Supporting recreation because no criteria were exceeded at site S-41. The Intracoastal Waterway [18-88-9b] from Dutchmans Creek Outlet Channel to Cottage Creek (96.6 acres) is Impaired for aquatic life because the dissolved oxygen standard was violated in 11 percent of samples at site BA740. The dissolved oxygen standard for SC classified waters is 5 mg/l. This segment is also Impaired for shellfish harvesting and recreation because this segment is classified by DEH SS (Chapter 27) as prohibited in growing area B-1 and because of permanent swimming advisories at site S-42. 2005 Recommendations DWQ and DEH will continue to monitor the ICWW and work with local governments to identify sources of bacteria and oxygen-consuming materials. This segment of the ICWW 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. 17.3.11 Town Creek [AU# 18-81] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Town Creek from source to the Cape Fear River (32.1 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a natural benthic community rating at site BB13. A sample in November 1999, after three hurricanes, indicated the benthic community was not severely impacted by the storms. Town Creek is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category and will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Water Quality Initiatives In 2000, the NC Coastal Land Trust received a $305,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 260 acres conservation easements along Town Creek, with an additional 320 acres of donated conservation easements included in the project. In 2001, the NC Coastal Land Trust received a $277,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 115 acres conservation easements along Town and Russell Creeks, with an additional 135 acres of donated conservation easements included in the project. In 2002, the NC Coastal Land Trust received a $2,095,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 638 acres along Town Creek (See Chapter 34 for more information on all projects). Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 179 17.4 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. 17.4.1 Greenfield Lake [AU# 18-76-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Greenfield Lake (75.3 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because data from UNCW indicates elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels and chlorophyll a levels. There are also indications that dissolved oxygen levels are below the water quality standard and the lake has problems with aquatic weeds. In 2003, almost 75 percent of the surface was covered with aquatic weeds, though no water quality standards were violated during DWQ lake monitoring. 17.4.2 Southport Restricted Area [AU# 18-88-3.5] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Southport Restricted Area, on the west bank of the Cape Fear River from Price Creek to Southport (715.3 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic life on an evaluated basis because the ADM Southport Plant (NC0027065) had significant violations of total settable solids permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Chapter 17 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17 180 Chapter 18 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 Including: South River, Little Black River and Big Creek 18.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-18 is in the coastal plain with many slow- moving tannin stained streams draining wetland areas. Most of the watershed is forested with extensive agriculture present. Development is occurring north of Fayetteville in the western portion of the subbasin. Population is expected to grow by 230,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020; however, most of the growth is occurring in the county areas outside of the subbasin. Sampson County is expected to grow by 26,000, which is more representative for this subbasin. There are two individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 0.08 MGD (Figure 21). Refer to Appendix VI and Chapter 30 for more information on NPDES permit holders. There are 105 registered swine operations in this subbasin. Issues related to agricultural activities are discussed below in Section 18.4. There was one benthic community sample (Figure 21 and Table 21) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from two ambient monitoring stations including one LCFRBA (Appendix V) station and one DWQ ambient station. One lake was 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 03-06-18 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 495 mi2 Land area: 493 mi2 Water area: 2 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 85,550people Pop. Density: 173 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 56.1% Surface Water: 1.3% Urban: 1.7% Cultivated Crop: 34.4% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 6.6% Counties Bladen, Cumberland, Harnett, Johnston, Sampson and Wake Municipalities Angier, Autryville, Benson, Coats, Dunn, Erwin, Falcon, Garland, Roseboro and Stedman 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 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 181 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-18 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 21 Black Lake (Bay Tree Lake) 18-68-17-1-1 From source to Lake Drain 1,454.2 FW AcresC Sw NR NDBL33 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH Unknown South River 18-68-12-(0.5)a From source to US 13 6.7 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA590 NCE Low DO 48.2 BA590 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-68-12-(8.5) From Big Swamp to Black River 45.4 FW MilesC Sw ORW NR SBA627 NCE Low DO 12.3 BB301 /2002NR BA627 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 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 NR 52.1 FW Milesm NR 1,454.2 FW Acresm ND 242.5 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 52.1 FW MilesSm 242.5 FW MilesND 1,454.2 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 45.4 FW MilesIm 249.2 FW MilesIe 1,454.2 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-18 18.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-18 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 waters 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 52.1 stream miles (17.7 percent) and 1,454.2 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were no Impaired stream miles identified as Impaired in this category. 18.3 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. 18.3.1 Black River (Little Black) [AU#18-68-12-(0.5)a] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that the Black River be resampled. Black River was Not Rated in the 2000 plan because it could not be sampled due to low flow conditions. Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Black River from source to the South River (28.3 miles) was not monitored during this assessment period, and no data were available to make an assessment in any use support category. DWQ will reestablish a monitoring site on the Black River during this assessment period. The Black River will remain on the 303(d) list until monitoring data are obtained and a use support assessment can be determined. 18.3.2 South River [AU#18-68-12-(0.5)a and 8.5] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that the South River be resampled using the 303(d) approach. South River was Not Rated in the 2000 plan because it could not be sampled. The lower segment was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan and no recommendations were made. Chapter 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 184 Current Status The South River [18-68-12-(0.5)a] from source to US 13 (6.7 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below the 4 mg/l in 48 percent of samples at site BA590. The South River [18-68-12-(8.5)] from Big Swamp to the Black River (45.4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB301. Dissolved oxygen was below the 4 mg/l in 12 percent of samples at site BA627. This segment is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category. These segments of the South River have a supplemental classification of Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen and low pH. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the South River watershed. The South River will remain on the 303(d) list until further evaluations can be made on the swamp characteristics. Water Quality Initiatives In 1999, the Cape Fear RC&D received an $18,550 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to purchase a no-till drill to make available to farmers in this watershed (Chapter 34). Chapter 18 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18 185 Chapter 19 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 Including: Black River, Six Runs Creek, Great Coharie Creek and Little Coharie Creek 19.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-19 is in the coastal plain and drains many wetlands with tannin stained slow-moving streams. Most of the watershed is forested with some agriculture present and very few urban areas. Development is occurring near Clinton. Population is expected to grow by 70,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-19 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 739 mi2 Land area: 737 mi2 Water area: 2 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 46,801people Pop. Density: 63 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 87% Surface Water: <1% Urban: <1% Cultivated Crop: <1% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 12% Counties Bladen, Duplin, Johnston, Pender and Sampson Municipalities Clinton, Garland, Harrels, Magnolia, Newton Grove, Roseboro, Salemburg, Turkey and Warsaw There are eight individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 6.8 MGD (Figure 22). The largest is Clinton WWTP (5 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 19.3 for Impaired waters. There are 374 registered swine operations in this subbasin. Issues related to agricultural activities are discussed below in Section 19.5. There were five benthic community samples (Figure 22 and Table 22) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from nine ambient monitoring stations including three LCFRP (Appendix V) stations and six DWQ 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 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 186 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-19 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 22 Black River 18-68a From source to Subasin 19/20 boundary 31.9 FW MilesC Sw ORW S SBA616 NCE BB128 /2002E BB128 /1998G BA616 NCE Great Coharie Creek (Blackmans Pond) 18-68-1 From source to Black River 42.6 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA599 NCE Low DO 44.8 BA601 NCE Low DO 16.9 BA599 NCE BA601 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Little Coharie Creek (Sinclair Lake) 18-68-1-17a From source to SR 1240 28.6 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA592 NCE Low DO 44.8 BA596 NCE Low DO 14.3 BA592 NCE BA596 NCE 18-68-1-17b From SR 1240 to Great Coharie Creek 12.2 FW MilesC Sw S SBA603 NCE BB259 /2003G Six Runs Creek 18-68-2-(0.3) From source to Quewiffle Swamp 26.0 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA608 NCE Low DO 55.2 BA608 NCE 18-68-2-(11.5) From Quewiffle Swamp to Black River 11.7 FW MilesC Sw ORW S SBA612 NCE BA615 NCE BB348 /2003G BB348 /1998GF BA612 NCE BA615 NCE Stewarts Creek 18-68-2-10 From source to Six Runs Creek 15.5 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB343 /2003G BB343 /2003NR Unnamed Tributary at Magnolia 18-68-2-10-3-1 From source to Millers Creek 2.5 FW MilesC Sw NR NR BB44 /2000NR CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-19 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-19 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 22 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 71.3 FW Milesm NR 99.7 FW Milesm ND 338.4 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 153.0 FW MilesSm 8.8 FW MilesNR e 347.6 FW MilesND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 74.5 FW MilesIm 434.9 FW MilesIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-19 19.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-19 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 waters 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 171 stream miles (33.6 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were no Impaired stream miles identified as Impaired in this category. 19.3 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. 19.3.1 Black River [AU# 18-68a] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Black River from source to the subbasin boundary (31.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of an Excellent benthic community rating at site BB128. This site has been Excellent, except after hurricanes. The river has a very diverse benthic community. This portion of the Black River is supplementally classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). 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. 19.3.2 Stewarts Creek River [AU#18-68-2-10] and UT at Magnolia [18-68-2-10-3-1] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Stewarts Creek be resampled. It was also recommended that the Magnolia WWTP be monitored as repairs are made to the collection system. Magnolia WWTP discharges into an UT in the headwaters of Stewarts Creek. Current Status Stewarts Creek from source to Six Runs Creek (15.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good benthic community rating at site BB343. The UT from source to Millers Creek (2.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB44. A stressor study in 2003 found swampy conditions in Stewarts Creek and many Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 190 blockages due to debris and aquatic weeds. Nitrogen levels were slightly elevated. A long-term study found that the benthic community had recovered after impacts from hurricanes in 1996. Magnolia WWTP has made repairs that have greatly reduced sanitary overflows into Stewarts Creek. The town received $3 million from CG&L in 2001 to replace the WWTP and for a reuse project. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Stewarts Creek watershed. Stewarts Creek will be recommended for removal from the 303(d) list. 19.4 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. 19.4.1 Great Coharie Creek [AU# 18-68-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Great Coharie Creek from source to Black River (42.6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 45 and 17 percent of samples at sites BA599 and BA601. Great Coharie Creek is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. DWQ will continue to monitor the Great Coharie watershed. Great Coharie Creek is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category and will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Water Quality Initiatives The Town of Garland received a $45,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to install generators to prevent overflows during power outages at pump stations and the WWTP. The NCEEP has also preserved 154,000 linear feet of stream in this watershed (Chapter 34). 19.4.2 Little Coharie Creek [AU# 18-68-1-17a and b] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Little Coharie Creek [18-68-1-17a] from source to SR 1240 (28.6 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 45 and 14 percent of samples at sites BA592 and BA596. Little Coharie Creek is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. Little Coharie Creek [18-68-1-17b] from SR 1240 to Great Coharie Creek (12.2 miles) is Supporting because of a Good benthic community rating at site BA259 and because no criteria were exceeded at site BA603. DWQ will continue to monitor the Little Coharie watershed. Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 191 19.4.3 Millers Creek [AU# 18-68-2-10-3] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Millers Creek from source to Stewarts Creek (6.3 miles) is Not Rated for recreation on an evaluated basis because the Magnolia WWTP (NC0020346) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 19.4.4 Six Runs Creek [AU# 18-68-2-(0.3) and (11.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Six Runs Creek [18-68-2-(0.3)] from source to Quewhiffle Swamp (26 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 55 percent of samples at site BA608. Six Runs Creek is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. Six Runs Creek [18-68-2-(11.5)] from Quewhiffle Swamp to Black River (11.7 miles) is Supporting because of a Good benthic community rating at site BA348 and because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA612 and BA615. DWQ will continue to monitor the Six Runs Creek watershed. Chapter 19 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19 192 Chapter 20 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 Including: Black River, Colly Creek, Moores Creek and Singletary Lake 20.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-20 is in the coastal plain and drains wetland areas with tannin stained streams. There are also acidic streams draining natural bay lakes. Most of the watershed is forested with some agriculture present. Population is expected to grow by 55,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. There are two individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 0.82 MGD (Figure 23). The largest is White Lake WWTP (0.8 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 20.4 for other waters. There are 18 registered swine operation in this subbasin. There was one benthic community sample (Figure 23 and Table 23) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring stations including two LCFRP (Appendix V) stations and one DWQ ambient station. One lake was 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 03-06-20 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 343 mi2 Land area: 338 mi2 Water area: 5 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 14,421people Pop. Density: 42 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 77.9% Surface Water: 0.8% Urban: 0.2% Cultivated Crop: 18.0% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 3.1% Counties Bladen, Pender and Sampson Municipalities Atkinson and White Lake 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 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 193 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-20 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 23 Black River 18-68b From Subbasin 19/20 boundary to Cape Fear River 40.5 FW MilesC Sw ORW NR NDBA636 NCE Low DO 10.2 BA638 NCE Low DO 28.1 BA636 NCE BA638 NCE Colly Creek 18-68-17 From source to Black River 34.9 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA634 NCE Low pH 87.5 BA634 NCE Low pH Unknown Moores Creek 18-68-18a From source to Buxton Branch 13.0 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB244 /2003M 18-68-18b From Buxton Branch to Black River 9.9 FW MilesC Sw ND ND Singletary Lake 18-68-17-5-1 From source to Lake Drain 576.0 FW AcresB Sw NR NDBL34 NCE Low pH 100 Low pH Unknown 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 13.0 FW Milesm NR 75.4 FW Milesm NR 576.0 FW Acresm NR 2.5 FW Milese ND 143.8 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 34.9 FW MilesSm 199.8 FW MilesND 576.0 FW AcresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 50.4 FW MilesIm 184.3 FW MilesIe 576.0 FW AcresIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-20 20.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-20 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 (1.1 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 88.4 stream miles (37.7 percent) and 576 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were no Impaired stream miles identified as Impaired in this category. 20.3 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. 20.3.1 Moores Creek [AU# 18-68-18a and b] Current Status Moores Creek [18-68-18a] from source to Buxton Branch (13 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Moderate benthic community rating at site BB244. This stream has generally good habitat for a swamp stream. Moores Creek [18-68-18b] from Buxton Branch to the Black River (9.9 miles) is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor Moores Creek. Segment 18-68-18b will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 20.4 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 Chapter 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 196 section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). See overview for more information on AU#s. 20.4.1 Black River [AU# 18-68b] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Black River from the subbasin boundary to Cape Fear River (40.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 10 and 28 percent of samples at sites BA636 and BA638. The Black River is classified as C Sw ORW+, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen as well as outstanding resources. DWQ will continue to monitor the Black River watershed. 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. Water Quality Initiatives In 1998, The Nature Conservancy received a $2,000,000 CWMTF grant to acquire 9,000 acres in this watershed along the Black and South River (Chapter 34). 20.4.2 Colly Creek [AU# 18-68-17] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Colly Creek from source to the Black River (34.9 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below 6 in 88 percent of samples at site BA634. Colly Creek is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low pH. Colly Creek is Supporting recreation because no criteria were exceeded at site BA634; however, the White Lake WWTP (NC0023353) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits during the assessment period. DWQ will continue to monitor the Colly Creek watershed. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 20.4.3 Lake Drain [AU# 18-68-17-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Lake Drain from Black Lake to Colly Creek (2.5 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life on an evaluated basis because the Bay Tree Lakes WWTP (NC0036404) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits during the assessment period that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. 20.4.4 Singletary Lake [AU# 18-68-17-5-1] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Singletary Lake (576 acres) is Not Rated for aquatic life because pH was below the standard during lake monitoring in 2003. Singletary Lake is classified as B Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low pH. Chlorophyll a was noted to be higher than in previous years as well. DWQ will continue to monitor the lake. Chapter 20 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20 197 Chapter 21 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21 Including: Northeast Cape Fear River and Matthews Creek 21.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-21 is in the coastal plain and contains the headwaters of the Northeast Cape Fear River. Most of the watershed is forested and in agriculture. Population is expected to grow by 32,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-21 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 119 mi2 Land area: 119 mi2 Water area: 0 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 13,472people Pop. Density: 113 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 46.5% Surface Water: 0.2% Urban: 0.8% Cultivated Crop: 45.2% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 7.3% Counties Duplin, Lenoir and Wayne Municipalities Mount Olive There are six individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 1.4 MGD (Figure 24). The largest is Mount Olive WWTP (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 21.3 for Impaired waters. There are 75 registered swine operation in this subbasin. Data were collected from four ambient monitoring stations including two DWQ ambient stations, one LCFRP (Appendix V) station and one shared station (Figure 24 and Table 24). 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. 21.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-21 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 waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on Chapter 21 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21 198 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-21 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 24 Northeast Cape Fear River 18-74-(1)a From source to SR 1558 3.4 FW MilesC Sw NR NDBA646 NCE Chloride 51.4 BA646 NCE Low DO 44.9 Chloride WWTP NPDES Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-74-(1)b From SR 1558 to NC 403 2.7 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA646 NCE Chloride 51.4 BA646 NCE Low DO 44.9 BA647 NCE Low DO 57.3 Chloride WWTP NPDES Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-74-(1)c1 From NC 403 to Subbasin 03-06-21and 03-06-22 boundary 32.9 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA658 NCE Low DO 12.5 BA658 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-74-(1)c3 From Persimmon Branch to Muddy Creek 21.7 FW MilesC Sw S SBA661 NCE 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 21.7 FW Milesm NR 38.9 FW Milesm ND 84.7 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 57.3 FW MilesSm 88.1 FW MilesND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 145.4 FW MilesIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-21 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 60.6 stream miles (41.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were no Impaired stream miles identified as Impaired in this category. 21.3 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. 21.3.1 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU# 18-74-(1)a, b and c1] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that the Northeast Cape Fear River ambient monitoring station be relocated at SR 1937 to better evaluate impacts of the Mount Olive Pickle Company discharge into Barlow Branch as efforts to reduce chloride levels continue. Current Status Northeast Cape Fear River [18-74-(1)a and b] from source to NC 403 (6.1 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 45 and 57 percent of samples collected at sites BA646 and BA647. Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. Chlorides also exceeded the action level in 51 percent of samples at site BA646 (at SR 1937). This site was established to better monitor the Mount Olive Pickle Company discharge. This is similar to chloride exceedances measured from 1993 to 1996. Mount Olive Pickle Company has had a variance to discharge chlorides above permitted levels since 1996. No data were collected in Barlow Branch that could be assessed to assign a use support rating. The Town of Mount Olive received $3 million to rehabilitate the collection system and WWTP, which discharges into an unnamed tributary to Northeast Cape Fear River. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Northeast Cape Fear River watershed. Mount Olive Pickle will be required to continue efforts to reduce the discharge of chlorides and to monitor instream chloride levels. Chapter 21 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21 201 Chapter 22 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 Including: Northeast Cape River, Rockfish Creek, Muddy Creek and Limestone Creek 22.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-22 is in the coastal plain with many streams draining wetland areas. Most of the watershed is forested with extensive agriculture present. Population is expected to grow by 100,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-22 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 829 mi2 Land area: 828 mi2 Water area: 1 mi2 Population Statistics 2000 Est. Pop.: 54,835people Pop. Density: 66 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Forest/Wetland: 58.6% Surface Water: 0.3% Urban: 1.3% Cultivated Crop: 30.3% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous: 9.6% Counties Duplin, Jones, Lenoir, Onslow, Pender, Sampson and Wayne Municipalities Beulaville, Calypso, Faison, Greenevers, Harrells, Kenansville, Pink Hill, Rose Hill, Teachey and Wallace There are 13 individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 9.9 MGD (Figure 25). The largest is Wallace WWTP#1 (1 MGD), Wallace WWTP#2 (4.4 MGD) and Guilford East Mill WWTP (1.5 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 22.3 for Impaired waters. There are 449 registered swine operation in this subbasin. There were ten benthic community samples (Figure 25 and Table 25) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from seven ambient monitoring stations including four LCFRP (Appendix V) stations, two DWQ ambient stations and one shared station. One lake was 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 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 202 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-22 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 25 Cabin Creek 18-74-23-2 From source to Limestone Creek 4.0 FW MilesB Sw NR NDBL35 NCE Chlor a 33 Chlorophyll a Unknown Goshen Swamp 18-74-19a From source to Bear Swamp 16.6 FW MilesC Sw I ND BB322 /2003S 18-74-19b From Bear Swamp to Northeast Cape Fear River 13.4 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA656 NCE Low DO 50 BA657 NCE Low DO 28.6 BA656 NCE BA657 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Grove Creek 18-74-21 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 15.4 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB265 /2001M BB98 /2001N Limestone Creek 18-74-23 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 16.4 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB319 /2003GF Habitat Degradation Land Clearing Little Rock Fish Creek (Boney Mill Pond) 18-74-29-6 From source to Rock Fish Creek 3.0 FW MilesC Sw NR NR*BA681 NCE BB100 /2003NR BA681 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Muddy Creek 18-74-25 From source to Mortheast Cape Fear River 14.0 FW MilesC Sw I ND BB125 /2003F Northeast Cape Fear River 18-74-(1)c2 From Subbasin 03-06-21 03-06-22 boundary to Persimmon Branch 11.9 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA658 NCE Low DO 12.5 BA658 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-74-(25.5) From Muddy Creek to Rock Fish Creek 19.5 FW MilesC Sw HQW I ND BB126 /1998P 18-74-(29.5) From Rock Fish Creek to NC Hwy 210 35.7 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA683 NCE Low DO 10.9 Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-22 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-22 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 25 Panther Creek 18-74-19-3a From source to NC 50 2.4 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA651 NCE Low DO 23.2 BA651 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-74-19-3b From NC 50 to Goshen Swamp 1.8 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA651 NCE Low DO 23.2 BA651 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Rock Fish Creek (New Kirk Pond) 18-74-29c From SR 1165 to Little Rockfish Creek 3.4 FW MilesC Sw S SBA679 NCE BB254 /2003GF BA679 NCE 18-74-29d From Little Rockfish Creek to Northeast Cape Fear River 4.7 FW MilesC Sw S SBA682 NCE BB81 /2003GF BB81 /1998F BA682 NCE Stockinghead Creek 18-74-24 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 11.2 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB346 /2003GF 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 51.1 FW Milesm NR 72.1 FW Milesm I 50.1 FW Milesm ND 408.8 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 73.2 FW MilesSm 3.0 FW MilesNR* m 505.9 FW MilesND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 582.1 FW MilesIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-22 22.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-22 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 waters 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 173.3 stream miles (29.8 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 50.1 stream miles (8.6 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 22.3 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. 22.3.1 Goshen Swamp [AU#18-74-19a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Goshen Swamp be resampled to further assess the Dean Pickle and Specialty Products discharge into Panther Creek (see below) as efforts continue to reduce chloride levels. Goshen Swamp was Not Rated in the 2000 plan. Current Status Goshen Swamp [18-74-19a] from source to Bear Swamp (16.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Severe benthic community rating at site BB322. Site BB322 is upstream of the Dean Pickle and Specialty Products discharge. Aquatic habitat was good at the site, suggesting that the water quality is degraded. There are three registered swine operations in the watershed above BB322. Goshen Swamp [18-74-19b] from Bear Swamp to Northeast Cape Fear River (13.4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 50 and 29 percent of samples collected at sites BA656 and BA657. Goshen Swamp is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. A study of a clear cut in Goshen Swamp just upstream of the Northeast Cape Fear River suggested that a 30- foot buffer was insufficient to protect Goshen Swamp from adverse water quality impacts during forest harvesting. Higher suspended solids, nutrients and bacteria levels, and lower dissolved oxygen levels were found downstream of the site (Ensign and Mallin, 2001). Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 206 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Goshen Swamp watershed. Dean Pickle and Specialty Products will be required to continue efforts to reduce the discharge of chlorides and monitor chloride levels. 22.3.2 Muddy Creek [AU#18-74-25] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Muddy Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach. Current Status Muddy Creek from source to Northeast Cape Fear River (14 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB125. Aquatic habitat was good at the site, suggesting that the water quality is degraded. There are 41 animal operations and one NPDES wastewater discharger in the watershed that may be the sources of the degraded water quality. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Muddy Creek watershed to determine stressors to water quality. For more information on animal operations and NPDES permits, refer to Chapter 30. 22.3.3 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU#18-74-(1)c2, (25.5) and (29.5)] Current Status The Northeast Cape Fear River [18-74-(1)c2] from the subbasin boundary to Persimmon Branch (11.9 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because Guilford East Mill WWTP (NC0002305) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits and eight whole effluent toxicity test failures during the last two years of the assessment period. The Northeast Cape Fear River was Fully Supporting in the 2000 plan; however, the Northeast Cape Fear River [18-74-(25.5)] from Muddy Creek to Rock Fish Creek (19.5 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB126. This segment of the Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as C Sw HQW. Northeast Cape Fear River [18-74-(29.5)] from Rock Fish Creek to NC 210 (35.7 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 11 percent of samples collected at site BA683. Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Northeast Cape Fear River watershed. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Water Quality Initiatives In 2003, Wallace received a $1,037,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to reroute the WWTP to an upgraded industrial facility. Approximately 1,000 failing septic systems or straight pipes will be connected to the system along the HQW segment of the Northeast Cape Fear River. Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 207 22.3.4 Panther Creek [AU#18-74-19-3a and b] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Panther Creek be resampled to continue monitoring the Dean Pickle and Specialty Products discharge as efforts continue to reduce chloride levels. Panther Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 plan. Current Status Panther Creek from source to Goshen Swamp (4.2 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 23 percent of samples collected at site BA651. Panther Creek is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. Conductivity was very high at site BA651, suggesting the Dean Pickle and Specialty Products discharge is impacting water quality. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Panther Creek watershed. Dean Pickle and Specialty Products will be required to continue efforts to reduce the discharge of chlorides and monitor chloride levels. 22.4 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. 22.4.1 Cabin Creek [AU#18-74-23-2] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Cabin Creek from source to Limestone Creek (4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because 33 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 extremely elevated. DWQ will determine if increased monitoring efforts in this lake are warranted to better assess water quality. 22.4.2 Little Rockfish Creek [AU#18-74-29-6] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Little Rockfish Creek from source to Rockfish Creek (3 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB100. There were signs of degradation in Little Rockfish Creek. The creek is Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site BA681. DWQ will resample Little Rockfish Creek using Coastal A criteria so that a benthic community rating can be assigned. DWQ will also determine if more intensive sampling of the creek is warranted to assess the bacteria standard. Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 208 22.4.3 Limestone Creek [AU#18-74-23] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Limestone Creek from source to Northeast Cape Fear River (16.4 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Good-Fair benthic community rating at site BB319. The creek had been recently de-snagged. The streambanks were eroding and the bottom was unstable sand. There were no pools and little riparian vegetation. The stream had an Excellent benthic community rating in 1993 that fell to Poor after a chicken waste spill in 1995. Limestone Creek has not fully recovered because of the habitat problems. Chapter 22 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22 209 Chapter 23 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 Including: Northeast Cape Fear River, Burnt Mill Creek, Smith Creek and Burgaw Creek 23.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-23 is in the coastal plain where many streams stop flowing during summer months. Most of the watershed is forested with some agriculture present and increasing development. Development is occurring north around Wilmington. Population is expected to grow by 140,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-23 at a Glance There are seven individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 3.8 MGD (Figure 26). The largest are Global Nuclear Fuels (1.9 MGD) and Elementis Chromium (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 23.3 for Impaired waters. There is one registered horse and 52 registered swine operations in this subbasin. There were ten benthic community samples (Figure 26 and Table 26) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from eight ambient monitoring stations including two LCFRP (Appendix V) stations and two DWQ ambient station and four shared stations. Two 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. Land and Water Area Total area: 795 mi2 Land area: 789 mi2 Water area: 6 mi2 Population Statistics Pop. Density: 148 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Counties Municipalities 2000 Est. Pop.: 117,200 people Forest/Wetland: 82.5% Surface Water: 0.9% Urban: 2.1% Cultivated Crop: 11.2% Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 3.2% Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow and Pender Burgaw, Holly Ridge, Saint Helena, Watha and Wilmington 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 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 210 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-23 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 26 Angola Creek 18-74-33-3 From source to Holly Shelter Creek 6.5 FW MilesC Sw S SBA684 NCE Low DO 44.1 BB141 /2003G BA684 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Burgaw Creek 18-74-39a From source to Osgood Branch 2.1 FW MilesC Sw NR NR*BA686 NCE Chlor a 15.2 BA686 NCE Low DO 31.7 BA686 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Chlorophyll a Agriculture Chlorophyll a Impervious Surface Chlorophyll a WWTP NPDES 18-74-39b From Osgood Branch to Northeast Cape Fear River 9.5 FW MilesC Sw S NR*BA687 NCE BA687 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Burnt Mill Creek 18-74-63-2 From source to Smith Creek 4.6 FW MilesC Sw I ND BB73 /2001P Toxic Impacts MS4 NPDES Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES Cypress Creek 18-74-55-2 From source to Long Creek 8.3 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB140 /2003M Holly Shelter Creek 18-74-33 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 25.9 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB136 /2003M Island Creek 18-74-50 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 6.7 FW MilesC Sw NR ND BB272 /2003NR Lillington Creek 18-74-42 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 5.0 FW MilesC Sw S SBA691 NCE Low DO 16.7 BA691 NCE Low pH 61.5 BB306 /2003N BA691 NCE CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-23 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-23 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 26 Long Creek 18-74-55a From source to Cypress Creek 7.7 FW MilesC Sw I ND BB139 /2003S Habitat Degradation Unknown 18-74-55b From Cypress Creek to Northeast Cape Fear River 21.5 FW MilesC Sw ND ND Merricks Creek 18-74-49-2 From source to Harrisons Creek 5.3 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB107 /2003N BB107 /1999N Northeast Cape Fear River 18-74-(47.5) From NC Hwy 210 to Princes George Creek 15.6 FW MilesB Sw NR SBA694 NCE Low DO 23.3 BA694 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown 18-74-(52.5) From Prince George Creek to mouth of Ness Creek 12.4 FW MilesC Sw NR SBA699 NCE Low DO 10.4 BA699 NCE Total Suspended Solids WWTP NPDES Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES 18-74-(61) From mouth of Ness Creek to Cape Fear River 1.0 S acresSC Sw NR SBA703 NCE Low DO 39.3 BA703 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Shelter Swamp Creek 18-74-33-2-2 From source to Sandy Run Swamp 13.3 FW MilesC Sw S ND BB134 /1999N Smith Creek 18-74-63 From source to Northeast Cape Fear River 11.1 FW MilesC Sw I ND BB79 /2003S Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-23 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-23 AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources SubbasinTable 26 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 NR 1.0 S acresm S 73.8 FW Milesm NR 36.8 FW Milesm I 23.4 FW Milesm NR 8.3 FW Milese ND 233.2 FW Miles Recreation Rating Summary 1.0 S acresSm 39.5 FW MilesSm 11.6 FW MilesNR* m 324.5 FW MilesND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 37.1 FW MilesIm 1.0 S acresIe 338.4 FW MilesIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-23 23.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-23 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 waters 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 134 stream miles (35.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 23.4 stream miles (6.2 percent) identified as Impaired in this same category. 23.3 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. 23.3.1 Burgaw Creek [AU#18-74-39a] Current Status The 2000 basin plan recommended that Burgaw Creek be resampled. Burgaw Creek from source to Osgood Branch (2.1 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because chlorophyll a exceeded the standard in 15 percent of samples collected at site BA686. The chlorophyll a data were not collected and processed using a certified laboratory, and therefore, cannot be used by DWQ to make use support determinations. Site BA686 is monitored by the Lower Cape Fear River Program (Appendix V). 2005 Recommendations DWQ and LCFRP will continue to monitor the Burgaw Creek watershed. DWQ recommends that the Burgaw WWTP optimize plant processes to reduce nutrients that may be causing algal blooms in Burgaw Creek. The LCFRP is in the process of becoming state certified for chlorophyll a analysis. Water Quality Initiatives In 2002, The Nature Conservancy received a $606,000 CWMTF grant to purchase 521 floodplain acres. The overall project included 795 acres along Burgaw Creek near the Northeast Cape Fear River (Chapter 34). Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 215 23.3.2 Burnt Mill Creek [AU#18-74-63-2] 2000 Recommendations The 2000 basin plan recommended that Burnt Mill Creek be resampled using the 303(d) approach. Current Status Burnt Mill Creek from source to Smith Creek (4.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Poor benthic community rating at site BB73. A Collaborative Assessment of Watersheds and Streams (CAWS) in 2003 indicated that the benthic community in Burnt Mill Creek was primarily impacted by toxicity and sedimentation, with lack of instream habitat and nutrient enrichment as chronic stressors to the benthic community. The watershed drains a highly urbanized portion of Wilmington. A Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 34) was developed by NCEEP in 2002 that identified similar habitat problems in the watershed. The plan also outlines restoration strategies and locations for BMPs. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Burnt Mill Creek watershed. DWQ will work with NCEEP and the watershed stakeholders, including the City of Wilmington, to assist where possible in implementation of the restoration strategy. Burnt Mill Creek will remain on 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 2002, Wilmington received a $120,000 Section 319 grant (Chapter 34) to install urban BMP demonstration projects in the Burnt Mill Creek watershed. The grant projects will be completed in 2005. UNCW has also increased monitoring efforts in Burnt Mill Creek with funding from the 319 program. The NCEEP completed the New Hanover County Local Watershed Plan in 2003. The EEP currently has two stream restoration projects in design for a total of 3,000 feet of stream restoration, and has a stormwater wetland that was constructed in 2000 and is in the fourth year of post-construction monitoring. Additionally, a team headed by Watershed Education for Communities and Officials at NCSU and including the City of Wilmington, Cape Fear River Watch, NCSU Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, UNC-Wilmington, and the New Hanover Local Watershed Group obtained an EPA 319 Grant of $608,000. The project purpose is to construct 6 stormwater BMP retrofits, monitor and analyze the impacts of retrofit activities on the watershed, involve the community in residential BMP retrofits, and conduct an educational campaign. The project implements recommendations from the Local Watershed Plan that was sponsored by EEP, and builds on educational activities conducted by the City of Wilmington with their previous EPA 319 grant. Additionally, Watershed Education for Communities and Officials (WECO) received a 319 grant to fund the construction of two stormwater ponds in the Burnt Mill Creek watershed. NCEEP has also completed 0.6 acres of riverine restoration and 3,000 linear feet of stream restoration in the Burnt Mill Creek watershed (Chapter 34). The final report is available for download at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/new%20hanover/newhanover.htm Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 216 23.3.3 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU#18-74-(47.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Northeast Cape Fear River from Hwy 210 to Prince George Creek (15.6 miles) is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category and will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 23.3.4 Long Creek [AU#18-74-55a and b] Current Status Long Creek was Fully Supporting in the 2000 basin plan; however, Long Creek [18-74-55a] from source to Cypress Creek (7.7 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Severe benthic community rating at site BB139. Long Creek is channelized and has poor habitat conditions. The stream is affected by beaver dams. Conductivity was high at the sample site and the benthic community was dominated by tolerant species. Long Creek [18-74-55b] from Cypress Creek to (21.5 miles) is Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category. No other data were collected in this segment. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Long Creek watershed and evaluate impacts of NPDES discharges into Long Creek. DWQ will contact DSWC to evaluate if agricultural BMPs can be implemented to improve water quality. Both 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. 23.3.5 Smith Creek [AU#18-74-63] Current Status Smith Creek was Not Rated in the 2000 basin plan; however, Smith Creek from source to Northeast Cape River (11.1 miles) is currently Impaired for aquatic life because of a Severe benthic community rating at site BB79. The Smith Creek WWTP (NC0000817) had significant violations of dissolved oxygen permit limits during the assessment period that could have negatively impacted aquatic life. This facility is no longer discharging. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the Smith Creek watershed. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Smith 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. Water Quality Initiatives The NCEEP completed the New Hanover County Local Watershed Plan in 2003 that includes Smith Creek. The plan is discussed under Burnt Mill Creek in this chapter. The plan is available for download at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/new%20hanover/newhanover.htm Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 217 23.4 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. 23.4.1 Angola Creek [AU# 18-74-33-3] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives Angola Creek from source to Holly Shelter Creek (6.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because a Good benthic community rating at site BB141. The benthic community suggested inputs of organic particulate material, and dissolved oxygen was very low at time of sampling (<4 mg/l in 44 percent of samples collected) at site BA684. Angola Creek is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. In 2001, The Nature Conservancy received a $442,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to purchase conservation easements on 82 acres along Angola Creek. 23.4.2 Dero Creek [AU# 18-74-32] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives Dero Creek from source to Northeast Cape Fear River (2.8 miles) was not assessed during this assessment period. In 2003, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust received a $992,000 CWMTF grant to purchase conservation easements on 94 riparian acres. The overall project also included 775 acres of donated easements in upland areas (Chapter 34). 23.4.3 Holly Shelter Creek [AU# 18-74-33] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Holly Shelter Creek from source to Northeast Cape Fear River (25.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Moderate benthic community rating at site BB136. The creek had a diverse benthic community and one rare species was found. Water Quality Initiatives In 2001, The Nature Conservancy received a $7,900,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 14,391 acres along Holly Shelter Creek and several tributaries. 23.4.4 Prince George Creek [AU# 18-74-53] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Prince George Creek from source to Northeast Cape Fear River (8.3 miles) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis. Hermitage House Rest Home (NC 0051969) had significant violations of chlorine permit limits that may have adversely impacted aquatic life during the last two years of the assessment period. Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 218 Water Quality Initiatives In 2002, The Nature Conservancy received a $148,000 CWMTF grant to purchase 160 floodplain acres. The overall project included 421 acres along Shelter Swamp Creek and Sandy Run Swamp. In 2003, The Nature Conservancy received a $671,000 CWMTF grant to purchase 970 acres along Prince George Creek and the Northeast Cape Fear River (Chapter 34). 23.4.5 Shaken Creek [AU# 18-74-33-4] Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives Shelter Swamp Creek from source to Holly Shelter Creek (19.5 miles) was not assessed during this assessment period, but is in a watershed that has extensive agriculture. In 2003, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust received a $366,000 CWMTF grant to purchase conservation easements on 303 riparian acres. The project also included 862 acres of donated easements in upland areas. The acquisition completes protection of the entire creek (Chapter 34). 23.4.6 Shelter Swamp Creek [AU# 18-74-33-2-2] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Shelter Swamp Creek from source to Sandy Run Swamp (13.3 miles) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Natural benthic community rating at site BB134. The creek had a diverse benthic community and one rare species was found. Water Quality Initiatives In 2002, The Nature Conservancy received a $148,000 CWMTF grant to purchase 160 floodplain acres. The overall project included 421 acres along Shelter Swamp Creek and Sandy Run Swamp (Chapter 34). 23.4.7 Northeast Cape Fear River [AU# 18-74-(47.5) and (52.5)] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations The Northeast Cape Fear River from NC 210 to Ness Creek (28 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life because dissolved oxygen was below 4 mg/l in 23 and 10 percent of samples collected at sites BA694 and BA699. Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as C Sw, which acknowledges natural characteristics of swamps such as low dissolved oxygen. Walnut Hills WWTP (NC0039527) had significant violations of total suspended solids permit limits, and New Hanover County Landfill WWTP (NC0049743) had significant violations of biological oxygen demand permit limits during the last two years of the assessment period. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Water Quality Initiatives In 1998, the NC Wildlife Resource Commission received a $1,070,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to acquire 1,076 acres in this watershed near the confluence with Turkey Creek. Chapter 23 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23 219 Chapter 24 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 Including: Masonboro Sound, Topsail Sound and ICWW 24.1 Subbasin Overview Subbasin 03-06-24 drains entirely to the ICWW and the Atlantic Ocean. There are large urban areas around Wilmington and many beach communities. Population is expected to grow by 110,000 people in counties with portions or all of their areas in this subbasin by 2020. Subbasin 03-06-24 at a Glance Land and Water Area Total area: 162 mi2 Land area: 142 mi2 Water area: 20 mi2 Population Statistics Pop. Density: 361 persons/mi2 Land Cover (percent) Counties Municipalities There are three individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a permitted flow of 0.1 MGD (Figure 27). 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 24.3 for Impaired waters and in Section 24.4 for other waters. 2000 Est. Pop.: 58658people Forest/Wetland: 63.0% Surface Water: 17.5% Urban: 8.3% There is one registered swine operation in this subbasin. Cultivated Crop: 6.7% Pasture/ There was one benthic community sample (Figure 27 and Table 27) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from six DWQ 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. Managed Herbaceous: 4.5% New Hanover, Onlsow and Pender 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. Carolina Beach, Holly Ridge, North Topsail Beach, Surf City, Topsail, Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach 24.2 Use Support Assessment Summary Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-24 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 waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment plant consultants. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 220 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Atlantic Ocean 99-(3)c The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that portion of the Cape Fear River Basin that extends from the edge of White Oak River Basin to the subbasin 17/24 boundary 38.3 Coast MilesSB ND S S-22a NCE S-23 NCE S-25 NCE S-28 NCE S-29 NCE Banks Channel 18-87-10-1a From New Topsail Inlet to Topsail Sound excluding prohibited area at Annamarina 313.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP 18-87-10-1b Prohibited area at Annamarina 4.2 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Marina 18-87-24-3 Entire Channel south of the Wrightsville Recreational Area 111.1 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Batts Mill Creek 18-87-6 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 40.8 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Beckys Creek (Bi 18-87-8a From source 0.5 miles inland Intracoastal Waterway 42.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 18-87-8b From 0.5 miles inland of ICWW to Intracoastal Waterway 66.4 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Bradley Creek 18-87-24-4-(1) From source to US Hwys 17, 74 & 76 bridge 28.8 S acresSC HQW #ND ND 18-87-24-4-(2) From US Hwy 17, 74 & 76 bridge to Intracoastal Waterway 55.9 S acresSC #ND ND Butler Creek 18-87-18 From Nixon Channel to Intracoastal Waterway 30.9 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP Carolina Beach 18-87-31.2 All waters beginning at a point on the northern side of Snows Cut and running directly east across the Intracoastal Waterway to a point on the eastern side, thence follow 102.8 S acresSB ND NDBA731 NCE Cedar Snag Cree 18-87-17 From Green Channel to Intracoastal Waterway 3.2 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP County Line Bra 18-87-6-1 From source to Batts Mill Creek 1.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICACFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Cypress Branch 18-87-6-2 From source to Batts Mill Creek 1.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICACFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Everett Bay 18-87-2 Entire Bay excluding that portion in King Creek Restricted Area 240.6 S acresSA ORW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Everett Creek 18-87-29 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 0.7 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Futch Creek 18-87-19a From source to 0.35 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway 13.7 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 18-87-19b From 0.35 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway to ICWW 14.3 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Green Channel 18-87-16 From Rich Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway 111.5 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP Hewletts Creek 18-87-26a From source to 0.5 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway 78.3 S acresSA HQW S ND IPRO BB299 /2003M Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES 18-87-26b From 0.5 miles inland of ICWW to Intracoastal Waterway 19.9 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Howard Channel 18-87-13 From Old Topsail Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway 38.3 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Howe Creek 18-87-23 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 28.6 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Intracaostal Wat 18-87-(5.5) From Morris Landing to the eastern mouth of Old Topsail Creek 159.6 S acresSA HQW ND S ICAOS-52 NCE S-53 NCE S-54 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Intracoastal Wat 18-87 From southern edge of White Oak River Basin to Morris Landing 76.2 S acresSA ORW S S ICAOBA723 NCE BA723 NCE S-55 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-87-(11.5) From the eastern mouth of Old Topsail Creek to the western mouth of Howe Creek 112.9 S acresSA ORW ND S ICAOS-50 NCE S-51 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-87-(23.5)a Approved area south of Wrightsville Recreation area and east of ICWW 52.8 S acresSA HQW ND S SAPPS-48 NCE 18-87-(23.5)b Prohibited area north of Wrightsville Reacreation area 63.1 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-87-(23.5)c Conditional area south of Wrightsville Recreation area and west of ICWW. 70.4 S acresSA HQW I S ICAOBA728 CE Low DO 11.4 BA728 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Conditional area south of Wrightsville Recreation area and west of ICWW. 70.4 S acresSA HQW I S ICAOBA728 CE Low DO 11.4 BA728 NCE Low Dissolved Oxygen MS4 NPDES Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown John Creek 18-87-30 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 5.0 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 King Creek Restr 18-87-4 Inside a line beginning at a point on the mainland and running due south 100 yards to reflector buoy #43 in the Intracoastal Waterway, thence along the south side of the 165.7 S acresSC Sw HQ ND ND Long Point Chan 18-87-15 From Old Topsail Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway 16.0 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP Masonboro Chan 18-87-27 From Masonboro Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway 216.4 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP Masonboro Soun 18-87-25.7a East of ICWW 285.3 S acresSA ORW ND S SAPPS-47 NCE 18-87-25.7b Three prohibited areas inland of ICWW 99.5 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina 18-87-25.7c West of ICWW 215.9 S acresSA ORW S S ICAOBA730 NCE BA730 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina 18-87-25.7d Prohibited area at mouth of Whiskey Creek 64.3 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Mill Creek (Betts 18-87-14 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 18.2 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Mullett Run 18-87-9-1 From source to Virginia Creek 7.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Nixon Channel 18-87-20 From Rich Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway 181.8 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP Nixons Creek 18-87-11 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 5.8 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Marina Old Mill Creek 18-87-7 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 0.1 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Old Topsail Cree 18-87-12a From source to 0.5 miles inland of ICWW to Intracoastal Waterway 16.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 18-87-12b From 0.5 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway to ICWW 12.4 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Pages Creek 18-87-22a From source to 0.5 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway 48.4 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria 18-87-22b From 0.5 miles inland of ICWW to Intracoastal Waterway 28.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Shinn Creek 18-87-25 From Masonboro Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway 87.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP Snows Cut 18-87-31.5 From Carolina Beach Yacht Basin to Cape Fear River 60.5 S acresSC ND ND Stump Sound 18-87-3 Entire Sound excluding that portion in King Creek Restricted Area 87.3 S acresSA ORW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown Stump Sound O 18-87-0.5 All waters between the s edge of the White Oak RB to the western end of Permuda Is. exclusive of the restricted area 939.9 S acresSA ORW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Topsail Sound 18-87-10a Entire Sound south of ICWW 1,190.7 S acresSA HQW ND ND SAPP 18-87-10b Prohibited areas at Queens Grant and Hwy 210 Bridge 56.2 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 18-87-10c Entire Sound north of ICWW 1,144.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 18-87-10d Conditional areas at mouth of Batts Mill Creek and at Hwy 210 Bridge 12.7 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICACFecal Coliform Bacteria Marina CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Topsail Sound an 18-87-11.7a South of ICWW 444.8 S acresSA ORW ND ND SAPP 18-87-11.7b Prohibited area north of ICWW 2.1 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria 18-87-11.7c North of ICWW 272.5 S acresSA ORW S ND ICAOBA727 NCE BA727 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina 18-87-11.7d Prohibited area on northside of ICWW 2.7 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Marina 18-87-11.7e Prohibited area at mouth of Mill Creek 2.7 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria 18-87-11.7f Prohibited area at Figure Eight Island Marina 6.8 S acresSA ORW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Turkey Creek 18-87-1a From source to 0.25 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway to ICWW 79.5 S acresSA ORW ND ND ICACFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown 18-87-1b From 0.25 miles inland of ICWW to Intracoastal Waterway 59.6 S acresSA ORW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 Virginia Creek 18-87-9a From source to 0.75 miles inland of Intracoastal Waterway 23.5 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface 18-87-9b From 0.75 miles inland of ICWW to Intracoastal Waterway 73.6 S acresSA HQW ND ND ICAOFecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface Whiskey Creek ( 18-87-28 From source to Intracoastal Waterway 13.0 S acresSA HQW ND ND IPROFecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES Wrightsville Recr 18-87-24 In any waters within a line beginning at a point on the mainland along the Intracoastal Waterway 1400 feet north of the U.S. Hwy. 74-76 bridge extending directly across t 478.7 S acresSB #S NDBA729 NCE BA729 NCE CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 AU Number Description Length/AreaClassification CAPE FEAR 03-06-24 AL Rating REC RatingStation Year/ ParameterResult % Exc Aquatic Life Assessment ResultStation Recreation Assessment Stressors Sources Subbasin SH Rating Shellfish Harvesting GA Status Table 27 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 GA Status- DEH SS Growing Area Status Results Aquatic Life Rating Summary S 1,121.6 S acresm I 70.4 S acresm ND 7,116.8 S acres ND 38.3 Coast Mile Recreation Rating Summary 973.1 S acresSm 38.3 Coast MileSm 7,335.7 S acresND Fish Consumption Rating Summary 8,308.8 S acresIe 38.3 Coast MileIe CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-24 There were 1,192 estuarine acres (14.3 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category with 70.4 acres (<1 percent) Impaired. There were 973.1 estuarine acres (11.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the recreation category with no Impaired acreage. There were 7,416.3 estuarine acres (100 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the shellfish harvesting category with 4,439.1 acres (59.8 percent) Impaired. 24.3 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. For Impaired Class SA waters presented below, refer to Chapter 27 for more information and recommendations on shellfish harvesting use support and DEH SS growing area classifications. All waters identified as Impaired in the shellfish harvesting category 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. 24.3.1 Banks Channel [AU# 18-87-10-1b and 18-87-24-3] Current Status Banks Channel [18-87-10-1b] Prohibited area at Annamarina (4.2 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area B-7. Banks Channel [18-87-24.3] south of Wrightsville Beach Recreational area (111.1 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. These segments of Banks Channel will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.2 Batts Mill Creek [AU# 18-87-6], County Line Branch [AU# 18-87-6-1] and Cypress Branch [AU# 18-87-6-2] Current Status Batts Mill Creek from source to the ICWW (40.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B- 9. County Line Branch from source to Batts Mill Creek (1 acres) and Cypress Branch from source to Batts Mill Creek (1 acre) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-closed in growing area B-9. These segments of Batts Mill Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 234 24.3.3 Beckys Creek [AU# 18-87-8a and b] Current Status Beckys Creek [18-87-8a and b] from source to the ICWW (108.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. Beckys Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.4 Everett Bay [AU# 18-87-2] Current Status Everett Bay (240.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B-9. Everett Bay will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.5 Everett Creek [AU# 18-87-29] Current Status Everett Creek from source to ICWW (0.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area B-5. Everett Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.6 Futch Creek [AU# 18-87-19a and b] Current Status Futch Creek [18-87-19a and b] from source to the ICWW (28 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. These segments of Futch Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.7 Hewletts Creek [AU# 18-87-26a and b] Current Status Hewletts Creek [18-87-26a and b] from source to the ICWW (98.2 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-6. Segment 18-87-26a (78.3 acres) is Supporting aquatic life because of a Moderate benthic community rating at site BB299. This upper portion of Hewletts Creek had good snag and root mat habitats, and some intolerant species were noted at the site. These segments of Hewletts Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.8 Howe Creek [AU# 18-87-23] Current Status Howe Creek from source to ICWW (28.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area B-7. Howe Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 235 24.3.9 Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) [AU# 18-87, 18-87-(5.5), (11.5), (23.5)a, b and c] Current Status The ICWW [18-87] in DEH growing area B-9 (76.2 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B- 9. This segment is supporting aquatic life and recreation because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA 723 and S-55. This segment will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. The ICWW [18-87-(5.5)] in DEH growing area B-8 (159.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. This segment is supporting recreation because no criteria were exceeded at sites S-52, S-53 and S-54. This segment will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. The ICWW [18-87-(11.5) and (23.5)b] in DEH growing area B-7 (176 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-7. Segment 18-87-(11.5) is supporting recreation because no criteria were exceeded at sites S-50 and S-51. These segments will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. The ICWW [18-87-(23.5)a] in DEH growing area B-7 (52.8 acres) is Supporting recreation and shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as approved and because no criteria were exceeded at site S-48. The ICWW [18-87-(23.5)c] in DEH growing area B-7 (70.4 acres) is Impaired for aquatic life and shellfish harvesting because dissolved oxygen violated water quality standards in 11 percent of samples at site BA728, and this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved- open. Site BA728 is at the mouth of Howe Creek in the ICWW. There is extensive development occurring in the headwaters of Howe Creek in and around Wilmington. This segment will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. DWQ will work with Wilmington and New Hanover County to identify potential sources of bacteria and oxygen-consuming materials. 24.3.10 Masonboro Sound ORW Area (ICWW) [AU# 18-87-25.7a, b, c and d] Current Status Masonboro Sound [18-87-25.7a] in DEH growing area B-5 and B-6 (285.3 acres) is Supporting recreation and shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as approved and because no criteria were exceeded at site S-47. Masonboro Sound [18-87-25.7b, c and d] in DEH growing area B-5 and B-6 (379.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open. Segment 18-87-25.7c is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA730. These segments will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 236 24.3.11 Mill Creek [AU# 18-87-14] Current Status Mill Creek from source to ICWW (18.2 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area B-8. Mill Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.12 Virginia Creek [18-87-9a and b] and Mullett Run [AU# 18-87-9-1] Current Status Virginia Creek and Mullett Run from source to ICWW (104.6 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. Both creeks will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.13 Nixons Creek [AU# 18-87-11] Current Status Nixons Creek from source to ICWW (5.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. Nixons Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.14 Old Mill Creek [AU# 18-87-7] Current Status Old Mill Creek from source to ICWW (0.1 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B-9. Old Mill Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.15 Old Topsail Creek [AU# 18-87-12a and b] Current Status Old Topsail Creek from source to the ICWW (28.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. These segments of Old Topsail Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.16 Pages Creek [AU# 18-87-22a and b] Current Status Pages Creek from source to the ICWW (76.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing area B-7. These segments of Pages Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 237 24.3.17 Stump Sound [18-87-3] and Stump Sound ORW Area [AU# 18-87-0.5] Current Status Stump Sound and Stump Sound ORW Area from the White Oak River Basin to Permuda Island (1,027.2 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open in growing area B-8. Both segments will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.18 Topsail Sound [AU# 18-87-10a, b, c and d] Current Status Topsail Sound [18-87-10b, c, and d] areas north of the ICWW and around Queens Grant and the Hwy 210 bridge (1,213.4 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited, conditionally approved-open and conditionally approved- closed in growing areas B-8 and B-9. These segments will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Segment 18-87-10a (1,190.7 acres) south of the ICWW is Supporting shellfish harvesting because this area is classified by DEH SS as approved. 24.3.19 Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area [AU# 18-87-11.7a, b, c, d, e and f] Current Status Topsail Sound [18-87-11.7b, d, e and f] areas north of the ICWW and around the Figure Eight Island Marina (14.3 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as prohibited and conditionally approved-open in growing areas B-7 and B-8. Segment 18-87-11.7c (272.5 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open. This segment will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. This segment is Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at site BA727. Segment 18-87-11.7a (444.8 acres) south of the ICWW is Supporting shellfish harvesting because this area is classified by DEH SS as approved. 24.3.20 Turkey Creek [AU# 18-87-1a and b] Current Status Turkey Creek from source to the ICWW (139.1 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because these segments are classified by DEH SS as conditionally approved-open and conditionally approved-closed in growing area B-9. These segments of Turkey Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. 24.3.21 Whiskey Creek [AU# 18-87-28] Current Status Whiskey Creek from source to ICWW (13 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting because this segment is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area B-6. Whiskey Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 238 24.4 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#). Refer to the overview for more information on AUs. 24.4.1 Kings Creek Restricted Area [AU# 18-87-4] Current Status and 2005 Recommendations Kings Creek Restricted Area from source to ICWW (165.7 acres) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis for recreation because Holly Ridge WWTP (NC0025859) had significant violations of fecal coliform bacteria permit limits. This creek is Not Rated for aquatic life because the WWTP also had five whole effluent toxicity test failures that may have adversely impacted aquatic life during the last two years of the assessment period. The NPDES compliance process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above. Chapter 24 – Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-24 239 Chapter 25 North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications 25.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards North Carolina’s Water Quality Standards Program adopted classifications and water quality standards for all the state’s river basins by 1963. The program remains 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. 25.2 Classifications Summary All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best uses of that water. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a supplemental classification. Most supplemental classifications have been developed to provide special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Table 28 briefly describes the best uses of each classification. A full description is available in the document titled: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina. Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqs/. Table 28 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications 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. Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. 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. * Primary classifications beginning with a "S" are assigned to saltwaters. Chapter 25 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications 240 25.3 Water Quality Standards and Rules 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. 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. 25.4 High Quality Waters (HQW) There are 163 stream miles and 262 freshwater acres of HQW waters in the Cape Fear River basin (Figure 28). There are also 165 stream miles, 1,737 freshwater acres of WS-II classified waters, and over 11,000 acres of SA waters that also meet HQW waters criteria. 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. Criteria for HQW Classification • Waters rated as Excellent based on DWQ’s chemical and biological sampling. • Streams designated as native or special native trout waters by the Wildlife Resources Commission. • Waters designated as primary nursery areas or other functional nursery areas by the Division of Marine Fisheries. • Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I, WS-II or SA. 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 an approved local erosion and sedimentation control program, and which drain to and are within 1 mile of HQWs, are required to control runoff from the development using either a low density or high density option. The low density option requires a 30-foot vegetated buffer between development activities and the stream; whereas, the high density option requires structural stormwater controls. In addition, the Division of Land Resources requires more stringent erosion controls for land-disturbing projects within 1 mile of and draining to HQWs. 25.4 Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) There are 129 stream miles and 3,623 acres of ORW waters in the Cape Fear River basin (Figure 28). These waters have excellent water quality (based on biological and chemical sampling as with HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource. Chapter 25 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications 241 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 a 30-foot vegetated buffer or stormwater controls for 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. The ORW rule defines outstanding resource values as including one or more of the following: • an 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; • within a state or national park or forest; or • a special ecological or scientific significance. 25.5 Primary Recreation (B, SB and SA) There are 13,779.1 freshwater acres, 584 estuarine acres and 199 stream miles classified for primary recreation in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 14,434 acres SA classified waters that are also protected for primary recreation. Waters classified as Class B or SB are protected for primary recreation, include frequent and/or organized swimming, and must meet water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. Sewage and all discharged wastes into Class B or SB waters must be treated to avoid potential impacts to the existing water quality. 25.6 Water Supply (WS-II to WS-V) There are 1,781 freshwater stream miles and 25,075 freshwater acres currently classified for water supply in the Cape Fear River basin (Figure 29). The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program is to provide a proactive drinking water supply protection program for communities. Local governments administer the program based on state minimum requirements. There are restrictions on wastewater discharges, development, landfills and residual application sites to control the impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to water supplies. These programs are applied to 2,169.3 square miles of watershed in the Cape Fear River basin. There are five water supply classifications (WS-I to WS-V) that are defined according to the land use characteristics of the watershed. The WS-I classification carries the greatest protection for water supplies. No development is allowed in these watersheds. Generally, WS-I lands are publicly owned. WS-V watersheds have the least amount of protection and do not require development restrictions. These are either former water supply sources or sources used by industry. WS-I and WS-II classifications are also HQW by definition because requirements for these levels of water supply protection are at least as stringent as those for HQWs. Those watersheds classified as WS-II through WS-IV require local governments having jurisdiction within the watersheds to adopt and implement land use ordinances for development that are at least as stringent as the state’s minimum requirements. A 30-foot vegetated setback is required on perennial streams in these watersheds. The Cape Fear River basin currently contains WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV and WS-V water supply watersheds. Chapter 25 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications 243 25.7 Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) There are 1,274 freshwater stream miles and 18,584 freshwater acres with a supplemental classification of NSW (Figure 29). All waters in the Haw River/Jordan Reservoir watershed (subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06) are supplementally classified as NSW. Strategies related to these waters are discussed in Chapter 36. 25.8 Pending and Recent Reclassifications The Rocky River is in the process of having some segments reclassified to WS to accommodate a new dam and water supply intake. Additional water quality information about the Rocky River is presented in Chapter 12. Waters upstream of the Randleman Dam on the Deep River were reclassified to WS-IV and WS- IV CA in 1999, as this watershed will be used as a water supply for High Point and Greensboro. See Chapter 8 for water quality information on these waters. Waters in the Mill Creek watershed upstream of Crystal Lake were reclassified to include the supplemental classification of HQW in 2002. See Chapter 14 for water quality information on these waters. Chapter 25 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications 245 Chapter 26 Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 26.1 Introduction Human activities can negatively impact surface water quality, even when the activity is far removed from the waterbody. Pollutants that enter waters fall into two general categories: point sources and nonpoint sources. With increased population comes increased demand for wastewater discharge and conversion of land from lower impact uses to more intensive urban and suburban land uses. In the Cape Fear River basin, there are over 300 miles of Impaired streams that drain urban or urbanizing areas. With proper management of wastes and land use activities, these impacts can be minimized. Every person living in or visiting a watershed impacts water quality. Therefore, each individual should be aware of these contributions and take actions to reduce them. This chapter provides an overview of population growth impacts associated with increased wastewater discharges and conversion of land from agriculture and forestry to urban land uses. The Cape Fear River basin is one of the fastest developing basins in the state; the effects of development are impacting water quality. Population in the Cape Fear River basin has grown from just under 1.5 million to over 1.8 million people from 1990 to 2000. The overall population of the basin based on 2000 Census data is 1,834,545, with approximately 197 persons/square mile. This growth is expected to continue especially around existing urban areas. The 26 counties with some land area in the Cape Fear River basin are expected to increase population from just under 3 million to over 5 million people (28.9 percent) over the next 20 years (Appendix I). Associated with this growth will be increasing strain on water resources for drinking water, wastewater assimilation and runoff impacts. There will also be loss of natural areas and increases in impervious surfaces associated with construction of new homes and businesses. 26.2 Impacts of Increased Wastewater Discharges 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. There has been an increase in wastewater flow discharged to waters in the Cape Fear River basin to meet the demands of the rapidly growing population. Generally, treatment technology has improved to the extent that point sources are no longer the primary source of water quality problems. Point Sources Piped discharges from: • Municipal wastewater treatment plants • Industrial facilities • Small package treatment plants • Large urban and industrial stormwater systems Chapter 26 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 246 In the Cape Fear River basin, there are just over 150 Impaired stream miles where point sources are a possible contributor to water quality problems. There are just over 340 miles of streams that may have been adversely impacted by discharges. Most of these streams are located in urban areas where water quality is already degraded. Because of limited assimilative capacity in the basin local governments, industry and the state must carefully plan for wastewater increases on a basinwide scale. Chapter 30 discusses NPDES compliance issues and permitting strategies to be used to accommodate new and expanding discharges in this basin. 26.3 Impacts of Growth and Development Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land use activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are typically carried to surface 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. Nonpoint Sources • Construction activities • Roads, parking lots and rooftops • Agriculture • Failing septic systems and straight pipes • Timber harvesting Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution sources are diffuse in nature and occur intermittently, depending on rainfall events and land disturbance. Given these characteristics, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify nonpoint 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. • Hydrologic modifications Cumulative Effects Water quality issues and programs associated with agricultural are discussed in Chapter 28. Water quality issues and programs associated with forestry are discussed in Chapter 29. The remainder of this chapter will discuss water quality issues associated with conversion of land to urban and suburban areas. 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. Urban land uses have increased from 370,000 acres in 1982 to 627,000 acres in 1997 (70 percent) in the Cape Fear River basin (Appendix III). At this rate of development, well over 1 million acres will be in urban land cover by 2020. Water quality declines dramatically in streams in and around urban centers and along interstate corridors. Most of the Impaired streams in this basin are concentrated in and around existing urban areas. In the Cape Fear River basin, over 300 Impaired stream miles are associated with urban and urbanizing areas. Programs in place to help prevent further degradation to water quality during development are discussed in Chapter 31. More than any other human activity, urban growth is the greatest threat to aquatic resources. The impacts on rivers, lakes and streams, as development surrounding metropolitan areas consumes neighboring forests and fields, can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is not Chapter 26 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 247 controlled. Greater numbers of homes, stores and businesses require greater quantities of water. Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the discharge and runoff of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and groundwater. Thus, just as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is lost (Orr and Stuart, 2000). In addition, as watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved roads, buildings, parking lots, and residential homes and driveways, the ability of the environment to absorb and diffuse the effects of natural rainfall is diminished. Urbanization results in increased surface runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak streamflows after rainfall. Flooding frequency is also increased. These effects are compounded when small streams are channelized (straightened) or piped and storm sewer systems are installed to increase transport of drainage waters downstream. Bank scour from these frequent high flow events tends to enlarge urban streams and increase suspended sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of habitat in streams, leading to degradation of benthic macroinvertebrate populations and loss of fisheries (EPA, 1999). Water supply needs have normally been sufficient to meet agriculture, water supply, industrial and power generation needs. The severe drought conditions in 2001 and 2002 stressed water resources to near the limit for these uses. It is during these periods of drought that point to the impending threats to the availability of good quality water. Clean water can likely be provided in sufficient quantity to supply the future needs of the basin, but only with inspired foresight, planning and management. Refer to Chapter 32 for more information on water resources management. Most of the impacts result in habitat degradation (Chapter 27), but urban runoff also carries a potentially toxic cocktail including oil and grease from roads and parking lots, street litter and pollutants from the atmosphere. Cumulative impacts from developing and urban areas can cause severe impairment to urban streams. Chapter 26 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 248 Chapter 27 Water Quality Stressors 27.1 Stressor Identification 27.1.1 Introduction and Overview Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated. Stressors apply to one or more use support categories and may be identified for Impaired as well as Supporting waters with noted impacts. Identifying stressors is difficult in many cases because direct measurements of the stressor may be difficult or prohibitively expensive. DWQ staff use field observations from sample sites, special studies and data from ambient monitoring stations as well as information from other agencies and the public to identify potential water quality stressors. It is important to identify stressors and potential sources of stressors so that water quality programs can target limited resources to address water quality problems. Stressors to recreation uses include the following pathogen indicators - fecal coliform bacteria, escheria coli, and enterrococci. Stressors to shellfish harvesting are fecal coliform bacteria, and stressors to fish consumption are mercury and any other substance that causes issuance of a fish consumption advisory. Most stressors to the biological community are complex groupings of many different stressors that individually may not degrade water quality or aquatic habitat but together can severely degrade aquatic life. Sources of stressors are most often associated with land use in a watershed as well as the quality and quantity of any treated wastewater that may be entering a stream. During naturally severe conditions such as droughts or floods, any individual stressor or group of stressors may have more severe impacts to aquatic life than during normal climatic conditions. The most common source of stressors is from altered watershed hydrology. As discussed above, sources of stressors most often come from a watershed where the hydrology is altered enough to allow the stressor to be easily delivered to a stream during a rain event along with unnaturally large amounts of water. DWQ identifies the source of a stressor as specifically as possible depending on the amount of information available in a watershed. Most often the source is based on the predominant land use in a watershed. Stressor sources identified in the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period include urban or impervious surface areas, construction sites, road building, land clearing, agriculture and forestry. 27.1.2 Altered Hydrology as the Ultimate Stressor Source Aquatic communities (benthic macroinvertebrates and fish) in natural or undisturbed watersheds are impacted only by the most extreme events such as hurricanes or extreme droughts. Even after these events streams in these watersheds are able to recover. As a watershed is altered, more stressors (such as chemicals and bacteria) are found in the watershed and because of the nature of watershed alteration, there are more ways for water to get to streams very rapidly Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 249 carrying these new stressors. Once a watershed is severely altered, such as in most urban areas, there are multitudes of stressors in the watershed and many ways for the stressors to affect aquatic life. Also in these watersheds the important habitats are depleted because the natural ground cover is removed and trees are rare. The very high flows in heavily altered watersheds can cause a multitude of instream habitat problems as well. The following stressor discussions are aimed at identification of specific stressors to the various land uses, but the ultimate cause and source of these stressors is the altered watershed hydrology. 27.1.3 Overview of Stressors Identified in the Cape Fear River Basin The stressors noted below are summarized from all waters and for all use support categories. Figures 30 to 32 identify stressors noted for Impaired waters in the Cape Fear River basin during the most recent assessment period. The stressors noted in these figures may not be the sole reason for an Impaired use support rating. Stressors that are listed because of standards violations may require TMDL development for waters where these stressors are identified. Refer to subbasin chapters for a complete listing of stressors by waterbody. For specific discussions of stressors to Impaired waters refer to the subbasin chapters 1 through 24. There are also 4.7 miles of Atlantic Coastline miles Impaired for recreation where the identified stressor is enterrococcus (not graphed). All waters in the basin are Impaired in the fish consumption category where mercury is the stressor of concern. Stressor definitions and impacts are discussed in the remainder of this chapter. Noted Stressors to Impaired Reservoirs 0.0 2,000.0 4,000.0 6,000.0 8,000.0 10,000.0 12,000.0 Chlorophyll a High pH Fr e s h w a t e r A cre s Figure 30 Noted Stressors to Impaired Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin. Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 250 Figure 31 Noted Stressors to Impaired Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin. Noted Stressors to Impaired Streams 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 Ch loroph y ll a Fecal C o l ifor m Bact e r ia Ha b i t a t D e g r ada t i on High p H Low D i ssolved O xygen Low p H To xic Im p a cts Turbidity Fr e s h w a t e r M i l e s Figure 32 Noted Stressors to Impaired Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. Noted Stressors to Impaired Estuarine Waters 0.0 1,000.0 2,000.0 3,000.0 4,000.0 5,000.0 6,000.0 7,000.0 Enterrococcus Fecal Coliform Bacteria Low Dissolved Oxygen Low pH Turbidity Es t u a r i ne A cre s Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 251 Figures 33 to 35 identify stressors noted for Impacted waters in the Cape Fear River basin during the most recent assessment period. The stressors noted in these figures did not result in an Impaired use support rating. Refer to subbasin chapters for a complete listing of stressors by waterbody. For specific discussions of stressors to Impacted waters refer to the subbasin chapters 1 through 24. Stressor definitions and impacts are discussed in the remainder of this chapter. Figure 33 Noted Stressors to Impacted Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin. Noted Stressors to Impacted Reservoirs 0.0 500.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 2,500.0 3,000.0 3,500.0 4,000.0 Chlorophyll a Fecal Coliform Bacteria Low Dissolved Oxygen Low pH Turbidity Fr e s h w a t e r A cre s Figure 34 Noted Stressors to Impacted Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin. Noted Stressors to Impacted Streams 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 Ars e n i c Chloride Chlorop h y ll a Fe c al Co l ifor m Bacter ia Ha b i t a t D e g r ada t i on Low D i s s olv ed O xyg e n Low p H Tota l Su s p e n d e d S o l i ds Turbidity Fr e s h w a t e r M i les Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 252 Figure 35 Noted Stressors to Impacted Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. Noted Stressors to Impacted Estuarine Waters 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Low Dissolved Oxygen Es t u a r i ne A cre s 27.1.4 Overview of Stressor Sources Identified in the Cape Fear River Basin The sources noted below are summarized from all waters and for all use support categories. Figures 36 to 38 identify sources of stressors noted for waters in the Cape Fear River basin during the most recent assessment period. Refer to subbasin chapters for a complete listing of sources by waterbody. For specific discussions of stressor sources refer to the subbasin chapters 1 through 24. There are also 10.3 miles of Atlantic Coastline where the identified sources of stressors are stormwater outfalls to the beach (not graphed). WWTP NPDES (wastewater treatment plants) were noted as a potential source to many of the freshwater acres in the Cape Fear River basin. WWTPs contribute nutrients (with other sources) that may increase the potential for algal blooms and cause exceedances of the chlorophyll a standard. This can include all discharges upstream of the area of Impairment or noted impacts. WWTPs were noted as a potential source of water quality problems in 105.8 stream miles. Most of these impacts were localized and based on permit violations. Better treatment technology and permit compliance has greatly decreased the number of stream miles locally impacted by WWTPs. MS4 NPDES (municipal separate storm sewer systems) were noted as sources to many of the freshwater acres for the same reasons as the WWTPs discussed above. MS4 was noted as a potential source when the stream segment was associated with a NPDES permitted municipality. Unlike the WWTPs, MS4s were noted as a potential source of stressors to 375.8 stream miles because of the local impacts of runoff from these urban areas. Impervious surface was noted as a source when field observations indicated that roads and other development not associated with permitted urban areas was the source of stressors to the stream segment. Impervious surface was noted as a source of stressors in 77.2 stream miles. Developed land is the most common source of stressors to water quality in the Cape Fear River basin. Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 253 Agriculture was noted as a potential source of water quality stressors when field observations and watershed studies noted agriculture as the predominant land cover. Agriculture was noted as a source of stressors in 91.8 stream miles. Pasture was also noted as a source when field observations indicated that cattle had access to streams or streams ran through pasture areas. Pasture was noted as a potential source of water quality stressors in 36.3 stream miles. Agriculture and pasture impacts and programs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 28. Land clearing and road construction were noted as potential sources of water quality stressors to less than 70 stream miles. Much of the land clearing and road construction is associated with increased development. Streams where land clearing is a noted source are likely to be more heavily impacted in the future by increased development. Figure 36 Sources of Stressors to Reservoirs in the Cape Fear River Basin. Sources of Stressors to Reservoirs 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 WWTP NPDES MS4 NPDES Agriculture Pasture Impervious Surface Unknown Fr e s h w a t e r A cre s Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 254 Figure 37 Sources of Stressors to Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin. Sources of Stressors to Streams 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 WW TP N P D E S MS 4 N P D E S Ag r iculture Pa s ture La n d Cl ear ing Im p e r viou s Su r fac e Ro ad C o n s t r u c t i on Un kno w n ND land app s ite Imp o u n dm e n t Fr e s h w a t e r M i les Figure 38 Sources of Stressors to Estuarine Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. Sources of Stressors to Estuarine Waters 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 MS4 NPDES Impervious Surface Unknown Marina Es t u a r i ne A cre s Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 255 27.2 Aquatic Life Stressors-Habitat Degradation 27.2.1 Introduction and Overview Instream habitat degradation is identified as a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative change in habitat. This term may include sedimentation, lack of organic (woody and leaf) habitats and channelization. These stressors to aquatic insect and fish communities can be caused by many different land use activities and less often by discharges of treated wastewater into small streams. In the Cape Fear River basin, over 149.2 stream miles are Impaired where at least one form of habitat degradation is the stressor. There are an additional 236.0 stream miles where habitat degradation is impacting water quality. Many of the stressors discussed below are either directly caused by or are a symptom of altered watershed hydrology. The altered hydrology increases both sources of stressors and delivery of stressors to receiving waters. Refer to the subbasin chapters for more information on the types of habitat degradation noted at sample locations and in watershed studies. Some Best Management Practices Agriculture Construction Forestry • No till or conservation tillage practices • Strip cropping and contour farming • Leaving natural buffer areas around small streams and rivers • Using phased grading/seeding plans • Limiting time of exposure • Planting temporary ground cover • Using sediment basins and traps • Controlling runoff from logging roads • Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas • Leaving natural buffer areas around small streams and rivers 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 surface area. A watershed in which most of the riparian vegetation has been removed from streams or channelization has occurred also exhibits 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. All of these activities result in altered watershed hydrology. 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 even more resources to restore the stream. Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address this issue, local efforts are needed 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 need to be addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers. 27.2.2 Sedimentation Sedimentation is a natural process that is important to the maintenance of diverse aquatic habitats. Overloading of sediment in the form of sand, silt and clay particles fills pools and Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 256 covers or embeds riffles that are vital aquatic insect and fish habitats. A diversity of these habitats is important for maintenance of biological integrity. Suspended sediment can decrease primary productivity (photosynthesis) by shading sunlight from aquatic plants, affecting the overall productivity of a stream system. Suspended sediment also has several effects on various fish species including avoidance and redistribution, reduced feeding efficiency, and therefore, reduced growth by some species, respiratory problems, reduced tolerance to diseases and toxicants, and increased physiological stress (Roell, 1999). Sediment filling rivers, streams and reservoirs also decreases their storage volume and increases the frequency of floods (NCDENR- DLR, 1998). Suspended sediment also increases the cost of treating municipal drinking water. Sediment overloading to many streams has reduced biological diversity to the point of the stream being Impaired for aquatic life. Sediment comes from land-disturbing activities in a watershed. The cause of this form of sedimentation is erosion of land in the watershed. Land-disturbing activities such as the construction of roads and buildings, crop production, livestock grazing and timber harvesting can accelerate erosion rates by causing more soil than usual to be detached and moved by water. Streambank erosion, caused by very high stormwater flows after rain events, is another source of sediment overloading. Watersheds with large amounts of impervious surfaces transport water to streams very rapidly and at higher volumes than occurs in watersheds with little impervious surfaces. In many urban areas, stormwater is delivered directly by storm sewers. This high volume and velocity of water after rain events undercuts streambanks causing bank failure and large amounts of sediment to be deposited directly into the stream. Many urban streams are adversely impacted by sediment overloading from the watershed as well as from the streambanks. Sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using appropriate BMPs. Substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to minimize the amount and time that land is exposed during land-disturbing activities and by minimizing impervious surface area and direct stormwater outlets to streams. Refer to Chapter 31 for more information on programs designed to reduce sedimentation. 27.2.3 Lack of Organic Aquatic Habitats During 2002 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic communities at numerous sites throughout the Cape Fear River basin in association with narrow or nonexistent zones of native riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation loss was common in rural and residential areas as well as in urban areas. The loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent reduction of organic aquatic habitats is caused by loss of riparian areas, most commonly by land clearing for development, field agriculture, pastureland, forestry and by grazing animals. Instream organic habitat removal has also been caused by de-snagging activities. Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as riprap) 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 or concrete lining on a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water temperatures as well as the higher dissolved oxygen levels cooler water provides. Trees, shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 257 streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that aquatic insects and fish need to survive. Establishing, conserving and managing streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most economical and efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits including filtering runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing erosion and loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and providing food and habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. To obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call (919) 733-5083, ext. 558. Organic microhabitat (leafpacks, sticks and large wood) and edge habitat (root banks and undercut banks) play very important roles in a stream ecosystem. Organic matter in the form of leaves, sticks and other materials serve as the base of the food web for small streams. Additionally, these microhabitats serve as special niches for different species of benthic macroinvertebrates, providing food and/or habitat. For example, many stoneflies are found almost exclusively in leafpacks and on small sticks. Some beetle species prefer edge habitat, such as undercut banks. If these microhabitat types are not present, there is no place for these specialized macroinvertebrates to live and feed. The absence of these microhabitats in some streams in the Cape Fear River basin is directly related to the absence of riparian vegetation. Organic microhabitats are critical to headwater streams, the health of which is linked to the health of the entire downstream watershed. 27.2.4 Channelization Channelization refers to the physical alteration of naturally occurring stream and riverbeds. Channelization is caused by mechanical straightening of channels or by hydraulic overloading during rain events. Often streams in urban areas become channelized as part of the development process in essence using the stream channels as stormwater conveyances. Although increased flooding, bank erosion and channel instability often occur in downstream areas after channelization has occurred, flood control, reduced erosion, increased usable land area, greater navigability and more efficient drainage are frequently cited as the objectives of channelization projects (McGarvey, 1996). Channelization reduces the sinuosity of streams greatly increasing the velocity of water running these streams. Direct or immediate biological effects of channelization include injury and mortality of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, shellfish/mussels and other wildlife populations, as well as habitat loss. Indirect biological effects include changes in benthic macroinvertebrate, fish and wildlife community structures, favoring species that are more tolerant of or better adapted to the altered habitat (McGarvey, 1996). Restoration or recovery of channelized streams may occur through processes, both naturally and artificially induced. In general, streams that have not been excessively stressed by the channelization process can be expected to return to their original forms. However, streams that have been extensively altered may establish a new, artificial equilibrium (especially when the channelized streambed has been hardened). In such cases, the stream may enter a vicious cycle of erosion and continuous entrenchment. Once the benefits of a channelization project become outweighed by the costs, both in money and environmental integrity, channel restoration efforts are likely to be taken (McGarvey, 1996). Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 258 Channelization of streams is extensive and promises to become even more so as urban development continues. Overall estimates of lost or altered riparian habitats within US streams are as high as 70 percent. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature of stream ecosystems makes it difficult (if not impossible) to quantitatively predict the effects of channelization (McGarvey, 1996). Channelization has occurred historically in parts of the Cape Fear River basin and continues to occur in some watersheds, especially in small headwater streams. 27.3 Aquatic Life Stressors - Water Quality Standards Violations 27.3.1 Introduction and Overview In addition to the habitat stressors discussed in the previous section, the stressors discussed below are identified by water quality standards violations. These are usually direct measures of water quality parameters from ambient water quality monitoring stations. The water quality standards are designed to protect aquatic life. As discussed above, altered watershed hydrology greatly increases the sources of these stressors as well as delivery of the stressors to the receiving waters. The following stressors were identified for waters where greater than 10 percent of the observations were above the water quality standard. Refer to the subbasin chapters for more information on the affected waters and the data used to make these assessments. 27.3.2 Arsenic 27.3.3 Chlorophyll a Algal Blooms Arsenic is a metal that is toxic to aquatic life. Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples collected exceed the state arsenic standard and at least 10 samples were collected. The arsenic water quality standard for Class C waters is 50 µg/l. In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 6.6 stream miles where arsenic was the identified stressor (see Chapter 8). Algae are aquatic, microscopic plants, which respond to nutrients, temperature and light, and are an important food source for fish and other aquatic animals. Algae also contain pigments, including chlorophyll, which enable them to photosynthesize and produce oxygen. During summer, algae respond to warm temperatures, high light and nutrients washed into waterways after rain events and from treated wastewater. When temperatures and nutrient concentrations are elevated, algae reproduce to high concentrations ("bloom"). When this occurs at a particular site, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH increase. When a site experiences dissolved oxygen concentrations >9 mg/l, DO percent saturation >110%, pH >8, or chlorophyll a concentrations exceed the state standard of 40 µg/l, the site is likely experiencing an algal bloom. When these algae die off or respire at night, dissolved oxygen can become very low. Many times low dissolved oxygen caused by algal die off can cause fish kills. Algal blooms have been a problem in lakes, reservoirs and estuaries that are overloaded with nutrients. Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples collected exceed the state chlorophyll a standard of 40 µg/l and at least 10 samples were collected. In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 10,833.9 freshwater acres and 11.7 Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 259 stream miles that are Impaired where chlorophyll a is a stressor. There were also 2,239.8 freshwater acres and 32.6 stream miles that are impacted where chlorophyll a is a stressor. 27.3.4 Low Dissolved Oxygen Maintaining an adequate amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) is critical to the survival of aquatic life and to the general health of surface waters. A number of factors influence DO concentrations including water temperature, depth and turbulence. Additionally, in the Cape Fear River basin, a large floodplain drainage system and flow management from upstream impoundments also influences DO. Oxygen-consuming wastes such as decomposing organic matter and some chemicals can reduce DO levels in surface water through biological activity and chemical reactions. NPDES permits for wastewater discharges set limits on certain parameters in order to control the effects that oxygen depletion can have in receiving waters. Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples collected exceed the state DO standard and at least 10 samples were collected. The DO water quality standard for Class C waters is not less than a daily average of 5 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4 mg/l. For Class SC waters the standard is 5 mg/l. Swamp waters (supplemental Class Sw) may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 6,527.4 estuarine acres and 43.9 stream miles that are Impaired where low DO is a stressor. There were also over 667.5 freshwater acres, 264.9 stream miles and 1.0 estuarine acres where low DO is a stressor, although many of these streams are in swampy areas where low DO levels are likely from natural sources. 27.3.5 pH Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples collected exceed the state pH standard and at least 10 samples were collected. The pH water quality standard for Class C waters is between 6.0 and 9.0. For Class SC waters the standard is between 6.8 and 8.5. Swamp waters (supplemental Class Sw) may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 97.9 stream miles and 6,360.4 estuarine acres that are Impaired where low pH is a stressor. There were 1,445.5 freshwater acres that are Impaired where high pH is a stressor. There were also 3,799.6 freshwater acres and 107.2 stream miles that are impacted where low pH is a stressor, although many of these streams are in swampy areas where low pH levels are likely from natural sources. 27.3.6 Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) are noted as a stressor when identified from NPDES compliance reports. Waters are not Impaired due to TSS permit violations. In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 12.4 stream miles impacted where TSS is a stressor. 27.3.7 Toxic Impacts Toxic impacts are noted as a stressor when identified during biological community monitoring. Waters are not Impaired due to toxic impacts. In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 10.8 stream miles Impaired where toxic impacts are a stressor. Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 260 27.3.8 Turbidity Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples collected exceed the state turbidity standard and at least 10 samples were collected. The turbidity water quality standard for Class C waters is not to exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). In the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period, there were 115.4 stream miles and 5,616.7 estuarine acres that are Impaired where turbidity is a stressor. There were also 685.5 freshwater acres and 127.7 stream miles that are impacted where turbidity is a stressor. 27.4 Recreation Stressors - Pathogens 27.4.1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for recreation (refer to Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B .0200). The North Carolina fecal coliform standard for freshwater is 200 colonies/100ml based on the geometric mean of at least five consecutive samples taken during a 30-day period and not to exceed 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same period. In the Cape Fear River basin, there are 40.9 stream miles where this standard was exceeded. These waters are Impaired for recreation. In 154.6 stream miles fecal coliform bacteria is a noted stressor because annual screening criteria were exceeded. These waters were not intensively sampled to assess the standard as described above, but had either a geometric above 200 colonies/100ml and/or 20 percent of samples exceeded 400 colonies/100ml over the five-year assessment period. These waters are discussed in the subbasin chapters. A total of 19,339 acres, 1,119.9 stream miles and 48.6 coastline miles were monitored for recreation. A number of factors beyond the control of any state regulatory agency contribute to elevated levels of disease-causing bacteria. Therefore, the state does not encourage swimming in surface waters. To assure that waters are safe for swimming indicates a need to test waters for pathogenic bacteria. Although fecal coliform standards have been used to indicate the microbiological quality of surface waters for swimming for more than 50 years, the value of this indicator is often questioned. Evidence collected during the past several decades suggests that the coliform group may not adequately indicate the presence of pathogenic viruses or parasites in water. Fecal coliform bacteria live in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals (humans as well as other mammals) and are excreted in their waste. Fecal coliform bacteria do not actually pose a danger to people or animals. However, where fecal coliform are present, disease-causing bacteria may also be present and water that is polluted by human or animal waste can harbor other pathogens that may threaten human health. The presence of disease-causing bacteria tends to affect humans more than aquatic creatures. High levels of fecal coliform bacteria can indicate high levels of sewage or animal wastes that could make water unsafe for human contact (swimming). Fecal coliform bacteria and other potential pathogens associated with waste from warm-blooded animals are not harmful to fish and aquatic insects. However, high levels of fecal coliform bacteria may indicate contamination that increases the risk of contact with harmful pathogens in surface waters. Pathogens associated Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 261 with fecal coliform bacteria can cause diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid fever in humans. Some pathogens can also cause infection in open wounds. Under favorable conditions, fecal coliform bacteria can survive in bottom sediments for an extended period (Howell et al., 1996; Sherer et al., 1992; Schillinger and Gannon, 1985). Therefore, concentrations of bacteria measured in the water column can reflect both recent inputs as well as the resuspension of older inputs. Reducing fecal coliform bacteria in wastewater requires a disinfection process, which typically involves the use of chlorine and other disinfectants. Although these materials may kill the fecal coliform bacteria and other pathogenic disease-causing bacteria, they also kill bacteria essential to the proper balance of the aquatic environment, and thereby, endanger the survival of species dependent on those bacteria. Sources of Fecal Coliform in Surface Waters • Urban stormwater • Wild animals and domestic pets • Improperly designed or managed animal waste facilities The detection and identification of specific pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Shigella are expensive, and results are generally difficult to reproduce quantitatively. Also, to ensure the water is safe for swimming would require a whole suite of tests for many organisms, as the presence/absence of one organism would not document the presence/absence of another. This type of testing program is not possible due to resource constraints. • Livestock with direct access to streams • Improperly treated discharges of domestic wastewater, including leaking or failing septic systems and straight pipes 27.4.2 Enterrococcus-Recreational Beach Monitoring Enterrococcus is the pathogen indicator used by DEH Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program to assess recreation in coastal waters. DWQ does not directly use enterococcus data to assign use support ratings. Waters are Impaired when swimming advisories are posted for more than 61 days during the five year assessment period. In the Cape Fear River basin 96.6 estuarine acres and 4.7 Atlantic coastline miles are Impaired for recreation because of swimming advisories posted during the assessment period. Enterrococcus is the stressor in these waters. 27.5 Fish Consumption Stressors - Mercury The presence and accumulation of mercury in North Carolina’s aquatic environment are similar to contamination observed throughout the country. Mercury has a complex life in the environment, moving from the atmosphere to soil, to surface water and into biological organisms. Mercury circulates in the environment as a result of natural and human (anthropogenic) activities. A dominant pathway of mercury in the environment is through the atmosphere. Mercury that has been emitted from industrial and municipal stacks into the ambient air can circulate across the globe. At any point, mercury may then be deposited onto land and water. Once in the water, mercury can accumulate in fish tissue and humans. Mercury is also commonly found in wastewater. Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 262 The NC Department of Health and Human Services issues fish consumption advisories and advice for those fish species which have median and/or average methyl mercury levels at 0.4 mg/kg or greater. These fish include shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish, as well as largemouth bass, bowfin (or blackfish) and chain pickerel (or jack) in North Carolina waters south and east of Interstate 85. See Fish Consumption Advice below. Refer to Appendix X for more information regarding use support ratings and assessment methodology. DWQ has sampled fish tissue from 13 locations in the Cape Fear River basin. Refer to subbasin chapters for more information on these waters. For more detailed information, visit EPA’s internet site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/ or visit http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood1.html or call the FDA’s food information line toll-free at 1-888- SAFEFOOD. For more information and detailed listing of site-specific advisories, visit the NC Department of Health and Human Services website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html or call (919) 733-3816. 27.6 Shellfish Harvesting Stressors - Fecal Coliform Bacteria DWQ does not directly use DEH Shellfish Sanitation Section (DEH SS) fecal coliform bacteria data to make use support determinations in Class SA waters. DWQ relies on the growing area status of waters in the Cape Fear River basin that are monitored by DEH SS. Class SA waters that are in a DEH SS Approved classification are Supporting in the shellfish harvesting use support category by DWQ. All other DEH SS growing area classifications are considered to be Impaired in the shellfish harvesting category by DWQ. In the Cape Fear River basin, there are 2,654.2 acres of prohibited waters, 94.2 acres of conditionally approved-closed waters, and 3,822.8 acres of conditionally approved-open waters. All of these waters (6,571.2 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting and the stressor is fecal coliform bacteria. Chapter 27 – Water Quality Stressors 263 Chapter 28 Agriculture and Water Quality 28.1 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas Cultivated cropland was 16 (947,100 acres) percent of the land use in the Cape Fear River basin in 1997. While still a large portion of the basin land use, this is 20 percent (1,177,000 acres) less cultivated cropland than in 1982 (USDA-NRCS, 2001). In the Cape Fear River basin, there are nearly 265 stream miles that may be impacted by agricultural activities. There are over 25 Impaired stream miles where agriculture is identified as a potential source of water quality stressors. Impacts to water quality from agricultural sources may decrease over the next basin cycle due to substantial increases in urban/built-up areas throughout the river basin. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will identify streams where agricultural land use may be impacting water quality and aquatic habitat. This information will be related to local Division of Soil and Water Conservation and NRCS staff to investigate the agricultural impacts in these watersheds and to recommend BMPs to reduce impacts. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support for agricultural BMPs be continued and increased. Refer to Appendix VIII for agricultural nonpoint source agency contact information. 28.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices Funding Opportunities Fifty percent of the funding available for this program will be targeted at natural resource concerns relating to livestock production. The program is carried out primarily in priority areas that may be watersheds, regions or multi-state areas and for significant statewide natural resource concerns that are outside of geographic priority areas. EQIP’s authorized budget of $1.3 billion is prorated at $200 million per year through the year 2002. NRCS district contacts for the Cape Fear River basin are provided in Appendix VIII or visit the website at 28.2.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides technical, educational and financial assistance to eligible farmers to address soil, water and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program provides assistance to farmers in complying with federal and state environmental laws and encourages environmental enhancement. The purposes of the program are achieved through the implementation of a conservation plan that includes structural, vegetative and land management practices on eligible land. Five to 20-year contracts are made with eligible producers. Cost share payments may be made to implement one or more eligible structural or vegetative practice, such as animal waste management facilities, terraces, filter strips, tree planting and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments can be made to implement one or more land management practices, such as nutrient management, pest management and grazing land management. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/ for more information. Chapter 28 – Agriculture and Water Quality 264 28.2.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP) was established in 1984 to help reduce the sources of agricultural nonpoint source pollution to the state’s waters. The program helps owners and renters of established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by using Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include vegetative, structural or management systems that can improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the potential for surface and groundwater pollution. The Agriculture Cost Share Program is a voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of installing an approved BMP. The program is implemented by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). The cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned control measures and technical specifications are completed. The annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is approximately 6.9 million. From 1998 to 2003, DSWC ACSP implemented nearly $5 million in practices to 1580 projects. The practices have affected 65,586 acres, saved 251,451 tons of soil, 1.5 million pounds of nitrogen and 425,130 pounds of phosphorus in the Cape Fear River basin. SWCD contacts for the Cape Fear River basin are included in Appendix VIII or for more information, visit the website at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html. 28.2.3 Agricultural Sediment Initiative In 2000, the NC Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission initiated an effort to assess stream channels and watersheds of streams on the state’s 2000 303(d) list due to sediment where agriculture was included as a potential source. The primary objective of the Agricultural Sediment Initiative was to evaluate 303(d) listed waters in order to assess the severity of sedimentation associated with agricultural activities within the watershed and to develop local strategies for addressing sedimentation. The initiative involved 47 Impaired stream segments in 34 counties and 11 river basins. In 2001, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission allocated additional Agriculture Cost Share Funds to districts to address agricultural sediment. Table 29 summarizes the results of the completed Agricultural Sediment Surveys for five watersheds in three counties in the Cape Fear River basin. District staff requested approximately $2,840,000 for restoration and protection work in two of the watersheds. Table 29 Summary of Agricultural Sediment Initiative Surveys Stream County Problems Identified Funds Requested by District Cropland erosion, urban development, impervious surface, road construction, streambank erosion, deforestation Guilford/ Haw River $1,200,000 Alamance Little Troublesome Creek Streambank erosion, urban development, unpaved roads, cropland erosion Rockingham $160,000 Chapter 28 – Agriculture and Water Quality 265 Chapter 29 Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin 29.1 Impacted Streams in Forestland Forestland was 60 (3,531,100 acres) percent of the land use in the Cape Fear River basin in 1997. While still the largest portion of the basin land use, this is six percent less forestland than in 1982 (USDA-NRCS, 2001). In the Cape Fear River basin, there are no Impaired stream miles that have been directly impacted by forest harvesting activities. Impacts to water quality from forestry sources may decrease over the next basin cycle due to substantial increases in urban/built-up areas throughout the river basin. Most land clearing activities around urban areas are for development and usually not associated with forest harvesting. DWQ will identify streams where forest harvesting may be impacting water quality and aquatic habitat. This information will be related to Division of Forest Resources staff to investigate the impacts in these watersheds and to recommend BMPs to reduce impacts. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support for forestry BMPs be continued and increased. Refer to Appendix VIII for forestry nonpoint source agency contact information. 29.2 Forestland Ownership Nearly 3.2 million acres are classified as timberland in the Cape Fear River basin, as estimated from data in the most recent publication by the USDA-Forest Service (Brown, 2004) Nearly 84 percent of this land is owned by nonindustrial private landowners. Forest industry accounts for 7 percent of the timberland, while federal and state governments each comprise approximately 4 percent ownership (Figure 39). Local governments own the remaining 1 percent of timberland. While there are no National Forests in the basin, publicly-owned forestland includes over 33,000 acres at Bladen Lakes State Forest located in Bladen County (subbasin 03-06-16). This demonstration forest, certified under the international Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), is managed for the sustainable production of forest resources and contributes to the protection of the unique pocosin and Carolina Bay ecosystems. Two Educational State Forests are also operated by the Division of Forest Resources’ to provide educational programs while managing the forests for multiple resources. Turnbull Creek ESF, at 890 acres, protects portions of Turnbull Creek and is located north of Elizabethtown (subbasin 03-06-16). Approximately 900 acres of the federally protected lands around Jordan Lake are managed as the Jordan Lake ESF (subbasin 03-06-05). More information about the ESFs is available on the DFR’s website www.dfr.state.nc.us. Chapter 29 – Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin 266 Private 84% Industrial 7%Federal 4%State 4% Local 1% Figure 39 Ownership of Forestland in the Cape Fear River Basin The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR) is delegated the authority to monitor and evaluate forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned laws and/or rules. In addition, the DFR works to resolve identified FPG compliance questions brought to its attention through citizen complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be resolved by the DFR are referred to the appropriate state agency for enforcement action. During the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003, the Division of Forest Resources conducted 4,111 FPG inspections for water quality issues on forestry-related activities in the Cape Fear River basin; 96 percent of the sites inspected were in compliance. 29.3 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina 29.3.1 Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality (FPGs) and Randleman Buffer Rules Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Ch.113A Art.4 referred to as “SPCA”). However, forestry operations may be exempted from the permit and plan requirements of the SPCA, if the operations meet the compliance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1I .0101 - .0209, referred to as “FPGs”) and General Statutes regarding stream obstruction (G.S.77-13 and G.S.77-14). Additional regulations affect forestry operations that occur within the Randleman Lake watershed, including mandatory vegetative riparian buffers and specific limitations on tree harvesting in the buffer. Chapter 29 – Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin 267 29.3.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations In addition to the state regulations noted above, DFR monitors the implementation of the following federal rules relating to water quality and forestry operations: y The Section 404 Dredge and Fill exemption under the Clean Water Act. y The US Army Corps of Engineers BMPs for mechanical site preparation activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the southeast. Two Water Quality Foresters based out of the DFR’s Hillsborough and Whiteville District Offices handle water quality issues on forestry operations located in the upper and lower subbasins of the Cape Fear River basin. Two additional Water Quality Foresters handle those small portions of the Cape Fear River basin located in Wayne and Onslow counties. The DFR currently has a Water Quality Forester located in seven of the DFR’s 13 districts across the state. Assistant District Foresters or Service Foresters handle water quality issues in the remaining districts, along with other forest management and fire control responsibilities. Water Quality Foresters conduct FPG inspections, survey BMP implementation, develop pre-harvest plans, and provide training opportunities for landowners, loggers and the public regarding water quality issues related to forestry. Implementing Forestry Best Management Practices is strongly encouraged by the Division of Forest Resources in order to efficiently and effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. The Forestry Best Management Practices Manual describes recommended techniques that should be used to help comply with the state’s forestry laws and help protect water quality. This manual is currently undergoing its first revision since adoption in 1989. This revision, led by the DENR-appointed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), has undertaken over two years’ of effort on this project. From March 2000 through March 2003, the DFR conducted a statewide BMP Implementation Survey to evaluate Forestry BMPs on active harvest operations related to forest management. This survey evaluated 65 sites in the Cape Fear River basin, with a resulting BMP implementation rate of 82 percent, on par with the statewide implementation rate. The problems most often cited in this survey, across the state, relate to stream crossings, skid trails and site rehabilitation. This survey, and additional surveys to be conducted, will serve as a basis for focused efforts in the forestry community to address water quality concerns through better and more effective BMP implementation and training. y The US Army Corps of Engineers 15 mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to road construction in wetlands. 29.3.3 Water Quality Foresters 29.3.4 Forestry Best Management Practices To help address some of these issues, the DFR has been providing bridgemats on loan out to loggers for establishing temporary stream crossings during harvest activities. Temporary bridges are usually the best solution for stream crossings, instead of culverts or hard-surfaced ‘ford’ crossings. Bridgemats have been available for use in the entire Cape Fear River basin for only a Chapter 29 – Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin 268 short period of time. They are available upon request from DFR District Offices. More information about using bridgemats, and the above noted BMP survey, is available on the ‘Water Quality’ section of the DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us. These bridgemats were acquired through Section 319 grants from the USEPA. 29.4 Forest Resources 29.4.2 Forest Management At least 106,000 acres of privately-owned land were established or regenerated with forest trees across the Cape Fear River basin from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003 with nearly one-half of these acres reforested with partial funding through the FDP. During this same time period, the DFR provided approximately 5,800 individual forest management plans for landowners, encompassing over 326,000 acres in the Cape Fear River basin. Twelve towns and cities are “Tree City USA” communities, ranging from recent awards in Wilmington (2002) to the longest term in Graham (1980). Since 2001, the Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program has awarded over $98,000 for 13 community-based urban forestry projects in the basin. These projects may include urban forestry education, municipal tree inventories, tree planting and teacher education. Urban forestry and an associated field known as ‘Agroforestry’ are becoming increasingly vital components in reducing NPS runoff by integrating “working green space” into urban development projects. 29.4.1 Forest Products Industry Forestry is a vital economic driver throughout the Cape Fear River basin, with significant forest industry operations located in the upper, middle and lower sectors of the basin. Statewide, forest industry contributes nearly $18 billion annually to North Carolina’s economy. In the Cape Fear River basin, 32 different businesses are considered “Primary Processors” of forest products raw material, which represents 13 percent of the total number of primary processors in the state. This basin includes one of the five major pulp and paper mills located in North Carolina. Other examples of a primary processor are a sawmill, veneer mill, chip mill, pallet mill or plywood mill. These primary processors pay an assessment to the state, which is then combined with annual legislative appropriations, to fund the “Forest Development Program - FDP”, which provides cost shared reforestation assistance for forest landowners. Nearly 18,000 acres across 61 tracts are certified under the DFR’s Forest Stewardship Program. This voluntary, cooperative program helps individual forest owners manage their total forest resource. Landowners receive technical assistance in developing a stewardship management plan based on their ownership objectives. Activities are scheduled to enhance the forest for wildlife, soil and water quality, timber production, recreational opportunities, and natural beauty. Recertification is required periodically to benchmark the progress of the owner’s stewardship plan. 29.4.3 Urban Forestry Chapter 29 – Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin 269 29.5 Forestry Accomplishments Since the previous basinwide plan was produced, the DFR accomplished the following tasks in an ongoing effort to improve compliance with forest regulations and, in turn, minimize nonpoint source (NPS) pollution from forestry activities: 1. Expanded the availability of bridgemats to all of DFR’s operating districts within the Cape Fear River basin. 2. Established a Forestry NPS Unit that develops and oversees projects throughout the state that involves protection, restoration and education on forestry NPS issues. 3. Produced 1,500 copies of an information leaflet explaining the Randleman Lake Watershed Buffer Protection Rule for use by loggers, landowners and forestry professionals. 4. Revised and produced 10,000 copies of a pocket field guide outlining the requirements of the FPGs and suggested BMPs to implement. 5. Created and published 15,000 copies of a new brochure “Call Before You Cut” for landowners promoting pre-harvest planning to insure water quality issues are addressed prior to undertaking timber harvesting. 6. Continued to assist with workshops in cooperation with the NC Forestry Association’s “ProLogger” logger training program. As of 2004, this program requires at least six credit hours of continuing education every three years focused exclusively on water quality topics. 7. Achieved third-party sustainable forestry certification at Bladen Lakes State Forest through the internationally recognized Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). DFR continues its efforts to protect water quality through various protection, restoration and education projects. This includes research project, on-site demonstrations, and integration of NPS topics through the DFR’s network of Educational State Forests and State Forests. Progress reports and summaries are posted in the ‘Water Quality’ section of the DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us as they are completed. Chapter 29 – Forestry in the Cape Fear River Basin 270 Chapter 30 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 30.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary 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. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, which is delegated to DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency. The primary pollutants associated with point source discharges are: * oxygen-consuming wastes, * nutrients, * color, and * toxic substances including chlorine, ammonia and metals. Currently, there are 244 permitted wastewater discharges in the Cape Fear River basin with a permitted flow of approximately 425 MGD. Table 30 provides summary information (by type and subbasin) about the discharges. Various types of dischargers listed in the table are described in the inset box. Facilities are mapped in each subbasin chapter. For a complete listing of permitted facilities in the basin, refer to Appendix VI. Types of Wastewater Discharges Major Facilities: Wastewater Treatment Plants with flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day); and some industrial facilities (depending on flow and potential impacts to public health and water quality). Minor Facilities: Facilities not defined as Major. 100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat domestic-type waste (from toilets, sinks, washers). Municipal Facilities: Public facilities that serve a municipality. Can treat waste from homes and industries. Nonmunicipal Facilities: Non-public facilities that provide treatment for domestic, industrial or commercial wastewater. This category includes wastewater from industrial processes such as textiles, mining, seafood processing, glass-making and power generation, and other facilities such as schools, subdivisions, nursing homes, groundwater remediation projects, water treatment plants and non-process industrial wastewater. The majority of NPDES permitted wastewater discharges into the waters of the Cape Fear River basin are from major municipal wastewater treatment plants. Nonmunicipal discharges also contribute substantial wastewater into the Cape Fear River basin. Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 271 Table 30 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Cape Fear River Basin (as of 10/27/04) Catawba River 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 11 30 6 6 11 4 16 23 13 3 7 4 6 9 6 7 41 2 8 2 6 13 7 3 244 Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 7.80 76.61 12.06 0.83 32.4 14.77 17.56 29.41 9.85 1.93 7.82 4.02 9.03 10.49 53.28 13.73 99.93 0.08 6.83 0.82 1.4 9.94 3.80 0.1 424.49 Major Discharges 2 6 1 0 2 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 3 13 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 56 Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 7.65 74.05 12.0 0.0 32.0 14.5 15.56 17.75 9.0 1.3 6.8 4.0 6.7 9.5 53.25 7.5 96.16 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 6.92 2.95 0.0 383.59 Minor Discharges 9 24 5 6 9 3 10 21 12 2 6 3 3 7 2 4 28 2 7 2 5 10 5 3 188 Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.15 2.56 0.06 0.83 0.4 0.27 2.0 11.67 0.85 0.63 1.02 0.02 2.33 0.99 0.03 6.23 3.77 0.08 1.83 0.82 0.4 3.02 0.86 0.1 40.92 100% Domestic Waste 8 11 3 2 6 1 3 8 6 0 2 3 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 74 Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.15 0.45 0.06 0.04 0.4 0.18 0.1 0.17 0.13 0.0 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.93 0.03 0.01 1.08 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.01 0.04 0.0 4.22 Municipal Facilities 1 5 1 2 2 1 6 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 9 0 6 1 1 5 1 1 59 Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 7.5 74.0 12.0 0.78 32.0 14.5 5.5 17.75 9.58 1.9 6.8 4.0 4.2 1.56 52.0 1.23 38.66 0.0 6.82 0.8 1.0 6.43 0.75 0.1 299.86 Nonmunicipal Facilities 10 25 5 4 9 3 10 21 10 1 6 3 4 7 3 6 32 2 2 1 5 8 6 2 185 Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.3 2.61 0.06 0.06 0.4 0.27 12.07 11.67 0.27 0.03 1.02 0.02 4.83 8.93 1.28 12.51 61.27 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.4 3.51 3.05 0.0 124.67 30.2 NPDES Wastewater Compliance Summary There were 52 significant NPDES permit violations in the last two years of the assessment period. There are 156 Impaired stream miles where point sources may have negatively impacted the water quality. Facilities, large or small, where recent data show problems with a discharge are discussed in each subbasin chapter. DWQ will determine if the violations are ongoing and address them using the NPDES permitting process. Many other waters are adversely impacted by the cumulative affects of discharges and nonpoint source runoff. 30.3 NPDES Permitting Strategies The following permitting strategies are to address specific water quality issues in receiving waters. Dischargers into tributaries of the following streams may also be required to adhere to recommendations presented below. Permitted facilities and new permit applications that are not discussed below will be treated on a case-by-case basis dependant upon local water quality conditions and use support ratings. New and expanding discharges <1 MGD and >0.5 MGD: TP = 2 mg/l 30.3.1 Haw River Jordan Reservoir Jordan Reservoir is Impaired, and a TMDL and NSW strategy is being developed that will include changes to NPDES permit limits. This strategy is discussed in Chapter 36. 30.3.2 Randleman Watershed Permitting Strategy The 2000 basin plan recommended that no new discharges be permitted and that only High Point Eastside WWTP be allowed to expand. Refer to Chapter 8 for more information on water quality issues in this watershed. 30.3.3 Deep River from Randleman Reservoir to Carbonton Dam The 2000 basin plan recommended the following permit limits for oxygen-consuming waste in this segment of the Deep River: New and expanding discharges ≥1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1 mg/l, TP = 1 mg/l New and expanding discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 15 mg/l, NH3-N = 4 mg/l DWQ continues to recommend the permit limits from the 2000 basin plan. The Deep River behind Carbonton Dam is Impaired because of chlorophyll a standards violations (Chapter 10) that are an indicator of excessive algal growth (Chapter 27). Because of this impairment, further reductions in nutrients from permitted facilities upstream of the dam as well as from nonpoint sources may be required. No additional TP or TN mass loading will be permitted for any discharges upstream of Carbonton Dam and below Randleman Dam. Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 273 30.3.4 Deep River from Carbonton Dam to the Haw River No new discharges of oxygen-consuming wastes should be permitted into this segment since wastewater assimilative capacity no longer exists in this segment of the Deep River. 30.3.5 Cape Fear River from Jordan Dam to Buckhorn Dam The Cape Fear River upstream of Buckhorn Dam is Impaired because of chlorophyll a standards violations (Chapter 7) that are an indicator of excessive algal growth (Chapter 27). A TMDL will be developed to address the chlorophyll a impairment that may require further reductions in nutrients from permitted facilities upstream of the dam as well as from nonpoint sources. No additional TP or TN mass loading will be permitted for any discharges upstream of Buckhorn Dam and below Carbonton Dam on the Deep River and Jordon Dam on the Haw River. 30.3.6 Cape Fear River from Buckhorn Dam to L&D 3 The Cape Fear River from Grays Creek to Lock and Dam 3 is Impaired because of chlorophyll a standards violations (Chapter 15) that are an indicator of excessive algal growth (Chapter 27). Because of this impairment, the following interim permitting policy will be used for discharges from Buckhorn Dam to L&D #3. New discharges: • Seasonal summer (April-October) mass nutrient loads based on permitted flow and concentrations of TN = 6 mg/l and TP = 2 mg/l. Expanding discharges: • Seasonal summer (April-October) mass nutrient loads based on the greater of either: a) freezing current nutrient mass loading using actual flows and actual nutrient concentrations; or b) mass nutrient loadings based on permitted expansion flow and concentrations of TN = 6 mg/l and TP = 2 mg/l. Because of this impairment, a TMDL will be developed which may require further reductions in nutrients from permitted facilities upstream of the dam as well as from nonpoint sources may be required. The following permit limits from the 2000 basin plan continue to be recommended for other oxygen-consuming wastes. New and expanding municipal discharges ≥1 MGD: BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 1 mg/l New and expanding municipal discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 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 Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 274 30.3.7 Cape Fear River from L&D 3 to L&D1 The following permit limits from the 2000 basin plan continue to be recommended for oxygen- consuming wastes. New and expanding municipal discharges ≥1 MGD: BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 1mg/l New and expanding municipal discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 12mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l New industrial discharges ≥1 MGD: BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 1mg/l New industrial discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l Expanding industrial discharges: site specific best available technology or BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l 30.3.8 Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #1 to the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary The following permit limits from the 2000 basin plan continue to be recommended for oxygen-consuming wastes. New and expanding municipal discharges ≥1 MGD: BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 1mg/l New and expanding municipal discharges <1 MGD: BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l New industrial discharges: BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l Expanding industrial discharges: site specific best available technology or BOD5 = 5mg/l, NH3-N = 2mg/l A TMDL is being developed to address low dissolved oxygen levels in the Cape Fear River estuary. This may require further reductions in permit limits for discharges of oxygen- consuming wastes into this segment of the Cape Fear River. Expanding discharges will be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. 30.4 Animal Operations Wastewater Treatment and Disposal In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted a rule modification (15A NCAC 2H.0217) establishing procedures for managing and reusing animal wastes from intensive livestock operations. The rule applies to new, expanding or existing feedlots with animal waste management systems designed to serve animal populations of at least the following size: 100 head of cattle, 75 horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep or 30,000 birds (chickens and turkeys) with a liquid waste system. These systems are design to treat liquid waste and spray the waste at agronomic rates onto fields where the nutrients are assimilated by crops. Failures in the waste treatment systems that impact surface waters are discussed in the subbasin chapters. Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 275 Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-2003) 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. NCDENR 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 NCDENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons. The Bill 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. 2000 Attorney General Easley reached a landmark agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. to phase out hog lagoons and implement new technologies that will substantially reduce pollutants from hog farms. The agreement commits Smith field to phase out all anaerobic lagoon systems on 276 company-owned farms. Legislation will be required to phase out the remaining systems statewide within a 5-year period (State of Environment Report, 2000). 2001 House Bill 1216 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms. Table 31 and Figure 40 summarize, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total number of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight as of October 2004. These numbers reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent the total number of animals in each subbasin. Overall the majority of registered animal operations are found in Sampson and Duplin counties in subbasins 03-06-18 and 03-06-22. Registered animal operations where recent data show problems are discussed in the appropriate subbasin chapter in Section B. Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 276 Table 31 Registered Animal Operations in the Cape Fear River Basin (October 2004) Cattle Poultry Swine Total Total Total Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight 03-06-01 5 2,794 2,891,600 0 0 0 1 1,140 493,620 03-06-02 5 1,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 1 250 130,500 03-06-03 2 425 595,000 0 0 0 3 10,570 901,950 03-06-04 17 2,777 3,887,800 0 0 0 3 23,544 2,432,520 03-06-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-06-06 1 125 175,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-06-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2,747 976,787 03-06-08 4 2,479 3,470,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-06-09 2 475 665,000 0 0 0 10 33,734 5,690,858 03-06-10 1 200 280,000 0 0 0 2 12,253 924,090 03-06-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-06-12 1 150 210,000 0 0 0 1 100 52,200 03-06-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 28,616 3,197,880 03-06-14 1 650 910,000 0 0 0 5 21,952 4,157,160 03-06-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 44,824 6,740,600 03-06-16 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 199,783 31,771,545 03-06-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 40,866 6,381,110 03-06-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 304,214 57,107,552 03-06-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 1,373,714 181,748,547 03-06-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 65,172 10,984,120 03-06-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 228,483 26,796,659 03-06-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 391 1,618,256 219,202,863 03-06-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 174,282 25,343,570 03-06-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,800 243,000 Totals 39 11,075 14,485,000 0 0 0 991 4,186,300 585,277,131 * Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion factor has been applied to the number of swine, cattle or poultry on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms. Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 277 30.5 Septic Systems and Straight Piping In the Cape Fear River basin, wastewater from many households is not treated at wastewater treatment plants associated with NPDES discharge permits, but is treated on the property through the use of permitted septic systems. Wastewater from some homes illegally discharges directly to streams through what is known as a "straight pipe". In other cases, wastewater from failing septic systems makes its way to streams or contaminates groundwater. Straight piping and failing septic systems are illegal discharges of wastewater into waters of the state. With on-site septic systems, the septic tank unit treats some wastes, and the drainfield associated with the septic tank provides further treatment and filtration of the pollutants and pathogens found in wastewater. A septic system that is operating properly does not discharge untreated wastewater to streams and lakes or to the ground’s surface where it can run into nearby surface waters. Septic systems are a safe and effective long-term method for treating wastewater if they are sited, sized and maintained properly. If the tank or drainfield are improperly located or constructed, or the systems are not maintained, nearby wells and surface waters may become contaminated, causing potential risks to human health. Septic tank systems must be properly sited, designed, installed and maintained to insure they function properly over the life of the system. Information about the proper installation and maintenance of septic tanks can be obtained by calling the environmental health sections of the local county health departments (Appendix VIII contains contact information). Septic system permitting and site visits are tracked by county and not by watershed or basin. Currently, it is difficult to determine if septic system failures are directly causing water quality problems in any specific watershed. Information and data on septic system failures that can be related to surface waters are discussed in the subbasin chapters. For program information by county, visit the website at http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/Program_improvement_team/2003forweb.xls. 2005 Recommendations Efforts to create a permanent statewide septic maintenance and repair program similar to the straight pipe and failing septic system initiative currently active in western NC should be pursued. Additional monitoring of fecal coliform throughout tributary watersheds where straight pipes and failing septic systems are a potential problem should be conducted in order to narrow the focus of the surveys. For more information on the septic tank systems, contact the DENR On-Site Wastewater Section, NC Division of Environmental Health, toll free at 1-866-223-5718 or visit their website at http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/. Additionally, precautions should be taken by local septic system permitting authorities to ensure that new systems are sited and constructed properly and that an adequate repair area is available. Educational information should also be provided to new septic system owners regarding the maintenance of these systems over time. DWQ has developed a booklet that discusses actions individuals can take to reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality entitled Improving Water Quality In Your Own Backyard. The publication includes a discussion about septic system maintenance and offers other sources of information. To obtain a free copy, call (919) 733-5083, ext. 558. The following website also offers good information in three easy to follow steps: http://www.wsg.washington.edu/outreach/mas/water_quality/septicsense/septicmain.html. Chapter 30 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 279 Chapter 31 Stormwater Programs 31.1 Introduction As described in Chapter 26, there have been large increases in population in the Cape Fear River basin. Water quality impacts associated with increased population are numerous. Streams with the worst water quality in the basin are closely associated with existing urban areas. In the Cape Fear River basin, there are over 300 miles of Impaired streams that drain urban or urbanizing watersheds. The following sections describe the various stormwater programs and rules designed to prevent impacts associated with population growth and development as well as recommendations for local governments to further address impacts associated with the increased growth. 31.2 DWQ Stormwater Programs There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these programs affect many communities in the Cape Fear River basin. The goal of the DWQ stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs try to accomplish this goal by controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include NPDES Phase I and II, coastal county stormwater requirements, HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply Watershed Program. Local governments that are or may be affected by these programs are presented in Table 32. 31.2.1 NPDES Phase I Phase I of the EPA stormwater program started with Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1990. Phase I required NPDES permit coverage to address stormwater runoff from medium and large stormwater sewer systems serving populations of 100,000 or more people. There are three NPDES Phase I stormwater permits issued to communities in the basin. Phase I also has requirements for 11 categories of industrial sources to be covered under stormwater permits. Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in categories ranging from sawmills and landfills to manufacturing plants and hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. Construction sites disturbing greater than five acres are also required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit under Phase I of the EPA stormwater program. Excluding construction stormwater general permits, there are 673 general stormwater permits and 47 individual stormwater permits in the Cape Fear River basin. Refer to the subbasin chapters for more information on stormwater programs and permits and a complete listing of individual permits in Appendix VI. Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 280 31.2.2 NPDES Phase II The Phase II stormwater program is an extension of the Phase I program that includes permit coverage for smaller municipalities and covers construction activities down to one acre. The local governments permitted under Phase II will be required to develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater management program that includes six minimum measures. 1) Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts. 2) Public involvement/participation. 3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination. 4) Construction site stormwater runoff control. 5) Post-construction stormwater management for new development and redevelopment. 6) Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. Construction sites greater than one acre will also be required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit under Phase II of the EPA stormwater program in addition to erosion and sedimentation control approvals. Current Status There are 28 municipalities and 9 counties (Table 32) in the basin that are automatically required (based on 1990 US Census Designated Urban Areas and results of the 2000 US Census) to obtain a Phase II NPDES stormwater permit. These local governments were required to submit applications for NPDES stormwater permits by March 2003. DWQ is currently developing criteria that will be used to determine whether other municipalities should be required to obtain a NPDES permit and how the program will be implemented. DWQ is also working to finalize state rules to implement the Phase II stormwater rules as required by the EPA. 2004 Recommendations DWQ recommends that the local governments that will be permitted under Phase II proceed with permit applications and develop programs that can go beyond the six minimum measures. Implementation of Phase II, as well as the other stormwater programs, should help to reduce future impacts to streams in the basin. Local governments, to the extent possible, should identify sites for preservation or restoration. DWQ and other NCDENR agencies will continue to provide information on funding sources and technical assistance to support local government stormwater programs. 31.2.3 State Stormwater Program The State Stormwater Management Program was established in the late 1980s under the authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and North Carolina General Statute 143-214.7. This program codified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000 affects development activities that require either an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more acres) or a CAMA major permit within one of the 20 coastal counties and/or development draining to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW). The State Stormwater Management Program requires developments to protect these sensitive waters by maintaining a low density of impervious surfaces, maintaining vegetative buffers, and transporting runoff through vegetative conveyances. Low density development thresholds vary Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 281 from 12-30 percent built-upon area (impervious surface) depending on the classification of the receiving stream. If low density design criteria cannot be met, then high density development requires the installation of structural best management practices (BMPs) to collect and treat stormwater runoff from the project. High density BMPs must control the runoff from the 1 or 1.5-inch storm event (depending on the receiving stream classification) and remove 85 percent of the total suspended solids. Current Status Table 32 shows the 17 counties in the Cape Fear River basin where permits may be required under the state stormwater management program. All development requiring an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more acres) must obtain a stormwater permit. 2005 Recommendations DWQ will continue implementing the state stormwater program with the other NCDENR agencies and local governments. Local governments should develop local land use plans that minimize impervious surfaces in sensitive areas. Communities should integrate state stormwater program requirements, to the extent possible, with other stormwater programs in order to be more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for protection of public health and aquatic life. Table 32 Communities in the Cape Fear River Subject to Stormwater Requirements NPDES Phase I and Phase II State Stormwater Program Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Requirements Municipalities Alamance X Angier X Apex Phase II 1990 X Archdale Phase II 1990 X Asheboro X Biscoe X Broadway X Burgaw Burlington Phase II 1990 X Calypso Cameron X Candor X X Carolina Beach Phase II 2000 Carrboro Phase II 1990 X Carthage X Cary Phase II 1990 X Chapel Hill Phase II 1990 Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 282 Coats X Durham Phase I X East Arcadia X Elon Phase II 1990 Erwin X Fayetteville Phase I X Franklinville X Fuquay-Varina Phase II 2000 X Garland X Gibsonville Phase II 2000 X Goldston X Graham Phase II 1990 Green Level Phase II 2000 X Greensboro Phase I X Haw River Phase II 1990 X High Point Phase II 1990 X Holly Springs Phase II 2000 Hope Mills Phase II 1990 Jamestown Phase II 1990 X Kernersville Phase II 2000 X Kure Beach Phase II 2000 Leland Phase II 1990 Liberty X Lillington X Mebane Phase II 1990 X Morrisville Phase II 2000 X Navassa Phase II 2000 North Topsail Beach X Pinehurst X Pittsboro X Randleman X Reidsville X Robbins X Sandyfield X Sanford X Seagrove X Siler City X Southern Pines X Spring Lake Phase II 1990 X Staley X Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 283 Star X Stokesdale X Summerfield X Swepsonville Phase II 2000 Taylortown X Vass X X Wade X Whispering Pines X X Whitsett X Wilmington Phase II 1990 X Wrightsville Beach Phase II 1990 Counties Alamance Phase II 1990 X Bladen X X Brunswick Phase II 1990 X Caswell X Chatham Phase II 2000 X X Columbus X X Cumberland X X Duplin X Durham X Forsyth Phase II 1990 X Guilford Phase II 1990 X X Harnett X X Hoke X X Johnston Lee X X Montgomery X X Moore X X New Hanover Phase II 1990 X X Onslow Phase II 1990 X Orange Phase II 1990 X Pender X X Randolph X X Rockingham X Sampson X Wake Phase II 1990 X Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 284 31.2.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program is to provide an effective drinking water supply protection program for communities. Local governments administer the program based on state minimum requirements. There are restrictions on wastewater discharges, development, landfills and residual application sites to control the impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The program attempts to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff by utilizing low density development or stormwater treatment in high density areas. Current Status All communities in the Cape Fear River basin in water supply watersheds have EMC approved water supply watershed protection ordinances. 2005 Recommendations DWQ recommends continued implementation of local water supply protection ordinances to ensure safe and economical treatment of drinking water. Communities should also integrate water supply protection ordinances with other stormwater programs, to the extent possible, in order to be more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for both drinking water and aquatic life. 31.3 Local Government Role in Addressing Runoff Impacts 31.3.1 The Role of Local Governments A summary of recommended management actions by local authorities is provided here, followed by discussions on large, watershed management issues. These recommended actions are necessary to address current sources of impairment and to prevent continuing degradation in all streams. The intent of these recommendations is to describe the types of actions necessary to improve stream conditions, not to specify particular administrative or institutional mechanisms for implementing remedial practices. Those types of decisions must be made at the local level. Because of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream conditions and in how aquatic organisms will respond to improvements, the intensity of management effort necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management approach is implemented. Management actions are suggested below to address individual problems, but many of these actions are interrelated. Actions one through five are important to restoring and sustaining aquatic communities in the watershed, with the first three recommendations being the most important. 1. Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented throughout the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (increased stormwater volumes and increased frequency and duration of erosive and scouring flows). This should be viewed as a long-term process. Although there are many uncertainties, costs in the range of $1 million per square mile can probably be anticipated. Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 285 a. Over the short-term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified and implemented. b. In the longer term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing developed areas. c. Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives, such as Section 319 funds, or the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. 2. A watershed scale strategy to address toxic inputs should be developed and implemented, including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment methods. As an initial framework for planning toxicity reduction efforts, the following general approach is proposed: a. Implementation of available BMP opportunities for control of stormwater volume and velocities. As recommended above to improve aquatic habitat potential, these BMPs will also remove toxics from stormwater. b. Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and source reduction practices. c. Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant removal, at appropriate locations. d. Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction activities focused on: reducing nonstorm inputs of toxics; reducing pollutants available for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce storm runoff. 3. Stream channel restoration activities should be implemented in target areas, in conjunction with stormwater retrofit BMPs, in order to improve aquatic habitat. Before beginning stream channel restoration, a geomorphologic survey should be conducted to determine the best areas for stream channel restoration. Additionally, it would probably be advantageous to implement retrofit BMPs before embarking on stream channel restoration, as restoration is probably best designed for flows driven by reduced stormwater runoff. Costs of approximately $200 per foot of channel should be anticipated (Haupt et al., 2002 and Weinkam et al., 2001). Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from federal sources, such as EPA’s Section 319 funds, or state sources including North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. 4. Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely to reduce nutrient/organic loading and its impacts to some extent. Activities recommended to address this loading include the identification and elimination of illicit discharges; education of homeowners, commercial applicators, and others regarding proper fertilizer use; street sweeping; catch basin clean-out practices; and the installation of additional BMPs targeting BOD and nutrient removal at appropriate sites. 5. Prevention of further channel erosion and habitat degradation will require effective post- construction stormwater management for all new development in the study area. 6. Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of improved erosion and sediment control practices may be beneficial. 7. Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues: a. redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to driveways or gutters; Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 286 b. protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams; c. replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such vegetation is absent; and d. reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use. 31.3.2 Maintain and Reestablish Riparian Buffers The presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands in urban areas can reduce the impacts of urban development. Establishment and protection of buffers should be considered where feasible, and the amount of impervious cover should be limited as much as possible. Wide streets, large cul-de-sacs, and long driveways and sidewalks lining both sides of the street are all features of urban development that create excess impervious cover and consume natural areas. Preserving the natural streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most economical and efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits including filtering runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing erosion and loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and providing food and habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. To obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call (919) 733-5083, ext. 558. 31.3.3 Protecting Headwaters Many streams in a given river basin are only 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 (Figure 41). 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 even indicated on maps. These streams account for approximately 80 percent of the stream network and provide many valuable services for quality and quantity of water delivered downstream (Meyer et al., 2003). However, degradation of headwater streams can (and does) impact the larger stream or river. Figure 41 Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 287 There are three types of headwater streams: perennial (flow year-round), intermittent (flow during wet seasons), and ephemeral (flow only after precipitation events). All types of headwater streams provide benefits to larger streams and rivers. Headwater streams control flooding, recharge groundwater, maintain water quality, reduce downstream sedimentation, recycle nutrients, and create habitat for plants and animals (Meyer et al., 2003). In smaller headwater streams, fish communities are not well developed and benthic macroinvertebrates dominate aquatic life. Benthic macroinvertebrates are often thought of as "fish food" and, in mid-sized streams and rivers, they are critical to a healthy fish community. However, these insects, both in larval and adult stages, are also food for small mammals, such as river otter and raccoons, birds and amphibians (Erman, 1996). Benthic macroinvertebrates in headwater streams also perform the important function of breaking down coarse organic matter, such as leaves and twigs, and releasing fine organic matter. In larger rivers, where coarse organic matter is not as abundant, this fine organic matter is a primary food source for benthic macroinvertebrates and other organisms in the system (CALFED, 1999). When the benthic macroinvertebrate community is changed or extinguished in an area, even temporarily, as occurs during land use changes, it can have repercussions in many parts of both the terrestrial and aquatic food web. Headwater streams also provide a source of insects for repopulating downstream waters where benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been eliminated due to human alterations and pollution. Adult insects have short life spans and generally live in the riparian areas surrounding the streams from which they emerge (Erman, 1996). Because there is little upstream or stream- to-stream migration of benthic macroinvertebrates, once headwater populations are eliminated, there is little hope for restoring a functioning aquatic community. In addition to macroinvertebrates, these streams support diverse populations of plants and animals that face similar problems if streams are disturbed. Headwater streams are able to provide these important ecosystem services due to their unique locations, distinctive flow patterns, and small drainage areas. Because of the small size of headwater streams, they are often overlooked during land use activities that impact water quality. All landowners can participate in the protection of headwaters by keeping small tributaries in mind when making land use management decisions on the areas they control. This includes activities such as retaining vegetated stream buffers, minimizing stream channel alterations, and excluding cattle from streams. Local rural and urban planning initiatives should also consider impacts to headwater streams when land is being developed. For a more detailed description of watershed hydrology and watershed management, refer to EPA’s Watershed Academy website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/watershedmgt/principle1.html. 31.3.4 Reduce Impacts of Future 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. Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 288 Areas adjacent to the high growth areas of the basin are at risk of having Impaired biological communities. These biological communities are important to maintaining the ecological integrity in the Cape Fear River basin. These streams will be important as sources of benthic macroinvertebrates and fishes for reestablishment of biological communities in nearby streams that are recovering from past impacts or are being restored. To prevent further impairment to aquatic life in streams in urbanizing watersheds local governments should: 1. Identify waters that are threatened by development. 2. Protect existing riparian habitat along streams. 3. Implement stormwater BMPs during and after development. 4. Develop land use plans that minimize disturbance in sensitive areas of watersheds. 5. Minimize impervious surfaces including roads and parking lots. 6. Develop public outreach programs to educate citizens about stormwater runoff. Action should be taken at the local level to plan for new development in urban and rural areas. For more detailed information regarding recommendations for new development found in the text box (above), refer to EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection, the Center for Watershed Protection website at www.cwp.org, and the Low Impact Development Center website at www.lowimpactdevelopment.org. Additional public education is also needed in the Cape Fear River basin in order for citizens to understand the value of urban planning and stormwater management. DWQ recently developed a booklet that discusses actions individuals can take to reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality entitled Improving Water Quality In Your Own Backyard. To obtain a free copy, call (919) 733- 5083, ext. 558. For an example of local community planning, visit the website at http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm. Planning Recommendations for New Development • Minimize number and width of residential streets. • Minimize size of parking areas (angled parking & narrower slots). • Place sidewalks on only one side of residential streets. • Minimize culvert pipe and hardened stormwater conveyances. • Vegetate road right-of-ways, parking lot islands and highway dividers to increase infiltration. • Plant and protect natural buffer zones along streams and tributaries. Chapter 31 – Stormwater and Watershed Urbanization 289 Chapter 32 Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 32.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units Under the federal system, the Cape Fear River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred to as cataloging units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). The Cape Fear River basin is made up of seven whole cataloging units. Cataloging units are further divided into smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic units or local watersheds) that are used for smaller scale planning. There are 2,819 local watershed units in the basin. Table 33 compares the three systems. A map identifying the hydrologic units and subbasins can be found in Appendix I. Table 33 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Cape Fear River Basin Watershed Name and Major Tributaries DWQ Subbasin 6-Digit Codes USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Units Onslow Bay Masonboro and Middle Sounds Topsail and Stump Sounds 03-06-24 03030001 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 03-06-01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 01 02 03 04 05 06 03030002 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 03-06-08, 09, 10, 11, 12 08 09 10 11 12 03030003 Upper Cape Fear River Cape Fear River (upper) Upper Little River Little River Rockfish Creek and Cape Fear River 03-06-07, 13, 13, 15 07 13 14 15 03030004 Lower Cape Fear River Cape Fear River Town Creek, Brunswick River and Cape Fear River (extreme lower) 03-06-15, 16, 17 16 17 03030005 Black River South River Great Coharie Creek, Six Runs Creek and Upper Black River Black River 03-06-18, 19, 20 18 19 20 03030006 Northeast Cape Fear River Upper Northeast Cape Fear River Middle Northeast Cape Fear River, Goshen Swamp and Rockfish Creek Lower Northeast Cape Fear River 03-06-21, 22, 23 21 22 23 03030007 Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 290 32.2 Minimum Streamflow One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows below dams. 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. The Division of Water Resources, in conjunction with the Wildlife Resources Commission, recommends conditions relating to release of flows to satisfy minimum instream flow requirements. The Division of Land Resources issues the permits. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses all dams associated with hydropower that meet the conditions of the Federal Poser Act. FERC-related dams are exempt from DLR authority, and flow requirements are included in the federal license. Flow requirements were also requested by agencies in the Certification of Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that is required for public utilities and issued by the NC Utility Commission. 32.2.1 Deep River Hydroelectric Projects Coltrane Dam is unlicensed and will be inundated by the Randleman Reservoir project. Worthville Dam has no minimum release requirement according to their FERC license. This dam operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass reach. The dam is located near Ramseur. Cox Lake Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 42 cfs. The dam is located near Asheboro and has a 506-foot bypass reach. Cedar Falls Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 32 cfs. The dam is located near Asheboro and has a 2,112-foot bypass reach. The license has been transferred to Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. The possible removal of the dam is being studied. Franklinville/Randolph Mills Dam was deemed non-jurisdictional by FERC and is unlicensed. This dam operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass reach. There is a 46cfs minimum flow requirement in its CPCN. The by-pass reach is 480 feet. The dam is located near Franklinville. Ramseur Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 45 cfs. The dam is located near Ramseur and has a 1,430-foot bypass reach. Coleridge Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 35 cfs. The dam is located near Coleridge and has a 500-foot bypass reach. High Falls Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 108 cfs. The dam is located near Robbins and has a 2,844-foot bypass reach. Carbonton Dam has no minimum release requirement according to their FERC license. This dam operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass reach. The dam is located upstream of Sanford. Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 291 Lockville Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 70 cfs. The dam is located near Sanford and has a 2,300-foot bypass reach. The upper 700 feet is subject to project operations and lower 1,600 feet is the backwater of the Buckhorn Dam 32.2.2 Haw River Hydroelectric Projects Altamahaw Dam is unlicensed and has no minimum release requirements. The dam is located near Altamahaw and has an 800-foot bypass reach. Glencoe Mills Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 57 cfs. The dam is located near Glencoe and has a 1,815-foot bypass reach. Swepsonville Dam is unlicensed and not operational. The dam is being considered for removal. Saxapahaw Dam is required by FERC to operate in run-of-river non-peaking mode. The CPCN states that 10 cfs or one-quarter of the reservoir inflow, whichever is less, is required in the west channel below the dam. The dam is located near Saxapahaw and has a 5,200-foot bypass reach. Bynum Dam is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 80 cfs. The dam is located near Bynum and has a 3,000-foot bypass reach. 32.2.3 Rockfish Creek Hydroelectric Projects Raeford Dam has no minimum release requirement according to their FERC license. This dam operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass reach. The dam is located near Raeford. 32.2.4 Rocky River Hydroelectric Projects Rocky River Dam has no minimum release requirement according to their FERC license. This dam operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass reach. The dam is located upstream of Sanford. 32.2.5 Lake Mackintosh (Big Alamance Creek) Burlington Water Supply 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 Division of Water Resources (DWR). 32.2.6 Back Creek (Graham-Mebane Reservoir) Graham-Mebane Water Supply 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. Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 292 32.2.7 Bones Creek (Lake Rimm) 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. 32.2.8 Bransom Creek (Forest Lake Dam) 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. 32.2.9 Little Cross Creek (below Glenville Lake) 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. 32.2.10 Deep River (Randleman Dam) 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) that 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. 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. 32.2.11 Mill Creek (Reservoir Park Dam Southern Pines) 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. 32.2.12 Nick’s Creek (Town of Carthage Water Supply) Based on an instream flow study, the Town of Carthage was granted permission for an increase of its run-of-river withdrawal from 0.5 MGD to 1 MGD with no flow requirement. Carthage received temporary permits to reconstitute the breached dam upstream of the water supply intake. A flow requirement is under consideration. Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 293 32.2.13 Reedy Fork Creek (Lake Townsend) 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. 32.2.14 Rocky River (Rocky River Reservoir) 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. The Siler City is proposing to build a new dam 105 downstream of the existing lower dam that would increase storage from 24.1 to 162.5 acres. Instream flow requirements are being developed based on requirements in the 401 permit. 32.2.15 Haw River (Greensboro Emergency Intake) Greensboro has an emergency intake on the Haw River that can only be used during drought conditions. Based on previous studies a minimum instream flow of 22 cfs is recommended below the intake at all times during pumping. 32.2.16 Little Rockfish Creek (Hope Mills Dam) The Hope Mills dam was destroyed during high flow events in 2003. Based on existing studies DWR recommends a minimum instream flow of 38 cfs after dam reconstruction. 32.2.17 Juniper Branch (Forest Creek Golf Club) The Forest Creek Golf Club irrigation impoundment provides a 0.15 cfs minimum instream flow. 32.3 Interbasin Transfers In addition to water withdrawals (discussed above), water users in North Carolina are also required to register surface water transfers with the Division of Water Resources if the amount is 100,000 gallons per day or more. In addition, persons wishing to transfer two million gallons per day (MGD) or more, or increase an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, must first obtain a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (G.S. 143-215.22I). The river basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled Major River Basins and Sub-Basins in North Carolina, on file in the Office of the Secretary of State. These boundaries differ from the 17 major river basins delineated by DWQ. Table 60 summarizes interbasin transfers within the Cape Fear River basin. In determining whether a certificate should be issued, the state must determine that the overall benefits of a transfer outweigh the potential impacts. Factors used to determine whether a certificate should be issued include: Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 294 • The necessity, reasonableness and beneficial effects of the transfer. • The detrimental effects on the source and receiving basins, including effects on water supply needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power generation, navigation and recreation. • The cumulative effect of existing transfers or water uses in the source basin. • Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer. • Any other facts and circumstances necessary to evaluate the transfer request. A provision of the interbasin transfer law requires that an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act as supporting documentation for a transfer petition. For more information, visit the website at http://www.ncwater.org/ or call DWR at (919) 733-4064. 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 two million gallons per day or more require certification from the Environmental Management Commission, according to NCGS §143-215.22I. The river basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled Major River Basins and Sub-Basins in North Carolina that was filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on April 16, 1991. Within the Cape Fear River 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. (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.) Table 34 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 can not 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. There are two permitted transfers in the Cape Fear River basin. The first permit is for Cary/Apex’s 16 MGD transfer from the Haw River subbasin to the Neuse River basin. The EMC granted an increased transfer to 24 MGD effective July 2001. The certificate requires that any water used in the Neuse basin in excess of 16 MGD shall be returned to the Haw River subbasin or into the Cape Fear River by 2010. Water used for consumptive purposes in the Neuse basin is not subject to this condition. The second permit, for Piedmont Triad Water Authority’s 30.5 MGD transfer from the Deep River subbasin to the Haw and Yadkin River subbasins, covers anticipated transfers for the operation of the proposed Randleman Dam. Beginning in 1999, North Carolina General Statute 143-215.22H requires all persons who withdraw or transfer 100,000 gallons per day or more of surface or groundwater on any day to register with the Division of Water Resources (DWR). Table 34 lists the registered withdrawals in the Cape Fear River basin as of January 1, 1999. Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 295 Table 34 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 16.04 Piedmont Triad WA Piedmont Triad WA Deep Haw, Yadkin 30.55 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 18.06 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. Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 296 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. 32.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought Water quality problems associated with rainfall events usually involve degradation of aquatic habitats because the high flows may carry increased loadings of substances like metals, oils, herbicides, pesticides, sand, clay, organic material, bacteria and nutrients. These substances can be toxic to aquatic life (fish and insects) or may result in oxygen depletion or sedimentation. During drought conditions, these pollutants become more concentrated in streams due to reduced flow. Summer months are generally the most critical months for water quality. Dissolved oxygen is naturally lower due to higher temperatures, algae grow more due to longer periods of sunlight, and streamflows are reduced. In a long-term drought, these problems can be greatly exacerbated and the potential for water quality problems to become catastrophic is increased. This section discusses water quality problems that can be expected during low flow conditions. The frequency of acute impacts due to nonpoint source pollution (runoff) is actually minimized during drought conditions. However, when rain events do occur, pollutants that have been collecting on the land surface are quickly delivered to streams. When streamflows are well below normal, this polluted runoff becomes a larger percentage of the water flowing in the stream. Point sources may also have water quality impacts during drought conditions even though permit limits are being met. Facilities that discharge wastewater have permit limits that are based on the historic low flow conditions. During droughts these wastewater discharges make up a larger percentage of the water flowing in streams than normal and might contribute to lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations and increased levels of other pollutants. As streamflows decrease, there is less habitat available for aquatic insects and fish, particularly around lake shorelines. There is also less water available for irrigation and for water supplies. The dry conditions and increased removal of water for these uses further increases strain on the resource. With less habitat, naturally lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher water temperatures, the potential for large kills of fish and aquatic insects is very high. These conditions may stress the fish to the point where they become more susceptible to disease and where stresses that normally would not harm them result in mortality. These are also areas where longer retention times due to decreased flows allow algae to take full advantage of the nutrients present resulting in algal blooms. During the daylight hours, algae greatly increase the amount dissolved oxygen in the water, but at night algal respiration and die off can cause dissolved oxygen levels to drop low enough to cause fish kills. Besides increasing the frequency of fish kills, algae blooms can also cause difficulty in water treatment resulting in taste and odor problems in finished drinking water. Chapter 32 – Water Resources, Minimum Streamflows and Interbasin Transfers 297 Chapter 33 Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 33.1 Ecological Significance of the Cape Fear River Basin The Cape Fear River basin is the largest of North Carolina’s river basins, and because of its size it contains a wide variety of aquatic systems. The Cape Fear River itself has the character of three or more rivers including: the clearwater Piedmont stream that rises at the confluence of the Deep River and the Haw River; a meandering coastal “brownwater” river draining farmlands at its mid-section; and a 30-mile long brackish estuary at its lower end. Also in the basin are “blackwater” tributaries such as the Black, South and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Not only is the Cape Fear River basin high in natural diversity, it also has a high rate of endemism. Among the many rare mussels and fish known from the basin are species found nowhere else. 33.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species For information on any of the species listed in Table 35, visit the NC Natural Heritage Program website at www.ncsparks.net/nhp. Table 35 List of Rare Species associated with Aquatic Habitats in the Cape Fear River Basin Group Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status Crustacean Cambarus catagius Greensboro burrowing crayfish SC Crustacean Cambarus davidi Carolina ladle crayfish SR Fish Evorthodus lyricus Lyre goby SR Fish Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E E Fish Fundulus luciae Spotfin killifish SR Fish Etheostoma collis pop 2 Carolina darter - eastern piedmont population SC FSC Fish Carpiodes velifer Highfin carpsucker SC Fish Lucania goodei Bluefin killifish SC Fish Heterandria formosa Least killifish SC Fish Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E E Fish Hypsoblennius ionthas Freckled blenny SR Fish Microphis brachyurus Opossum pipefish SR Fish Poecilia latipinna Sailfin molly SR Fish Noturus sp. 1 Broadtail madtom SC Fish Eleotris pisonis Spinycheek sleeper SR Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 298 Fish Elassoma boehlkei Carolina pygmy sunfish T FSC Fish Cyprinella zanema pop 2 Santee chub - Coastal Plain population SC Fish Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC Gobionellus stigmaticus SR Moxostoma sp. 2 SR FSC Fish Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke bass SR Insect Ephemerella argo Argo ephemerellan mayfly SR FSC Insect Tricorythodes robacki A mayfly SR Insect Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail SR FSC Insect Triaenodes marginata A triaenode caddisfly SR Insect Dolania americana American sand burrowing mayfly SR FSC Insect Progomphus bellei Belle's sanddragon SR FSC Insect Choroterpes basalis A mayfly SR Insect Ceraclea cancellata A caddisfly SR Mollusk Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell E FSC Mollusk Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe FSC E Magnificent rams-horn E FSC Anodonta couperiana Barrel floater E Reptile Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T T(S/A) Reptile Caretta caretta Loggerhead seaturtle T T Reptile Malaclemys terrapin centrata Carolina diamond-backed terrapin SC Fish Marked goby Fish Carolina redhorse Mollusk Planorbella magnifica Mollusk Rare Species Listing Criteria E = Endangered (those species in danger of becoming extinct) T = Threatened (considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future) SR = Significantly Rare (those whose numbers are small and whose populations need monitoring) SC = Species of Special Concern FSC = Federal Species of Concern (those under consideration for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act) T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance EX = Extirpated 33.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Cape Fear River Basin Figure 42 is a map of the Significant Natural Heritage Areas of the Cape Fear River basin. The Natural Heritage Program identifies sites (terrestrial or aquatic) that have particular biodiversity significance. A site’s significance may be due to the presence of rare species, rare or high quality natural communities, or other important ecological features. The accompanying map shows the Significant Natural Heritage Areas identified in the Cape Fear River basin. Over 450 individual natural areas have been identified in the Cape Fear River basin, too large a number to discuss in detail here, so only the most important of these areas are discussed below. Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 299 33.3.1 Cape Fear Shiner Aquatic Habitats Sections of three Piedmont rivers form the primary population centers for the very rare and endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), a fish endemic to a small part of the Cape Fear River basin. Because of this, stretches of these rivers have been designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat. These rivers, the Deep, Rocky and Haw, also support a number of other rare aquatic animals, including fish such as the Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp.) and the Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons); freshwater mussels such as the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), and eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis); and dragonflies such as Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima). Also found here is one of just two North Carolina populations of the endangered plant harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), found on an island in the Deep River in Chatham County. 33.3.2 Sandhills Megasite The diverse natural communities of the sandhills region, such as hillside seeps, upland longleaf pine forests, streamhead pocosins, and mixed hardwood-Atlantic white cedar swamps, provide habitat for many rare and endemic species including perhaps the largest remaining concentration of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) in the state. Endangered plants include Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), and rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). The publicly-owned Sandhills Game Land, Camp MacKall and Fort Bragg contain some of the largest remnants of the sandhills in natural condition in North Carolina. 33.3.3 Bladen Lakes Megasite Occurring on ancient terraces of the Cape Fear River, the Bladen Lakes area contains the greatest concentration of relatively unaltered Carolina bays in North Carolina. The bays contain lakes and a diversity of peatland communities. The surrounding landscape is an irregular mosaic of shallow peatlands and sand longleaf pine communities. Many of the significant natural areas are in public ownership, either as game lands, state forest or state parks. 33.3.4 Black and South Rivers The Black and South Rivers contain significant aquatic communities with two rare fish species – the broadtail madtom (Noturus sp.) and the Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema); and several rare mussels – pod lance (Elliptio folliculata), Cape Fear spike (E. marsupiobesa), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa). The Black River is also one of the best remaining examples of a blackwater river system in the southeast coastal plain. Particularly notable is an ancient cypress-gum swamp, which contains the oldest stand of trees east of the Rocky Mountains; some cypress trees in this swamp have been core-dated to 364 AD. The swamp forest of the Black River supports several colonies of the rare Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), a bat that is dependent on large hollow trees found in old-growth forests. Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 300 33.3.5 Lower Cape Fear River The lower reach of the Cape Fear River is brackish and supports numerous rare marine fishes, including the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), as well as freckled blennies (Hypsoblennius ionthas), marked gobies (Gobionellus stigmaticus), spinycheek sleepers (Eleotris pisonis), and opossum pipefish (Microphis brachyurus). The endangered manatee (Trichechus manatus) is an occasional visitor, especially in summer. 33.3.6 Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain The Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain is a drowned blackwater river corridor characterized by Tidal Freshwater Marshes at the lower end and extensive Tidal Cypress--Gum Swamp communities upstream. Encompassing more than 22,000 acres, the Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain contains some very high quality natural communities, including rare types such as Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest and longleaf pine forests. At least one portion of the site contains old-growth longleaf pine communities and mature examples of nonriverine wetland communities. Though not thoroughly explored, a number of rare plant and animal species have been found here. The southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) – a bat that roosts in hollow trees near water – is widespread along the upper portion, and alligators are present throughout. The rare estuarine fishes lyre goby (Evorthodus lyricus) and spinycheek sleeper (Eleotris pisonis) have been found in the marshes at the lower end. The site is a major forested connector between other large sites. 33.3.7 Pine Savannas The Cape Fear River basin contains a high concentration of savanna habitats. These wet, generally flat areas have an open to sparse tree canopy, with few shrubs and a dense herb layer. The pine savannas of southeastern North Carolina have among the highest species diversity of any natural community in temperate North America, and more rare species are associated with the pine savanna than any other natural community type in the state. Only a few examples of this natural community are protected through public ownership or conservation easement. 33.3.8 Holly Shelter/Angola Bay Megasite The Holly Shelter/Angola Bay region is one of the largest, nearly contiguous natural areas in the state. The Holly Shelter Game Land has a large domed peatland in its center that supports one of the largest pocosin community complexes in the state. On the southeast side of the Game Land is an extensive relict beach ridge system with associated longleaf pine communities and great concentrations of rare species, including one of the largest populations of Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) in the state and several dozen red-cockaded woodpecker colonies. To the north is Angola Bay, one of states most inaccessible interior wetlands. The bay has a diameter of more than ten miles with no roads or trails. Most of the area is low pocosin with scattered pond pine in an otherwise near-treeless expanse of evergreen shrubbery. Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 301 33.3.9 Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex The Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex is another large, hydrologically intact complex of relict beach ridges and swales interspersed with Carolina bays. The extensive pine flatwoods, pine savannas, pond pine woodlands, and pocosin communities of this area support a number of rare plant species. This ecologically significant natural area was until recently the largest unprotected natural longleaf pine/pocosin landscape complex in the state. However, the NC Department of Agriculture and The Nature Conservancy are currently focusing protection efforts in this area. 33.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in Cape Fear River Basin The Natural Heritage Program collaborates with a number of freshwater ecologists in other agencies and organizations to identify Significant Aquatic Habitats in North Carolina. Significant Aquatic Habitats are stream segments or other bodies of water that contain significant natural resources, such as a high diversity of rare aquatic animal species. The impact from lands adjacent and upstream of these stream reaches will determine their water quality and the viability of their aquatic species. The Significant Aquatic Habitats of the Cape Fear River basin include: Bear Creek Aquatic Habitat - A regionally-significant creek that adjoins the Rocky River-Lower Deep River Aquatic Habitat at its downstream end. This medium-sized stream supports a diverse mussel fauna, including the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) and Atlantic elktoe (Fusconaia masoni). Black River Aquatic Habitat - A state-significant aquatic habitat containing four rare mussels: Cape Fear Spike (Elliptio marsupiobesa), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), and pod lance (Elliptio folliculata). Other rare aquatic animals known from the Black River include river frog (Rana hecksheri), American alligator, and the American sand burrowing mayfly (Dolania americana). The American sand burrowing mayfly is a predaceous mayfly that is able to dig rapidly into sandy substrates. It is known from only a few places in the southeast, and in North Carolina has only been found in one location – the Black River. Deep River (Moore/Randolph) Aquatic Habitat - Considered to be nationally significant, it is home to a population of the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), as well as the Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2), Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons), and a number of mussels, including triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta). Haw River Aquatic Habitat - The nationally significant stretch of the Haw River contains one of just a few known sites for the endemic and Federally Endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). The globally rare Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima) is also found here. Lower Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat - The state significant lower Cape Fear River is brackish and contains numerous rare animals. Records of the shortnose sturgeon indicate that it occurs here rarely, while manatees are found more occasionally, especially in summer. Alligators are Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 303 present mainly in tributary streams. Freckled blenny and spinycheek sleeper are rare marine fishes of this section of the river. Rocky River/Lower Deep River Aquatic Habitat - This nationally-significant habitat is separated from the Upper Rocky River Aquatic Habitat (see below) by an impoundment. The federally endangered Cape Fear (Notropis mekistocholas) shiner has its primary population center in this area. The aquatic plant harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) only has two known populations in North Carolina, one of which occurs on an island in the Deep River. South River Aquatic Habitat - A state-significant site discussed above in association with the Black River. This high quality blackwater river contains two undescribed and rare fish species, Noturus sp. and Hybopsis sp., and diversity of other aquatic biota. Town Creek Aquatic Habitat - This nationally-significant site is a short creek that flows eastward in eastern Brunswick County and empties into the Cape Fear River. Despite its short length, it contains the only known population of the Greenfield ramshorn snail (Helisoma eucosmium), a globally rare and imperiled mollusk, as well as several other rare animals and plants. University Lake Aquatic Habitat - This state-significant site contains the largest population in the state, by far, of the rare mussel Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus). Upper Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat - This state-significant site passes through Harnett, Chatham and Lee counties. This site contains seven rare mussels and two rare fishes: the Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2) and occasional reports of the federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). Upper Rocky River Aquatic Habitat - This state-significant site is separated from the Rocky River/Lower Deep River Aquatic Habitat (see above) by the Reeves Lake impoundment. The site has a population of the federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), along with two rare mollusks and one rare stream insect. Upper Black River Aquatic Habitat - This site contains lower portions of Six Runs and Great Coharie and Little Coharie Creeks, where biologists have found three rare mussels: eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata), and pod lance (Elliptio folliculata), as well as two rare fishes: Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema) and broadtail madtom (Noturus sp. 1). There are a number of Significant Natural Heritage Areas not listed here that contribute to Cape Fear River water quality. Please contact the NC Natural Heritage Program to obtain information about these natural areas. Significant Natural Heritage Areas are identified by the Natural Heritage Program, but the identification of a natural area conveys no protection. Protection comes from the landowner. For details about any of the Significant Natural Heritage Areas, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 304 33.5 Public Lands The accompanying map shows the land protected by public ownership in the Cape Fear River basin. Many significant natural areas, including some already mentioned, are located on public land. Also on the map are some preserves or conservation easements held by private conservation organizations. Some notable public lands within the Cape Fear River basin include the military lands – Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base, Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, and part of Camp Lejeune – substantial areas which balance conservation with military training missions. Another large piece of land in the Cape Fear River basin is Jordan Lake (about 40,000 acres). The Army Corps of Engineers own the lands under and around Jordan Lake, but state agencies manage most of the upland areas. Notable state-owned lands within Cape Fear River basin include: a number of State Parks (Raven Rock, Bay Tree Lake, Bushy Lake State Natural Area, Bald Head Island State Natural Area, Weymouth Woods, Singletary Lake, Carolina Beach); Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands (Holly Shelter Angola Bay, Cape Fear River Wetlands, Suggs Mill Pond); the Department of Agriculture’s Boiling Springs Lakes Preserve (a joint project with The Nature Conservancy); the North Carolina Zoo; and the Division of Forest Resources’ Bladen Lakes State Forest. Also, the Department of Transportation has acquired several properties in the basin to mitigate for wetlands impacted during highway construction. This property is permanently protected, and hopefully will be restored to provide a number of ecological benefits. Local efforts to protect land within the Cape Fear River basin have yielded a great deal of benefit to water quality. For instance, the City of Fayetteville has protected land along Cross Creek – land that is an important natural area, a tributary of the Cape Fear, and part of the water supply for Fayetteville. Also, the North Carolina Botanical Garden Foundation has dedicated as State Nature Preserves some of the land they own near Chapel Hill, protecting natural diversity and the water quality of Morgan Creek. While federal, state and local agencies are important players in land protection efforts within the Cape Fear River basin, key partners in these efforts are private conservation organizations such as the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, Triangle Land Conservancy, Sandhills Area Land Trust, and the North Carolina Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Although only partially shown on the map, these organizations have achieved significant protection in the Cape Fear River basin. Using innovative tools such as conservation easements, these organizations work with landowners in a number of ways to protect important natural areas and water quality, as well as the “open space” of agricultural lands. The work that they do is helping to improve the quality of life for residents of the Cape Fear River basin. Chapter 33 – Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species 305 Chapter 34 Water Quality Initiatives 34.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. Information about local efforts particular to a watershed or subbasin is included in Chapters 1-24. DWQ encourages local agencies and organizations to learn about and become active in their watersheds. These local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed. This allows groups to holistically understand the challenges and opportunities of different water quality efforts. Involving a wide array of people in water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests, and encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects. By working in coordination across jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding opportunities are available, and it is easier to generate necessary matching or leveraging funds. This will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for success. In an effort to provide water quality information and gain public input, DWQ held public workshops in Greensboro, Pittsboro, Fayetteville, Clinton and Wilmington during May 2004. The purpose of the workshops was to inform people of the 2005 update plan and to seek input prior to finalizing the plan. Participants provided comments on specific waters in the Cape Fear River basin and generalized issues related to urbanization and land use changes, water supply quantity and protection, enforcement, permitting, monitoring and funding sources. Refer to Appendix IX for specific comments received during the public workshops. An important benefit of local initiatives is that local people make decisions that affect change in their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources, the rule-making process, and many others. The collaboration of these local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state. The following local organizations and agencies (Table 60) are highlighted to share their efforts towards water quality improvement. Specific projects are described in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 24). DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response to potential water quality problems in the watersheds listed above. Federal and state government agencies are interested in assisting local governments and citizen groups in developing their water quality management programs. The distribution of several grantors is discussed below. Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 306 34.1.1 Cape Fear Assembly Office location: Fayetteville, North Carolina Executive Director: Don Freeman Website: http://www.cfra-nc.org/ Contact: cfra@faynet.com Phone: (910) 223-4601 The Mission of the CFRA is to provide for the highest quality of life possible for the residents of the Cape Fear River basin, through the proper management of the Cape Fear River, its tributaries, and adjacent land uses. This mission will be accomplished through our support of efforts to investigate, educate and effectuate. Scientific study coupled with economic analyses will provide the information needed to make the best possible decisions regarding this river system and its uses. Education will provide for a better informed public, and thereby, improved stewardship of the river system as a resource. Then finally, development of policy will bring into effect the benefits of the information and education. The assembly also works with the three monitoring coalitions in the Cape Fear River basin (Appendix V). 34.1.2 Haw River Assembly/Haw River Watch/Stream Steward Campaign The Cape Fear River Assembly received $933,675 through EPA’s Targeted Watershed Program to address impaired water quality areas. They proposed to develop, demonstrate, and evaluate an innovative water quality nutrient trading program for the Jordan Lake watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project will provide a much needed example of integrating urban stormwater management into a credit trading and watershed permitting program. The project will involve developing a water quality protection platform that combines traditional BMPs with nonstructural BMPs. Economic incentives will be created for developers to implement more environmentally sustainable land use patterns that promote more permeable surfaces. This project will result in a program that will protect the watershed’s valuable water resources while allowing for continued economic growth. Office location: Bynum, North Carolina Executive Director: Elaine Chiosso chiosso@hawriver.org Website: www.hawriver.org Contact: info@hawriver.org and riverwatch@hawriver.org Phone: (919) 542-5790 The Haw River Assembly is a nonprofit citizen organization working to restore the Haw River and protect Jordan Lake using education, citizen water quality monitoring and research as tools. The Assembly shares water quality monitoring information collected by the Haw River Watch volunteers with state biologists and are working with state and federal agencies in the areas of land conservation, nonpoint source pollution education and dam removal. The Haw River Assembly has been instrumental in drawing attention to the Impaired streams in our river basin. The Haw River Assembly’s Stream Steward campaign has been funded through the 319 program since 2000 to conduct educational outreach on nonpoint source pollution to communities with impaired streams. The campaign has targeted Robeson Creek (Chapter 4) and the upper Haw River (Chapter 1). In 2004 the campaign received a new 319 grant to expand the campaign to the entire Haw River watershed, focusing particularly on communities with streams on the impaired waters list. Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 307 34.1.3 Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Office location: Greensboro, North Carolina Environmental Projects Coordinator: Carol Patrick cpatrick@ptcog.org Website: http://www.ptcog.org/ Contact: (336) 294-4950 The Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) is a voluntary association of municipal and county governments, enabled by state law to promote regional issues and cooperation among members. The PTCOG serves 41 member governments in the following seven counties: Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Guilford, Montgomery, Randolph and Rockingham. The COG is involved in the Jordan stakeholders’ process (Chapter 36), Upper Cape Fear Basin Association (Appendix V), as well as various TMDLs being developed in the region. 34.1.4 Triangle J Council of Governments Office location: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Water Resources Program Manager: Sydney Miller smiller@tjcog.org Website: http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/index.shtml Contact: tjcog@tjcog.org Phone: (919) 549-0551 The Triangle J Council of Governments promotes the wise and responsible stewardship of our region's water resources. TJCOG facilitates regional approaches to water resources management and provides technical assistance to local governments, and state and federal agencies. The Triangle J Council of Governments is recognized as a leader in water supply protection efforts. TJCOG assisted local governments in the development of their watershed management regulations and has strongly encouraged the development of the state's minimum standards for the protection of public water supplies. The Triangle J Council of Governments has worked closely with local, state and federal agencies to develop several ongoing projects, such as the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project. 34.1.5 UNC Wilmington Center for Marine Science Research Programs Office location: Wilmington, North Carolina Website: http://www.uncwil.edu/cmsr/ Contact: Nancy Stevens stevensn@uncw.edu Phone: (910) 962-2301 The Center for Marine Science Research administers the Lower Cape Fear Program (Appendix V) as well as a host of other environmental monitoring and research in the Cape Fear River basin. Researchers at UNC-CMS have been involved in post-hurricane monitoring of water quality and studies of impacts of land use changes and intensive farming in the Northeast Cape Fear and Black River watersheds. Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 308 34.2 Federal Initiatives 34.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and restoration projects. Approximately $1 million is available annually through base funding for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2 million is available annually through incremental funding for restoration projects. All projects must provide nonfederal matching funds of at least 40 percent of the project’s total costs. 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 Section 319 Grant Program application process is available online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/application_process.htm. There are 12 projects in the Cape Fear River basin that have been funded through the Section 319 Program between 1996 and 2003, many of which have basinwide applications (Table 36). Many are demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for the dissemination of information to the public through established programs at NC State University and the NC Cooperative Extension Service. Other projects fund stream restoration activities that improve water quality. Descriptions of projects and general Section 319 Program information are available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/Section_319_Grant_Program.htm. 34.3 State Initiatives 34.3.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is responsible for implementing wetland and stream restoration projects as part of a statewide effort to provide more ecologically effective compensatory mitigation. The focus of the program is to restore, enhance and protect key watershed functions in the 17 river basins across the state through the implementation of wetlands, streams and riparian buffer projects within selected local watersheds in advance of permitted impacts. These vital watershed functions include water quality protection, floodwater conveyance & storage, fisheries & wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. The NCEEP is not a grant program. Instead, the program funds local mitigation projects directly through its various in-lieu fee receipts. Through the development of River Basin Restoration Priorities (formerly called Watershed Restoration Plans), the NCEEP identifies local watersheds (14-digit Hydrologic Units) with the greatest need and opportunity for watershed mitigation projects. The RBRPs are developed, in part, using information compiled by DWQ's programmatic activities. Additional local resource data and locations of existing or planned watershed projects are considered in the selection of "Targeted Local Watersheds", which are identified and mapped within the RBRPs. Targeted Local Watersheds represent those areas within a given river basin where NCEEP resources can be most efficiently focused for maximum benefit to local watershed functions. The NCEEP RBRPs are periodically updated and presented on the NCEEP website: http://www.nceep.net. Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 309 Table 36 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319 Fiscal Year Name Description Agency Amount 1996 McLendens Creek BMP Implementation NCSU $198,000.00 2000 Stream Steward Education Campaign Educational Haw River Assembly $6,000.00 2000 Retention Pond to Biorention Conversion Project BMP Demonstration Greensboro, City of Storm Water Management Division $150,000.00 1999 Robeson Creek Watershed Assessment TMDL Development NCSU $210,000.00 2002 Stream Steward Campaign Education and BMP installation Haw River Assembly $26,989.00 2002 Burnt Mill Creek Watershed Outreach and Demonstration Project Education and BMP installation Wilmington, City of Storm Water Services $120,000.00 1998 Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project Stakeholder Development Triangle J Council of Governments $39,730.00 2003 Stream Steward Campaign Educational Haw River Assembly $32,300.00 Little Troublesome Creek Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan TMDL Implementation Piedmont Triad COG $366,248.00 2003 Town Branch Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan TMDL Implementation Piedmont Triad COG $163,308.00 Robeson creek NPS Restoration Watershed Project NCSU $300,000.00 Quantification of Water Quality Improvement in Sandy Creek, after Stream and Riparian Restoration and Wetland Treatment Cell Creation (proposed) Wetlands Restoration/ Enhancement Duke University Total 2003 2003 TMDL Implementation 2004 $338,337.00 $1,950,912 The NCEEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or environmental groups (such as the Section 319 Program). Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components with Section 319-funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality, hydrologic and habitat benefits of both projects. The NCEEP is also developing comprehensive Local Watershed Plans, often within Targeted Local Watersheds identified in the RBRPs. Through the Local Watershed Planning process, EEP conducts comprehensive watershed assessments to identify stressors in local watersheds, and Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 310 then coordinates with local resource professionals and local governments to identify and implement watershed projects and management strategies to address these problems. The Plans identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches, riparian buffer areas and best management practices that will provide water quality improvement, habitat protection and other environmental benefits to the local watershed. There are currently six local watershed planning efforts that are either completed or underway in the Cape Fear River basin, as described below. These planning efforts are also discussed in the subbasin chapters. Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 1). The Plan is available at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Troublesome_Creek/troublesome.htm Morgan Creek and Little Creek Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 6). The Plan is available at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Morgan_Creek/morgan.htm Middle Cape Fear and Kenneth/Harris Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 7). The Plan is available at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kenneth/Harris-Kenneth.htm Rocky River Local Watershed Plan is not yet complete (Chapter 12). The Plan is due to be completed in 2005. New Hanover County Local Watershed Plan (Chapter 23). The Plan is available at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/new%20hanover/newhanover.htm 34.3.2 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 establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In the Cape Fear River basin, 71 projects have been funded for a total of $54,330,400 (Table 37). For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call (252) 830-3222 or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net. Table 37 Projects in the Cape Fear River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (July 2004) Project Number Application Name Amount Funded 1997A-085 Orange Water and Sewer Authority – Acquisition / Cane River Resv $1,042,500 03-06-04 1997A-087 NC Wildlife Resources Commission – Acquisition / Suggs Mill Pond $2,250,000 03-06-16 1997A-097 Triangle J COG – Acq and Restoration Plan / Upper Cape Fear River $70,000 03-06-03 1997A-104 Durham County – Acquisition / New Hope Creek $750,000 03-06-05 1997A-119 Fayetteville – Acquisition / Little Cross Ck $502,500 03-06-15 1997B-008 Piedmont Land Conservancy – Acq / Sandy Creek Reservoir/Ramseur $134,000 03-06-09 1997B-009 Triangle Land Conservancy – Acq and Greenway / New Hope Creek $2,750,000 03-06-05 1997B-904 Greensboro – Acq and Stormwater Wetland / South Buffalo Creek $800,000 03-06-02 Subbasin Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 311 1998A-004 Triangle Land Conservancy – Deep River Acquisition $1,189,000 03-06-10 1998A-005 NC Wildlife Resources Commission – Bellhammon Tract Acq / NE Cape Fear $1,070,000 03-06-23 New Hanover Co – Airlie Gardens and Tidal Creeks Acquisition / Stormwater $6,000,000 03-06-24 1998A-103 Chapel Hill – Dry Creek Acquisition and Greenway $200,000 03-06-05 1998A-301 Brunswick County – Wastewater Reuse System $1,500,000 Cape Fear Botanical Garden – Streambank Stabilization / Cross Creek 03-06-15 Ramseur – Sewer Rehabilitation / Deep River 03-06-09 1998A-807 Fayetteville – Little Cross Creek Pollutant Susceptibility Study 03-06-15 $63,200 Haw River Assembly – Haw River Headwaters Acquisition 03-06-01 1998B-012 Nature Conservancy – Acquisition / Black and South Rivers $2,000,000 03-06-20 Sanford – Acquisition / Little Buffalo Creek 03-06-11 1998B-409 Piedmont Triad Reg. Water Authority – Acquisition / Deep River 03-06-08 $615,000 1998B-505 New Hanover Co / Dept. Env Mgmt – Landfill Leachate Treatment $785,000 03-06-23 $1,810,406 03-06-16 1999A-701 NC WRP – Restoration and Stormwater / Sandy Creek $582,500 03-06-05 1999A-901 Cape Fear RC&D – Bladen Co / No-Till Drill $18,550 03-06-16 03-06-18 03-06-19 03-06-20 1999B-007 Haw River Assembly – Conrad Tract Acquisition / Mears Fork Creek $200,000 03-06-01 1999B-010 NC Coastal Land Trust – Town Creek Conservation Easements $1,441,000 03-06-17 1999B-103 Graham – Haw River Trail Feasibility Study $20,000 03-06-02 1999B-506 Franklinville – WWTP Improvements $1,052,000 03-06-09 1999B-512 Garland – Backup generation $45,000 03-06-18 Cary – Acquisition and Greenway Feasibility / White Oak Creek 03-06-05 2000A-009 NC Coastal Land Trust – Acquisition / Town Creek $305,000 03-06-17 2000A-504 Erwin – WWTP Improvements 03-06-07 $300,000 Raeford – Acq and Stormwater Wetland Design / Peddlers Branch $194,000 03-06-15 2000A-803 Moore County Soil and Water Conservation District – Sediment Monitoring / Cane Creek $9,724 03-06-14 NC Coastal Land Trust – Foy Creek Acquisition 03-06-24 2000B-505 Chatham County – Wastewater Reuse 03-06-04 $1,000,000 2000B-509 Liberty – Sewer Rehabilitation $212,020 03-06-12 1998A-101 03-06-17 1998A-302 $77,000 1998A-505 $344,000 1998B-001 $24,500 1998B-015 $765,000 1999A-007 NC Wildlife Resources Commission – Little Lake Singletary Acq 2000A-002 $86,000 2000A-701 2000B-008 $1,251,000 2001A-015 NC Coastal Land Trust – Henry Prop / Town and Russell Creeks Acq 03-06-17 $277,000 Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 312 2001A-016 NC Coastal Land Trust – Henline Tract / NE Cape Fear Acquisition $181,000 03-06-23 2001A-018 NC Div Forest Resources – Mulford Creek / Bladen Lakes State Forest Acquisition $315,000 03-06-16 2001A-025 Orange Water and Sewer Authority – Phase II Cane Creek Reservoir Acquisition $687,000 Apex – Acquisition / Beaver Creek $387,000 03-06-05 2001B-004 Cary – Acquisition / White Oak Creek $1,084,000 03-06-05 2001B-008 Graham – Acquisition / Haw River $140,000 03-06-02 2001B-017 Nature Conservancy – Acquisition / Bear Garden and Angola Bay Tracts / NE Cape Fear River and tributaries $7,900,000 03-06-23 2001B-025 NC Coastal Land Trust – Acquisition / Burney Tract / Shelter Creek and Corbington Branch $783,000 03-06-23 2001B-026 NC Coastal Land Trust – Acquisition / Holland Tract / Shelter Creek and Angola Creek $442,000 03-06-23 2001B-807 Piedmont Triad COG – Riparian Corridor Plan / Haw River $65,000 03-06-02 2001M-008 Triangle Land Conservancy – Acquisition Minigrant $25,000 03-06-11 2001M-010 Haw River Assembly – Acquisition Minigrant $14,500 03-06-02 2002A-003 Carrboro, Town of – Acquisition / Bolin Creek $202,000 03-06-06 2002A-018 Nature Conservancy – Acquisition / Burgaw Creek $606,000 03-06-23 2002A-019 Nature Conservancy – Acquisition / Shelter Swamp $148,000 03-06-23 2002A-030 Triangle Land Conservancy – Acquisition / Deep River Justice Tract $1,825,000 03-06-11 2002A-404 Pilot View RC&D – Stream Restoration and Stormwater / Koerner Place Creek $175,000 03-06-08 2002A-504 Liberty, Town of – Rocky River Sewer System Rehabilitation $203,000 03-06-09 2002A-705 Greensboro, City of – Stormwater Wetland / South Buffalo Construction $570,000 03-06-02 2002A-708 Raeford, City of – Stormwater Wetland / Peddler's Branch Construction $296,000 03-06-15 2002B-012 NC Coastal Land trust – Acquisition / IP Realty, Town Creek $2,095,000 03-06-17 2002B-702 Fayetteville, City of – Stormwater /Little Cross Creek $766,000 03-06-15 2002M-001 Piedmont Land Conservancy Minigrant / Troublesome Creek $25,000 03-06-01 2002M-006 New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Minigrant /Eagle Island $25,000 03-06-17 2003A-010 Conservation Fund – Acquisition / Goshen Swamp and Grove Creek $55,000 03-06-22 2003A-019 Nature Conservancy, The – Acquisition / Corbett Tract, NE Cape Fear $671,000 03-06-23 2003A-023 NC Coastal Land Trust – Acq / Humphrey Tract, Shaken Creek $366,000 03-06-23 2003A-024 NC Coastal Land Trust – Acq / McKeithan Tract, NE Cape Fear $992,000 03-06-23 2003A-038 Sandyfield, Town of – Acquisition / Beaverdam Creek Wetlands $161,000 03-06-16 03-06-04 2001B-001 Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 313 2003A-512 Ramseur, Town of – Wastewater / Deep River Collection Rehabilitation $278,000 03-06-09 2003A-515 Wallace, Town of – Wastewater / Rock Fish Creek Regionalization $1,037,000 03-06-22 2003M-002 Sandhills Area Land Trust Minigrant – Methodist College River Tract $25,000 03-06-15 2003M-004 Haw River Assembly – Minigrant – Alston Quarter, Saxapahaw $25,000 03-06-04 2003M-008 Orange Water and Sewer Authority – Minigrant / Cane Creek Dairy $25,000 03-06-04 $54,330,400 Notes: (1) The total funded amount excludes funded projects that were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. (2) Several regional and statewide projects were funded in areas that include the Cape Fear River basin. The projects include various riparian corridor planning projects, a straight pipe and septic system discharge elimination program, and a Watershed Assessment and Restoration Program. 34.3.2 NCSU Water Quality Group The water quality group is a multidisciplinary team that implements, analyzes and evaluates nonpoint source pollution control technologies and water quality programs in North Carolina and nationwide. The Water quality group is a component of the NC Cooperative Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, and the NCSU Soil and Water Environmental Technology Center. The mission of the Water Quality Group is to enhance NCSU’s water quality programs by conducting research, dessiminating information and providing technical assistance on nonpoint source pollution control for agriculture, forestry, urban land uses, construction an on-site wastewater systems. This role improves the effectiveness and increases the benefits derived from research and extension efforts and NCSU by facilitating interdepartmental and inter-institutional cooperative efforts to understand and address environmental problems. Chapter 34 – Water Quality Initiatives 314 Chapter 35 TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin 35.1 Introduction to TMDLs A TMDL or Total Maximum Daily Load is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody can be used for the purposes the state had designated. The calculation must also account for seasonal variation and critical conditions in water quality. For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a TMDL must be developed. TMDLs are not required for waters Impaired by dam operations. A TMDL includes a water quality assessment that provides the scientific foundation for an implementation plan. An implementation plan outlines the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads in a certain body of water to restore and maintain human uses or aquatic life. For more information on TMDLs and the 303(d) listing process, refer to Appendix VII or visit the TMDL website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/. 35.2 Approved TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin The following TMDLs have been completed and approved by EPA (Table 38). Refer to the subbasin chapters for specific reductions called for in the TMDLs and to determine what local governments may be affected by TMDLs. Table 38 EPA approved TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin Waterbody (Subbasin) Pollutant Approval Date Chapter Little Troublesome Creek (03-06-01) Fecal coliform bacteria May 17, 2002 1 North Buffalo Creek (03-06-02) Fecal coliform bacteria April 28, 2004 2 Town Branch (03-06-02) Fecal coliform bacteria September 16, 2002 2 Roberson (Robeson) Creek (03-06-04) Chlorophyll a (Total phosphorus) January 13, 2004 4 Northeast Creek (03-06-05) Fecal coliform bacteria September 12, 2003 6 East Fork Deep River (03-06-08) Turbidity, Fecal coliform bacteria March 4, 2004 8 Richland and Muddy Creeks (03-06-08) Fecal coliform bacteria May 17, 2004 8 Several TMDLs are currently in progress at the DWQ. These include a fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity TMDL for the Haw River (Chapter 1), a fecal coliform TMDL for the Deep River (Chapter 8), a turbidity TMDL for Third Fork Creek (Chapter 5), a chlorophyll a TMDL for Chapter 35 – TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin 315 Jordan Reservoir (Chapter 36), and a dissolved oxygen TMDL for the Cape Fear Estuary (Chapter 37). Two large TMDL efforts underway in the Cape Fear River Basin include the Jordan Reservoir Chlorophyll a TMDL and the Cape Fear Estuary Dissolved Oxygen TMDL. Information regarding water quality data and assessment for Jordan Reservoir is discussed in Chapter 5, while TMDL information is discussed in Chapter 36. Information regarding water quality data and assessment for the Cape Fear Estuary is discussed in Chapter 17, while TMDL information is discussed in Chapter 37. 35.3 Scheduled TMDLs in the Cape River Basin EPA guidance provides a timeline for TMDL development of 8 to 13 years. Thus, the elapsed time between 303(d) listing and TMDL development should not exceed 8 to 13 years. If the pace of TMDL development does not comply with this schedule, EPA may elect to develop TMDLs in order to meet this timeline. Waterbodies that were listed in 1998 should have TMDLs developed by 2006 to 2011. 35.4 TMDL Implementation Efforts Point source (i.e., wastewater) implementation plans are included in TMDLs per EPA guidance. Thus, any point source discharging to an Impaired water will receive an explicit allocation within the TMDL. In some cases, the allocation may be equal to existing permit limits; thus, no action is needed by the wastewater permittee. In other cases, the allocation may be associated with a reduction in loading. Where applicable, the point source allocation may include provisions for bubble permits and point-to-point trading. Nonpoint source implementation plans are not included in TMDLs, nor are they required by federal law. Nonpoint source implementation plans can be developed by DWQ, other agencies within DENR, COGs or local government offices. For example, the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) obtained Section 319 grants to develop implementation plans for Little Troublesome Creek and Town Branch. Each of these TMDLs has only nonpoint source loadings contributing to impairment. EPA has provided guidance regarding TMDLs and NPDES stormwater permits. As a result, selected NPDES stormwater permits may contain additional language when subject to a TMDL. Per EPA, MS4s identified in TMDLs as contributors to impairment may be required to develop a management plan that includes additional monitoring and BMP installation associated with pollutants of concern. 35.5 Impaired Waters Update Waters identified as Impaired during this assessment period will be updated in the 2006 Integrated Report. These waters will be considered Impaired upon EMC approval of this basin plan. TMDLs will be scheduled as appropriate depending upon the classification of the waterbody and the identified problem parameters. Chapter 35 – TMDLs in the Cape Fear River Basin 316 Chapter 36 Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 36.1 Introduction and Overview In 1983, all waters in the Haw River watershed (subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06) including Jordan Reservoir received a supplemental classification of nutrient sensitive water (NSW) to acknowledge that Jordan Reservoir could have water quality problems associated with excessive nutrient inputs from both wastewater discharges and runoff from the various land uses in the watershed. The supplemental classification required that a NSW strategy be put in place to protect the reservoir from water quality problems associated with nutrient enrichment. Total phosphorus (TP) limits of 2 mg/l were required for NPDES permitted facilities with flow greater than 0.005 MGD. In 2000, all subject dischargers were meeting this limit. In addition, discharges located upstream of the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Reservoir received TP limits of 0.5 mg/l during the months from April to October. However, nuisance algal blooms and chlorophyll a levels exceeding water quality standards continue to be observed. The Upper New Hope Arm of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir was placed on the 2002 303(d) list of Impaired waters based on results of the nutrient response model developed as described in Section 36.2 below. The listing of the Upper New Hope Arm is consistent with EPA rules that require water quality models to be utilized as a basis for 303(d) listing. The 303(d) listing of the Upper New Hope Arm of the reservoir results in the need for a TMDL for this portion of the lake. Thus, the Jordan Reservoir nutrient management strategy was developed in order to meet requirements of both the Clean Water Responsibility Act and the federal rules and guidance regarding TMDLs. The Lower New Hope Arm and Haw River Arm are currently Impaired as well (Chapter 5). Refer to Figure 43 for identification of the arms discussed here. The following sections describe 1) the Jordan stakeholder process, 2) Clean Water Responsibility Act, 3) the modeling performed to support the nutrient management strategy, 4) the development of loading targets and 5) the nutrient management strategy that have occurred throughout the development of the models and the nutrient management strategy. For more information on use support assessments used to identify impairment of the reservoir, refer to Chapter 5 and Appendix X. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 317 Figure 43 Jordan Reservoir Segments Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 318 36.1 Jordan Reservoir Stakeholder Processes Two stakeholder processes occurred during the development of this strategy. The first process was through the efforts of the Project Partners. During the initial development of the data review technical memorandum and the nutrient response model, the Project Partners held regular meetings with DWQ staff. At major completion steps, the Project Partners convened greater stakeholder meetings to share and discuss results of the data review and the modeling. DWQ staff, the Triangle J Council of Governments, and the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments initialized a more formal stakeholder process to carry a greater group of stakeholders forward through the development of management targets and the management strategy. A USEPA 104(b)(3) grant, in the amount of $29,730, and administered by the Division of Water Quality, was used to support this stakeholder process. A total of 21 stakeholder meetings were held between May 2003 and December 2004 to discuss TMDL development, modeling issues, target setting, and management strategy development. The councils of governments prepared a stakeholder report that includes descriptions of the meetings, stakeholder comments and concerns, and recommendations. The Triangle J Council of Governments also continues to maintain a project website, with links to presentations and handouts posted regularly. Materials can be downloaded from this website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/SpecialStudies.htm#Jordan. 36.2 The Clean Water Responsibility Act of 1997 (House Bill 515, Senate Bill 1366) The Clean Water Responsibility Act of 1997 (often referred to as HB515) included legislation to further address water quality problems in NSW waters. The act set total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) NPDES permit limits for facilities discharging greater than 0.5 MGD into the Jordan Reservoir/Haw River watershed. A five-year compliance period for limits of 5.5 mg/l of TN and 2 mg/l of TP was established for qualifying facilities. Amendments to the act approved in 1998 (referred to as Senate Bill 1366) provided a compliance extension to the nutrient limits, with conditions. Those wastewater facilities granted a compliance extension by the Environmental Management Commission were required to develop a calibrated nutrient response model, evaluate and optimize the operation of all facilities to reduce nutrient loading, and evaluate methods to reduce nutrient mass loading to NSW waters. The municipalities of Greensboro, Mebane, Reidsville, Graham, Pittsboro and Burlington; and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) were granted the compliance extension by the Environmental Management Commission in April 1999. This collective group of facilities will be referred to as the Project Partners in subsequent sections of this chapter. Facilities that did not seek compliance extensions are the City of Durham/Durham South WWTP and Durham County/Triangle WWTP. The CWRA provided a timeline for progress towards a site-specific nutrient management strategy should facilities and/or municipalities choose to seek the compliance extension. This established timeline is as follows: Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 319 Two years for the collection of data needed to prepare a calibrated nutrient response model. A maximum of one year to prepare the calibrated nutrient response model. The amount of time, if any, that is required for the Commission to develop a nutrient management strategy and to adopt rules or to modify discharge permits to establish maximum mass loads or concentration limits based on the calibrated nutrient response model. A maximum of three years to plan, design, finance and construct a facility that will comply with those maximum mass loads and concentration limits. If the Commission finds that additional time is needed to complete the construction of a facility, the Commission may further extend the compliance date by a maximum of two additional years. Each municipality developed optimization plans and submitted them to the Water Quality Committee. Plans for nutrient response model development began in 1999 when the project partners, through the local councils of governments, released a request for proposals for both a data review document and nutrient response model development. Screening level and detailed nutrient response models were developed by Tetra Tech, Inc., the consultant to the project partners. The total cost to the project partners for the development of the data review document and the models was $370,000. The combined hydrodynamic and water quality model was approved by the Water Quality Committee in July 2002. DWQ began work to develop a nutrient management strategy following this approval. 36.3 Nutrient Response and Watershed Loading Modeling Both the Projects Partners, with the addition of the municipalities of Apex and Cary, and the DWQ funded the development of numerous modeling tools to use for the development of the nutrient management strategy. Four modeling tools were developed by the Project Partners as part of meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Responsibility Act. These tools included a screening level nutrient response model using the BATHTUB modeling framework, a combined hydrodynamic and water quality model, and a nutrient fate and transport model for all major wastewater dischargers in the watershed. Hydrodynamic models simulate water circulation and movement, and nutrient response models simulate the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, and algal response. The consultants, Tetra Tech, Inc., utilized the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) framework to construct the reservoir hydrodynamic model, and the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) to link to the hydrodynamic model and simulate reservoir nutrient response (i.e., the water quality model). The models were run for the time period from 1997 through 2001. The Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Response Model results were summarized to provide information regarding the average chlorophyll a levels in the reservoir and the likelihood of chlorophyll a standard violations in various portions of the reservoir. An example of model output is provided below in Figure 44. Detailed model output is provided in the modeling reports available on the Modeling and TMDL Unit website at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl. The Project Partners also funded the development of a nutrient fate and transport model to predict the fraction of wastewater that reaches Jordan Reservoir. The model demonstrates that a smaller fraction of wastewater discharged from facilities located farther upstream in watershed actually reaches Jordan Reservoir. This is contrary to facilities located nearer to the reservoir Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 320 that have substantially greater delivery to the reservoir. The fraction of nutrients delivered to the lake from each of the major dischargers varies depending upon the location of the effluent discharge. For example, 43 percent of the nitrogen load and 42 percent of the phosphorus load from the City of Greensboro North Buffalo WWTP reach Jordan Reservoir. In contrast, 96 percent of the nitrogen load and 97 percent of the phosphorus load from the Durham County Triangle WWTP reach Jordan Reservoir. Specific delivery rates for each facility are provided in the nutrient management strategy and TMDL document. After approval from the Water Quality Committee, DWQ funded an update of the hydrodynamic and nutrient response model developed by the Project Partners. An additional model year, 2001, was added to the calibration and model summaries. This year had the largest amount of measured data of the five years ultimately modeled. DWQ also funded the development of a screening level watershed loading model in order to capture loading from nonpoint sources in the watershed. The watershed loading model was constructed using the Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model. The watershed loading model was combined with the previously developed fate and transport model to provide a better analysis of the point and nonpoint source nutrient load contributions to Jordan Reservoir. Sources of total nitrogen (TN) Nonpoint 64% Point (i.e., WWTPs) 36% Sources of total phosphorus (TP) Nonpoint 83% Point (i.e., WWTPs) 17% Figure 44 Sources of Nutrient Loads to Jordan Reservoir (1997-2000) Modeling reports are available electronically from the Triangle J Council of Governments http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/SpecialStudies.htm#Jordan and the DWQ Modeling and TMDL Unit (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl). 36.4 TMDL and Management Targets Management targets are those nutrient loads associated with chlorophyll a standard compliance. The nutrient response model is used to determine nutrient loads likely to produce compliance in all parts of the lake. For Jordan Reservoir, the loads would primarily derive from the Morgan, New Hope and Northeast Creeks, and the Haw River. Nutrient loading targets were determined for three different parts of the reservoir, the Upper New Hope Arm, the Lower New Hope Arm, and the Haw River Arm. Together, these three parts of the reservoir include all of the main body of Jordan Reservoir, with the exception of coves. These three parts were selected based on hydrology, frequency of standard violations, and the locations of reservoir tributaries. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 321 The federal rules for Impaired waters and TMDLs require targets to consider seasonal variation and critical conditions. Thus, targets are based on the summer and early fall seasons to consider those times when predicted algal growth is most likely to result in standard violations. Consistent with use support methodology, the nutrient loading targets were then determined based on a standard violation frequency of less than 10 percent during the summer and early fall. The federal rules for Impaired waters also require targets to have a margin of safety. Per EPA guidance (1999), the margin of safety is a required component of a TMDL and accounts for the uncertainty about the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving waterbody. For this TMDL, DWQ has elected to use an explicit margin of safety determined by adjusting the TMDL target from a 10 percent standard violation frequency to an 8 percent standard violation frequency. Reduction targets were evaluated in terms of nitrogen and phoshorus loads. Multiple combinations of nitrogen and phosphorus loading scenarios that resulted in an 8 percent standard violation frequency were considered. Ultimately, three different targets were selected for Jordan Reservoir, corresponding to three different hydrologic areas of the lake. These targets are summarized in Table 39 by percentage reduction: Table 39 Nutrient Load Reduction Targets from 1997-2001 Baseline Area Total Nitrogen (TN) Percent Reduction Total Phosphorus (TP) Percent Reduction Upper New Hope Arm (above SR 1008) 35% 5% Middle and Lower New Hope Arm (from SR 1008 to the narrows) 0% (a) 0% (a) Haw River Arm 8% 5% (a) Provides a loading cap equal to 1997-2001 baseline nutrient loads. 36.5 Point Source Management Strategies There are numerous factors considered in the point source allocation strategy. These include the distance from the reservoir and the amount and type of waste discharged. Further weighting of the amount of wasteload allocations for each facility was evaluated using the actual annual average flow during the 1997-2001 period, the permitted flow during the 1997-2001 period, and the permitted flow in 2004. The final allocations are based on the permitted flow in 2004. The result of the allocation strategy is presented below for the Upper New Hope and Haw River arms of the reservoir. Detailed discussions can be found in the TMDL document. 36.5.1 Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Reservoir Converting the wasteload allocation from the lake to the load at the effluent pipe yields a total allowable end of pipe nitrogen load of 444,088 lbs/year and phosphorus load of 34,270 lbs/year for all facilities. All of the available loading was allocated to the existing facilities. Therefore, there will be no new nitrogen or phosphorus bearing loads permitted in this watershed. There are five facilities discharging greater than 100,000 gallons per day in the Upper New Hope Arm, as shown in Table 40. These facilities account for 99.8 percent of the total permitted flow from Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 322 point sources. The discharge allocations for these five facilities provide equivalent concentrations for each facility. For nitrogen, this equivalent concentration is 3.05 mg/l, and for phosphorus this equivalent is 0.23 mg/l. Therefore, the five large facilities will receive annual mass load limits as shown in Table 40. Table 40 Wasteload Allocations for Facilities Great Than 100,000 Gallons Per Day Wasteload Allocation (lbs/yr) Permittee Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) Percent of Total Flow TN TP City of Durham South Durham WRF 20.0 42.1 185,648 14,154 Orange Water & Sewer Authority Mason Farm WWTP 14.5 30.5 134,595 10,262 Durham County Triangle WWTP 12.0 25.3 111,389 8,492 Fearrington Utilities Fearrington Utilities WWTP 0.5 1.1 4,461 354 Whippoorwill LLC Carolina Meadows WWTP 0.35 0.7 3,249 248 Total for large facilities 47.4 99.7% 439,342 33,510 36.5.2 Haw River Arm of Jordan Reservoir Converting the wasteload allocation from the lake to the load at the effluent pipe yields a total allowable end of pipe nitrogen load of 1,570,890 lbs/year and phosphorus load of 195,510 lbs/year. All of the available loading was allocated to the existing facilities. Therefore, there will be no new nitrogen or phosphorus bearing loads permitted in this watershed. There are ten facilities discharging greater than 100,000 gallons per day in the Haw River Arm, as shown in Table 41. These facilities account for 99.3 percent of the total permitted flow from point sources. The discharge allocations for these ten facilities provide equivalent treatment levels for each facility. For nitrogen, this equivalent treatment level is 5.3 mg/l, and for phosphorus this equivalent is 0.67 mg/l. Therefore, the ten large facilities will receive annual mass load limits as shown in Table 41. Special Permitting Options. There are two permitting options available to provide existing facilities flexibility with target compliance. One option is a bubble permit, which allows multiple facilities owned by the same permittee to pool the mass loading limits. This will only be an option for the cities of Greensboro and Burlington. Another option is a group compliance option, which allows multiple facilities owned by various permittees to pool the mass loading limits for compliance purposes. The group compliance option provides the interested permittees the ability to meet to the total mass limit even if an individual facility does not meet the individual mass limit. This option also provides the ability for a new discharge with nitrogen or phosphorus bearing loads to purchase loading from the existing compliance group members, if they choose to sell. Both options are provided in the TMDL document. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 323 Table 41 Wasteload Allocations for Facilities Greater Than 100,000 Gallons Per Day Wasteload allocation (lbs/yr) Permittee Facility Permitted Flow (MGD) Percent of Total Flow TN TP City of Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP 40.0 41.5 645,834 81,222 City of Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP 16.0 16.6 258,333 32,489 City of Burlington Eastside WWTP 12.0 12.4 193,750 24,367 City of Burlington Southside WWTP 12.0 12.4 193,750 24,367 City of Reidsville Reidsville WWTP 7.5 7.8 121,094 15,229 City of Graham Graham WWTP 3.5 3.6 56,510 7,107 City of Mebane Mebane WWTP 2.5 2.6 40,365 5,076 Town of Pittsboro Pittsboro WWTP 2.0 2.1 32,292 4,061 Quarterstone Farm Homeowners Association Quarterstone Farm WWTP 0.2 0.2 3,229 406 Glen Raven Inc. Altamahaw Division plant 0.15 0.2 2,422 305 Total for large facilities 95.85 99.4% 1,547,580 194,630 36.6 Nonpoint Source Management Strategies 36.6.1 Introduction and Overview The comprehensive stakeholder process yielded five potential nonpoint source management scenarios covering the spectrum of possibilities between completely voluntary and regulation of all significant nutrient sources. Recognizing that point sources would be regulated, equity concerns led the stakeholders to favor some form of mandatory measures for all significant source types. The NPS management strategy proposed by DWQ staff builds from concepts implemented in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins. All of the following elements would apply in the subwatersheds of both the Upper New Hope and Haw River arms, while only the riparian buffer protection and new development controls – would apply in the Lower New Hope subwatershed. The proposed strategy contains the following provisions. It should be noted that these provisions will be subject to change during the rule-making process that is expected to run from September 2005 to July of 2007. All agricultural operations would collectively meet N and P export performance goals as implemented by local committees. Stormwater: o All local governments would achieve stormwater N and P export performance goals from all new and existing development. This would entail establishing loading caps for all new development that would be tailored to each arm of the lake. For existing development, rules would be developed to ensure achievement N and P reduction targets through phased retrofitting. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 324 o Local governments required to meet NPDES Phase II stormwater requirements of S1210 would have the option of adopting the DWQ would protect existing riparian buffers on the lake and all perennial and intermittent streams in the watershed.. Persons who apply fertilizers to lands in the lake’s watershed would complete nutrient management training and a written plan for those lands. Stakeholders suggested pursuing a tax on fertilizer would fund the implementation of this rule, however, this would require approval of the general assembly, and is beyond the scope of the EMC’s authority DWQ would work with DEH to develop programs to reduce N and P loading from on-site wastewater (the EMC has no control over this management area). DWQ would refine existing wastewater land application permitting programs as needed. DWQ would consult with DFR and forest industry to ensure that forestry does its part in meeting forest practice guidelines and minimizing nutrient loading to the lake (EMC has no control over this management area). DWQ would craft rules to allow for a trading program among point sources, between point and nonpoint sources, and among nonpoint sources. Local governments and agricultural committees would provide annual reports to the EMC. The EMC would reexamine the management strategy every five years. Table 42 presents the loading goals that have been calculated based on the percentage reductions established for each subwatershed. The following sections describe the agriculture, urban stormwater, buffer protection, nutrient management, and land application proposals in more detail. Proposed requirements in the agriculture and development sections refer back to these numeric loading goals. Table 42 Loading Goals by Subwatershed Nitrogen Phosphorus Subwatershed Reduction Goal / Load Goal Reduction Goal / Load Goal Upper New Hope 35% 4.1 lb/ac-yr 5% 1.1 lb/ac-yr Haw 8% 5.6 lb/ac-yr 5% 1.5 lb/ac-yr Lower New Hope 0% 4.8 lb/ac-yr 0% 0.8 lb/ac-yr 36.6.2 Agriculture Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: Upper New Hope River and Haw River. What: Achieve and maintain net annual N and P loads from agricultural lands, in lb/ac-yr, equal to or less than the targets allocated to an arm's subwatershed. Who Administers: Local committees and a watershed oversight committee. Who is Affected: All agricultural operations lying wholly or partly within the lake watershed, including animal operations, crop-farming, pasture and horticulture. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 325 How: Local committees would be responsible for registering all producers, drafting strategies to achieve load targets, and submitting annual progress reports. A watershed oversight committee would develop a site evaluation tool to account for loading, review and approve local strategies, and provide reports to the EMC. Individual producers could comply automatically by implementing standard BMPs or they could contribute as needed to their collective local strategy and rely on it to comply. When: Relative to rule effective date, producers register within one year, accounting tool completed in two years, strategies developed in three years, targets reached in five years. If a local committee did not meet its goal in five years, then producers in that area would be subject to additional implementation needs as determined by the EMC. 36.6.3 Urban Stormwater Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: Upper New Hope River and Haw River subject to all elements. Lower New Hope River - subject to new development and redevelopment elements; existing development element would not apply, and NPDES Phase II would apply only to local governments dictated by S1210. What: A stormwater rule to address N and P loading from new development, redevelopment and existing development. The rule would require new development and redevelopment activities to achieve and maintain net annual N and P loads, in lb/ac-yr, equal to or less than the targets allocated to an arm's watershed. Redevelopment would have the option of meeting the subwatershed's percentage reduction targets relative to the previous development. Off-site trading options would be provided. The rule would also require retrofitting of existing development. Phase II communities would have the option of incorporating this nutrient stormwater rule into their programs to avoid having to administer two rules. Who Administers: All local governments wholly or partly within an arm's subwatershed except as stated above. Who is Affected: All new development and redevelopment projects, and existing development. How: Local governments would adopt stormwater programs. A watershed oversight committee would be established, responsible for developing a site evaluation tool for load accounting by all local governments and for presenting the tool to the EMC. For existing development, local governments would analyze their jurisdictions within a subwatershed to determine stormwater BMPs needed for existing development to meet the loading targets allocated to that subwatershed. They would prioritize BMP installations, develop implementation schedules, then implement retrofits. When: New development and redevelopment permitting would begin upon adoption of local ordinances within stormwater rule timeframes. Local governments would set retrofit implementation schedules for existing development within five years, then provide annual implementation reports to the EMC. The EMC would reexamine the retrofit approach every five years. Based on input from public review of the draft strategy, the stormwater rule may contain provisions for feasibility studies during the first years immediately following the effective date of the rules. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 326 36.6.4 Buffer Protection Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: All. What: Existing vegetated riparian buffers would be protected and maintained on both sides of perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. Who Administers: DWQ. DWQ may delegate programs to interested, qualified local governments. Who is Affected: Potentially all owners of property with riparian buffers. How: 50 feet of riparian area would be protected on each side of waterbodies. The first 30 feet adjacent to the water, or Zone 1, would remain undisturbed with the exception of certain activities. The outer 20 feet, or Zone 2, may be graded but would need to be revegetated, with certain additional uses allowed. Specific activities would be identified in the rule as “exempt”, “allowable”, or “allowable with mitigation”. Examples of “exempt” activities would include driveway and utility crossings of certain sizes through zone 1, and grading and revegetating in Zone 2. “Allowable” and “allowable with mitigation” activities would require review by DWQ staff and would include activities such as new ponds in drainage ways and road crossings. Mitigation options would be defined. Footprints of existing uses within the buffer such as cropland, buildings, commercial facilities, lawns, utility lines, and on-site wastewater systems would be exempt. A newly vegetated buffer would not be required unless the existing use of the riparian area changes. When: Upon rule effective date. 36.6.5 Nutrient Application Management Strategy Applicable Subwatersheds: All. What: Completion of training and continuing education in nutrient management, completion and implementation of a written nutrient management plan addressing both N and P for all lands where nutrients are applied. Who Administers: Not yet determined. Who is Affected: All persons who apply fertilizer or biosolids to, or manage, ten or more acres of cropland; golf courses; recreational lands; rights-of-way; residential, commercial or industrial lawns and gardens; and other turfgrass areas. Cropland with a certified animal waste management plan would be exempt. How: Revenue from a tax on fertilizer would fund implementation of the rule. When: Upon rule effective date, persons affected would be required to complete initial training and plans within five years. Persons who become subject after the effective date would be given a shorter time period to comply. Biosolids applicators would be given until 2010 to begin Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 327 implementation of plans addressing both N and P. All persons would be required to comply with continuing education requirements on a periodic basis. 36.6.6 Wastewater Land Application Strategy DWQ would refine its existing permitting program as needed for the entire Jordan Lake watershed. Changes may include requiring all non-discharge systems within a certain distance of the lake or mainstems of the Haw River or New Hope River tributaries to meet reclaimed water effluent standards, with the exception of individual single family homes. New and existing industrial non-discharger facilities may be required to establish vegetated buffers compliant with the riparian buffer rule. 36.6.7 Proposed Rule-making Schedule for the Nutrient Management Strategy. Below is a tentative rule-making schedule beginning with submitting draft rules to the Water Quality Committee (WQC) in October 2005, and ending with review by the General Assembly. October 2005 Draft rules submitted by DWQ to WQC for review and approval to bring to the EMC in November. November 2005 Draft rules submitted to EMC for approval to go to public hearings. April 2006 Publish fiscal note and announcement of public hearings for proposed rules. April – May 2006 Hold hearing and receive public comments. June – July 2006 Hearing officer deliberations on public comments. September 2006 EMC adoption of rules. October – December 2006 Seek approval of rules from RRC. (Note: If the RRC approves the rules, and has not received more than 10 written objections, then the rules become effective the following month.) December 2006 Send rules to the General Assembly for review and approval. April – September 2007 Effective date of rule will vary depending on action taken by the General Assembly. Chapter 36 – Jordan Reservoir and Haw River Watershed NSW Strategy 328 Chapter 37 Cape Fear River Estuary Modeling and TMDL 37.1 Introduction The Cape Fear Estuary from Bryants Creek to Snows Cut is Impaired for aquatic life because of dissolved oxygen standard violations. This portion of the estuary has been considered Impaired since the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan and was included on the 1998 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Data used in the water quality assessment of the estuary were collected by DWQ and the LCFRP (Appendix V). Refer to Chapter 17 for current water quality assessment information. Sources of the low dissolved oxygen levels include the many discharges of oxygen-consuming waste into this segment and to tributary streams. There is also a considerable volume of blackwater that may contribute natural sources of oxygen-consuming materials. This portion of the estuary is influenced by tides and high flows from the entire basin, and therefore, goes through many extreme changes in water column chemistry over the course of a year. A point source management strategy was put in place in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basin Plan in order to control oxygen-consuming wastes from wastewater discharges. The Cape Fear Estuary continues to violate the dissolved oxygen water quality standard as of this assessment cycle. Therefore, a TMDL is required for the estuary. The DWQ obtained an EPA grant of $253,000 in order to mount an extensive field monitoring project. This field monitoring includes the installation of continuous monitoring devices by the US Geological Survey, sediment oxygen demand measurements, dye studies, and intensive chemical monitoring. A major portion of the monitoring was completed in 2004; however, hurricanes prevented the completion of the study. The remainder of the study is scheduled to be completed in 2005. 37.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Watershed Loading Modeling The City of Wilmington funded the development of a combined hydrodynamic and water quality model of the estuary in order to justify alternate wastewater permit limits. A combined hydrodynamic and water quality model was constructed using the EFDC modeling framework. Some additional data were collected to support the model development. The City of Wilmington has provided this model to DWQ for use in developing the TMDL. DWQ is funding the enhancement of the Cape Fear Estuary DO model to include the additional data collected specifically for that purpose. Work on this enhancement is expected to begin in 2005. In order to further understand the input of oxygen-consuming material from the watershed, a watershed fate, transport and loading model will also be developed. The Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers are both tributary to the Cape Fear River below Lock and Dam #1. At this time, DWQ expects to model the Northeast Cape Fear River watershed to evaluate watershed- Chapter 37 – Cape Fear River Estuary Modeling and TMDL 329 based sources of oxygen-consuming materials and nutrients. DWQ expects to begin developing this model in 2005. 37.3 TMDL Development TMDL development has not begun for the Cape Fear Estuary. Following the completion of the Cape Fear Estuary Dissolved Oxygen model, the process of determining TMDL targets will begin. Subsequent processes include the point and nonpoint allocations, and the development of an implementation strategy. 37.4 Lower Stakeholder Process Representatives from the Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP) formed an advisory group to participate in TMDL development. The advisory group is referred to as the Lower Cape Fear River Program Cape Fear Estuary TMDL Advisory Subcommittee (LCFRP CFRE TMDL AS). DWQ staff meets with this group on a quarterly basis to provide updates on project activities and to discuss project issues. The advisory group communicates the progress and implications of TMDL development to the LCFRP membership. 37.5 City of Wilmington Modeling Efforts The City of Wilmington and new Hanover undertook a dye study and water quality modeling from 1999 to 2001. The study determined that the Wilmington discharges were influencing dissolved oxygen concentrations by less than 0.1 mg/l and that all discharges into the estuary were influencing dissolved oxygen concentrations by less than 0.5 mg/l. The study noted that sediment oxygen demand and swamp effects accounted for between 64 and 84 percent of the oxygen demand in the estuary. Chapter 37 – Cape Fear River Estuary Modeling and TMDL 330 References Brown, Mark J. 2004. Southern Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS-88. January 2004 Forest Statistics for North Carolina. CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. Monitoring, Research, and Assessment Components for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Sacramento, CA. http://calfed.ca.gov/programs/cmarp/a7a13.html Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program Description. Division of Environmental Management. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC. Ensign S. H. and Micheal A. Mallin. 2001. Stream Water Quality Changes Following Timer Harvest in a Coastal Plain Swamp Forest. Water Resources Vol 35. Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of Aquatic Invertebrates in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California. Davis Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Haupt, M., J. Jurek, L. Hobbs, J. Guidry, C. Smith and R. Ferrell. 2002. A Preliminary Analysis of Stream Restoration Costs in the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. Paper presented at the conference Setting the Agenda for Water Resources Research. April 9, 2002. Raleigh, NC. Howell, J.M., M.S. Coyne and P.L. Cornelius. 1996. Effect of Sediment Particle Size and Temperature on Fecal Bacteria Mortality Rates and the Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococci Ratio. J Environ Qual. 21:1216-1220. McGarvey, Daniel J. 1996. Stream Channelization. Bibliography of Environmental Literature. Wittenberg University. Environmental Geology. Springfield, Ohio. http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/geol/progcrs/geol220/mcgarvey/index.shtml. Meyer, J.M., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Strayer, C.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss, Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin, and P.H. Zedler. September 2003. Where Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. American Rivers and Sierra Club. Washington, DC. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Land Resources (DLR). Land Quality Section. 1998. What is Erosion and Sedimentation? Raleigh, NC. ____. DLR. Center for Geographic Information Analysis. 1997. Raleigh, NC. References 331 References 332 ____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B .0220. Raleigh, NC. ____. DWQ. February 2004. Buffers for Clean Water. Raleigh, NC. ____. DWQ. December 1995. Stormwater Management. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCAC 2H .1000. Raleigh, NC. ____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB). Biological Assessment Unit. June 2004. Basinwide Assessment Report: Cape Fear River Basin. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Division of Forest Resources (DFR). January 1990. Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A General Statute 77-13 and 77-14. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD). Division of Forest Resources (DFR). September 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices Manual. Raleigh, NC. www.dfr.state.nc.us. Orr, D.M., Jr. and A.W. Stuart. 2000. The North Carolina Atlas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. Roell, Michael J. June 1999. Sand and Gravel Mining in Missouri Stream Systems: Aquatic Resource Effects and Management Alternatives. Missouri Department of Conservation. Conservation Research Center. Columbia, MO. Schillinger, J.E. and J.J. Gannon. 1985. Bacterial Adsorption and Suspended Particles in Urban Stormwater. Journal WPCF. 57:384-389. Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator Bacterial Survival in Stream Sediments. J Environ Qual. 21:591-595. US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). North Carolina State Office. June 2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory. Raleigh, NC. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Watershed Academy Website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/. Weinkam, C., R. Shea, C. Shea, C. Lein and D. Harper. October 2001. Urban Stream Restoration Programs of Two Counties in the Baltimore-Washington DC Area. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual North Carolina Stream Restoration Conference, Stream Repair and Restoration: A Focus on the Urban Environment. Raleigh, NC. Appendix I Population and Growth Trends in the Cape Fear River Basin Appendices Population and Growth Trends Below are three different ways of presenting population data for the Cape Fear River basin. Population data presented by county allow for analysis of projected growth trends in the basin based on Office of State Planning information (April and May 2001). Data presented by municipality summarizes information on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. The data presented by subbasin allow for 2000 population data to be presented by subbasin. While the three different sets of information cannot be directly compared, general conclusions are apparent by looking at the information. Counties with the highest expected growth are associated with the largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins in the basin. County Population and Growth Trends The following table and map show the projected population for 2020 and the change in growth between 1990 and 2020 for counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin. Since river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these numbers are not directly applicable to the Cape Fear River basin. This information is intended to present an estimate of expected population growth in counties that have some land area in the Cape Fear River basin. For more information on past, current and projected population estimates, contact the Office of State Planning at (919) 733-4131 or visit their website at http://demog.state.nc.us/. County Percent of County in Basin ♦ 1990 2000 Estimated % Growth 1990-2000 Estimated Population 2020 Estimated % Growth 2000-2020 Alamance 100 108,213 130,800 17.3 175,620 25.5 Bladen 69 28,663 32,278 11.2 38,274 15.7 Brunswick 45 50,985 73,143 30.3 112,885 35.2 Caswell 10 20,662 23,501 12.1 27,918 15.8 Chatham 100 38,979 49,329 21.0 69,137 28.7 Columbus 11 49,587 54,749 9.4 63,283 13.5 Cumberland 98 274,713 302,963 9.3 365,182 17.0 Duplin 100 39,995 49,063 18.5 67,447 27.3 Durham 27 181,844 223,314 18.6 312,144 28.5 Forsyth 2 265,855 306,067 13.1 385,079 20.5 Guilford 97 347,431 421,048 17.5 568,580 25.9 Harnett 100 67,833 91,025 25.5 140,902 35.4 Hoke 57 22,856 33,646 32.1 57,891 41.9 Johnston 2 81,306 121,965 33.3 210,178 42.0 Lee 100 41,370 49,040 15.6 64,038 23.4 Montgomery 6 23,359 26,822 12.9 33,247 19.3 Moore 79 59,000 74,769 21.1 102,828 27.3 New Hanover 100 120,284 160,307 25.0 233,681 31.4 Onslow 22 149,838 150,355 0.3 175,762 14.5 A-I-1 Orange 49 93,662 118,227 20.8 166,971 29.2 Pender 100 28,855 41,082 29.8 64,106 35.9 Randolph 56 106,546 130,454 18.3 178,852 27.1 Rockingham 19 86,064 91,928 6.4 100,414 8.5 Sampson 99 47,297 60,161 21.4 86,472 30.4 Wake 15 426,311 627,846 32.1 1,071,768 41.4 Wayne 9 104,666 113,329 7.6 127,945 11.4 Subtotals 2,866,174 3,557,211 19.4 5,000,604 28.9 ♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997. Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties are not entirely within the basin. The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin. A-I-2 Municipal Population and Growth Trends The table below presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities with populations greater than 2,000 persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. These data represent 53 of the 115 municipalities in the basin. Municipality County Apr-80 Apr-90 Apr-2000 Percent Change (1980-90) Percent Change (1990-2000) Angier Harnett 1,709 2,235 3,419 30.8 53.0 Apex • Wake 2,847 4,789 20,212 68.2 322.1 Archdale • Guilford, Randolph 5,326 6,975 9,014 31.0 29.2 Asheboro • Randolph 15,252 16,362 21,672 7.3 32.5 Benson • Johnston 2,792 3,044 2,923 9.0 -4.0 Boiling Spring Lakes • Brunswick 998 1,650 2,972 65.3 80.1 Burgaw Pender 1,738 2,099 3,337 20.8 59.0 Burlington Alamance 37,266 39,498 44,917 6.0 13.7 Carolina Beach New Hanover 2,000 3,630 4,701 81.5 29.5 Carrboro Orange 7,336 12,134 16,782 65.4 38.3 Cary • Chatham, Wake 21,763 44,397 94,536 104.0 112.9 Chapel Hill Durham, Orange 32,421 38,711 48,715 19.4 25.8 Clinton Sampson 7,552 8,385 8,600 11.0 2.6 Dunn Harnett 8,962 8,556 9,196 -4.5 7.5 Durham • Durham, Orange 101,149 136,612 187,035 35.1 36.9 Elizabethtown Bladen 3,551 3,704 3,698 4.3 -0.2 Elon Alamance 2,873 4,448 6,738 54.8 51.5 Erwin Harnett 2,828 4,109 4,537 45.3 10.4 Fayetteville Cumberland 59,507 75,850 121,015 27.5 59.5 Fuquay-Varina • Wake 3,110 4,447 7,898 43.0 77.6 Gibsonville Alamance, Guilford 2,865 3,445 4,372 20.2 26.9 Graham Alamance 8,674 10,368 12,833 19.5 23.8 Green Level Alamance 1,154 1,548 2,042 34.1 31.9 Greensboro Guilford 155,642 183,894 223,891 18.2 21.8 High Point • Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph 63,479 69,428 85,839 9.4 23.6 Holly Springs • Wake 688 1,024 9,192 48.8 797.7 Hope Mills Cumberland 5,412 8,272 11,237 52.8 35.8 Jamestown Guilford 2,148 2,662 3,088 23.9 16.0 Kernersville • Forsyth, Guilford 5,875 10,899 17,126 85.5 57.1 Liberty Randolph 1,997 2,047 2,661 2.5 30.0 A-I-4 Lillington Harnett 1,948 2,048 2,915 5.1 42.3 Mebane Alamance, Orange 2,782 4,754 7,284 70.9 53.2 Morrisville • Durham, Wake 251 1,489 5,208 493.2 249.8 Mount Olive • Duplin, Wayne 4,876 4,582 4,567 -6.0 -0.3 Oak Ridge Guilford ----- 2,322 3,988 ----- 71.7 Pinehurst • Moore 1,746 5,091 9,706 191.6 90.7 Pittsboro Chatham 1,332 1,621 2,226 21.7 37.3 Pleasant Garden Guilford ----- 3,921 4,714 ----- 20.2 Raeford • Hoke 3,630 3,469 3,386 -4.4 -2.4 Randleman • Randolph 2,156 2,612 3,557 21.2 36.2 Reidsville • Rockingham 12,492 12,183 14,485 -2.5 18.9 Sanford Lee 14,773 14,755 23,220 -0.1 57.4 Siler City Chatham 4,446 4,808 6,966 8.1 44.9 Southern Pines • Moore 8,620 9,213 10,918 6.9 18.5 Southport Brunswick 2,824 2,369 2,351 -16.1 -0.8 Spring Lake Cumberland 6,273 7,524 8,098 19.9 7.6 Stokesdale • Guilford 1,973 2,134 3,267 8.2 53.1 Summerfield Guilford ----- 1,687 7,018 ----- 316.0 Wallace Duplin, Pender 2,903 2,939 3,344 1.2 13.8 Warsaw Duplin 2,910 2,859 3,051 -1.8 6.7 Whispering Pines Moore 1,160 1,346 2,090 16.0 55.3 Wilmington New Hanover 44,000 55,530 75,838 26.2 36.6 Wrightsville Beach New Hanover 2,910 2,937 2,593 0.9 -11.7 • - The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin. The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin. Basin Population and Population Density Information on population density at a watershed scale is useful in determining what streams are likely to have the most impacts as a result of population growth. This information is also useful in identifying stream segments that have good opportunities for preservation or restoration. This information is presented to estimate population and population density by each subbasin and for the entire basin. It is assumed that county populations are distributed evenly throughout each county; therefore, subbasins that are within counties with large urban areas may overestimate the actual population in that portion of the basin. The overall population of the basin based on 2000 Census data is 1,834,545, with approximately 197 persons/square mile. Population density estimated by subbasin is presented in the following map. A-I-5 Appendix II Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Cape Fear River Basin Appendices Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin The Cape Fear River basin encompasses all or portions of 26 counties and 115 municipalities. The following table provides a listing of these local governments, along with the regional planning jurisdiction (Council of Governments). Twenty-seven municipalities are located in more than one major river basin, and 15 municipalities are located in more than one county. County Region Municipalities Alamance G Alamance, Burlington, Elon, Gibsonville *, Graham, Green Level, Haw River, Mebane *♦, Swepsonville Bladen N Dublin ♦, East Arcadia, Elizabethtown, Tar Heel ♦, White Lake Brunswick O Bald Head Island, Belville, Boiling Spring Lakes ♦, Caswell Beach, Leland, Navassa, Northwest, Saint James, Sandy Creek, Southport Caswell G None Chatham J Cary *♦, Goldston, Pittsboro, Siler City Columbus O Bolton ♦, Sandyfield Cumberland M Falcon *, Fayetteville, Godwin, Hope Mills, Linden, Spring Lake, Stedman, Wade Duplin P Beulaville, Calypso, Faison, Greenevers, Harrells *, Kenansville, Magnolia, Mount Olive *♦, Rose Hill, Teachey, Wallace *, Warsaw Durham J Chapel Hill *, Durham *♦, Morrisville *♦ Forsyth I High Point *♦, Kernersville *♦ Guilford G Archdale *♦, Gibsonville *, Greensboro, High Point *♦, Jamestown, Kernersville *♦, Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale ♦, Summerfield, Whitsett Harnett M Angier, Broadway *, Coats, Dunn, Erwin, Lillington Hoke N Raeford ♦ Johnston J Benson ♦ Lee J Broadway *, Sanford Montgomery --- Biscoe ♦, Candor ♦, Star ♦ Moore --- Cameron, Carthage, Pinehurst ♦, Robbins, Southern Pines ♦,Taylortown, Vass, Whispering Pines New Hanover O Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, Wilmington, Wrightsville Beach Onslow P Holly Ridge, North Topsail Beach ♦, Surf City * Orange J Carrboro, Chapel Hill *, Durham *♦, Mebane *♦ Pender O Atkinson, Burgaw, Saint Helena, Surf City *, Topsail Beach, Wallace *, Watha Randolph G Archdale *♦, Asheboro, Franklinville, High Point *♦, Liberty, Ramseur, Randleman ♦, Seagrove ♦, Staley Rockingham G Reidsville ♦ Sampson M Autryville, Clinton, Falcon *, Garland, Harrells *, Newton Grove, Roseboro, Salemburg, Turkey A-II-1 A-II-2 Wake J Apex ♦, Cary *♦, Fuquay-Varina ♦, Holly Springs ♦, Morrisville *♦ Wayne P Mount Olive *♦ * Located in more than one county. ♦ Located in more than one major river basin. Note: Counties adjacent to and sharing a border with a river basin are not included as part of that basin if only a trace amount of the county (<2 percent) is located in that basin, unless a municipality is located in that county. Region Name Location G Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Greensboro I Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments Winston-Salem J Triangle J Council of Governments Research Triangle Park M Mid Carolina Council of Governments Fayetteville N Lumber River Council of Governments Lumberton O Cape Fear Council of Governments Wilmington P Eastern Carolina Council New Bern Appendix III Land Cover in the Cape Fear River Basin Appendices Land Cover Land cover can be an important way to evaluate the effects of land use changes on water quality. Unfortunately, the tools and database to do this on a watershed scale are not yet available. The information below describes two different ways of presenting land cover in the Cape Fear River basin. The CGIA land cover information is useful in providing a snapshot of land cover in the basin from 1993 to 1995. This information is also available in a GIS format so it can be manipulated to present amounts of the different land covers by subbasin or at the watershed scale. The NRI land cover information is presented only at a larger scale (8-digit hydrologic unit), but the collection methods allow for between year comparisons. The two datasets cannot be compared to evaluate land cover data. This information is presented to provide a picture of the different land covers and some idea of change in land cover over time. In the future, it is hoped that land cover information like the GIS formatted dataset will be developed to make more meaningful assessments of the effects of land use changes on water quality. This dataset would also be useful in providing reliable and small-scale information on land cover changes that can be used in water quality monitoring, modeling and restoration efforts. CGIA Land Cover The North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database contains land cover information for the Cape Fear River basin based on satellite imagery from 1993-1995. The state’s Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) developed 24 categories of statewide land cover information. For the purposes of this report, those categories have been condensed into five broader categories as described in table below. The following chart provides an illustration of the relative amount of land area that falls into each major cover type for the Cape Fear River basin. Land Cover Type Land Cover Description Urban Greater than 50 percent coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area) and municipal areas. Cultivated Cropland Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern. 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, deciduous hardwoods). Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt adjacent to tidal waters and lakes. A-III-1 1% Urban/Built-Up Areas 14% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous Land Cover 1% Cultivated Crop 1% Water 83%Forest/Wetland NRI Land Cover Trends Land cover information in this section is from the most current National Resources Inventory (NRI), as developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, updated June 2001). The National Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistically based longitudinal survey that has been designed and implemented to assess conditions and trends of soil, water and related resources on the Nation’s nonfederal rural lands. The NRI provides results that are nationally and temporally consistent for four points in time -- 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. In general, NRI protocols and definitions remain fixed for each inventory year. However, part of the inventory process is that the previously recorded data are carefully reviewed as determinations are made for the new inventory year. For those cases where a protocol or definition needs to be modified, all historical data must be edited and reviewed on a point-by- point basis to make sure that data for all years are consistent and properly calibrated. The following excerpt from the Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory provides guidance for use and interpretation of current NRI data: The 1997 NRI database has been designed for use in detecting significant changes in resource conditions relative to the years 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. All comparisons for two points in time should be made using the new 1997 NRI database. Comparisons made using data previously published for the 1982, 1987 or 1992 NRI may provide erroneous results because of changes in statistical estimation protocols, and because all data collected prior to 1997 were simultaneously reviewed (edited) as 1997 NRI data were collected. The following table summarizes acreage and percentage of land cover from the 1997 NRI for the major watersheds within the basin, as defined by the USGS 8-digit hydrologic units, and compares the coverages to 1982 land cover. Definitions of the different land cover types are also presented. A-III-2 .MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS Upper Cape Lower Cape Northeast Cape % Fear River Fear River Fear River 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 126.6 11.8 36.2 3.9 156.1 14.9 67.6 9.5 348.3 34.6 212.3 18.9 947.1 16.1 1177.0 20.0 -20 Uncult. Crop 25.5 2.4 37.7 4.1 17.2 1.6 10.4 1.5 30.7 3.0 21.9 1.9 143.4 2.4 44.6 0.8 +222 Pasture 119.5 11.1 113.5 12.4 33.5 3.2 4.3 0.6 10.0 1.0 20.3 1.8 301.1 5.1 297.0 5.0 1 Forest 471.3 43.9 579.4 63.1 498.7 47.5 497.9 70.1 535.6 53.2 729.3 64.8 3312.2 56.3 3531.7 59.9 -6 Urban & Built-up 233.0 21.7 100.3 10.9 141.4 13.5 57.1 8.0 41.2 4.1 54.6 4.8 627.6 10.7 370.0 6.3 +70 Federal 17.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 143.8 13.7 9.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 21.9 1.9 192.7 3.3 159.2 2.7 +21 Other 79.0 7.4 51.4 5.6 60.0 5.7 63.9 9.0 41.6 4.1 65.8 5.8 361.7 6.1 319.7 5.4 +13 Totals 1072.8 100.0 918.5 100.0 1050.7 100.0 710.3 100.0 1007.4 100.0 1126.1 100.0 5885.8 5899.2 % of Total Basin 18.2 15.6 17.9 12.1 17.1 19.1 100.0 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 Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI ** Watershed areas as defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ. * These subbasins are found within more than one 8-Digit Hydraulic Unit. 1982Black River 1997 TOTAL Haw River Deep River Type 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 Includes 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 Areas 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; streams less than 0.5 miles wide. Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40 acres and rivers greater than 0.5 miles in width. Minor Land: Lands that do not fall into one of the other categories. Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI A-III-3 A-III-4 Data from 1982 are also provided for a comparison of change over 15 years. During this period, urban and built-up land cover increased by 258,000 acres. Uncultivated cropland and pastureland increased by 103,000 and acres. Forest and cultivated cropland cover significantly decreased by 219,500 and 230,000 acres, respectively. Most land cover change is accounted for in the Northeast Cape Fear River hydrologic unit that includes rapidly growing areas in Duplin and Pender counties. Below is a graph that presents changes in land cover between 1982 and 1997. -19.5 221.5 1.4 -6.2 69.6 21.0 13.1 -80.0 -50.0 -20.0 10.0 40.0 70.0 100.0 130.0 160.0 190.0 220.0 250.0 Cult. Crop Uncult. Crop Pasture Forest Urban & Built-up Federal Other Land Cover Type La n d C o v e r C h a n g e s ( % ) Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001 Appendix IV DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Cape Fear River Basin Appendices DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Cape Fear River Basin Staff in the Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) and Regional Offices of DWQ collect 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. For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this basin, refer to the Basinwide Assessment Report for the Cape Fear River basin, available from the Environmental Sciences Branch website at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling (919) 733-9960. DWQ monitoring programs for the French Broad River Basin include: • Benthic Macroinvertebrates • Fish Assessments • Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring • Lake Assessment • Ambient Monitoring System Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring 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 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), commonly referred to as EPTs. A Biotic Index (BI) value gives an indication of overall community pollution tolerance. Different benthic macroinvertebrate criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal plain and swamp) within North Carolina, and bioclassifications fall into five categories: Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor. Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data There were 273 benthic samples collected during this assessment period. The following table lists the total bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the Cape Fear River basin. Benthos sampling may slightly overestimate the proportion of Fair, Poor and Severe stress sites, as DWQ special studies often have the greatest sampling intensity (number of sites/stream) in areas where it is believed that water quality problems exist. Many streams also ceased flowing during the summer drought of 2002. For detailed information regarding the samples collected during this assessment period, refer to the tables at the end of this appendix. Refer to 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more information on monitoring sites and for past benthic community ratings. A-IV-1 Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Cape Fear River Basin Subbasin Excellent Natural Good Moderate Good- Fair Not Impaired Fair Poor Severe Not Rated Total 03-06-01 5 6 3 14 03-06-02 2 6 5 5 11 29 03-06-03 1 3 3 7 03-06-04 2 10 1 7 4 24 03-06-05 1 1 3 5 03-06-06 1 2 3 3 6 12 27 03-06-07 2 6 3 1 1 3 4 20 03-06-08 9 10 19 03-06-09 1 5 1 3 6 16 03-06-10 1 6 2 2 2 1 14 03-06-11 2 2 03-06-12 1 3 3 6 13 03-06-13 1 1 03-06-14 1 5 7 2 1 16 03-06-15 4 3 2 6 15 03-06-16 1 3 1 5 03-06-17 2 2 3 6 13 03-06-18 1 1 03-06-19 1 4 1 2 8 03-06-20 1 1 03-06-22 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 11 03-06-23 4 1 2 1 2 1 11 03-06-24 1 1 Total 7 7 38 8 66 4 48 27 3 65 273 Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Small Streams The benthic macroinvertebrate community of small streams is naturally less diverse than the streams used to develop the current criteria for flowing freshwater streams. The benthic macroinvertebrate database is being evaluated, and a study to systematically look at small reference streams in different ecoregions is being developed with the goal of finding a way to evaluate water quality conditions in such small streams. Presently, a designation of Not Impaired may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than 4 meters in width), but meet the criteria for a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria. This designation will translate into a use support rating of Supporting. However, DWQ will use the monitoring A-IV-2 information from small streams to identify potential impacts to small streams even in cases when a use support rating cannot be assigned. DWQ will use this monitoring information to identify potential impacts to these waters even though a use support rating is not assigned. DWQ will continue to develop criteria to assess water quality in small streams. Fish Assessments Historical studies of fish communities in the Cape Fear River basin were conducted primarily by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in the 1960s and late 1970s. Several streams were sampled by DWQ during the past basinwide planning cycle (1994), and two samples were collected in 1999. Scores are assigned to these samples using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of 12 parameters or 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. During the late 1990s, application of the NCIBI has been restricted to wadeable streams that can be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using backpack electrofishers and following the DWQ Standard Operating Procedures (NCDEHNR, 1997). Work began in 1998 to develop a fish community boat sampling method that could be used in nonwadeable coastal plain streams. Plans are to sample 10-15 reference sites with the boat method once it is finalized. As with other biological monitoring programs, many years of reference site data will be needed before solid criteria can be developed to evaluate biological integrity of large streams and rivers using the fish community assessment. Overview of Fish Community Data Fish community samples have been collected at 85 sites in the Cape Fear River basin during this assessment period. The following table lists the most recent ratings since 1990, by subbasin, for all fish community sites. Refer to 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more information on monitoring sites and for past fish community ratings. A-IV-3 Summary of NCIBI Categories for All Freshwater Fish Community Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Cape Fear River Basin Subbasin Excellent Good Good- Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Total 03-06-01 2 1 1 4 03-06-02 3 4 2 5 14 03-06-03 1 3 2 1 7 03-06-04 1 2 1 4 03-06-05 2 2 03-06-06 2 1 1 4 03-06-07 1 1 1 1 4 03-06-08 2 2 1 5 03-06-09 1 4 5 03-06-10 2 3 1 1 1 8 03-06-11 1 1 03-06-12 4 2 6 03-06-14 14 14 03-06-15 7 7 Total 6 22 18 9 7 23 85 Cape Fear River Basin Fish Kills The NC DWQ has systematically monitored and reported on fish kill events across the state since 1996 (http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/). Investigators reported 43 incidents which killed more than one million fish in the basin from 1999 to 2003. All kills, except one, were reported from freshwaters and were generally evenly dispersed throughout the basin. Kills were attributed to low dissolved oxygen, algal blooms, temperature stress, and spills of toxic substances. The largest kill occurred as a result of bycatch from a fishing operation in the Atlantic Ocean off Yaupon Beach (Brunswick County) and involved an estimated one million menhaden. About one-half of the events investigated in the basin could not be attributed to an obvious cause. Yearly kills reported decreased during the monitoring period from 14 events in 1999 to just three reports in 2003. The decrease has not been associated with any improvements in water quality throughout the basin. Overview of Fish Tissue Sampling Fish tissue was sampled for metals contaminants at 12 stations within the basin from 1999 to 2003. All fish collected from the Coastal Plain in subbasins 03-06-16 to 03-06-23 were part of DWQ’s eastern North Carolina mercury surveys. Three hundred-eight individual samples were analyzed. Total mercury concentrations exceeded the North Carolina criteria and USEPA’s screening value (0.4 ppm) in 62 percent of the samples. Concentrations also exceeded the US Food and Drug Administration criteria limit of 1.0 ppm in 16 percent of the samples. A-IV-4 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 (WET) by their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. Other facilities may also be tested by DWQ’s Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ATU). Per Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, the ATU is required to test at least 10 percent of the major discharging facilities over the course of the federal fiscal year (FFY). However, it is ATU’s target to test 20 percent of the major dischargers in the FFY. This means that each major facility would get evaluated over the course of their five-year permit. There are no requirements or targets for minor dischargers. In addition, the ATU maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests and provides monthly updates 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. One hundred-nineteen facility permits in the basin currently require whole effluent toxicity (WET) monitoring. Ninety-four facility permits have a WET limit; the other 25 facility permits specify monitoring with no limit. Since 1999, the compliance rate for those facilities with a limit has stabilized at approximately 90 to 95 percent. Eleven facilities have had difficulty meeting their toxicity limits or targets and are discussed in the subbasin chapters. A-IV-5 A-IV-6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 19 8 7 19 8 8 19 8 9 19 9 0 19 9 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 Year Fa c i l i t i e s M o n i t o r i n g 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Co m p l i a n c e ( % ) No. Facilities % Meeting Permit Limit Lakes Assessment Program In 2003, 33 lakes in the basin were monitored as part of the Lakes Assessment Program. Each lake was sampled three times during the summer. Lakes with noted water quality impacts are discussed in the appropriate subbasin chapter. Ambient Monitoring System The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine stations strategically located for the collections of physical and chemical water quality data. North Carolina has more than 378 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide. Between 23 and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each station. The locations of these stations are listed in the following table and shown on individual subbasin maps. Chemical and physical measurements were obtained from 173 stations located throughout the basin by DWQ and three NPDES discharger monitoring coalitions. All data were collected between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 2003. Notable ambient water quality parameters are discussed in the subbasin chapters. Refer to 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more detailed analysis of ambient water quality monitoring data. Subbasin Station Number Waterbody/Location Description DWQ Index Number Stream Classification 03-06-01 B0040000 Haw R. at SR 2109 near Oak Ridge 16-(1) C NSW B0050000 Haw R. at US 29A near Benaja 16-(1) C NSW B0160000 Little Troublesome Crk at SR 2600 near Reidsville 16-7 C NSW B0190000 Haw R. at NC 87 near Altamahaw 16-(1) C NSW B0210000 Haw R. at SR 1561 near Altamahaw 16-(1) C NSW 03-06-02 B0540000 N Buffalo Crk at SR 2832 near Greensboro 16-11-14-1 C NSW B0750000 S Buffalo Crk at SR 2821 at McLeansville 16-11-14-2 C NSW B0840000 Reedy Fork at NC 87 at Ossipee 16-11-(9) C NSW B1095000 Jordan Crk at SR 1754 near Union Ridge 16-14-6-(0.5) WS-II HQW B1140000 Haw R. at NC 49N at Haw River 16-(1) C NSW B1260000 Town Branch at SR 2109 near Graham 16-17 C NSW B1960000 Alamance Crk at SR 2116 at Swepsonsville 16-19-(4.5) C NSW 03-06-03 B1670000 Lake MacIntosh at NC 61 near Whitsett 19 16-19-3-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 03-06-04 B1980000 Haw R. at SR 2171 at Saxapahaw 16-(1) C NSW B2000000 Haw R. at SR 1005 near Saxapahaw 16-(1) C NSW B2100000 Haw R. at SR 1713 near Bynum 16-(28.5) WS-IV NSW B2450000 Robeson Crk at SR 1943 near Hanks Chapel 16-38-(3) WS-IV NSW B4050000 Haw R. below Jordan Dam near Moncure 16-(42) WS-IV 03-06-05 B3025000 Third Fork Crk at NC 54 near Durham 16-41-1-12-(2) WS-IV NSW B3040000 New Hope Crk at SR 1107 near Blands 16-41-1-(11.5) WS-IV NSW B3660000 Northeast Crk at SR 1100 near Nelson 16-41-1-17-(0.7) WS-IV NSW 03-06-06 B3900000 Morgan Crk at SR 1726 near Farrington 16-41-2-(5.5) WS-IV NSW 03-06-07 B6160000 Cape Fear R. at NC 42 near Corinth 18-(4.5) WS-IV CA B6370000 Cape Fear R. at US 401 at Lillington 18-(16.7) WS-IV 03-06-08 B4210000 W Fork Deep R. at SR 1818 near High Point 17-3-(0.7) WS-IV CA B4240000 E Fork Deep R. at SR 1541 near High Point 17-2-(0.3) WS-IV B4410000 Richland Crk at SR 1145 near High Point 17-7-(4) WS-IV CA B4440000 Deep R. at SR 1129 near High Point 17-(4) WS-IV CA B4615000 Deep R. at SR 1921 near Randleman 17-(4) WS-IV CA 03-06-09 B4800000 Deep R. at SR 2122 at Worthville 17-(10.5) C B4890000 Haskett Crk at SR 2128 near Central Falls 17-12 C B5070000 Deep R. at SR 2615 at Ramseur 17-(10.5) C B5131000 Deep R. at NC 42 near Coleridge 17-(10.5) C B5190000 Deep R. at SR 1456 near High Falls 17-(10.5) C 03-06-10 B5480000 Bear Crk at NC 705 at Robbins 17-26-(6) C B5520000 Deep R. at NC 22 at High Falls 17-(25.7) C HQW B5575000 Deep R. at NC 42 at Carbonton 17-(32.5) WS-IV 03-06-11 B5820000 Deep R. at US 15 and 501 near Sanford 17-(38.7) C B6040300 Deep R. at SR 1011 old US 1 near Moncure 17-(43.5) WS-IV B6050000 Deep R. at CSX RR Bridge near Moncure 17-(43.5) WS-IV 03-06-12 B6000000 Rocky R. at NC 902 near Pittsboro 17-43-(8) C 03-06-13 B6830000 Upper Little R. at SR 2021 near Lillington 18-20-(24.5) WS-IV B6840000 Cape Fear R. at NC 217 at Erwin 18-(20.7) WS-V 03-06-14 B7245000 Lower Little R. at SR 2023 near Lobelia 18-23-(10.7) WS-III HQW B7280000 Lower Little R. at SR 1451 at Manchester 18-23-(24) C A-IV-7 A-IV-8 Subbasin Station Number Waterbody/Location Description DWQ Index Number Stream Classification 03-06-15 B7600000 Cape Fear R. at NC 24 at Fayetteville 18-(26) C B7610000 Cape Fear R. at Riverside Landing 18-(26) C B7700000 Rockfish Crk at SR 1432 near Raeford 18-31-(18) B B8220000 Rockfish Crk near US 301 Hope Mills 18-31-(23) C B8224000 Rockfish Crk at SR 2350 near Cedar Creek 18-31-(23) C 03-06-16 B8300000 Cape Fear R. at Wo Huske Lock near Tar Heel 18-(26) C B8305000 Cape Fear R. at SR 1316 at Tarheel 18-(26) C B8321000 Turnbull Crk at SR 1509 near Johnsontown 18-46 C B8340000 Cape Fear R. at Lock 2 near Elizabethtown 18-(26) C B8340050 Browns Crk at NC 87 mouth 18-45 C B8350000 Cape Fear R. at Lock 1 near Kelly 18-(59) WS-IV Sw B8360000 Cape Fear R. at NC 11 near Kings Bluff 18-(59) WS-IV Sw 03-06-17 B8445000 Livingston Crk at mouth near Riegelwood 18-64 C Sw B8450000 Cape Fear R. at Neils Eddy Landing near Acme 18-(63) C Sw B9020000 Cape Fear R. DNS Hale Pt Landing near Phoenix 18-(63) C Sw B9050000 Cape Fear R. at Navassa 18-(71) SC B9740000 Northeast Cape Fear R. at US 421 at Wilmington 18-74-(61) SC Sw B9800000 Cape Fear R. at CM 61 at Wilmington 18-(71) SC B9820000 Cape Fear R. at CM 56 near Wilmington 18-(71) SC 03-06-18 B8919000 South R. at SR 1503 near Parkersburg 18-68-12-(8.5) C Sw ORW + 03-06-19 B8490000 Little Coharie Crk at SR 1414 Minnie Hall Rd near Salemburg 18-68-1-17 C Sw B8545000 Little Coharie Crk at SR 1240 near Roseboro 18-68-1-17 C Sw B8580000 Great Coharie Crk at SR 1311 near Clinton 18-68-1 C Sw B8679500 Six Runs Crk at SR 1919 near Moltonville 18-68-2-(0.3) C Sw B8725000 Six Runs Crk at SR 1960 near Taylors Bridge 18-68-2-(11.5) C Sw ORW + B8750000 Black R. at NC 411 near Tomahawk 18-68 C Sw ORW + 03-06-20 B9013000 Black R. at Raccoon Island near Huggins 18-68 C Sw ORW + 03-06-21 B9080000 Northeast Cape Fear R. at SR 1937 near Mt Olive 18-74-(1) C Sw B9090000 Northeast Cape Fear R. at NC 403 near Williams 18-74-(1) C Sw 03-06-22 B9190500 Goshen Swamp at SR 1004 near Westbrook Crossroad 18-74-19 C Sw B9196000 Northeast Cape Fear R. at SR 1961 at Hallsville 18-74-(1) C Sw B9470000 Rockfish Crk at I-40 at Wallace 18-74-29 C Sw 03-06-23 B9480000 Northeast Cape Fear R. at SR 1318 near Watha 18-74-(29.5) C Sw B9490000 Angola Crk at NC 53 18-74-33-3 C Sw B9520000 Burgaw Canal at US 117 18-74-39 C Sw B9550000 Lillington Crk at SR 1520 near Stag Park 18-74-42 C Sw B9580000 Northeast Cape Fear R. at US 117 at Castle Hayne 18-74-(47.5) B Sw 03-16-24 B9865000 ICW at Morris Landing 18-87 SA ORW B9872000 ICW at CM 102 near Long Point 18-87-11.7 SA ORW B9872500 ICW at CM 123 near Howe Point 18-87-11.7 SA ORW B9874000 ICW at US 74 and 76 at Wrightsville Beach 18-87-24 SB B9876000 ICW at CM 151 near Everett N 18-87-25.7 SA ORW B9879000 Carolina Beach Harbor at CM 7 18-87-31.2 SB Appendix V Other Water Quality Data in the Cape Fear River Basin Appendices Other Water Quality Data North Carolina actively solicits "existing and readily available" data and information for each basin as part of the basinwide planning process. Data meeting DWQ quality assurance objectives are used in making use support determinations. Data and information indicating possible water quality problems are investigated further. Both quantitative and qualitative information are accepted during the solicitation period. High levels of confidence must be present in order for outside quantitative information to carry the same weight as information collected from within DWQ. This is particularly the case when considering waters for the Impaired categories in the Integrated Report (303(d) list. Methodology for soliciting and evaluating outside data is presented in North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated Report http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/2002%20Integrated%20Rept.pdf. The next data solicitation period for the Cape Fear River is planned for fall 2006. DWQ data solicitation includes the following: • Information, letters and photographs regarding the uses of surface waters for boating, drinking water, swimming, aesthetics and fishing. • Raw data submitted electronically and accompanied by documentation of quality assurance methods used to collect and analyze the samples. Maps showing sampling locations must also be included. • Summary reports and memos, including distribution statistics and accompanied by documentation of quality assurance methods used to collect and analyze the data. Contact information must accompany all data and information submitted. Any data submitted to DWQ from other water sampling programs conducted in the Cape Fear River basin have been reviewed. Data that meet quality and accessibility requirements were considered for use support assessments and the 303(d) list. These data are also used by DWQ to adjust the location of biological and chemical monitoring sites. DWQ also used data collected from three monitoring coalitions, USGS and the City of Greensboro. In coastal subbasins, DWQ used information from the DEH Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program. These data were used to assign use support ratings to waters in the Cape Fear River basin. The Haw River Assembly also collects information on benthic communities in subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06. These data were not used to assign use support ratings; they were used to identify potential problem areas. Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association Ambient data were collected from 48 Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association stations in subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-12. Refer to http://www.cfra-nc.org/projact.html for more information on the basin association. See subbasin chapters for detailed information on data collected at these stations. The station summary sheets are available in the 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html. A-V-1 SUBBASIN STATION STORET LOCATION AU NUMBER 03-06-01 BA10 B0070010 TROUBLESOME CRK AT US 29 BUS NR REIDSVILLE 16-6-(3) 03-06-01 BA15 B0170000 HAW RIV AT SR 2614 HIGH ROCK RD NR WILLIAMSB 16-(1)c 03-06-01 BA3 B0050000 HAW RIV AT US 29A NR BENAJA 16-(1)c 03-06-02 BA117 B1980000 HAW RIV AT SR 2171 AT SAXAPAHAW 16-(1)e 03-06-02 BA118 B2000000 HAW RIV AT SR 1005 NR SAXAPAHAW 16-(1)e 03-06-02 BA38 B0400000 REEDY FORK AT SR 2719 HIGH ROCK RD NR MONTIC 16-11-(9)a3 03-06-02 BA42 B0480050 N BUFFALO CRK AT N BUFFALO CRK WWTP INFLUENT 16-11-14-1a2 03-06-02 BA45 B0540050 N BUFFALO CRK AT SR 2770 HUFFINE MILL RD NR 16-11-14-1b 03-06-02 BA50 B0670000 S BUFFALO CRK AT SR 3000 MCCONNELL RD NR GRE 16-11-14-2a 03-06-02 BA54 B0750000 S BUFFALO CRK AT SR 2821 AT MCLEANSVILLE 16-11-14-2c 03-06-02 BA58 B0840000 REEDY FORK AT NC 87 AT OSSIPEE 16-11-(9)b 03-06-02 BA59 B0850000 HAW RIV AT SR 1530 GERRINGER MILL RD NR OSSI 16-(1)d2 03-06-02 BA76 B1200000 HAW RIV AT NC 54 NR GRAHAM 16-(1)e 03-06-02 BA87 B1350000 MOADAMS CRK AT CORRIGDOR RD UPS OF DISCHARGE 16-18-7 03-06-02 BA88 B1380000 MOADAMS CRK AT SR 1940 GIBSON RD NR FLORENCE 16-18-7 03-06-02 BA90 B1440000 HAW RIV AT SR 2158 SWEPSONVILLE RD NR SWEPSO 16-(1)e 03-06-03 BA112 B1940000 BIG ALAMANCE CRK AT NC 87 NR SWEPSONVILLE 16-19-(4.5)b 03-06-03 BA114 B1960000 ALAMANCE CRK AT SR 2116 AT SWEPSONSVILLE 16-19-(4.5)b 03-06-04 BA139 B2210000 HAW RIV AT US 64 NR PITTSBORO 16-(36.3) 03-06-04 BA150 B2450000 ROBESON CRK AT SR 1943 NR HANKS CHAPEL 16-(37.5) 03-06-05 BA177 B3020000 NEW HOPE CRK AT NC 54 NR DURHAM 16-41-1-(11.5)b 03-06-05 BA178 B3025000 THIRD FORK CRK AT NC 54 NR DURHAM 16-41-1-12-(2) 03-06-05 BA181 B3040000 NEW HOPE CRK AT SR 1107 NR BLANDS 16-41-1-(11.5)c 03-06-05 BA197 B3300000 NORTHEAST CRK AT SR 1102 SEDGWICK ROAD NR RT 16-41-1-17-(0.7)a 03-06-05 BA210 B3670000 NORTHEAST CRK AT SR 1731 O KELLY CHURCH RD N 16-41-1-17-(0.7)b2 03-06-06 BA227 B3899180 MORGAN CRK AT MASON FARM WWTP ENTRANCE AT CH 16-41-2-(5.5)b A-V-2 03-06-06 BA230 B3900000 MORGAN CRK AT SR 1726 NR FARRINGTON 16-41-2-(9.5) 03-06-07 BA257 B4080000 HAW RIV AT SR 1011 OLD US 1 NR HAYWOOD 16-(42) 03-06-08 BA273 B4350000 DEEP RIV AT SR 1113 KIVETT DR NR HAYWORTH SP 17-(4)a 03-06-08 BA275 B4378000 RICHLAND CRK AT SR 1193 BAKER RD NR HIGH POI 17-7-(0.5) 03-06-08 BA278 B4440000 DEEP RIV AT SR 1129 NR HIGH POINT 17-(4)b 03-06-08 BA292 B4626000 MUDDY CRK AT SR 1929 CEDAR SQUARE RD NR GLEN 17-(4)c 03-06-08 BA299 B4770500 DEEP RIV US 220 BUS MAIN ST AT RANDLEMAN 17-(10.5)a 03-06-08 BA301 B4800000 DEEP RIV AT SR 2122 AT WORTHVILLE 17-(10.5)b 03-06-09 BA304 B4850000 HASKETT CRK AT US 220 BUS NR NORTH ASHEBORO 17-12a 03-06-09 BA307 B4890000 HASKETT CRK AT SR 2128 NR CENTRAL FALLS 17-12b 03-06-09 BA309 B4920000 DEEP RIV AT SR 2261 OLD LIBERTY RD NR CENTRA 17-(10.5)d 03-06-09 BA317 B5070000 DEEP RIV AT SR 2615 AT RAMSEUR 17-(10.5)d 03-06-09 BA318 B5100000 DEEP RIV AT SR 2628 HINSHAW TOWN ROAD NR PAR 17-(10.5)d 03-06-10 BA339 B5390800 COTTON CRK AT SR 1372 AUMAN RD NR STAR 17-26-5-3b 03-06-10 BA347 B5520000 DEEP RIV AT NC 22 AT HIGH FALLS 17-(25.7) 03-06-10 BA355 B5575000 DEEP RIV AT NC 42 AT CARBONTON 17-(32.5)a 03-06-11 BA360 B5685000 DEEP RIV AT DEEP RIVER PARK BRIDGE NR CUMNO 17-(38.7) 03-06-11 BA366 B5820000 DEEP RIV AT US 15 AND 501 NR SANFORD 17-(38.7) 03-06-11 BA380 B6040300 DEEP RIV AT SR 1011 OLD US 1 NR MONCURE 17-(43.5) 03-06-11 BA383 B6050000 DEEP RIV AT CSX RR BRIDGE NR MONCURE 17-(43.5) 03-06-12 BA373 B5950000 ROCKY RIV AT US 64 NR SILER CITY 17-43-(8)a 03-06-12 BA374 B5980000 ROCKY RIV AT SR 2170 RIVES CHAPEL RD NR SILE 17-43-(8)b Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association Ambient data were collected from 39 Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association stations in subbasins 03-06-13 to 03-06-17. Refer to http://www.cfra-nc.org/projact.html for more information on the basin association. See subbasin chapters for detailed information on data collected at these stations. The station summary sheets are available in the 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html. A-V-3 SUBBASIN STATION STORET LOCATION AU NUMBER 03-06-07 BA388 B6130500 LICK CRK AT SR 1500 NR CORINTH 18-4-(2) 03-06-07 BA391 B6160000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT NC 42 NR CORINTH 18-(4.5) 03-06-07 BA397 B6200000 BUCKHORN CRK AT NC 42 NR FUQUAY VARINA 18-7-(11) 03-06-07 BA399 B6230000 AVENTS CRK AT SR 1418 NR COKESBURY 18-13-(2) 03-06-07 BA401 B6252000 NEILLS CRK AT US 401 NR LILLINGTON 18-16-(0.7)c2 03-06-07 BA404 B6320000 KENNETH CRK AT SR 1441 CHALYBEATE SPRINGS RD 18-16-1-(2) 03-06-07 BA407 B6370000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT US 401 AT LILLINGTON 18-(16.3) 03-06-07 BA411 B6480000 BUIES CRK AT US 421 AT BUIES CREEK 18-18 03-06-07 BA412 B6483000 E BUIES CRK AT SR 2054 AT BUIES CREEK 18-18-1-(2) 03-06-07 BA413 B6485000 BUIES CRK AT KEITH HILLS GOLF COURSE MAINT S 18-18 03-06-07 BA431 B6840000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT NC 217 AT ERWIN 18-(20.7)a 03-06-13 BA429 B6830000 UPPER LITTLE RIV AT SR 2021 NR LILLINGTON 18-20-(24.5) 03-06-14 BA459 B7280000 LOWER LITTLE RIV AT SR 1451 AT MANCHESTER 18-23-(24) 03-06-14 BA461 B7300000 LOWER LITTLE RIV AT NC 210 NR SPRING LAKE 18-23-(24) 03-06-15 BA471 B7480000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT HOFFER WTP INTAKE AT FAYETT 18-(20.7)b 03-06-15 BA472 B7500000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT I 95 BELOW FAYETTEVILLE 18-(26)b 03-06-15 BA490 B7589000 CROSS CRK AT WALKWAY AT PWC WWTP 18-27-(3)c 03-06-15 BA491 B7590000 CROSS CRK AT US 301 BUS AND I 95 BUS AT FAYE 18-27-(3)c 03-06-15 BA493 B7610000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT RIVERSIDE LANDING 18-(26)a 03-06-15 BA500 B7679000 ROCKFISH CRK AT SR 1300 VASS ROAD 18-31-(12) 03-06-15 BA501 B7679300 ROCKFISH CRK AT US 401 BYPASS NR RAEFORD 18-31-(12) 03-06-15 BA503 B7700000 ROCKFISH CRK AT SR 1432 NR RAEFORD 18-31-(15) 03-06-15 BA537 B8229000 ROCKFISH CRK AT SPECIAL FORCES CLUB 18-31-(23) 03-06-15 BA538 B8230000 ROCKFISH CRK AT NC 87 NR FAYETTEVILLE 18-31-(23) 03-06-15 BA543 B8290000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT DUPONT WATER INTAKE 18-(26)c 03-06-16 BA545 B8301000 CAPE FEAR RIV BELOW LOCK AND DAM 3 BOAT RAMP 18-(26)d 03-06-16 BA546 B8302000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT POWER LINES NR TOLARSVILLE 18-(26)d 03-06-16 BA547 B8305000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT SR 1316 AT TARHEEL 18-(26)d 03-06-16 BA549 B8306000 CAPE FEAR RIV BELOW HARRISON CRK NR RUSKIN 18-(26)d 03-06-16 BA550 B8315000 HARRISON CRK AT SR 1320 AT BURNEY 18-42b 03-06-16 BA553 B8320000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT US 701 AT ELIZABETHTOWN 18-(26)d 03-06-16 BA556 B8330000 CAPE FEAR RIV DNS MOUTH OF ELLIS CRK 18-(26)d 03-06-16 BA557 B8339000 CAPE FEAR RIV ABOVE LOCK AND DAM 2 18-(26)e 03-06-16 BA560 B8340100 TURNBULL CRK AT US 701 NC 53 AND NC 41 NR EL 18-46 03-06-16 BA561 B8340130 CAPE FEAR RIV AT RM 70 18-(26)f 03-06-16 BA564 B8340650 CAPE FEAR RIV AT RM 55 18-(49) 03-06-16 BA571 B8348000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT SR 1730 ELWELL FERRY RD NR 18-(53.5) 03-06-16 BA572 B8349000 CAPE FEAR RIV ABOVE LOCK AND DAM 1 NR EAST A 18-(58.5) 03-06-16 BA575 B8360000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT NC 11 NR KINGS BLUFF 18-(59) A-V-4 A-V-5 Lower Cape Fear River Program Ambient data were collected from 34 Lower Cape Fear River Program stations in subbasins 03- 06-17 to 03-06-23. Refer to http://www.cfra-nc.org/projact.html for more information on the basin association and to http://www.uncwil.edu/cmsr/aquaticecology/LCFRP/ for other programs associated with the Lower Cape Fear River Program. See subbasin chapters for detailed information on data collected at these stations. The station summary sheets are available in the 2003 Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html. SUBBASIN STATION STORET LOCATION AU NUMBER 03-06-16 BA559 B8340050 BROWNS CRK AT NC 87 MOUTH 18-45 03-06-16 BA562 B8340200 HAMMOND CRK AT SR 1704 18-50 03-06-17 BA584 B8445000 LIVINGSTON CRK AT MOUTH NR RIEGELWOOD 18-64 03-06-17 BA585 B8449000 CAPE FEAR RIV NR NEILS EDDY LANDING NR ACME 18-(63)a 03-06-17 BA587 B8450000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT NEILS EDDY LANDING NR ACME 18-(63)a 03-06-17 BA589 B8465000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT DUPONT INTAKE 18-(63)b 03-06-17 BA640 B9030000 Cape Fear Riv at Indian Creek 18-(63)b 03-06-17 BA642 B9050000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT NAVASSA 18-(71)a 03-06-17 BA644 B9050100 Cape Fear Riv at Horseshoe Bend 18-(71)a 03-06-17 BA707 B9790000 Brunswick Riv at boat ramp in Belville 18-77 03-06-17 BA708 B9795000 Cape Fear Riv at CM 54 18-(71)a 03-06-17 BA709 B9800000 CAPE FEAR RIV AT CM 61 AT WILMINGTON 18-(71)a 03-06-17 BA716 B9845100 Cape Fear Riv at CM 42 18-(71)a 03-06-17 BA722 B9850100 Cape Fear Riv at CM 35 18-(71)b 03-06-17 BA734 B9910000 Cape Fear Riv at CM 23 18-(87.5)b 03-06-17 BA736 B9921000 Cape Fear Riv at CM 18 18-88-3.5 03-06-17 BA740 B9980000 ICW 1000 ft west of Southport discharge 18-88-9b 03-06-18 BA590 B8470000 SOUTH RIV AT US 13 NR COOPER 18-68-12-(0.5)a 03-06-19 BA601 B8604000 GREAT COHARIE CRK AT SR 1214 18-68-1 03-06-19 BA603 B8610001 LITTLE COHARIE CRK AT SR 1207 NR INGOLD 18-68-1-17b 03-06-19 BA615 B8740000 SIX RUNS CRK AT SR 1003 18-68-2-(11.5) 03-06-20 BA634 B8981000 Colly Crk at NC 53 18-68-17 03-06-20 BA636 B9000000 BLACK RIV AT NC 210 ABOVE THOROFARE 18-68b 03-06-21 BA647 B9090000 NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIV AT NC 403 NR WILLIAM 18-74-(1)b 03-06-21 BA658 B9191500 Northeast Cape Fear Riv NR Sarecta 18-74-(1)c1 03-06-22 BA651 B9130000 Panther Branch below UT NR FAISON 18-74-19-3b 03-06-22 BA657 B9191000 Goshen Swamp at NC 11 and NC 903 18-74-19b 03-06-22 BA679 B9430000 Rockfish Crk at US 117 18-74-29c 03-06-22 BA681 B9460000 Little Rockfish Crk at NC 11 18-74-29-6 03-06-23 BA684 B9490000 ANGOLA CRK AT NC 53 18-74-33-3 03-06-23 BA686 B9500000 BURGAW CANAL AT SR 1345 WRIGHT ST AT BURGAW 18-74-39a 03-06-23 BA687 B9520000 BURGAW CANAL AT US 117 18-74-39b 03-06-23 BA694 B9580000 NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIV AT US 117 AT CASTLE 18-74-(47.5) 03-06-23 BA699 B9670000 Northeast Cape Fear Riv below GE 18-74-(52.5) Appendix VI NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin Appendices NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0003913 Glen Touch Yarn Company LLC Glen Touch Yarn Company LLC Alamance Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.15 03-06-01 Haw River NC0024881 City of Reidsville Reidsville WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 7.5 03-06-01 Haw River NC0045161 Alamance-Burlington School System Altamahaw/Ossipee Elementary School Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-06-01 Haw River NC0046043 Oak Ridge Military Academy Oak Ridge Military Academy Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.04 03-06-01 Haw River NC0046809 Pentecostal Holiness Church Pentecostal Holiness Church Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-06-01 Benaja Creek NC0073571 Mervyn R King Countryside Manor WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-06-01 Troublesome Creek NC0046019 Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina The Summit WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-06-01 Haw River NC0060259 Willow Oak Mobile Home Park Willow Oak Mobile Home Park Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0175 03-06-01 Little Troublesome Creek NC0065412 REA Enterprises LLC Pleasant Ridge WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0235 03-06-01 Little Troublesome Creek NC0066010 Rockingham County Board of Education Williamsburg Elementary School Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.004 03-06-01 Haw River NC0046345 City of Reidsville Reidsville WTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-01 Troublesome Creek (Lake Reidsville) NC0085791 Gas Town Inc Bill's Convenience Store Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0504 03-06-02 Beaver Creek NC0085821 Tyco Electronics Tyco Electronics/Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0576 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek NC0038172 Guilford County Schools McLeansville Middle School WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0113 03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek NC0001210 Monarch Hosiery Mills Inc Monarch Hosiery Mills Incorporated Alamance Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.05 03-06-02 Reedy Fork (Hardys Mill Pond) NC0021211 City of Graham Graham WWTP Alamance Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 3.5 03-06-02 Haw River NC0021474 City of Mebane Mebane WWTP Alamance Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 2.5 03-06-02 Moadams Creek (Latham Lake) NC0023868 City of Burlington Eastside WWTP Alamance Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 12.0 03-06-02 Haw River NC0031607 Alamance-Burlington School System Western Alamance Middle School Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-06-02 Haw River NC0042528 B Everett Jordan & Son-1927 LLC B Everett Jordan 1927 LLC Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-06-02 Haw River NC0045144 Alamance-Burlington School System Western Alamance High School Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0115 03-06-02 Haw River NC0045152 Alamance-Burlington School System Jordan Elementary School Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-06-02 Haw River NC0055271 Shields Mobile Home Park Shields Mobile Home Park Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 03-06-02 Travis Creek NC0077968 Horners Mobile Home Park Horners Mobile Home Park Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.04 03-06-02 Reedy Fork NC0084328 Saramar LLC Saramar LLC Alamance Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.15 03-06-02 Haw River NC0078000 Brenntag Southeast Inc Brenntag Southeast Inc Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.216 03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek NC0084778 Harvin Reaction Technology Inc Harvin Reaction Technology Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.11 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek NC0086380 BP Products North America Inc Station 24154 remediation site Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0072 03-06-02 UT at Guilford College NC0001384 Burlington Industries LLC Burlington Industries LLC - Williamsburg Plant Caswell Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.025 03-06-02 Buttermilk Creek A-VI-1 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0045292 City of Graham Graham / Mebane WTP Alamance Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-02 Back Creek NC0059625 South Saxapahaw Home Owners South Saxapahaw Home Owners Alamance Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-02 Haw River NC0024325 City of Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 16.0 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek NC0047384 City of Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 40.0 03-06-02 South Buffalo Creek NC0022691 Chateau Communities Inc Autumn Forest Manuf. Home Community Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.082 03-06-02 Reedy Fork NC0029726 NC Department of Correction Guilford Correctional Center WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek NC0038156 Guilford County Schools Northeast Middle & Senior High WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.032 03-06-02 Reedy Fork NC0066966 Quarterstone Farm Association Inc Quarterstone Farm WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.20 03-06-02 Buffalo Creek NC0081426 City of Greensboro N.L. Mitchell WTP Guilford Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-02 North Buffalo Creek NC0081671 City of Greensboro Lake Townsend WTP Guilford Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor 1.5 03-06-02 Reedy Fork NC0003671 Magellan Terminals Holdings L P Greensboro Terminal II Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-02 Horsepen Creek NC0071463 Apex Oil Company Apex Oil Company Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-02 Horsepen Creek NC0023876 City of Burlington Southside WWTP Alamance Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 12.0 03-06-03 Big Alamance Creek (Alamance Creek) NC0022098 Cedar Valley Communities LLC Cedar Valley WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-06-03 Little Alamance Creek (Guilford County) NC0022675 Country Club Communities LLC Birmingham Place Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.043 03-06-03 Little Alamance Creek (Guilford County) NC0038164 Guilford County Schools Nathanael Greene Elementary School WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0045 03-06-03 North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek NC0048241 Staley Hosiery Mills Staley Hosiery Mills Alamance Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.005 03-06-03 Big Alamance Creek (Alamance Creek) NC0083828 City of Burlington J.D. Mackintosh, Jr. WTP Alamance Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-03 Big Alamance Creek (Alamance Creek) NC0045128 Alamance-Burlington School System Sylvan Elementary School Alamance Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0014 03-06-04 Cane Creek NC0042285 Trails Property Owners Assoc Trails WWTP Orange Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.04 03-06-04 Collins Creek NC0087629 State of NC Department of Transportation Asphalt Testing Site #6 Chatham Raleigh Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0144 03-06-04 Haw River NC0020354 Town of Pittsboro Pittsboro WWTP Chatham Raleigh Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.75 03-06-04 Robeson Creek NC0035866 County of Chatham Bynum WWTP Chatham Raleigh Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-06-04 Haw River NC0080896 Town of Pittsboro Pittsboro WTP Chatham Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-04 Haw River NC0086827 Brenntag Brenntag Southeast, Inc. Durham Raleigh Groundwater Remediation Minor not limited 03-06-05 Third Fork Creek NC0026051 Durham County Triangle WWTP Durham Raleigh Municipal, Large Major 12.0 03-06-05 Northeast Creek NC0047597 City of Durham South Durham WRF Durham Raleigh Municipal,Large Major 20.0 03-06-05 New Hope Creek A-VI-2 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0043257 Nature Trails Association CLP Nature Trails Mobile Home Park WWTP Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.04 03-06-05 Cub Creek NC0043559 Fearrington Utilities Inc Fearrington Util/ WWTP Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.27 03-06-05 Bush Creek NC0042803 Birchwood Mobile Home Park Birchwood Mobile Home Park Orange Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.018 03-06-05 New Hope Creek NC0074446 Hilltop Mobile Home Park Hilltop Mobile Home Park Orange Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-06-05 Old Field Creek NC0084093 County of Chatham Jordan Lake WTP Chatham Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-05 UT Camp New Hope (Camp New Hope Lake) NC0081591 Town of Cary Cary & Apex WTP Wake Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-05 White Oak Creek NC0048429 Cedar Village Apartments Cedar Village Apartments Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-06-05 Cub Creek NC0051314 North Chatham Water & Sewer Co LLC Cole Park Plaza Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-06-05 Cub Creek NC0025241 Orange Water And Sewer Authority Mason Farm WWTP Orange Raleigh Municipal,Large Major 14.5 03-06-06 Morgan Creek NC0056413 Whippoorwill LLC Carolina Meadows WWTP Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.18 03-06-06 Morgan Creek NC0025305 UNC-CH UNC Cogeneration Facility Orange Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0922 03-06-06 Morgan Creek NC0082210 Orange Water And Sewer Authority Jones Ferry Road WTP Orange Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-06 Morgan Creek NC0000892 Dynea U.S.A., Inc. Dynea U.S.A. Chatham Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.1 03-06-07 Haw River NC0001899 Honeywell International Inc Honeywell International Inc - Moncure, NC Chatham Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.244 03-06-07 Haw River NC0003433 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Cape Fear Steam Electric Power Plant Chatham Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Major 10.0 03-06-07 Cape Fear River NC0039586 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Wake Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.62 03-06-07 Buckhorn Creek (Harris Lake) NC0028118 Town of Fuquay-Varina Kenneth Creek WWTP Wake Raleigh Municipal,Large Major 1.2 03-06-07 Kenneth Creek NC0063096 Town of Holly Springs Holly Springs WWTP Wake Raleigh Municipal,Large Major 2.4 03-06-07 Utley Creek NC0023442 Weyerhaeuser Company Moncure Plywood Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.008 03-06-07 Haw River NC0048101 Diversicare Assisted Living Services Senters Rest Home Harnett Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0048 03-06-07 Kenneth Creek NC0055051 Country Lake Estates Inc Country Lake Estates Incorporated Wake Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.09 03-06-07 Buckhorn Creek NC0040711 Sierrapine Limited Sierrapine Limited-Moncure Chatham Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-07 Haw River NC0021636 Harnett County North Harnett Regional WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.75 03-06-07 Cape Fear River NC0030091 Harnett County Buies Creek WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-06-07 Cape Fear River NC0082597 Town of Angier Angier WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-06-07 Cape Fear River NC0059242 Town of Broadway Broadway WWTP Lee Raleigh Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.145 03-06-07 Daniels Creek NC0007684 Harnett County Harnett County Regional WTP Harnett Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-07 Cape Fear River NC0002861 City of Sanford Sanford WTP Lee Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-07 Cape Fear River A-VI-3 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0069451 Rimmer Mobile Home Court Rimmer Mobile Home Court Randolph Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0204 03-06-08 Muddy Creek NC0024210 City of High Point East Side WWTP Guilford Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 16.0 03-06-08 Richland Creek NC0025445 City of Randleman Randleman WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 1.745 03-06-08 Deep River NC0038091 Guilford County Schools Southern Elementary School Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-06-08 Hickory Creek NC0038229 Guilford County Schools Southern Guilford High School Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-06-08 Hickory Creek NC0041483 Plaza Mobile Home Park Plaza Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.003 03-06-08 Hickory Creek NC0055255 Crown Mobile Home Park Crown Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.042 03-06-08 Hickory Creek NC0050792 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Melbille Heights WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0315 03-06-08 Muddy Creek NC0055191 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Penman Heights WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-06-08 Muddy Creek NC0065358 Hidden Forest Estates Hidden Forest Mobile Home Park WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.027 03-06-08 Deep River NC0084492 RMC Metromont Materials Inc RMC Carolina Materials Inc-Colfax Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor not limited 03-06-08 West Fork Deep River NC0000795 Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals LLC Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals - Greensboro Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0022209 Motiva Enterprises LLC Greensboro Terminal Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 Long Branch NC0026247 TransMontaigne Product Services Inc Southeast terminal Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0031046 Colonial Pipeline Company Greensboro Terminal Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0036366 National Pipe And Plastics National Pipe And Plastics Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 West Fork Deep River NC0042501 Charter Triad Terminals LLC Charter Triad Terminals LLC Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0051161 Plantation Pipe Line Company Greensboro Petroleum Breakout Facility Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0069256 TransMontaigne Product Services Inc Greensboro Terminal Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0074241 Associated Asphalt Greensboro Inc Associated Asphalt Greensboro Inc Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 East Fork Deep River NC0074578 Magellan Terminals Holdings L P Greensboro Terminal I Guilford Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-08 Long Branch NC0081256 City of High Point Frank L. Ward WTP Guilford Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor 10.0 03-06-08 Richland Creek NC0087866 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority Randleman Lake Water Treatment Plant Randolph Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor 1.5 03-06-08 Deep River (Randleman Lake) NC0026565 Town of Ramseur Ramseur WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.48 03-06-09 Deep River (Randleman Lake) NC0026123 City of Asheboro Asheboro WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 9.0 03-06-09 Haskett Creek NC0039471 Chatham County Schools Bennett Elementary School WWTP Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-06-09 Flat Creek NC0023299 Oakwood Land Dev Corp Woodlake Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.07 03-06-09 Polecat Creek NC0055913 Monroe's Mobile Home Park Monroe's Mobile Home Park Guilford Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 03-06-09 Polecat Creek NC0040924 Randolph County Schools Seagrove Elementary School Randolph Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0088 03-06-09 Fork Creek A-VI-4 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0040975 Randolph County Schools Coleridge Elementary School Randolph Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0056 03-06-09 Deep River (Randleman Lake) NC0084816 Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. Groundwater Remediation site Guilford Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0288 03-06-09 Polecat Creek NC0084077 Hancock Country Hams Inc Hancock Country Hams Incorporated Randolph Winston-Salem Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.1 03-06-09 Sandy Creek NC0000639 Sapona Manufacturing Company Inc Sapona Manufacturing Company Randolph Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.01 03-06-09 Deep River (Randleman Lake) NC0074454 Town of Ramseur Ramseur WTP Randolph Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-09 Sandy Creek NC0038300 S S Construction & Rental Inc S.S. Mobile Home Park Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-06-09 Brush Creek NC0007820 Town of Franklinville Town of Franklinville WWTP Randolph Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-06-09 Deep River (Randleman Lake) NC0062855 Town of Robbins Robbins WWTP Moore Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 1.3 03-06-10 Deep River NC0087572 Southern Wood Piedmont Company Southern Wood Piedmont Company Chatham Raleigh Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.032 03-06-10 Deep River NC0058548 Town of Star Star WWTP Montgomery Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.6 03-06-10 Cotton Creek NC0024147 City of Sanford Sanford WWTP Lee Raleigh Municipal, Large Major 6.8 03-06-11 Deep River NC0030384 Piedmont Health Services Inc Moncure Community Health Center Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0025 03-06-11 Deep River NC0039349 Chatham County Schools Waters Elementary School Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 03-06-11 Cedar Creek NC0072575 Gold Kist Inc Gold Kist Incorporated- Cumnock Lee Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 1.0 03-06-11 Deep River NC0081493 Bost Distributing Corporation Bost Distributing Corporation Lee Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.003 03-06-11 Purgatory Branch NC0081795 Goldston-Gulf Sanitary District Goldston-Gulf WTP Chatham Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor 0.006 03-06-11 Deep River NC0083852 Gold Kist Inc Gold Kist WTP Lee Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-11 Deep River NC0026441 Town of Siler City Siler City WWTP Chatham Raleigh Municipal,Large Major 4.0 03-06-12 Loves Creek NC0038849 Bidco III LLC Hill Forest Rest Home Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.003 03-06-12 Bear Creek NC0039331 Chatham County Schools Bonlee Elementary School Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.007 03-06-12 Bear Creek NC0039381 Chatham County Schools Central Chatham High School Chatham Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-06-12 Bear Creek NC0001406 Swift Textiles Inc Erwin Mills Harnett Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.5 03-06-13 Cape Fear River NC0043176 City of Dunn Dunn WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 3.0 03-06-13 Cape Fear River NC0064521 Town of Erwin Erwin WWTP Harnett Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 1.2 03-06-13 Cape Fear River NC0038831 Carolina Trace Utilities Inc Carolina Trace Utilities Inc Lee Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.325 03-06-13 Upper Little River NC0078955 City of Dunn Dunn WTP Harnett Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor 2.0 03-06-13 Juniper Creek A-VI-5 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0080560 Town of Erwin Erwin WTP Harnett Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-13 Cape Fear River NC0003964 U S Army Fort Bragg WWTP & WTP Cumberland Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 8.0 03-06-14 Little River (Lower Little River) NC0030970 Town of Spring Lake Spring Lake WWTP Cumberland Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 1.5 03-06-14 Little River (Lower Little River) NC0022489 Bobby Miller Enterprises Inc Dilton Mobile Home Park Cumberland Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-06-14 Little River (Lower Little River) NC0031470 Harnett County South Central Water & Sewer District WWTP Harnett Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.4 03-06-14 Jumping Run Creek NC0057525 Crystal Lake Associates LLC Crystal Lake Associates LLC Moore Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-06-14 Mill Creek NC0061719 Heater Utilities Inc Woodlake Country Club WWTP Moore Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-06-14 Little Crane Creek (White Oak Creek) NC0074373 Moore County Public Utilities Vass WWTP Moore Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.06 03-06-14 Little River (Lower Little River) NC0077101 Carolina Water Service, Inc of NC Whispering Pines WTP Moore Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-14 Whispering Pines Lake NC0086100 Town of Cameron Well #5 WTP Moore Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-14 Little Crane Creek (White Oak Creek) NC0003719 DAK Resins LLC DAK Resins LLC - Fayetteville Cumberland Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.25 03-06-15 Cape Fear River NC0023957 PWC/Fayetteville Cross Creek WWTP Cumberland Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 25.0 03-06-15 Cape Fear River NC0050105 PWC/Fayetteville Rockfish Creek WWTP Cumberland Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 24.0 03-06-15 Cape Fear River NC0026514 City of Raeford Raeford WWTP Hoke Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 3.0 03-06-15 Rockfish Creek NC0024481 Days Inn Days Inn- Fayetteville Cumberland Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-06-15 Bakers Swamp NC0076783 PWC/Fayetteville Hoffer WTP Cumberland Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-15 Cape Fear River NC0003522 Alamac American Knits LLC Alamac Knit Fabics-Elizabethtown, NC Plant Bladen Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.5 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0003573 E I DuPont de Nemours and Company Dupont Fayetteville Works Bladen Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.0 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0078344 Smithfield Packing Company Inc Tarheel Plant Bladen Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 3.0 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0032913 Bladen County Schools East Arcadia Elementary School WWTP Bladen Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0001121 Dynapar Corporation Danaher Industrial Controls WWTP Bladen Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 5.0 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0058297 Elizabethtown Power LLC Elizabethtown Power LLC Bladen Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0026671 Town of Elizabethtown Elizabethtown WWTP Bladen Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 1.225 03-06-16 Cape Fear River NC0023639 Holtrachem Manufacturing Company LLC Holtrachem Mfg Co LLC Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0003298 International Paper Company Riegelwood Mill Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 50.0 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0001112 Invista, S.A.R.L. Invista, S.A.R.L. New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.7 03-06-17 Northeast Cape Fear River A-VI-6 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0082295 Fortron Industries Fortron Industries New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.417 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0000663 DAK Americas LLC Cape Fear Site/Wilmington Brunswick Brunswick Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 3.5 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0007064 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (Old WWTP) Brunswick Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.055 03-06-17 Atlantic Ocean NC0027065 Archer Daniels Midland Company Southport, NC Manufacturing Facility Brunswick Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 3.51 03-06-17 Southport Restricted Area NC0086819 Brunswick County Northeast Brunswick WWTP Brunswick Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 1.65 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0081736 New Hanover County Water & Sewer District Airport WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 4.0 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0029122 U S Army Military Ocean Terminal / Sunny Point Brunswick Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0043788 Columbus County Schools Acme Delco High School WWTF Columbus Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-06-17 Lindscomb Branch NC0043796 Columbus County Schools Acme Delco Elementary School Columbus Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 03-06-17 Pretty Creek NC0039527 New Hanover County Water & Sewer District Walnut Hills WWTP New Hanover Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-06-17 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0065099 Cogentrix Energy Inc Southport Cogen plant Brunswick Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Atlantic Ocean NC0058971 New Hanover County Water & Sewer District Wastec site New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0021334 City of Southport Southport WWTP Brunswick Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.8 03-06-17 Intracoastal Waterway NC0075540 North Brunswick Sanitary District Belville WWTP Brunswick Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.8 03-06-17 Brunswick River NC0025763 Town of Kure Beach Kure Beach WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.285 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0040061 Brunswick County Beaverdam Creek WTP Brunswick Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-17 Beaverdam Creek NC0057533 Brunswick County Hood Creek (Northwest) WTP Brunswick Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-17 Hood Creek NC0085553 Bald Head Island Devel Co Bald Head Island WTP Brunswick Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-17 Bald Head Island Marina Basin NC0001422 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Sutton Steam Electric Plant New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0059234 BASF Corporation BASF Corporation/ Wilmington New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.33 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0023256 Town of Carolina Beach Carolina Beach WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 3.0 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0023965 City of Wilmington Northside WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 16.0 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0023973 City of Wilmington Southside WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 12.0 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0057703 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Fairways - The Cape WWTP New Hanover Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.35 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0059978 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Ocean Forest WWTP New Hanover Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.4 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0065480 Aqua North Carolina Inc Beau Rivage Plantation New Hanover Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0083658 AAF-McQuay Inc Heathcraft remediation site New Hanover Wilmington Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.36 03-06-17 Barnards Creek NC0003395 Wright Corporation Wright Corporation Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.2 03-06-17 Livingston Creek (Broadwater Lake) NC0023477 Southern States Chemical Inc Southern States Chemical Inc New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0065307 Worsley Companies Inc Dixie Boy No. 6 New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.004 03-06-17 Northeast Cape Fear River A-VI-7 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Type Owner Facility County Region Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0066711 Amerada Hess Amerada Hess Corporation New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0073172 Vopak Terminal Wilmington Inc Wilmington Terminal New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0073181 Exxon Mobil Chemical Company South Wilmington Terminal New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0076732 Flint Hills Resources L P New Hanover Terminal New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.1 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0082970 CTI of North Carolina Inc CTI Of North Carolina New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0144 03-06-17 Cape Fear River NC0087947 Columbus Co Columbus County POTW Columbus Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.125 03-06-17 Livingston Creek (Broadwater Lake) NC0002879 City of Wilmington Sweeney WTP New Hanover Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-17 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0055107 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Dolphin Bay WWTP New Hanover Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.08 03-06-17 Snows Cut NC0058793 Golden Years Nursing Home Golden Years Nursing Home Cumberland Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-06-18 South River NC0083135 B&B Produce Inc B&B Produce Incorporated Johnston Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.025 03-06-18 Mingo Swamp NC0024791 State of NC Department of Transportation Sampson County Rest Area Sampson Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 03-06-19 Six Runs Creek NC0020346 Town of Magnolia Magnolia WWTP Duplin Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.09 03-06-19 Millers Creek NC0021903 Town Of Warsaw Warsaw WWTP Duplin Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.915 03-06-19 Stewarts Creek NC0025569 Town of Garland Garland WWTP Sampson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.126 03-06-19 Great Coharie Creek (Blackmans Pond) NC0072877 Town of Newton Grove Newton Grove WWTP Sampson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.2 03-06-19 Beaverdam Swamp NC0086649 City of Clinton Well Field East WTP Sampson Fayetteville Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-19 Rowans Branch (Chestnut Pond) NC0020117 City of Clinton Norman H. Larkins WPCF Sampson Fayetteville Municipal,Large Major 5.0 03-06-19 Williams Old Mill Branch (Mill Branch) NC0026816 Town of Roseboro Roseboro WWTP Sampson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.49 03-06-19 Little Coharie Creek (Sinclair Lake) NC0036404 Lake Creek Corporation Bay Tree Lakes WWTP Bladen Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-06-20 Lake Creek NC0023353 Town of White Lake White Lake WWTP Bladen Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.8 03-06-20 Colly Creek NC0001074 Mount Olive Pickle Company Mount Olive Pickle Company Wayne Washington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.4 03-06-21 Barlow Branch NC0086941 Southeastern Wayne Sanitary District Southeastern Wayne S D WTP Wayne Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-21 Horsepen Branch NC0020575 Town of Mount Olive Mount Olive WWTP Wayne Washington Municipal, Large Major 1.0 03-06-21 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0063711 Albertson Water & Sewer District Albertson W&S District WTP Duplin Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-21 Great Branch (Hussey Pond) NC0003051 Town of Mount Olive Mount Olive WTP #3 Wayne Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-21 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0086801 Town of Mount Olive Gordon Street WTP Wayne Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-21 Northeast Cape Fear River A-VI-8 NPDES Dischargers in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of October 27, 2004) Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream NC0001970 Dean Pickle & Specialty Products Co Dean Pickle & Specialty Prod Duplin Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.5 03-06-22 Panther Creek NC0003450 Town of Wallace Wallace WWTP #2 Duplin Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 4.42 03-06-22 Rock Fish Creek (New Kirk Pond) NC0020702 Town of Wallace Wallace WWTP Duplin Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 1.0 03-06-22 Rock Fish Creek (New Kirk Pond) NC0085481 Pender County Board of Education Penderlea Elementary School Pender Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-06-22 Crooked Run NC0002763 National Spinning Company, Inc Warsaw Mill Duplin Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-22 Grove Creek NC0003344 Circle S Foods Wallace Processing Plant Duplin Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 1.5 03-06-22 Rock Fish Creek (New Kirk Pond) NC0058271 Green Power Energy Holdings LLC Green Power Kenansville LLC Duplin Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-22 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0066320 House of Raeford Farms Inc Rose Hill Plant Duplin Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-22 Beaverdam Branch NC0026018 Town of Beulaville Beulaville WWTP Duplin Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.26 03-06-22 Persimmon Branch NC0036668 Town of Kenansville Kenansville WWTP Duplin Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.3 03-06-22 Grove Creek NC0056863 Town of Rose Hill Rose Hill WWTP Duplin Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.45 03-06-22 Reedy Branch NC0002933 Town of Calypso Calypso WTP Duplin Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-22 Dicks Branch NC0002305 Guilford Mills Inc Gulford East Mill WWTP Duplin Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.5 03-06-22 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0049743 New Hanover County Water & Sewer District Landfill WWTP New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.064 03-06-23 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0003794 Corning Inc Wilmington Plant New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-23 Spring Branch NC0003875 Elementis Chromium L P Castle Hayne, NC Manufacturing Facility (NPDES) New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.07 03-06-23 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0051969 Bowden Nursing Home Inc Hermitage House Rest Home WWTP New Hanover Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.024 03-06-23 Prince George Creek NC0042251 Pender County Board of Education Pender High School WWTP Pender Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-06-23 Long Creek NC0021113 Town Of Burgaw Burgaw WWTP Pender Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.75 03-06-23 Burgaw Creek NC0001228 Global Nuclear Fuel Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.875 03-06-23 Northeast Cape Fear River NC0001091 LaQue Center for Corrosion Technology Laque Centr For Corrosion Tech New Hanover Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-06-24 Banks Channel NC0025895 Town Of Holly Ridge Holly Ridge WWTP Onslow Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-06-24 King Creek Restricted Area (Spicer Bay) NC0032221 Carolina Water Service, Inc of NC Belvedere WTP Pender Wilmington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-06-24 Intracoastal Waterway A-VI-9 NPDES Individual Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of November 10, 2004) 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 Corp. 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 NCS000201 UNC-CH Haz Mat Facility UT Bolin Creek 03-06-06 Orange NCS000087 PAC-FAB, Inc. Little Buffalo Creek 03-06-07 Lee NCS000100 Honeywell International Inc. Shaddox Creek & Haw River 03-06-07 Chatham NCS000150 Dynea USA, Inc. Haw River 03-06-07 Chatham NCS000151 SierraPine, Limited 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 NCS000023 Pioneer Southern, Inc. Rita Branch 03-06-10 Montgomery NCS000122 General Timber, Inc. George's Creek 03-06-11 Chatham NCS000342 Pope Air Force Base Little River 03-06-14 Cumberland NCS000056 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland NCS000088 Borden Chemical, Inc. Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland NCS000147 Wellman, Inc. UT Cape Fear River 03-06-15 Cumberland NCS000187 Black & Decker (US), Inc. UT Lake Lynn 03-06-15 Cumberland A-VI-10 NPDES Individual Stormwater Permits in the Cape Fear River Basin (as of November 10, 2004) Permit # Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County NCS000331 Fort Bragg Military Reservation Cross Creek, Texas Pond, Smith Lake, Rose Lake 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 Auth. - Wilmington Cape Fear River 03-06-17 New Hanover NCS000208 Military Ocean Terminal - Sunny Pt Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Brunswick NCS000244 American Distillation Co. Cape Fear River 03-06-17 Brunswick NCS000258 Pressure Chemical Co. Alligator Branch 03-06-17 Brunswick NCS000344 American Crane Corp - New Hanover UT Barnards Creek 03-06-17 New Hanover NCS000392 DAK Americas LLC Mulberry Branch 03-06-17 Brunswick NCS000309 Schindler Elevator Corp Old Williams Mill Branch 03-06-19 Sampson NCS000022 GE Wilmington Prince George Creek 03-06-23 New Hanover NCS000084 South Atlantic Services, Inc. Fishing Creek 03-06-23 New Hanover NCS000118 Arteva Specialties, S.A.R.L. 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 & Alligator Branch 03-06-23 Brunswick A-VI-11 Appendix VII 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology Appendices Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report Summary The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List is an integrated report that includes both the 305(b) and 303(d) reports of previous years. The 305(b) Report is compiled biennially to update the assessment of water quality in North Carolina and to meet the Section 305(b) reporting requirement of the Clean Water Act. The 305(b) reports present how well waters support designated uses (e.g., swimming, aquatic life support, water supply), as well as likely causes (e.g., sediment, nutrients) and potential sources of impairment. The term "Use Support" refers to the process mandated by 305(b). The 303(d) List is a comprehensive public accounting of all Impaired waterbodies that is derived from the 305(b) Report/Use Support. An Impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality uses, such as water supply, fishing or propagation of aquatic life. Best professional judgement along with numeric and narrative standards criteria and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131 is considered when evaluating the ability of a waterbody to serve its uses. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which Congress enacted in 1972, required States, Territories and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limitations required by Section 301 are not stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards, establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waterbodies, and submit, from time to time, the list of Impaired waterbodies and TMDLs to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Current federal rules require states to submit 303(d) lists biennially, by April 1st of every even numbered year. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the state- developed 303(d) list within 30 days. For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed. TMDLs are not required for waters Impaired by pollution. The Integrated Report includes descriptions of monitoring programs, the use support methodology, and the Impaired waters list. New guidance from EPA places all waterbody assessment units into one unique assessment category (EPA, 2001b). Although EPA specifies five unique assessment categories, North Carolina elects to use seven categories. Each category is described in detail below: Category 1: Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all applicable use support categories are rated " Supporting". Data and information are available to support a determination that the water quality standards are attained and no use is threatened. Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the water quality standard continues to be attained. Category 2: Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and insufficient or no data and information are available to determine if the remaining uses are attained or threatened. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units where at least one of the applicable use support categories are rated " Supporting" and the other use support categories are rated "Not Rated" or “No Data”. Also included in this category are waters where at least one of the applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Supporting"; the remaining applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated"; and the Fish Consumption category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Data and information are available to support a A-VII-1 determination that some, but not all, uses are attained. Attainment status of the remaining uses is unknown because there are insufficient or no data or information. Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the uses previously found to be in attainment remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for which data and information were previously insufficient to make a determination. Category 3: Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is attained. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated", and the Fish Consumption category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Measured data or information to support an attainment determination for any use are not available. Supplementary data and information, or future monitoring, will be required to assess the attainment status. Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but does not require the development of a TMDL. This category contains three distinct sub- categories: Category 4a: TMDL has been completed. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units for which EPA has approved or established a TMDL and water quality standards have not yet been achieved. Monitoring data will be considered before moving an assessment unit from Category 4a to Categories 1 or 2. Category 4b: Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the attainment of the water quality standard in the near future. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units for which TMDLs will not be attempted because other required regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES permit limits, Stormwater Program rules, etc.) are expected to attain water quality standards within a reasonable amount of time. Future monitoring will be used to verify that the water quality standard is attained as expected. Category 4c: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. This category consists of assessment units that are Impaired by pollution, not by a pollutant. EPA defines pollution as "The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological and radiological integrity of the water." EPA staff have verbally stated that this category is intended to be used for impairments related to water control structures (i.e., dams). Future monitoring will be used to confirm that there continues to be an absence of pollutant-caused impairment and to support water quality management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment. Category 5: Impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and requires a TMDL. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units that are Impaired by a pollutant and the proper technical conditions exist to develop TMDLs. As defined by the EPA, the term pollutant means "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water." When A-VII-2 more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody assessment unit in this category, the assessment unit will remain in Category 5 until TMDLs for all listed pollutants have been completed and approved by the EPA. Category 6: Impaired based on biological data. This category consists of waterbody assessment units historically referred to as "Biologically Impaired" waterbodies; these assessment units have no identified cause(s) of impairment although aquatic life impacts have been documented. The waterbody assessment unit will remain in Category 6 until TMDLs have been completed and approved by the EPA. Category 7: Impaired, but the proper technical conditions do not yet exist to develop a TMDL. As described in the Federal Register, "proper technical conditions” refer to the availability of the analytical methods, modeling techniques and data base necessary to develop a technically defensible TMDL. These elements will vary in their level of sophistication depending on the nature of the pollutant and characteristics of the segment in question" (43 FR 60662, December 28, 1978). These are assessment units that would otherwise be in Category 5 of the integrated list. As previously noted, EPA has recognized that in some specific situations the data, analyses or models are not available to establish a TMDL. North Carolina seeks EPA technical guidance in developing technically defensible TMDLs for these waters. Open water and ocean hydrology fecal coliform Impaired shellfishing waters are included in this category. For this integrated list, Categories 1 and 2 are considered fully supporting any assessed uses. This portion of the integrated list is extensive (thousands of segments); thus, a printed copy is not provided. A table of waters on Categories 1 through 3 is available for downloading on the DWQ website (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm). Categories 5, 6 and 7 constitute the 2004 North Carolina 303(d) List for the State of North Carolina. Delisting Waters In general, waters will move from Categories 5, 6 or 7 when data show that uses are fully supported or when a TMDL has been approved by EPA. In some cases, mistakes have been discovered in the original listing decision and the mistakes are being corrected. Waters appearing on the previously approved Impaired waters list will be moved to Categories 1, 2, 3 or 4 under the following circumstances: An updated 305(b) use support rating of Supporting, as described in the basinwide management plans. Applicable water quality standards are being met (i.e., no longer Impaired for a given pollutant) as described in either basinwide management plans or in technical memoranda. The basis for putting the water on the list is determined to be invalid (i.e., was mistakenly identified as Impaired in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv) and/or National Clarifying Guidance for State and Territory 1998 Section 303(d) Listing Decisions. Robert Wayland, III, Director. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Aug 27, 1997). A water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride). Removal of fish consumption advisories or modification of fish eating advice. Typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified). EPA has approved a TMDL. A-VII-3 Scheduling TMDLs Category 5 waters, those for which a TMDL is needed, are at many different stages on the path to an approved TMDL. Some require additional data collection to adequately define the problem in TMDL terms. Some require more outreach to increase stakeholder involvement. Others need to have a technical strategy budgeted, funded and scheduled. Some are ready for EPA submittal. North Carolina has prioritized TMDL development for waters Impaired due to bacteria or turbidity. The approach of prioritizing TMDL development based on pollutant has been successfully used in other states. Limited resources are used more effectively with a focus on a particular pollutant. Waters Impaired by other pollutants (i.e., not bacteria) are not excluded from the schedule. However, the majority of waters prioritized for the next few years are associated with bacterial contamination. Compliance with TMDL development schedules provided in the Integrated Report depends upon DWQ and EPA resources. North Carolina uses biological data to place the majority of waterbody assessment units on the 303(d) list. Additional consideration and data collection are necessary if the establishment of a TMDL for waters on Category 6 is to be expected. It is important to understand that the identification of waters in Category 6 does not mean that they are low priority waters. The assessment of these waters is a high priority for the State of North Carolina. However, it may take significant resources and time to determine the environmental stressors and potentially a cause of impairment. Assigning waters to Category 6 is a declaration of the need for more data and time to adequately define the problems and whether pollution, pollutants or a combination affects waters. According to EPA guidance (EPA 2004), prioritization of waterbody assessment units for TMDLs need not be reflected in a “high, medium or low” manner. Instead, prioritization can be reflected in the TMDL development schedule. Generally, North Carolina attempts to develop TMDLs within 10 years of the original pollutant listing. Other information for each assessment unit is also utilized to determine the priority in the TMDL development schedule. This information includes the following: • Year listed. Assessment units that have been on the 303(d) list for the longest period of time will receive priority for TMDL development and/or stressor studies. • Reason for listing. (Applicable to Category 5 AUs only.) AUs with an impairment due to a standard violation will be prioritized based on which standard was violated. Standard violations due to bacteria or turbidity currently receive priority for TMDL development. • Classification. AUs classified for primary recreation (Class B), water supply (Class WS- I through WS-V), trout (Tr), high quality waters (HQW), and outstanding resource waters (ORW) will continue to receive a higher priority for TMDL development and/or stressor studies. • Basinwide Planning Schedule. (Applicable to Category 6 AUs only.). The basinwide schedule is utilized to establish priority for stressor studies. A-VII-4 A-VII-5 Revising TMDLs Current federal regulations do not specify when TMDLs should be revised. However, there are several circumstances under which it would seem prudent to revisit existing TMDLs. The TMDL analysis of targets and allocations is based upon the existing water quality standards, hydrology, water quality data (chemical and biological), and existing, active NPDES wastewater discharges. Conditions related to any of these factors could be used to justify a TMDL revision. Specific conditions that the Division will consider prior to revising an existing, approved TMDL include the following: • A TMDL has been fully implemented and the water quality standards continue to be violated. If a TMDL has been implemented and water quality data indicate no improvement or a decline in overall water quality, the basis for the TMDL reduction or the allocation may need to be revised. • A change of a water quality standard (e.g., fecal coliform to Echerichia coli). The Division will prioritize review of existing TMDLs and data to determine if a revision to TMDLs will be required. • The addition or removal of hydraulic structures to a waterbody (e.g., dams). Substantial changes to waterbody hydrology and hydraulics have the potential to change many aspects of target setting, including the water quality standard upon which the TMDL was developed, the water quality data, and the water quality modeling. • Incorrect assumptions were used to derive the TMDL allocations. This would include errors in calculations and omission of a permitted discharge. Should a TMDL be revised due to needed changes in TMDL targets, the entire TMDL would be revised. This includes the TMDL target, source assessment, and load and wasteload allocations. However, the Division may elect to revise only specific portions of the TMDL. For example, changes may be justifiable to the load and wasteload allocation portions of a TMDL due to incorrect calculations or inequities. In these cases, revisions to the TMDL allocations would not necessarily include a revision of TMDL targets. Appendix VIII Cape Fear River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts Appendices 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: • Coordinate implementation of state and federal initiatives addressing watershed protection and restoration. • Continue to target geographic areas and waterbodies for protection based upon best available information. • Strengthen and improve existing nonpoint source management programs. • Develop new programs that control nonpoint sources of pollution not addressed by existing programs. • Integrate the NPS Program with other state programs and management studies (e.g., Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program). • 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 Rich Gannon at (919) 733-5083 ext. 356. A-VIII-1 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 Michael E. Sugg 704-637-2400 600 West Innes Street, Salisbury NC 28144 Area 3 Conservationist William J. Harrell 919-751-0976 Cashwell Office Park, 208 Malloy Street, Suite C, Goldsboro NC 27534 County District Conservationist Phone Address Alamance Joseph R. Bailey 336-226-0477 Environmental Center, 209 North Graham Hopedale Road, Burlington NC 27215 (Burlington Field Office) Bladen Christopher W. Bordeaux 910-862-3179 x3 Agriculture Service Center, Room 122, Ice Plant Road, Elizabethtown NC 28337-9409 Brunswick 910-253-2830 10 Referendum Drive, PO Box 26, Bolivia NC 28422-0026 Caswell Warren H. Mincey, Jr. 910-694-4581 Agriculture Building, 126 Court Square, PO Box 96, Yanceyville NC 27379 Chatham Michael W. Sturdivant 919-542-2244 Chatham County Agriculture Building, 45 South Street, PO Box 309, Pittsboro NC 27312 Columbus Donna G. Register 910-642-2196 45 Government Complex Road, Suite B, 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 Eric W. West 910-296-2120 Duplin County Soil Conservation Building, 105 East Hill Street, PO Box 219, Kenansville NC 28349-0219 Durham E. Brent Bogue 919-644-1079 x3 County Planning/Agriculture Center, 306D Revere Road, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278 (Hillsborough Field Office) Forsyth Randy Blackwood 336-767-0720 Forsyth Agriculture Building, 1450 Fairchild Drive, Winston- Salem NC 27105 Guilford F. Gary Cox 336-333-5401 x3 County Agriculture Center, 3309 Burlington Road, Greensboro NC 27405 Harnett Parks V. Blake 910-893-7584 County Office Building, 108 East Front Street, PO Box 267, Lillington NC 27546-9998 Hoke John M. Ray, Jr. 910-484-8939 Charlie Rose Agri-Expo Center, Suite 229, 121 East Mountain Drive, Fayetteville NC 28306-3422 (Fayetteville FO) Johnston William D. Radford 919-934-7156 x3 County Agriculture Building, 806 North Street, Smithfield NC 27577 Lee Darrly E. Harrington 919-776-2633 2410 Tramway Road, Sanford NC 27332-9174 Montgomery 910-572-2700 2270 North Main Street, Troy NC 27371 Moore Jeffrey K. Williams 910-947-5183 County Agriculture Center, 707 Pinehurst Avenue, PO Box 908, Carthage NC 28327 New Hanover Adrian Moon 910-798-6032 New Hanover SWCD, County Admin. Annex, 230 Marketplace Drive, Suite 100, Wilmington NC 28403 A-VIII-2 Agriculture (con’t) Onslow Carl G. Kirby, Sr. 910-455-4472 x3 Ag Center Complex, 4028 Richlands Hwy., Jacksonville NC 28640 Orange E. Brent Bogue 919-644-1079 x3 County Planning/Agriculture Center, 306-D Revere Road, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278 (Hillsborough Field Office) Pender Adrian Moon 910-798-6032 County Administration Annex, New Hanover SWCD, 230 Marketplace Drive, Wilmington NC 28403 (Wilmington Field Office) Randolph B. Barton Roberson 336-629-4449 Federal Building, 241 Sunset Avenue, Room 105, Asheboro NC 27203 Robeson Dana Ashford 910-739-5478 County Office Bldg., 440-A Caton Road, Lumberton NC 28358 Rockingham Harvey Campbell 336-342-0460 x3 Rockingham Agriculture Center, 525 NC 65, Suite 100, Reidsville NC 27320-8861 Sampson Samuel Warren 910-592-7963 x3 New Agriculture Building, 84 County Complex Road, Clinton NC 28328-4727 Wake Stephen C. Woodruff 919-250-1070 Agriculture Services Building, 4001-D Carya Drive, Raleigh NC 27610 Wayne Patricia S. Gabriel 919-734-5281 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 Phone Address Alamance 336-226-0477 PO Box 3185, Burlington, NC 27215-0185 Bladen 910-862-3179 122 Agriculture Services Center, Elizabethtown NC 28337 Brunswick 910-253-4448 10 Referendum Drive, PO Box 26, Bolivia NC 28422 Caswell 336-694-4581 Agriculture Building, PO Box 96, Yanceyville NC 27379 Chatham 919-542-8240 PO Box 309, Pittsboro NC 27312 Columbus 910-642-2348 PO Box 545, Whiteville NC 28472-0545 Cumberland 910-484-8479 Agri-Expo Center, 121 East Mountain Drive, Suite 229 Fayetteville, NC 28306-3422 Duplin 910-296-2120 PO Box 277, 302 North Main Street, Kenansville NC 28349 Durham 919-560-0558 721 Foster Street, Durham NC 27701-2110 Forsyth 336-767-0720 1450 Fairchild Drive, Room 11, Winston-Salem NC 27105 Guilford 336-375-5401 3309 Burlington Road, Greensboro NC 27405 Harnett 910-893-7584 PO Box 267, Lillington NC 27546 Hoke 910-875-8685 Federal Building, Room 202, 122 West Elwood Avenue, Raeford NC 28376-2800 Johnston 919-989-5381 County Agriculture Building, 806 North Street, Smithfield NC 27577 Lee 919-776-2633 225 South Steele Street, Sanford NC 27330 Montgomery 910-572-2700 227-D North Main Street, Troy NC 27371 Moore 910-947-5183 PO Box 908, 707 Pinehurst Avenue, Carthage NC 28327 New Hanover 910-762-6072 414 Chestnut Street, Room 305, Wilmington NC 28401 A-VIII-3 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (con’t) Onslow 910-455-4472 Donald A. Halsey Agriculture Building, 604 College Street, Jacksonville NC 28540 Orange 919-644-1079 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278 Pender 910-259-4305 PO Box 248, 801 South Walker Street, Burgaw NC 28425 Randolph 336-318-6490 Federal Building, Suite 105, 241 Sunset Avenue, Asheboro NC 27203 Robeson 910-739-5478 440 Caton Road, Lumberton NC 28358 Rockingham 336-342-8225 PO Box 201, Wentworth NC 27375-0201 Sampson 910-592-7963 84 County Complex Road, Clinton NC 28328 Wake 919-250-1070 4001-D Carya Drive, Raleigh NC 27610-2921 Wayne 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 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27604 Fayetteville Region Jamie Revels 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Suite 714, Fayetteville NC 28301 Raleigh Region Margaret O’Keefe 919-571-4700 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh NC 27609 Wilmington Region Brian Gannon 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington NC 28405-3845 Winston-Salem Region Daphne Cartner 336-771-4600 585 Waughtown 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 Kent Messick 919-733-2655 402 Willowbrook Drive, Cary NC 27511 Region 4 Tim Hall 910-324-9924 PO Box 444, Richlands NC 28574-0444 Region 5 Rick Morris 910-866-5485 3184 Old NC 41, Bladenboro NC 28320 Region 7 Kevin Johnson 919-736-1799 PO Box 890, Pikeville NC 27863 Region 8 Robin Watson 336-570-6850 1709 Fairview Street, Burlington NC 27215 Region 9 David Dycus 919-776-9338 39966 Center Church Road, Sanford NC 27330 Region 10 Tim Hambrick 336-386-4602 611 Gillespie Street, Dobson NC 27017 A-VIII-4 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 Kent Wooten 910-862-4591 450 Smith Circle Drive, Elizabethtown NC 28337 Brunswick Martha Warner 910-253-2610 Brunswick County Government Complex, 25 Referendum Drive, PO Box 109, Bolivia NC 28422 Caswell Joey E. Knight, III 336-694-4158 126 Court Square, PO Box 220 Yanceyville NC 27379-0220 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, Suite A, PO Box 569, Whiteville NC 28472 Cumberland George Autry 910-484-7156 Charlie Rose Agri-Expo Center, 301 East Mountain Drive, PO Box 270, Fayetteville NC 28306 Duplin Ed Emory 910-296-2143 103 Duplin Street, PO Box 949, Kenansville NC 28349 Durham Cheryl L. Lloyd 919-560-0524 Agricultural Building, 721 Foster Street, Durham NC 27701 Forsyth Mark Tucker 336-767-8213 1450 Fairchild Drive, Winston-Salem NC 27105 Guilford Brenda Morris 336-375-5876 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 Clinton A. McRae 910-875-3461 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 Susan C. Condlin 919-775-5624 2420 Tramway Road, Sanford NC 27332-9174 Montgomery Roger K. Galloway 910-576-6011 203 West Main Street, Troy NC 27371 Moore Bert Coffer 910-947-3188 707 Pinehurst Avenue, Suite 105, Carthage NC 28327 New Hanover Melissa Hight 910-452-6393 New Hanover County Center, 6206 Oleander Drive, Wilmington NC 28403 Onslow Peggie Garner 910-455-5873 Onslow County Center, 4024 Richlands Highway, Jacksonville NC 28540 Orange Fletcher Barber, Jr. 919-732-8181 306-E Revere Road, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278 Pender Wayne Batten 910-259-1235 Agricultural Building, 801 South Walker Street, Burgaw NC 28425 Randolph Carolyn Langley 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 Wake County Center, 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 A-VIII-5 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 3,5,6,8,10,11 Mike Hendricks 919-542-1515 3490 Big Woods Road, Chapel Hill NC 27514-7652 Central Office Bill Swartley 919-733-2162 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1616 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 Gerald Lee 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Suite 714, Fayetteville NC 28301 Raleigh Region John Holley 919-571-4700 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh NC 27609 Wilmington Region Dan Sams 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington NC 28405-3845 Winston-Salem Region Mathew Gantt 336-771-4600 585 Waughtown 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 919-249-3397 PO Box 250, Apex, NC 27502 City of Asheboro Bobby Kevitt 336-626-1234 146 North Church Street, 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 919-968-2700 306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill NC 27514-3699 Durham/ Durham County Bill Noyes 919-560-0735 120 East Parrish Street, Suite 100, Durham NC 27701 Forsyth County/ Winston-Salem Jeff Kopf 336-727-2388 100 East First Street, Suite 328 Winston Salem NC 27101 City of Greensboro Ken Cook 336-373-2158 PO Box 3136, Greensboro NC 27402-3136 Guilford County Earl Davis 336-373-3803 PO Box 3427, Greensboro NC 27402 City of High Point Brian Sullivan 336-883-3199 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 Ren Ivins 919-732-8181 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278 Southern Pines BB Teague/AH Davis Jr. 910-692-1983 140 Memorial Park Court, Southern Pines NC 28387 Wake County Lee R. Squires (919) 856-6194 PO Box 550, Raleigh NC 27602 A-VIII-6 General Water Quality DWQ Planning Section: Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; model water quality; and conduct water quality classifications and standards activities. Planning Section Supervisor Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Modeling Michelle Woolfolk 919-733-5083 x505 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Classific’ns & Standards Jeff Manning 919-733-5083 x579 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NPS & Section 319 Rich Gannon 919-733-5083 x356 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Basinwide Planning Darlene Kucken 919-733-5083 x354 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Groundwater Planning Carl Bailey 919-733-5083 x522 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Monitoring Jimmie Overton 919-733-9960 x204 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 DWQ Surface Water Protection Section: Conduct permitting and compliance in accordance with the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); regulate sewage collection systems; control and document discharge of wastewater; oversight of the wetlands 401 certification program; nonpoint source compliance; and stormwater permitting. Point Source Dave Goodrich 919-733-5083 x517 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NPDES (Western) Susan Wilson 919-733-5083 x510 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NPDES (Eastern) Gil Vinzani 919-733-5083 x540 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 PERCS Supervisor Jeff Poupart 919-733-5083 x527 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Wetlands and Stormwater Program & Policy Development John Dorney 919-733-9646 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Transportation Permitting John Hennessy 919-733-5694 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Cyndi Karoly 919-733-9721 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 NPS Compliance Danny Smith 919-733-7015 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Stormwater Permitting Bradley Bennett 919-733-5083 x525 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 DWQ Aquifer Protection Section: Oversight of animal waste systems; characterizes the state’s groundwater aquifers; investigates contamination cases; prevents and investigates groundwater contamination; conducts remediation permitting; oversees nondischarge wastewater treatment and recycle systems. Animal Operations Paul Sherman 919-715-6697 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Groundwater Protection Debra Watts 919-715-6699 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Land Application Kim Colson 919-715-6165 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 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 Belinda Hinson 910-486-1541 225 Green Street, Fayetteville NC 28301 Raleigh Ken Schuster 919-571-4700 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh NC 27609 Wilmington Ed Beck 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington NC 28405-2845 Winston-Salem Steve Tedder 336-771-4600 585 Waughtown Street, Winston Salem NC 27107 A-VIII-7 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 Keith Harris 910-251-4511 PO Box 1890, Wilmington NC 28402-1890 Raleigh Field Office Jean Manuele 919-876-8441 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh NC 27615 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 Andrew McCall 910-486-1541 Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville NC 28301 Raleigh Region Boyce Hudson 919-571-4700 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh NC 27609 Wilmington Region Andrew McCall 252-395-3800 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington NC 28401 Winston-Salem Region 336-771-4600 585 Waughtown Street, Winston Salem NC 27107-2241 County Primary Contact Phone Address Alamance Tim Green 336-227-0101 319 North Graham-Hopedale Road, Suite B, Burlington NC 27217 Bladen Myra Johnson 910-862-6900 PO Box 189, Elizabethtown NC 28337 Brunswick Donald J, Yousey 888-428-4429 25 Courthouse Drive, PO Box 9, Bolivia NC 28422 Caswell Fred Moore 336-694-4129 189 County Park Road, PO Box 1238, Yanceyville NC 27379 Chatham Dorothy Cilenti 919-542-8214 80 East Street, PO Box 130, Pittsboro NC 27312 Columbus Marian W. Duncan 910-641-3914 Miller Building, PO Box 810, Whiteville NC 28472 A-VIII-8 A-VIII-9 On-Site Wastewater Treatment (con’t) County Primary Contact Phone Address Cumberland Wayne Raynor 910-433-3700 227 Fountainhead Lane, Fayetteville NC 28301 Duplin Illa Davis 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 Dr. Tim Monroe 336-703-3101 799 Highland Avenue, PO Box 686,Winston-Salem NC 27102-0686 Guilford Dr. Ramesh Krishnaraj 336-641-3283 1203 Maple Street, Greensboro NC 27405 Harnett John Rouse, Jr. 910-893-7550 307 Cornelius Harnett Boulevard, Lillington NC 27546 Hoke Cynthia Oxendine 910-875-3717 429 East Central Avenue, Raeford NC 28376 Johnston L. S. Woodall, M. D. 919-989-5180 517 North Bright Leaf Boulevard, Smithfield NC 27577 Lee Mike Hanes 919-718-4641 106 Hillcrest Drive, PO Box 1528, Sanford NC 27331-1528 Montgomery Kathleen D. Jones 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 Onslow George O’Daniel 910-347-7042 612 College Street, Jacksonville NC 28540 Orange Dr. Rosemary Summers 919-245-2411 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278 Pender Jack Griffith, Ph. D. 910-259-1328 803 West Walker Street, PO Box 1209, Burgaw NC 28425 Randolph Mary M. Cooper 336-318-6217 2222-B South Fayetteville Street, Asheboro NC 27203 Robeson William J. Smith 910-671-3200 460 Country Club Road, Lumberton, NC 28360 Rockingham Glenn L. Martin 336-342-8132 PO Box 204, Wentworth NC 27375 Sampson Wanda Robinson 910-592-1131 360 County Complex Road, Clinton NC 28328 Wake Richard K. Rowe 919-856-7444 336 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh NC 27602 Wayne Jim Roosen 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, Edgecombe, 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. Appendix IX Cape Fear River Basin Workshop Summaries Appendices Pittsboro Issues and Problem Areas 5-27-2004 38 attended Runoff related to road construction along 15-501 corridor 03-06-04 Subdivision development off Willis Road 03-06-04 Algal Production in Upper Jordan Lake 03-06-05 Land Clearing too close to stream on Fire Tower Road 03-06-04 Finding preservation sites on Haw River Tributaries 03-06-04 Chatham County ordinances and sediment and erosion control Algal growth in the Rocky River 03-06-12 Erosion in tributaries of Robeson Creek 03-06-04 Pittsboro Recommendations Need for increased interagency cooperation Lack of enforcement of private wastewater plants Preservation of farmland in Chatham County Recommend 100’ buffers in CPF basin Remove direct stormwater discharges Improve water supply watershed regulations Improve DLR enforcement habitat Tax incentives for LID Greensboro Issues and Problem Areas 5-5-2004 26 attended Foam noted in Reedy Fork Creek 03-06-02 Severe erosion on North Buffalo Creek 03-06-02 Developments in Little Alamance Creek watershed 03-06-02 Odor at confluence of Haw and Big Alamance Creek 03-06-03 Greensboro Recommendations Recommend more monitoring Recommend buffers in CPF basin Recommend removal of derelict dams on Deep and Haw Rivers Recommend tax incentives for conservation easements Bad maintenance of DOT BMPs Recommend buffers for ephemeral streams Increase local government officials education Recommend post construction runoff control A-IX-1 Simplify 319 and CWMTF grant process Wilmington Issues and Problem Areas 5-20-2004 26 attended Howe Creek being impacted by sediment from construction 03-06-24 Sand dumping into Burnt Mill Creek 03-06-17 Litter debris in Burnt Mill Creek 03-06-17 Litter debris in Hurst Branch at Maides Park 03-06-17 Aquatic weeds in Greenfield Creek 03-06-17 Development in Hewletts Creek watershed 03-06-24 Heated runoff causing fish kills 03-06-17 Wilmington Recommendations Train contractors to protect water quality Make clean marinas program mandatory Improve interagency coordination Fund urban cost share program Require landscaper certification Increased enforcement of existing regulations Credit developments that go above regulations Expand CREP coverage Increase stormwater BMPs selection Increase erosion control staff Increase watershed education in lower grades Increase mass media about watersheds Increase non-ag cost share Mandatory septic system inspections Clinton Issues and Problem Areas 5-11-2004 16 attended Snags in Black River at bridge crossing 03-06-20 Plant growth in headwaters of Rockfish Creek 03-06-23 DOT fertilizer use Clinton Recommendations Increase BMP Maintenance A-IX-2 A-IX-3 Fayetteville Issues and Problem Areas 5-11-2004 39 attended Whispering Pines lakes monitoring 03-06-15 Chlorophyll a monitoring 03-06-15 Fayetteville Recommendations Increase monitoring of animal operations Recommend post construction runoff control Recommend NRCS reevaluate snagging practices Appendix X Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings Appendices Introduction to Use Support All surface waters of the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best-intended uses of that water. Waters are assessed to determine how well they are meeting the classified or best- intended uses. The assessment results in a use support rating for the use categories that apply to that water. Use Support Categories Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses ecosystem health and human health risk through the use of five use support categories: aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption, water supply, and shellfish harvesting. These categories are tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams. Waters are Supporting if data and information used to assign a use support rating meet the criteria for that use category. If these criteria are not met, then the waters are Impaired. Waters with inconclusive data and information are Not Rated. Waters where no data or information are available to make an assessment are No Data. The table below specifies which use support categories apply to which primary classifications. A single water may have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the use support categories, as shown in the following table. For many waters, a use support category will not be applicable (N/A) to the classification of that water (e.g., shellfish harvesting is only applied to Class SA waters). A full description of the classifications is available in the DWQ document titled: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina (15A NCAC 2b .0100 and .0200). Information can also be found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/. Use Support Categories Primary Classification Ecosystem Approach Human Health Approach Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Recreation Water Supply Shellfish Harvesting C X X X N/A N/A SC X X X N/A N/A B X X X N/A N/A SB X X X N/A N/A SA X X X N/A X WS I – WS IV X X X X N/A Assessment Period Data and information are used to assess water quality and assign use support ratings using a five- year data window that ends on August 31 of the year of basinwide biological sampling. For example, if biological data are collected in a basin in 2004, then the five-year data window for A-X-1 use support assessments would be September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2004. There are occasionally some exceptions to this data window, especially when follow up monitoring is needed to make decisions on samples collected in the last year of the assessment period. Data and information for assessing water quality and assigning use support ratings for lakes uses a data window of October 1 to September 30. Any data collected by DWQ during the five-year data window that ends on September 30 of the year of biological sampling will be used to develop a Weight-of-Evidence approach to lakes assessment. Refer to page 16 of this appendix for more information. Assessment Units DWQ identifies waters by index numbers and assessment unit numbers (AU). The AU is used to track defined stream segments or waterbodies in the water quality assessment database, for the 303(d) Impaired waters list, and in the various tables in basin plans and other water quality documents. The AU is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the end of the AU indicates that the AU is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates that the AU and the DWQ index segment are the same. Interpretation of Data and Information When interpreting the use support ratings, it is important to understand the associated limitations and degree of uncertainty. Although these use support methods are used for analyzing data and information and determining use support ratings, best professional judgment is applied during these assessments. Use support ratings are intended to provide an assessment of water quality using a five-year data window, to describe how well surface waters support their classified uses, and to document the potential stressors contributing to water quality degradation and the sources of these contributions. Use support methods continue to improve over time, and the information and technology used to make use support determinations also continue to become more accurate and comprehensive. These improvements sometimes make it difficult to make generalizations comparing water quality between basin plans. However, technology and methods improvements result in more scientifically sound use support assessments. Assessment Methodology Introduction Many types of data and information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify stressors and sources of water quality degradation. All existing data pertaining to a stream segment for each applicable use support category are entered into a use support database. Assessments and data entries may include use support ratings for each of the five use support categories, basis of assessment, stressors and potential sources, biological, chemical/physical (ambient monitoring), and lakes assessment data, fish consumption advisories from the NC Department of Health and Human Services, swimming advisories and shellfish sanitation growing area classifications from the NC Division of Environmental Health, and available land A-X-2 cover and land use information. The following describes the data and methodologies used to conduct use support assessments. These methods will continue to be refined as additional information and technology become available. Basis of Assessment Assessments are made on an overall basis of either monitored (M) or evaluated (E), depending on the level of information available. A monitored rating is based on the most recent five-year data window and site-specific data and is therefore treated with more confidence than an evaluated rating. Rating Basis Use Support Category Assessment Applicability* S/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters do not exceed criteria in AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied. S/M REC Ambient fecal coliform bacteria levels do not exceed criteria in AU or AU with DEH sites is posted with advisories for 61 days or less during assessment period. S/M SH AU is a DEH Approved shellfish growing area. I/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters exceed criteria in AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied. I/M REC Ambient fecal coliform bacteria levels exceeds criteria in AU or AU with DEH sites is posted with advisories for more than 61 days during assessment period. I/M FC Fish tissue data collected in AU during assessment period and basin is under mercury advice or site-specific advisory. I/M SH AU is a DEH Conditionally-Approved, Prohibited or Restricted shellfish growing area. NR/M AL Biological community is Not Rated or inconclusive, or ambient water quality parameters are inconclusive or there are less than 10 samples in AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied. NR/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds annual screening criteria, but does not exceed assessment criteria of five samples in 30 days in AU during assessment period. NR/M FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice; fish tissue data available. S/E AL AU is a tributary to a S/M AU and land use is similar between AUs. S/E WS AU is classified as WS, and DEH report notes no significant closures at time of assessment. I/E FC AU is in basin under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice and has no fish tissue data. NR/E AL AU is tributary to I/M AU, or AU is in watershed with intensice and changing land use, or other information suggests negative water quality impacts to AU. Discharger in AU has noncompliance permit violations or has failed three or more WET tests during the last two years of the assessment period. NR/E REC Discharger has noncompliance permit violations of fecal bacteria parameter during last two years of assessment period. NR/E FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice, or has no fish tissue data. ND AL, REC, SH No data available in AU during assessment period. A-X-3 Note: S/M = Supporting/Monitored I/M = Impaired/Monitored NR/M = Not Rated/Monitored S/E = Supporting/Evaluated I/E = Impaired/Evaluated NR/E = Not Rated/Evaluated ND = No Data AL = Aquatic Life REC = Recreation FC = Fish Consumption SH = Shellfish Harvesting WS = Water Supply AU = Assessment Unit WET = Whole Effluent Toxicity DEH = Division of Environmental Health * = for lakes assessments, see page 16 Supporting ratings are extrapolated up tributaries from monitored streams when there are no problematic dischargers with permit violations or changes in land use/cover. Supporting ratings may also be applied to unmonitored tributaries where there is little land disturbance (e.g., national forests and wildlife refuges, wilderness areas or state natural areas). Problem stressors or sources are not generally applied to unmonitored tributaries. Impaired ratings are not extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries. Stressors Biological and ambient samplings are useful tools to assess water quality. However, biological sampling does not typically identify the causes of impairment, and ambient sampling does not always link water quality standards to a biological response. Linking the causes of impairment and the biological response are a complex process (USEPA, 2000) that begins with an evaluation of physical, chemical or biological entities that can induce an adverse biological response. These entities are referred to as stressors. A stressor may have a measurable impact to aquatic health. Not all streams will have a primary stressor or cause of impairment. A single stressor may not be sufficient to cause impairment, but the accumulation of several stressors may result in impairment. In either case, impairment is likely to continue if the stressor or the various cumulative stressors are not addressed. Use support assessments evaluate the available information related to potential stressors impacting water quality. A stressor identification process may be initiated after a stream appears on the 303(d) list in order to address streams that are Impaired based on biological data. Intensive studies are required to summarize and evaluate potential stressors to determine if there is evidence that a particular stressor plays a substantial role in causing the biological impacts. Intensive studies consider lines of evidence that include benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community data, habitat and riparian area assessment, chemistry and toxicity data, and information on watershed history, current watershed activities and land uses, and pollutant sources. These studies result in decisions regarding the probable stressors contributing to or causing impairment. The intensity of a stressor study may be limited due to a lack of resources. In these cases, it may still be appropriate to include stressors in use support assessments, but to also note where additional information is needed in order to evaluate other stressors. Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is noted in the DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified as a stressor, DWQ and others attempt to identify the type of habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation, loss of woody habitat, loss of pools or riffles, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, streambed scour and bank erosion). Habitat evaluation methods are being developed to better identify specific types of habitat degradation. A-X-4 Aquatic Life Category The aquatic life category is an ecosystem approach to assessing the biological integrity of all surface waters of the state. The biological community data and ambient water quality data are used in making assessments in this category. These represent the most important monitoring data for making water quality assessments in the aquatic life category. Evaluation information such as compliance and whole effluent toxicity information from NPDES dischargers, land cover, and other more anecdotal information are also used to identify potential problems and to refine assessments based on the monitoring data. The following is a description of each monitoring data type and the criteria used in assigning use support ratings. Criteria used to evaluate the other information and assign use support ratings are also described. Refer to page 14 for lakes and reservoir assessment methods as applied in the aquatic life category. Biological Data Benthic macroinvertebrate (aquatic insects) community and fish community samples are the best way to assess the biological integrity of most waterbodies. Unfortunately, these community measures cannot be applied to every stream size and are further limited by geographic region. These community measures are designed to detect current water quality and water quality changes that may be occurring in the watershed. However, they are only directly applied to the assessment unit where the sample was collected. Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both are evaluated for use support assessments. When two biological monitoring data types conflict, best professional judgment is used to determine an appropriate use support rating. Where both ambient monitoring data and biological data are available, biological data may be given greater weight; however, each data type is assessed independently. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Criteria Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications to most benthic macroinvertebrate samples based on the number of taxa present in the pollution intolerant aquatic insect groups of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPTs); and the Biotic Index (BI), which summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in each sample. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data are considered monitored. If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair (almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair bioclassification. Such sites will be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained. Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications as follows. A-X-5 Waterbody Sample Type or Criteria Bioclassification Use Support Rating Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Excellent Supporting Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Good Supporting Swamp1 Natural Supporting Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good-Fair Supporting Smaller than criteria but Good-Fair2 Not Impaired Supporting Swamp1 Moderate Stress Supporting Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Fair Impaired Swamp1 Severe Stress Impaired Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Poor Impaired Criteria not appropriate to assign bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated 1 Swamp streams for benthos sampling are defined as streams in the coastal plain that have no visible flow for a part of the year, but do have flow during the February to early March benthic index period. 2 This designation may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than three square miles drainage area), but have a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria. 3 Coastal A streams are those located in the coastal plain that have flow year round and are wadeable. Fish Community Criteria 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 NCIBI incorporates information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic function, abundance and condition, and reproductive function. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data are considered monitored. Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using the NCIBI bioclassifications as follows: NCIBI Use Support Rating Excellent Supporting Good Supporting Good-Fair Supporting Fair Impaired Poor Impaired If a Fair fish bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair (almost Good- Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair bioclassification. Such sites will be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained. The NCIBI was recently revised (NCDENR, 2001), and the bioclassifications and criteria have also been recalibrated against regional reference site data (NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b and 2001a). A-X-6 NCIBI criteria are applicable only to wadeable streams in the following river basins: Broad, Catawba, Savannah, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga. Additionally, the NCIBI criteria are only applicable to streams in the piedmont portion of the Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar-Pamlico River basins. The definition of "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically: In the Cape Fear River basin -- all waters except for those draining the Sandhills in Moore, Lee and Harnett counties, and the entire basin upstream of Lillington, NC. • • • • In the Neuse River basin -- the entire basin above Smithfield and Wilson, except for the south and southwest portions of Johnston County and eastern two-thirds of Wilson County. In the Roanoke River basin -- the entire basin in North Carolina upstream of Roanoke Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and Halifax, NC. In the Tar-Pamlico River basin -- the entire basin above Rocky Mount, except for the lower southeastern one-half of Halifax County and the extreme eastern portion of Nash County. NCIBI criteria have not been developed for: • Streams in the Broad, Catawba, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Savannah, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga River basins which are characterized as wadeable first to third order streams with small watersheds, naturally low fish species diversity, coldwater temperatures, and high gradient plunge-pool flows. Such streams are typically thought of as "Southern Appalachian Trout Streams". • Wadeable streams in the Sandhills ecoregion of the Cape Fear, Lumber and Yadkin-Pee Dee River basins. • Wadeable streams and swamps in the coastal plain region of the Cape Fear, Chowan, Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak River basins. • All nonwadeable and large streams and rivers throughout the state. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Criteria Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring Program statewide and NPDES discharger coalitions in some basins. All samples collected (usually monthly) during the five-year assessment period are used to assign a use support rating. Ambient water quality data are not direct measures of biological integrity, but the chemical/physical parameters collected can provide an indication of conditions that may be impacting aquatic life. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings assigned using these data are considered monitored. Where both ambient data and biological data are available, each data type is assessed independently. The parameters used to assess water quality in the aquatic life category include dissolved oxygen, pH, chlorophyll a and turbidity. Criteria for assigning use support ratings to assessment units with ambient water quality data of a minimum of ten samples are as follows: A-X-7 Ratings Criteria Rating Numerical standard exceeded in ≤10% of samples Supporting Numerical standard exceeded in >10% of samples Impaired Less than 10 samples collected Not Rated DO and pH standard exceeded in swamp streams Not Rated Some standards are written with more specific criteria than others and these specific criteria are used to assess use support. For example, the DO standard has a daily average of 5 mg/l and an instantaneous value of 4 mg/l for Class C waters. Because DWQ does not collect daily DO levels at the ambient stations, the instantaneous value is used for assessment criteria. In areas with continous monitoring, the daily average of 5 mg/l will also be assessed. In addition, pH has a standard of not less than 6 and not greater than 9; each level is assessed. To assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard, five samples must be collected within a 30 day period (see Recreation Category for more information). Multiple Monitoring Sites There are assessment units with more than one type of monitoring data. When the data from multiple biological data types are not in agreement, best professional judgment is used to assign a bioclassification and use support rating for that assessment unit. Biological monitoring is typically assessed independent of ambient monitoring data and either may be used to assign a use support rating for an assessment unit. Monitoring data are always used over the evaluation information; however, evaluation information can be used to lengthen or shorten monitored assessment units and to assign use support ratings on an evaluated basis to non-monitored assessment units. NPDES Wastewater Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Information Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests are required for all major NPDES discharge permit holders, as well as those minor NPDES dischargers with complex effluent (defined as not being of 100 percent domestic waste). WET tests are evaluated to determine if the discharge could be having negative water quality impacts. If a stream with a WET test facility has not been sampled for instream chronic toxicity, biological community data or has no ambient water quality data, and that facility has failed three or more WET tests in the last two years of the assessment period, the assessment unit is Not Rated. Because this information is not a direct measure of water quality and the confidence is not as high as for monitoring data, this use support rating is considered evaluated rather than monitored. Problems associated with WET test failures are addressed through NPDES permits. NPDES Discharger Daily Monitoring Report Information NPDES effluent data monthly averages of water quality parameters are screened for the last two years of the assessment period. If facilities exceed the effluent limits by 20 percent for two or more months during two consecutive quarters, or have chronic exceedances of permit limits for four or more months during two consecutive quarters, then the assessment unit is Not Rated if no biological or ambient monitoring data are available. If biological or ambient data are available, that data will be used to develop a use support rating for appropriate stream segments. Because A-X-8 this information is not a direct measure of water quality and the confidence is not as high as for monitoring data, this use support rating is considered evaluated rather than monitored. Fish Consumption Category The fish consumption category is a human health approach to assess whether humans can safely consume fish from a waterbody. This category is applied to all waters of the state. The use support rating is assigned using fish consumption advisories or advice as issued by the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The fish consumption category is different from other categories in that assessments are based on the existence of a DHHS fish consumption advice or advisory at the time of assessment. The advice and advisories are based on DHHS epidemiological studies and on DWQ fish tissue data, so a fish tissue monitoring site will constitute a monitored assessment unit (AU) and all other AUs will be evaluated. DWQ fish tissue data are used to inform DHHS of potential fish tissue toxicity. DHHS is responsible for proclaiming a fish tissue advisory for any waterbody. Fish tissue monitoring data are not used directly for assigning a use support rating in this category. If a limited site-specific fish consumption advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the time of assessment, the water is Impaired. If there are no site-specific advisories posted or the stream is not in a basin where mercury advice is applied, then the assessment unit will be Not Rated in this category. The DHHS has developed regional fish consumption advice (all waters south and east of I-85) for certain fish species shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. DWQ applies the DHHS fish consumption advice for mercury on a basinwide scale rather than an AU scale in recognition that fish move up and downstream regardless of the presence of I-85. All AUs draining below or intersecting I-85 are Impaired in the fish consumption category. AUs with monitoring data are considered Impaired/Monitored, and AUs with no monitoring data are considered Impaired/Evaluated. When a DHHS site-specific advisory is in place for a parameter other than mercury, the assessment is based on that advisory and the mercury advice will take a lower ranking in the assessment. Therefore, when a site-specific advisory is in place in a basin with a mercury advice and the AU has fish tissue monitoring data, the AU will be considered Impaired/Monitored for the specific parameter, rather than Impaired/Evaluated for mercury. Basins under the mercury advice are the Cape Fear, Chowan, Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, White Oak and Yadkin-Pee Dee. All waters in these basins are Impaired in the fish consumption category, even when there is a site-specific advisory. All waters are also considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the availability of monitoring data. Only a small portion of the Catawba River basin is intersected by I-85 (lower Mecklenberg, Union and Gaston counties). Due to the presence of dams that impede fish travel throughout the Catawba River basin, only those waters draining to and entering the mainstem Catawba below I- 85 and are not impeded by dams are considered Impaired/Evaluated. Basins not under the mercury advice are the Broad, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New, Savannah and Watauga. All waters in these basins are Not Rated in the fish consumption category if there is no site-specific advisory; waters are Impaired if there is a site-specific A-X-9 advisory. All waters are also considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the availability of monitoring data. In order to separate this regional advice from other fish consumption advisories and to identify actual fish populations with high levels of mercury, only waters with fish tissue monitoring data are presented on the use support maps. Recreation Category This human health related category evaluates waters for the support of primary recreation activities such as swimming, water-skiing, skin diving, and similar uses usually involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class B, SB and SA. This category also evaluates other waters used for secondary recreation activities such as wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving human body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized or incidental basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class C, SC and WS. The use support ratings applied to this category are currently based on the North Carolina fecal coliform bacteria water quality standard where ambient monitoring data are available or on the duration of local or state health agencies posted swimming advisories. Use support ratings for the recreation category may be based on other bacteriological indicators and standards in the future. DWQ conducts monthly ambient water quality monitoring that includes fecal coliform bacteria testing. The Division of Environmental Health (DEH) tests coastal recreation waters (beaches) for bacteria levels to assess the relative safety of these waters for swimming. If an area has elevated bacteria levels, health officials will advise that people not swim in the area by posting a swimming advisory and by notifying the local media and county health department. The North Carolina fecal coliform bacteria standard for freshwater is: 1) not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies per 100 ml of at least five samples over a 30-day period; and 2) not to exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same period. The AU being assessed for the five-year data window is Supporting in the recreation category if neither number (1) nor (2) of the standard are exceeded. The AU being assessed is Impaired in the recreation category if either number (1) or (2) is exceeded. Waters without sufficient fecal coliform bacteria data (five samples within 30 days) are Not Rated, and waters with no data are noted as having No Data. Assessing the water quality standard requires significant sampling efforts beyond the monthly ambient monitoring sampling and must include at least five samples over a 30-day period. Decades of monitoring have demonstrated that bacteria concentrations may fluctuate widely in surface waters over a period of time. Thus, multiple samples over a 30-day period are needed to evaluate waters against the North Carolina water quality standard for recreational use support. Waters classified as Class SA, SB and B are targeted for this intensive sampling effort due to the greater potential for human body contact. A-X-10 Waters with beach monitoring sites will be Impaired if the area is posted with an advisory for greater than 61 days of the assessment period. Waters with beach monitoring sites with advisories posted less than 61 days will be Supporting. Other information can be used to Not Rate unmonitored waters. DWQ Ambient Monitoring Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Criteria As with other information sources, all available information and data are evaluated for the recreation category using the assessment period. However, DWQ conducts an annual screening of DWQ ambient fecal coliform bacteria data to assess the need for additional monitoring or immediate action by local or state health agencies to protect public health. Each March, DWQ staff will review bacteria data collections from ambient monitoring stations statewide for the previous sampling year. Locations with annual geometric means greater than 200 colonies per 100 ml, or when more than 20 percent of the samples are greater than 400 colonies per 100 ml, are identified for potential follow-up monitoring conducted five times within 30 days as specified by the state fecal coliform bacteria standard. If bacteria concentrations exceed either portion of the state standard, the data are sent to DEH and the local county health director to determine the need for posting swimming advisories. DWQ regional offices will also be notified. Due to limited resources and the higher risk to human health, primary recreation waters (Class B, SB and SA) will be given monitoring priority for an additional five times within 30 days sampling. Follow-up water quality sampling for Class C waters will be performed as resources permit. Any waters on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters for fecal coliform will receive a low priority for additional monitoring because these waters will be further assessed for TMDL development. DWQ attempts to determine if there are any swimming areas monitored by state, county or local health departments or by DEH. Each January, DEH, county or local health departments are asked to list those waters which were posted with swimming advisories in the previous year. Shellfish Harvesting Use Support The shellfish harvesting use support category is a human health approach to assess whether shellfish can be commercially harvested and is therefore applied only to Class SA waters. The following data sources are used to assign use support ratings for shellfish waters. Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Shellfish Sanitation Surveys DEH is required to classify all shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish harvesting. Estuarine waters are delineated according to DEH shellfish management areas (e.g., Outer Banks, Area H-5) which include Class SA, SB and SC waters. DEH samples growing areas regularly and reevaluates the areas by conducting shellfish sanitation surveys every three years to determine if their classification is still applicable. DEH classifications may be changed after the most recent sanitary survey. Classifications are based on DEH bacteria sampling, locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource. Growing waters are classified as follows. A-X-11 DEH Classification DEH Criteria Approved (APP) Fecal Coliform Standard for Systematic Random Sampling: The median fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) or the geometric mean MPN of the water shall not exceed 14 per 100 milliliters (ml), and the estimated 90th percentile shall not exceed an MPN of 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test. Fecal Coliform Standard for Adverse Pollution Conditions Sampling: The median fecal coliform or geometric mean MPN of the water shall not exceed 14 per 100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test. Conditionally Approved-Open (CAO) Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan. These areas tend to be open more frequently than closed. Conditionally Approved-Closed (CAC) Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan. These areas tend to be closed more frequently than open. Restricted (RES) Sanitary Survey indicates limited degree of pollution, and the area is not contaminated to the extent that consumption of shellfish could be hazardous after controlled depuration or relaying. Prohibited (PRO) No Sanitary Survey; point source discharges; marinas; data do not meet criteria for Approved, Conditionally Approved or Restricted Classification. Assigning Use Support Ratings to Shellfish Harvesting Waters (Class SA) DWQ use support ratings may be assigned to separate segments within DEH management areas. In assessing use support, the DEH classifications and management strategies are only applicable to DWQ Class SA (shellfish harvesting) waters. 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. This will result in a difference of acreage between DEH areas classified as CAC, PRO and RES, and DWQ waters rated as Impaired. For example, if DEH classifies a 20-acre area CAC, but only 10 acres are Class SA, only those 10 acres of Class SA waters are rated as Impaired. The DEH "Closed" polygon coverage includes CAC, RES and PRO classifications, and it is not currently possible to separate out the PRO from the RES areas. Therefore, these areas are a combined polygon coverage, and DWQ rates these waters as Impaired. Sources of fecal coliform bacteria are more difficult to separate out for Class SA areas. DEH describes the potential sources in the sanitary surveys, but they do not describe specific areas affected by these sources. Therefore, in the past, DEH identified the same sources for all Class SA sections of an entire management area (e.g., urban runoff and septic systems). Until a better way to pinpoint sources is developed, this information will continue to be used. A point source discharge is only listed as a potential source when NPDES permit limits are exceeded. DWQ and DEH are developing the database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish harvesting frequency of closures. In the interim, DWQ has been identifying the frequency of closures in Class SA waters using an interim methodology based on existing databases and GIS A-X-12 shapefiles. There will be changes in reported acreages in future assessments using the permanent methods and tools that result from this project. Past Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology The interim method was used for the 2001 White Oak, 2002 Neuse and 2003 Lumber River basin use support assessments. Shellfish harvesting use support ratings for Class SA waters using the interim methodology are summarized below. Percent of Time Closed within Basin Data Window DEH Growing Area Classification DWQ Use Support Rating N/A Approved* Supporting Closed ≤10% of data window Portion of CAO closed ≤10% of data window Supporting Closed >10% of the data window Portion of CAO closed >10% of data window Impaired N/A CAC and PRO/RES** Impaired * Approved waters are closed only during extreme meteorological events (hurricanes). ** CAC and P/R waters are rarely opened to shellfish harvesting. For CAO areas, DWQ worked with DEH to determine the number of days and acreages that CAO Class SA waters were closed to shellfish harvesting during the assessment period. For each growing area with CAO Class SA waters, DEH and DWQ defined subareas within the CAO area that were opened and closed at the same time. The number of days these CAO areas were closed was determined using DEH proclamation summary sheets and the original proclamations. The number of days that APP areas in the growing area were closed due to preemptive closures because of named storms was not counted. For example, all waters in growing area E-9 were preemptively closed for Hurricane Fran on September 5, 1996. APP waters were reopened September 20, 1996. Nelson Bay (CAO) was reopened September 30, 1996. This area was considered closed for ten days after the APP waters were reopened. Current Assessment Methodology Use support assessment is now conducted such that only the DEH classification will be used to assign a use support rating. By definition, CAO areas are areas that DEH has determined do not, or likely do not, meet water quality standards and these areas will be rated Impaired, along with CAC and PRO/RES areas. Only APP areas will be rated Supporting. Growing areas that have been reclassified by DEH during the assessment period from a lower classification to APP will be rated Supporting. Areas that are reclassified from APP to any other classification during the assessment period will be rated Impaired. Over the next few years, DWQ, DEH, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) will be engaged in developing a database with georeferenced (GIS) shellfish harvesting areas. The new database and GIS tools will be valuable for the above agencies to continue to work together to better serve the public. Using the new database with A-X-13 georeferenced areas and monitoring sites, DEH will be able to report the number of days each area was closed excluding closures related to named storms. Water Supply Use Support This human health related use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters for the ability of water suppliers to provide potable drinking water. Water quality standards established for drinking water apply to water delivered to consumers after it has been treated to remove potential contaminants that may pose risks to human health. Ambient standards established by states under the Clean Water Act are not intended to ensure that water is drinkable without treatment. Modern water treatment technologies are required to purify raw water to meet drinking water standards as established by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health. Water supply use support is assessed by DWQ using information from the seven DEH regional water treatment plant consultant staff. Each January, the DEH staff consultants are asked to submit a spreadsheet listing closures and water intake switch-overs for all water treatment plants in their region. This spreadsheet describes the length and time of the event, contact information, and the reason for the closure or switch. The spreadsheets are reviewed by DWQ staff to determine if any closures/switches were due to water quality concerns. Those closures/switches due to water quantity problems and reservoir turnovers are not considered for use support. The frequency and duration of closures/switches due to water quality concerns are considered when assessing use support. Using these criteria, North Carolina’s surface water supplies are currently rated Supporting on an Evaluated basis. Specific criteria for rating waters Impaired are to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Use of Outside Data DWQ actively solicits outside data and information in the year before biological sampling in a particular basin. The solicitation allows approximately 90 days for data to be submitted. Data from sources outside DWQ are screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient quality and quantity, they may be incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten samples for more than a one-year period is needed to be considered for use support assessments. The way the solicited data are used depends on the degree of quality assurance and quality control of the collection and analysis of the data as detailed in the 303(d) report and shown in the table below. Level 1 data can be use with the same confidence as DWQ data to determine use support ratings. Level 2 or Level 3 data may be used to help identify causes of pollution and stressors. They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up or down a stream segment 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. A-X-14 Criteria Levels for Use of Outside Data in Use Support Assessments Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Monitoring frequency of at least 10 samples for more than a one-year period Yes Yes/No No Monitoring locations appropriately sited and mapped Yes Yes No State certified laboratory used for analysis according to 15A NCAC 2B .0103 Yes Yes/No No Quality assurance plan available describing sample collection and handling Yes, rigorous scrutiny Yes/No No Lakes and Reservoir Use Assessment Like streams, lakes are classified for a variety of uses. All lakes monitored as part of North Carolina’s Ambient Lakes Monitoring Program carry the Class C (aquatic life) classification, and most are classified Class B and SB (recreation) and WS-I through WS-V (water supply). The surface water quality numeric standard specifically associated with recreation is fecal coliform. For water supplies, there are 29 numeric standards based on consumption of water and fish. Narrative standards for Class B and Class WS waters include aesthetics such as no odors and no untreated wastes. There are other numeric standards that also apply to lakes for the protection of aquatic life and human health. These standards also apply to all other waters of the state and are listed under the Class C rules. One of the major problems associated with lakes and reservoirs is increasing eutrophication related to nutrient inputs. Several water quality parameters help to describe the level of eutrophication. For nutrient enrichment, one of the main causes of impacts to lakes and reservoirs, a more holistic or weight of evidence approach is necessary since nutrient impacts are not always reflected by the parameters sampled. For instance, some lakes have taste and odor problems associated with particular algal species, yet these lakes do not have chlorophyll a concentrations above 40 µg/l frequently enough to impair them based on the standard. In addition, each reservoir possesses unique traits (watershed area, volume, depth, retention time, etc.) that dramatically influence its water quality, but that cannot be evaluated through standards comparisons. In such waterbodies, aquatic life may be Impaired even though a particular indicator is below the standard. Where exceedances of surface water quality standards are not sufficient to evaluate a lake or reservoir, the weight of evidence approach can take into consideration indicators and parameters not in the standards to allow a more sound and robust determination of water quality. The weight of evidence approach uses the following sources of information to determine the eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) level as a means of assessing lake use support in the aquatic life category: • Quantitative water quality parameters - dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, pH, etc. • Algal bloom reports • Fish kill reports A-X-15 • Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics – watershed size, lake volume, retention time, volume loss, etc. • Third party reports – citizens, water treatment plant operators, state agencies, etc. ¾ Taste and odor ¾ Sheens ¾ Odd colors ¾ Other aesthetic and safety considerations In implementing the weight of evidence approach for eutrophication, more consideration is given to parameters that have water quality standards (see table). Each parameter is assessed for percent exceedance of the state standard. Parameters with sufficient (ten or more observations), quality-assured observations are compared to surface water quality standards. When standards are exceeded in more than 10 percent of the assessment period, portions or all of the waterbody are rated Impaired. However, in many cases, the standards based approach is incapable of characterizing the overall health of a reservoir. The eutrophication-related parameters and water quality indicators without numeric standards are reviewed based on interpretation of the narrative standards in 15A NCAC 2B .0211(2) and (3). A modification to lake use assessment is the evaluation and rating of a lake or reservoir by assessment units (AUs). Each lake or reservoir may have one or more AU based on the classification segments (DWQ index numbers). Each sampling date is considered one sample. Multiple sampling locations within one AU are considered one sample. A minimum of ten samples is needed to assess use support for any AU. Each AU with documented problems (sufficient data, ambient data above standards, and supporting public data) will be rated as Impaired while the other portions are rated as Supporting or Not Rated. The following table lists the information considered during a lake/reservoir use assessment, as well as the criteria used to evaluate that information. A-X-16 Lake/Reservoir Weight of Evidence Use Assessment for Aquatic Life Category Assessment Type Criteria EUTROPHICATION Water Quality Standards (a minimum of 10 samples is required for use support assessment) Chl a Above standard in >10% of samples. DO Below or above standard in >10% of samples. pH Below or above standard in >10% of samples. Turbidity Above standard in >10% of samples. % Total Dissolved Gases Above standard in >10% of samples. Temperature Minor and infrequent excursions of temperature standards due to anthropogenic activity. No impairment of species evident. Metals (excluding copper, iron and zinc) Above standard in >10% of samples. Other Data % Saturation DO >10% of samples above >120% Algae Blooms during 2 or more sampling events in 1 year with historic blooms. Fish Kills related to eutrophication. Chemically/ Biologically Treated For algal or macrophyte control - either chemicals or biologically by fish, etc. Aesthetics Complaints Documented sheens, discoloration, etc. - written complaint and follow-up by a state agency. TSI Increase of 2 trophic levels from one 5-year period to next. Historic DWQ Data Conclusions from other reports and previous use support assessments. AGPT Algal Growth Potential Potential Test ≥5 mg/L Macrophytes Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish and other aquatic life to habitat; clogging intakes. Taste and Odor Public complaints; Potential based on algal spp Sediments Clogging intakes - dredging program necessary. A-X-17 A-X-18 References Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000a. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Inner Piedmont, Foothills, and Eastern Mountains (Broad, Catawba, Savannah, and Yadkin River Basins). September 22, 2000. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. ____. 2000b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Outer Piedmont (Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar River Basins). October 17, 2000. Ibid. ____. 2001a. Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring. Stream Fish Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. ____. 2001b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Western and Northern Mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga River Basins). January 05, 2001. Ibid. USEPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. Office of Water. Washington, DC. Appendix XI Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Appendices Glossary § Section. 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. channelization The physical alteration of streams and rivers by widening, deepening or straightening of the channel, large-scale removal of natural obstructions, and/or lining the bed or banks with rock or other resistant materials. 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. 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. A-XI-1 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. EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 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. 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. A-XI-2 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. 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. 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. A-XI-3 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 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". A-XI-4 A-XI-5 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.