Lumber 2003 final plan

LUMBER RIVER BASINWIDE WATER
QUALITY PLAN

December 2003

Prepared by:

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/Planning
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617

[phone] ext. 374

This document was approved and endorsed by the NC Environmental Management
Commission on December 11, 2003 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water
Quality in carrying out its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities in the
Lumber River basin. This plan is the first five-year update to the Lumber River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved by the NC Environmental Management
Commission in May 1999.

Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................xiii
Section A – General Basinwide Information.................................................................................1
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning...................................................2
1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning? ............................................................ 2
1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning............................................................. 2
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan................................................................ 4
1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning......................................................... 4
1.5 How to Get Involved.................................................................................................. 5
1.6 Other References........................................................................................................ 5
1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations................................................. 5
Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview ..................................................................................7
2.1 General Overview...................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Surface Water Hydrology........................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Watershed Descriptions .............................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Hydrologic Features.................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Minimum Streamflow................................................................................. 10
2.2.4 Water Withdrawals...................................................................................... 11
2.2.5 Interbasin Transfers..................................................................................... 11
2.2.6 Water Supply............................................................................................... 12
2.3 Population and Growth Trends................................................................................ 12
2.3.1 County Population and Growth Trends....................................................... 13
2.3.2 Municipal Population and Growth Trends.................................................. 15
2.3.3 Basin Population and Population Density................................................... 15
2.4 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin .................................. 16
2.5 Land Cover............................................................................................................... 16
2.5.1 CGIA Land Cover....................................................................................... 17
2.5.2 NRI Land Cover Trends.............................................................................. 18
2.6 NPDES Permits Summary....................................................................................... 22
2.6.1 Permitted Wastewater Discharges .............................................................. 22
2.6.2 Other NPDES Permits................................................................................. 23
2.7 Animal Operations................................................................................................... 23
2.8 Permitted Wetland and Stream Losses and Mitigation............................................ 27
2.9 Natural Resources.................................................................................................... 27
2.9.1 Ecological Significance of the Lumber River Basin................................... 27
Table of Contents ii
2.9.2 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Lumber River Basin................. 29
2.9.3 Conservation Lands..................................................................................... 31
2.9.4 Fisheries ...................................................................................................... 32
2.9.5 Forestry in the Lumber River Basin............................................................ 33
Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin.....................35
3.1 General Sources of Pollution................................................................................... 35
3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards.................................. 36
3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Lumber River Basin................. 41
3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring ...................................................... 41
3.3.2 Fish Assessments ........................................................................................ 43
3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring...................................................................... 44
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program......................................................................... 45
3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System....................................................................... 45
3.3.6 Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational
Water Quality Section................................................................................. 45
3.4 Other Water Quality Research................................................................................. 47
3.5 Use Support Summary............................................................................................. 47
3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support........................................................................ 47
3.5.2 Comparison of Use Support Ratings to Streams on the Section 303(d)
List............................................................................................................... 48
3.5.3 Use Support Ratings for the Lumber River Basin ...................................... 49
Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River
Basin.........................................................................................................................57
4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 57
4.2 Biological Criteria for Assessment of Aquatic Life................................................ 57
4.2.1 Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Swamp Streams........................ 57
4.2.2 Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Small Streams...... 58
4.2.3 Assessing Fish Communities...................................................................... 58
4.3 Mercury Contamination and Fish Consumption...................................................... 59
4.3.1 Mercury-Related Fish Consumption Information....................................... 59
4.3.2 2003 Recommendations.............................................................................. 60
4.4 Habitat Degradation................................................................................................. 62
4.4.1 Land Clearing Activities............................................................................. 63
4.4.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation........................................................................ 64
4.4.3 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats..................................................... 64
4.4.4 Channelization............................................................................................. 65
4.4.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation ............................... 65
4.5 Fecal Coliform ......................................................................................................... 66
4.6 Water Quality Problems Resulting from Hurricanes............................................... 68
4.7 DWQ Stormwater Programs.................................................................................... 69
4.7.1 NPDES Phase I............................................................................................ 69
4.7.2 NPDES Phase II.......................................................................................... 70
Table of Contents iii
4.7.3 State Stormwater Program and Coastal Stormwater Rules......................... 72
4.7.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules............................................... 72
4.8 Protection and Restoration of Streams in Urbanized and Developing
Watersheds............................................................................................................... 73
4.8.1 Current Status.............................................................................................. 73
4.8.2 2003 Recommendations.............................................................................. 73
4.9 Capacity Use Investigation...................................................................................... 76
4.10 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas.................................................................. 76
4.11 Confined Animal Operations................................................................................... 77
4.12 Addressing Waters on the State’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report........ 77
4.13 Golf Courses ............................................................................................................ 78

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section B – Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin...................................................80
Chapter 1 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50
Drowning Creek and Naked Creek ..........................................................................81
1.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................. 81
1.2 Use Support Summary............................................................................................. 84
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ............. 84
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................... 84
1.4.1 Drowning Creek, SR 1004 [AU# 14-2-(6.5]............................................... 85
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-50................................... 85
1.5.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds.................... 85
1.5.2 Water Supply Watersheds
(Drowning Creek, Horse Creek, Deep Creek, Jackson Creek)................... 86
1.5.3 Golf Courses................................................................................................ 86
Chapter 2 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-51
Lumber River...........................................................................................................87
2.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................. 87
2.2 Use Support Summary............................................................................................. 90
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously Impaired Waters................................ 90
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 91
2.4.1 Lumber River [AU# 14-(13)e].................................................................... 91
2.5 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................... 91
2.5.1 Lumber River [AU# 14-(13)a].................................................................... 91
2.5.2 Bear Swamp at SR 1339 [AU# 14-9-(1.5)]................................................. 92
2.5.3 Long Branch [AU# 14-18-3]....................................................................... 92
2.5.4 Porter Swamp [AU# 14-27]........................................................................ 92
Table of Contents iv
2.5.5 Cow Branch, Ivey Branch, Gum Swamp and Mill Branch......................... 93
2.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-51................................... 93
2.6.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds.................... 93
2.6.2 Water Supply Watersheds
(Back Swamp, Lumber River, Bear Swamp, Jacks Branch)....................... 93
2.6.3 Timber Harvesting
(Lumber River Mainstem)........................................................................... 93
Chapter 3 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-52
Raft Swamp..............................................................................................................94
3.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................. 94
3.2 Use Support Summary............................................................................................. 96
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ............. 97
3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................... 97
3.4.1 Little Raft Swamp [AU# 14-10-5].............................................................. 97
3.4.2 Lower Raft Swamp...................................................................................... 97
3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-52................................... 98
3.5.1 Water Supply Watersheds
(Raft Swamp, Richland Swamp, Burnt Swamp, White Oak Branch,
Holy Swamp)............................................................................................... 98
Chapter 4 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53
Big Swamp...............................................................................................................99
4.1 Subbasin Overview.................................................................................................. 99
4.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 101
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ........... 102
4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 102
4.4.1 Dunns Marsh [AU# 14-22-1-3-2] ............................................................. 102
4.4.2 Mill Swamp [AU# 14-22-9]...................................................................... 102
4.4.3 Cold Camp Creek...................................................................................... 103
4.4.4 Big Marsh Swamp [AU# 14-22-2]............................................................ 103
4.4.5 Bryant Swamp [AU# 14-22-15]................................................................ 103
4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-53................................. 103
Chapter 5 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-54
Ashpole Swamp .....................................................................................................104
5.1 Subbasin Overview................................................................................................ 104
5.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 106
5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ........... 107
5.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 107
5.4.1 Pittman Mill Branch [AU# 14-30-7-4-3].................................................. 107
5.4.2 Ashpole Swamp [AU# 14-30a&b]............................................................ 107
Table of Contents v
Chapter 6 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55
Gum Swamp, Leith Creek and Shoe Heel Creek...................................................108
6.1 Subbasin Overview................................................................................................ 108
6.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 110
6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ........... 111
6.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 111
6.4.1 Leith Creek [AU# 14-33b]........................................................................ 112
6.4.2 Shoe Heel Creek [AU# 14-34].................................................................. 112
6.4.3 Jordan Creek [AU# 14-34-4-(2)] .............................................................. 112
6.4.4 Upper Beaverdam Creek [AU# 14-32-9].................................................. 113
6.4.5 Panther Swamp/Bear Creek, Wilkinson Creek and Mitchell Swamp....... 113
6.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-55................................. 113
Chapter 7 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56
Lake Waccamaw, Big Creek, Upper Waccamaw River and Bogue Swamp.........114
7.1 Subbasin Overview................................................................................................ 114
7.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 116
7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ........... 117
7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 117
7.4.1 Upper Waccamaw River [AU# 15-(1)c]................................................... 118
7.4.2 Lake Waccamaw [AU# 15-2] ................................................................... 118
7.4.3 Friar Swamp [AU# 15-2-6-3].................................................................... 118
7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-56................................. 118
Chapter 8 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57
Lower Waccamaw River........................................................................................119
8.1 Subbasin Overview................................................................................................ 119
8.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 121
8.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ........... 122
8.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 122
8.4.1 Lower Waccamaw River [AU# 15-(1)e]................................................... 123
8.4.2 Grissett Swamp [AU# 15-17-1-(5)].......................................................... 123
8.4.3 Bear Branch [AU# 15-11]......................................................................... 123
8.4.4 Leonard Branch [AU# 15-7-4].................................................................. 124
8.4.5 Big Branch [AU# 15-17-1-12-1-1] ........................................................... 124
8.4.6 Juniper Swamp, Upper Waccamaw River, Middle Waccamaw River,
Gore Creek and Big Creek........................................................................ 124
8.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-57................................. 124
8.5.1 Impacts of Post-Hurricane De-Snagging on Instream Habitats
(Monie Swamp)......................................................................................... 124
8.5.2 Green Swamp............................................................................................ 124
Table of Contents vi
8.5.3 Golf Courses
(Caw Caw Swamp, Calabash River)......................................................... 125
Chapter 9 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-58
White Marsh...........................................................................................................126
9.1 Subbasin Overview................................................................................................ 126
9.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 128
9.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters ........... 128
9.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 129
9.4.1 Soules Swamp [AU# 15-4-8].................................................................... 129
9.4.2 Horseshoe Swamp [AU# 15-4-1-1-2-2].................................................... 129
9.4.3 Elkton Marsh [AU# 15-4-1-1-2]............................................................... 129
9.4.4 Brown Marsh Swamp [AU# 15-4-1-1-1].................................................. 129
9.4.5 White Marsh [AU# 15-4a, b & c] ............................................................. 129
Chapter 10 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59
Lockswoods Folly and Shallotte Rivers.................................................................130
10.1 Subbasin Overview................................................................................................ 130
10.2 Use Support Summary........................................................................................... 133
10.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 135
10.3.1 Impaired Class SA Waters........................................................................ 135
10.4 Status and Recommendations of Waters Newly Impaired Waters........................ 136
10.4.1 Portions of the Intracoastal Waterway, Lockwoods Folly River, Shallotte
River, Mullet Creek, Sams Branch, Spring Creek, Jinnys Branch, Kilbart
Slough, Mill Creek, The Mill Pond, The Swash, Shallotte Creek, Saucepan
Creek, Goose Creek, Calabash River, Hangman Branch.......................... 136
10.4.2 Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(1)].................................................................... 137
10.5 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts ............................. 137
10.5.1 Calabash River [AU# 15-25-5]................................................................. 138
10.5.2 Shallotte River [AU# 15-25-2-(1)]............................................................ 138
10.5.3 Lockwoods Folly River [AU# 15-25-1-(11) & 15-25-(16)a & b]............ 139
10.5.4 Doe Creek [AU# 15-25-1-13]................................................................... 139
10.5.5 Mill Creek [AU# 15-25-1-18-(2)]............................................................. 139
10.5.6 Jinny’s Branch and Saucepan Creek......................................................... 139
10.5.7 Davis Creek............................................................................................... 140
10.5.8 Bird Island................................................................................................. 140
10.5.9 Montgomery Slough [AU# 15-25v].......................................................... 140
10.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-59................................. 140
10.6.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds.................. 140
10.6.2 Impacts of Post-Hurricane De-Snagging on Instream Habitats................ 140
10.6.3 Golf Courses.............................................................................................. 141

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section C – Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives.........................................................142
Table of Contents vii
Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives...........................................................................143
1.1 Workshop Summaries............................................................................................ 143
1.2 Federal Initiatives................................................................................................... 144
1.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program.................................................. 144
1.4.1 Lower Lockwoods Folly River (Subbasin 03-07-59) ............................... 144
1.3 State Initiatives....................................................................................................... 145
1.3.1 NC Division of Water Quality and NC Division of Coastal Management
Collaboration............................................................................................. 145
1.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program......................................................... 146
1.3.3 North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program........................................ 147
1.3.4 Clean Water Management Trust Fund...................................................... 152
1.3.5 NC Construction Grants and Loans Program............................................ 154
1.3.6 North Carolina Stream Watch................................................................... 155
1.3.7 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.......... 155
1.3.8 North Carolina Coastal Nonpoint Source Program................................... 156
1.3.9 North Carolina Flood Plain Mapping Program......................................... 157
1.5 Local Initiatives ..................................................................................................... 157
1.5.1 Friends of Lake Waccamaw State Park .................................................... 157
1.5.2 Winyah Rivers Foundation ....................................................................... 158
1.6 Regional Initiatives................................................................................................ 158
1.6.1 Conservation Trust for North Carolina..................................................... 158
1.6.2 Lumber River Council of Government..................................................... 158

Appendices viii
APPENDICES

I NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits in the Lumber River Basin

II Biological Water Quality Data Collected by DWQ

III Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

IV 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology

V Lumber River Basin Workshop Summaries

VI Lumber River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

VII Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

List of Figures ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)...................................................... 2
Figure A-2 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices......................................................... 6
Figure A-3 General Map of the Lumber River Basin in North Carolina................................. 8
Figure A-4 General Map of the Entire Yadkin-Pee Dee and Lumber River Basins................ 9
Figure A-5 Percent Projected County Population Growth (2000-2020) in the Lumber
River Basin.......................................................................................................... 14
Figure A-6 Percentages within Major CGIA Land Cover Categories in the Lumber River
Basin.................................................................................................................... 17
Figure A-7 8-Digit Hydrologic Units in the Lumber River Basin......................................... 20
Figure A-8 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1997 for the Lumber River Basin............... 21
Figure A-9 Animal Operations in the Lumber River Basin................................................... 25
Figure A-10 Lumber River Basin Managed Lands and Significant Heritage Areas............... 30
Figure A-11 ORWs and HQWs in the Lumber River Basin ................................................... 38
Figure A-12 Water Supply Watersheds and Class SA Waters in the Lumber River Basin..... 40
Figure A-13 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Lumber River
Basin.................................................................................................................... 44
Figure B-1 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50....................................................................... 82
Figure B-2 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-51....................................................................... 88
Figure B-3 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-52....................................................................... 95
Figure B-4 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53..................................................................... 100
Figure B-5 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-54..................................................................... 105
Figure B-6 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55..................................................................... 109
Figure B-7 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56..................................................................... 115
Figure B-8 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57..................................................................... 120
Figure B-9 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-58..................................................................... 127
Figure B-10 Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59..................................................................... 131
Figure C-1 Total Attendance by Various Interests at DWQ Water Quality Workshops in
the Lumber River Basin (2002)......................................................................... 143
Figure C-2 NCWRP Targeted Watersheds Map of the Lumber River Basin...................... 151

List of Tables x
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Aquatic Life Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber
River Basin (1996-2001)..................................................................................... xv
Table 2 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Lumber River Basin (1996-2001)......................................................................xvi
Table 3 Recreation Use Support Summary for Waters in the Lumber River Basin
(1996-2001).......................................................................................................xvii
Table 4 Shellfish Harvesting Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Lumber River Basin.........................................................................................xviii
Table 5 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Lumber River Basin (as of 2003)......xviii
Table A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)...................................................... 3
Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan................. 3
Table A-3 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the Lumber River Basin (1997)..................... 12
Table A-4 Past and Projected Population (1990, 2000, 2020) and Population Change by
County................................................................................................................. 13
Table A-5 Population (1980, 1990, 2000) and Population Change for Municipalities
Greater Than 2,000 Located Wholly or Partly in the Lumber River Basin ........ 15
Table A-6 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Lumber River Basin........... 16
Table A-7 Description of Major CGIA Land Cover Categories .......................................... 17
Table A-8 Land Cover in the Lumber River Basin by Major Watersheds – 1982 vs. 1997 19
Table A-9 Description of Land Cover Types....................................................................... 21
Table A-10 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Lumber River
Basin (as of 11/27/02)......................................................................................... 23
Table A-11 Registered Swine Operations in the Lumber River Basin (as of 01/02/03)........ 26
Table A-12 Estimated Populations of Swine, Dairy and Poultry in the Lumber River Basin
(1998 and 1994) .................................................................................................. 27
Table A-13 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Species in the Lumber River Basin (as of
March 2003)........................................................................................................ 28
Table A-14 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications.................................. 36
Table A-15 Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Lumber River Basin..... 42
Table A-16 Locations of Ambient Monitoring Stations in the Lumber River Basin by
Subbasin.............................................................................................................. 46
Table A-17 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin (1996-
2001).................................................................................................................... 49
Table A-18 Aquatic Life Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber
River Basin (1996-2001)..................................................................................... 50
Table A-19 Fish Consumption Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin
(1996-2001)......................................................................................................... 51
Table A-20 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Lumber River Basin (1996-2001)....................................................................... 52
Table A-21 Recreation Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin (1996-
2001).................................................................................................................... 53
Table A-22 Recreation Use Support Summary for Waters in the Lumber River Basin
(1996-2001)......................................................................................................... 54

List of Tables xi
Table A-23 Shellfish Harvesting Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin
(1996-2001)......................................................................................................... 55
Table A-24 Shellfish Harvesting Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Lumber River Basin (1996-2001)....................................................................... 55
Table A-25 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Lumber River Basin (as of 2003)......... 56
Table A-26 Communities in the Lumber River with Stormwater Requirements................... 71
Table B-1 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-50................................................. 83
Table B-2 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-50.............................................................................................................. 84
Table B-3 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-51................................................. 89
Table B-4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-51.............................................................................................................. 90
Table B-5 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-52................................................. 96
Table B-6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-52.............................................................................................................. 96
Table B-7 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-53............................................... 101
Table B-8 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-53............................................................................................................ 101
Table B-9 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-54............................................... 106
Table B-10 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-54............................................................................................................ 106
Table B-11 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-55............................................... 110
Table B-12 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-55............................................................................................................ 111
Table B-13 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-56............................................... 116
Table B-14 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-56............................................................................................................ 117
Table B-15 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-57............................................... 121
Table B-16 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-57............................................................................................................ 122
Table B-17 DWQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Locations and Bioclassifications
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-58.................................................................. 128
Table B-18 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-58............................................................................................................ 128
Table B-19 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical
Parameters (1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-59............................................... 132
Table B-20 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-07-59............................................................................................................ 134
Table B-21 Previously Impaired Shellfish Harvesting (SA) Waters in Subbasin 03-07-59 134

List of Tables xii
Table B-22 Currently Impaired Shellfish Harvesting (SA) Waters in Subbasin 03-07-59.. 135
Table C-1 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319 .................................. 145
Table C-2 Wetlands Restoration Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2003)................. 149
Table C-3 Projects in the Lumber River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (as of 12/02).................................................................................... 152
Table C-4 Projects in the Lumber River Basin Funded by the NC Construction Grants
and Loans Section ............................................................................................. 155

Executive Summary xiii
Executive Summary

North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management

Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory 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 Lumber River basin was completed in 1994 and the second in 1999.

This document is the third five-year update of the Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
The format of this plan was revised in response to comments received during the first and second
planning cycles. DWQ replaced much of the general information in the first plan with more
detailed information specific to the Lumber River basin. A greater emphasis was placed on
identifying causes and sources of pollution for individual streams in order to facilitate local
restoration efforts.

DWQ considered comments from two public workshops held in the basin and subsequent
discussions with local resource agency staff and citizens during draft plan development. This
input will help guide continuing DWQ activities in the basin.

Goals of the Basinwide Approach

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.

Lumber River Basin Overview

The Lumber River basin lies along the North Carolina/South Carolina border at the southeast
corner of the state, extending approximately 150 miles from the Sandhills region in southern
Moore and Montgomery counties to the Atlantic Ocean coastline in Brunswick County. Streams
and rivers in the Lumber River basin (except for the Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte Rivers) flow
into South Carolina and are tributaries of the Pee Dee River. Ultimately, the Pee Dee River
empties at Winyah Bay near Georgetown and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Executive Summary xiv
From 1982 to 1997, urban and built-up land cover increased by 67,000 acres. Uncultivated
cropland decreased by 4,000 acres while pastureland remained about the same. Forest and
cultivated cropland cover significantly decreased by 30,000 and 41,000 acres, respectively. Most
land cover change is accounted for in the Lumber River basin hydrologic units that include
rapidly growing areas in Brunswick, Hoke, Moore and Robeson counties.

The Lumber River basin encompasses all or portions of nine counties and 51 municipalities. The
overall population of the basin based on the percent of the counties that are partially or entirely in
the basin is 304,579, with approximately 92 persons/square mile. The watersheds with an
increase in population are near Pinehurst, Laurinburg, Boiling Spring Lakes and Oak Island.

Populations of counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin increased by over
501,308 people between 1990 and 2000. Hoke, Moore and Robeson counties are growing the
fastest in the upper basin, with Brunswick County growing the fastest in the lower basin. The
county populations are expected to grow by more than 156,000 by 2020. With the increased
population there will be increased drinking water demands and wastewater discharges. There
will also be loss of natural areas and increases in impervious surfaces associated with
construction of new homes and businesses.

There are 2,232.5 freshwater stream miles, 8,965.9 acres of freshwater, 4,306.6 estuarine acres,
and 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin. There are also countless miles of
unmapped small perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams. The lower Lumber River basin
contains extensive wetland communities also. The basin starts in the Sandhills physiographic
region with about two-thirds of the basin in the Coastal Plain.

Assessment of Water Quality in the Lumber River Basin

Surface waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a
waterbody supports its uses (use support status) is an important method of interpreting water
quality data and assessing water quality.

Surface waters are rated Supporting and Impaired. These ratings refer to whether the classified
uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life and recreation) are being met. For example,
waters assessed for aquatic life (Class C for freshwater or SC for saltwater) are rated Supporting
if data used to determine use support meet certain criteria. However, if these criteria were not
met, then the waters would be rated as Impaired. Waters with inconclusive data are listed as Not
Rated. Waters lacking data are listed as No Data. More specific methods are presented in
Appendix III.

In previous use support assessments, surface waters were rated fully supporting (FS), partially
supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used to identify waters that
were meeting their designated uses. Impaired waters were rated PS and NS, depending on their
degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters lacking data or having inconclusive data.
The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the
EPA requested that states no longer subdivide the Impaired category. In agreement with this
guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Impaired category and rates waters as
Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated or No Data.

Executive Summary xv
Use support methods have been developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk
through the development of use support ratings for six categories: aquatic life, fish consumption,
shellfish harvesting, recreation, water supply and "other" uses. These categories are tied to the
uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers, streams and lakes. A single
water could have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the six use
support categories. For many waters, a use support category will not be applicable (N/A) to the
use 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. For more
detailed information regarding use support methodology, refer to Appendix III.

Aquatic Life

The aquatic life use support category is applied to all waters in North Carolina. Therefore, this
category is applied to all 2,232.5 freshwater stream miles, 8,965.9 acres of freshwater, 4,306.6
estuarine acres, and 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin. Approximately
32 percent of stream miles (723.1 miles) were monitored. Approximately 99 percent of
freshwater acres (8,875.3) and 50 percent of estuarine acres (2,170.0 acres) were monitored.
There were no Impaired stream miles, freshwater acres or estuarine acres. Table 1 summarizes
aquatic life use support ratings for the entire basin.

Table 1 Aquatic Life Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber River
Basin (1996-2001)

Aquatic Life
Use Support Ratings
All
Waters
Percent of
All Waters
Monitored
Waters
Percent of
Monitored Waters
Supporting 451.9 miles
8,875.3 acres
2,170.0 Est. acres
20.2
99.0
50.4
447.6 miles
8,875.3 acres
2,170 Est. acres
61.9
100.0
100.0
Impaired 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
Not Rated 299.4 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
12.0
0
0
275.5 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
38.1
0
0
No Data** 1,481.2 miles
90.6 acres
2,136.5 Est. acres
68.0
1.0
49.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOTAL 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
723.1* miles
8,875.3* acres
2,170.0* Est. acres

Note: Est. acres indicate saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
* 32.4 percent of all stream miles, 98.9 percent of all freshwater acres, and 50.4 estuarine acres were monitored.
** There are also 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline with No Data, not added to total mileage.

Executive Summary xvi
Fish Consumption

Like the aquatic life use support category, the fish consumption category is also applied to all
waters in the state. Approximately 1 percent of stream miles (21.5 miles) and 100 percent of
Atlantic coastline miles (25.6 miles) in the Lumber River basin were monitored for the fish
consumption use support category during this basinwide cycle. Fish consumption use support
ratings are based on fish consumption advice or specific advisories issued by the NC Department
of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). If a limited fish consumption advice, advisory or a
no consumption advisory is posted at the time of use support assessment, the water is rated
Impaired. A basinwide summary of current fish consumption use support ratings is presented in
Table 2.

Table 2 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber
River Basin (1996-2001)

Fish
Consumption
All
Waters
Monitored
Waters
Percent
Monitored
Supporting 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
Impaired 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
25.6 coast
21.5 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
25.6 coast
1
0
0
100
Not Rated 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
TOTAL 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
25.6 coast
21.5 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
25.6 coast
1
0
0
100
Note: Est. acres indicate saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
Coast indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin.

Recreation

Like the aquatic life use support category, the recreation category is also applied to all waters in
the state. Approximately 12 percent of stream miles (262.2 miles) were monitored by DWQ.
There were no stream miles Impaired in the recreation use support category. Approximately 99
percent of freshwater acres and 47 percent of estuarine acres were monitored. Table 3
summarizes recreation use support ratings for the entire basin.

Executive Summary xvii
Table 3 Recreation Use Support Summary for Waters in the Lumber River Basin (1996-
2001)

Recreation All
Waters
Monitored
Waters
Percent of
Monitored Waters
Supporting 257.1 miles
8,840.2 acres
2,039.2 Est. acres
25.6 coast
257.1 miles
8,840.2 acres
2,039.2 Est. acres
25.6 coast
11.5
98.6
47.4
100
Impaired 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
Not Rated 5.1 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 coast
5.1 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 coast
0.2
0
0
0
No Data 1,970.3 miles
125.7 acres
2,276.3 Est. acres
N/A miles
N/A acres
N/A Est. acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOTAL 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
25.6 coast
262.2 miles
8,840.2 acres
2,039.2 Est. acres
25.6 coast

Note: Est. acres indicate saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
Coast indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin.

Water Supply

There are 216.7 stream miles currently classified for water supply in the Lumber River basin. All
water supply waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional
water treatment consultants.

Shellfish Harvesting

There are 4,280.8 estuarine acres classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA) in the Lumber
River basin. All were monitored during the past five years by DEH Shellfish Sanitation (refer to
page 45). Impaired estuarine acres accounted for 15.7 percent of the total estuarine acres in the
shellfish harvesting use support category. A basinwide summary of current shellfish harvest use
support ratings is presented in Table 4.

Executive Summary xviii
Table 4 Shellfish Harvesting Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber
River Basin

Shellfish
Harvesting
Monitored
Waters
Percent of
Monitored
Supporting 673.9 acres 100
Impaired 3,606.9 acres 100
Not Rated 0 acres 100
TOTAL 4,280.8 acres 100

Impaired Waters

Table 5 presents Impaired waters (in all categories) in the Lumber River basin that were
monitored by DWQ within the last five years. The use support category for which a waterbody
is Impaired is indicated in the table. Descriptions of Impaired segments, as well as problem
parameters, are outlined in Appendix III. Management strategies for each waterbody are
discussed in detail in the appropriate subbasin chapter. Maps showing current use support
ratings for waters in the Lumber River basin are presented in each subbasin chapter in Section B.

Table 5 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Lumber River Basin (as of 2003)

Waterbody Subbasin Chapter in
Section B Classification Miles Acres Use Support
Category
Lumber River * 03-07-51 2 C Sw 21.5 0.0 Fish Consumption
Intracoastal Waterway 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2,117.6 Shellfish Harvesting
Lockwoods Folly River 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 606.2 Shellfish Harvesting
Mill Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2.0 Shellfish Harvesting
Mullet Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 5.7 Shellfish Harvesting
Lockwoods Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.2 0.0 Shellfish Harvesting
Spring Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2.4 Shellfish Harvesting
Shallotte River 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 647.3 Shellfish Harvesting
The Mill Pond 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2.8 Shellfish Harvesting
Sams Branch 03-07-59 10 SA 0.6 0.0 Shellfish Harvesting
The Swash 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 3.9 Shellfish Harvesting
Shallotte Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 135.6 Shellfish Harvesting
Saucepan Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 62.6 Shellfish Harvesting
Jinnys Branch 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 1.0 Shellfish Harvesting
Goose Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 4.2 Shellfish Harvesting
Big Gut Slough 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 0.3 Shellfish Harvesting
Kilbart Slough 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 0.7 Shellfish Harvesting
Calabash River 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 3.4 Shellfish Harvesting
Hangman Branch 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 10.2 Shellfish Harvesting
Atlantic Coastline * 03-07-59 10 SB 25.6 0.0 Fish Consumption
* Although all waters in the basin are considered Impaired for the fish consumption use support category, only the Lumber River (21.5
miles) and the Atlantic coastline (25.6 miles) were monitored (see page 59).

Executive Summary xix
Recommended Management Strategies for Restoring Impaired Waters

The long-range mission of basinwide planning is to provide a means of addressing the complex
problem of planning for increased development and economic growth while maintaining,
protecting and enhancing water quality and intended uses of the Lumber River basin’s surface
waters. Within this basinwide plan, DWQ presents management strategies and recommendations
for those waters considered Impaired or that exhibit some notable water quality problem.

Major water quality problems in the basin include habitat degradation, algal blooms, low
dissolved oxygen (affecting aquatic life), mercury in fish tissue (affecting fish consumption), and
fecal coliform bacteria contamination (affecting shellfish harvesting). Habitat degradation,
including sedimentation, streambed scour and streambank erosion, is primarily attributed to
nonpoint source pollution (NPS). Sources of nonpoint source pollution include runoff from
construction sites, agricultural lands and urban areas, and hydromodification.

For streams degraded by point source pollution, the plan presents a management strategy to
reduce the impacts from that pollutant source. The task of quantifying nonpoint sources of
pollution and developing management strategies for these Impaired waters is very resource
intensive. This task is overwhelming, given the current limited resources of DWQ, other
agencies (e.g., Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments.

DWQ plans to further evaluate Impaired waters in the Lumber River basin in conjunction with
other agencies that deal with nonpoint source pollution issues and develop management
strategies for a portion of these Impaired waters for the next Lumber River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan (2008).

Addressing Waters on the State’s 303(d) List

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters not meeting standards.
EPA must then provide review and approval of the listed waters. A list of waters not meeting
standards is submitted to EPA biennially. Waters placed on this list, termed the 303(d) list,
require the establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) intended to guide the
restoration of water quality. EPA issued guidance in August 1997 that called for states to
develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list within 8-13 years.

The 303(d) list and accompanying data are updated as the basinwide plans are revised. In some
cases, the new data will demonstrate water quality improvement and waters may receive a better
use support rating. These waters may be removed from the 303(d) list when water quality
standards are attained. In other cases, the new data will show a stable or decreasing trend in
overall water quality resulting in the same, or lower, use support rating. Attention remains
focused on these waters until water quality standards are met. Currently, there are 11 waters
listed on the North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report in the Lumber River
basin. These waters were listed for fish consumption advisories related to mercury. Several of
these waters have not been monitored by DWQ, but still are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis due to the current fish consumption advice from the NC Department of Health and Human
Services.

Executive Summary xx
Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements

To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to work
more closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The
costs of restoration will be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration
efforts. These programs include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the NC Agricultural
Cost Share Program, the Wetlands Restoration Program and the federally funded Environmental
Quality Incentives Program.

With increased development occurring, there will be significant challenges ahead in balancing
economic growth with the protection of water quality in this basin. Point source impacts on
surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning process.
Nonpoint sources of pollution can be identified through the basinwide plan, but actions to
address these impacts must be taken at the local level. Such actions should include:
development and enforcement of local erosion control ordinances; requirement of stormwater
best management practices for existing and new development; development and enforcement of
buffer ordinances; and land use planning that assesses impacts on natural resources. This
basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that are underway
within the basin. These actions provide a foundation on which future initiatives can be built.

Section A: General Basinwide Information 1

Section A

General Basinwide Information

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 2
Section A - Chapter 1
Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning

1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?

Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory, 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 A-1 and Table A-1). Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan is a five-year
process, which is broken down into three phases (Table A-2). 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 A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)

1.2 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.

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 3
Table A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)

Basin
DWQ
Biological
Data
Collection

River Basin
Public
Workshops
Public
Mtgs. and
Draft Out
For Review
Final Plan
Receives
EMC
Approval
Begin
NPDES
Permit
Issuance
Chowan Summer 2000 3/2001 5/2002 7/2002 11/2002
Pasquotank Summer 2000 3/2001 5/2002 7/2002 12/2002
Neuse Summer 2000 6/2001 5/2002 7/2002 1/2003
Broad Summer 2000 11/2001 11/2002 2/2003 7/2003
Yadkin-Pee Dee Summer 2001 4/2002 1/2003 3/2003 9/2003
Lumber Summer 2001 12/2002 9/2003 12/2003 7/2004
Tar-Pamlico Summer 2002 3/2003 12/2003 3/2004 9/2004
Catawba Summer 2002 10/2003 6/2004 9/2004 12/2004
French Broad Summer 2002 11/2003 11/2004 2/2005 9/2005
New Summer 2003 4/2004 5/2005 9/2005 3/2006
Cape Fear Summer 2003 5/2004 4/2005 8/2005 4/2006
Roanoke Summer 2004 4/2005 4/2006 8/2006 1/2007
White Oak Summer 2004 10/2005 9/2006 12/2006 6/2007
Savannah Summer 2004 10/2005 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007
Watauga Summer 2004 10/2005 12/2006 3/2007 9/2007
Hiwassee Summer 2004 10/2005 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007
Little Tennessee Summer 2004 3/2006 1/2007 4/2007 10/2007
Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during the first cycle (1993 to 1998).

Table A-2 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 Workshops
Gather and analyze data from sampling activities
Develop use support ratings
Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
Conduct public workshops to establish goals and objectives and identify
and prioritize issues for the next basin cycle
Develop preliminary pollution control strategies
Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies
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 present draft plan at
public meetings
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

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 4
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan

Each basinwide plan is subdivided into four major sections. The format provides general
basinwide information, information by each major watershed, and descriptions of water quality
protection initiatives.

Section A: Basinwide Information

Introduces the basinwide planning approach used by the state.
Provides an overview of the river basin including: hydrology, land use, local government
jurisdictions, population and growth trends, natural resources, wastewater discharges,
animal operations and water usage.
Presents general water quality information including summaries of water quality monitoring
programs and use support ratings in the basin.

Section B: Subbasin Information

Summarizes recommendations from previous basin plan, achievements made, what wasn’t
achieved and why, current priority issues and concerns, Impaired waters, and goals and
recommendations for the next five years by subbasin.

Section C: Current and Future Initiatives

Presents current and future water quality initiatives and success stories by federal, state and
local agencies, and corporate, citizen and academic efforts.
Describes DWQ goals and initiatives beyond the five-year planning cycle for the basin.

Appendices

Lists NPDES dischargers and individual stormwater permits.
Describes water quality data collected by DWQ, use support methodology and 303(d) listing
methodology.
Provides workshop summaries, points of contact, and a glossary of terms and acronyms.

1.4 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.

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 5
1.5 How to Get Involved

To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and other local stakeholders to participate in the planning process during:

• Local Workshops: (Prior to the preparation of draft basinwide plans.) DWQ staff present
information about basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality. Participants can ask
questions, share concerns, and discuss potential solutions to water quality issues in the basin.
• Public Meetings: (After the draft plan is prepared.) DWQ staff discuss the draft plan and its
major recommendations, seeking public comments and questions.
• Public Comment Period: (After the draft plan is prepared). The comment period is at least
30 days in length. Draft plans are made available on-line or by request.

1.6 Other References

There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about
basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality:

• Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report. June 2002. This technical report presents
physical, chemical and biological data collected in the Lumber River basin. 146 pages.
• Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. May 1994. This first basinwide
plan for the Lumber River basin presents water quality data, information and recommended
management strategies for the first five-year cycle. 181 pages.
• Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. May 1999. This second
basinwide plan for the Lumber River basin presents water quality data, information and
recommended management strategies for the second five-year cycle. 200 pages.
• 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. 156 pages.
• NC Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Lumber River Basin. DWQ
NC Wetlands Restoration Program.
• 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.
• NC Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/.

1.7 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 [phone] and ask for the basin planner responsible
for your basin of interest. Feel free to contact the appropriate Regional Office for additional
information (Figure A-2). For general questions about the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, contact the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 7
Section A - Chapter 2
Lumber River Basin Overview

2.1 General Overview

The Lumber River basin lies along the North Carolina/South Carolina border at the southeast
corner of the state, extending about 150 miles from the Sandhills region in southern Moore and
Montgomery counties to the Atlantic Ocean coastline in Brunswick County (Figure A-3).

Streams and rivers in the Lumber River basin
(except for the Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte
Rivers) flow into South Carolina and are tributaries
of the Pee Dee River. Ultimately, the Pee Dee River
empties at Winyah Bay near Georgetown and Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina. Figure A-4 presents the
entire Pee Dee River basin including the Yadkin-Pee
Dee and Lumber River basins in North Carolina and
the Pee Dee River basin in South Carolina.

The Lumber River basin is the home of Lake
Waccamaw and Lumber River State Parks. In
Moore and Brunswick counties, world-renowned
golf resorts call the Lumber River basin home. In
addition, the Lumber River mainstem is the only
North Carolina blackwater river to earn federal designation as a National Wild and Scenic River.
Also, much of the Lumber River mainstem is designated a state Natural and Scenic River, one of
just four in North Carolina.

The basin contains all or part of nine counties including: Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Hoke,
Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, Robeson and Scotland. Population growth for the basin as a
whole from 1990 to 2000 is estimated at 18.5 percent.

Sixty percent of the land in the basin is forested, and about 25 percent is cultivated cropland.
Tobacco, peanuts, cotton and soybeans are among the most commonly grown crops. Only 7.1
percent of the land falls into the urban/built-up category (USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June
2001). Despite the large amount of cultivated cropland and the relatively small amount of urban
area, the basin has seen a significant decrease (-41,000 acres) in cultivated cropland and (-30,000
acres) in forest and an increase (+67,000 acres) in developed areas over the past 15 years
(USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001).

Lumber River Basin Statistics

Total Area: 3,336 sq. miles
Freshwater Stream Miles: 2,232.5
Freshwater Lakes Acres: 8,965.9
Estuarine Acres: 4,305.6
Coastline Miles: 25.6
No. of Counties: 9
No. of Municipalities: 51
No. of Subbasins: 10
Population (2000): 304,579*
Pop. Density (2000): 92 persons/sq. mi.*

* Estimated based on % of county land area
that is partially or entirely within the basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 9

Figure A-4 General Map of the Entire Yadkin-Pee Dee and Lumber River Basins

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 10
2.2 Surface Water Hydrology

2.2.1 Watershed Descriptions

DWQ has a two-tiered system in which the state is divided into 17 major river basins with each
basin further subdivided into subbasins. The Lumber River basin is divided into 10 subbasins (6-
digit DWQ subbasins). Maps of each subbasin are included in Section B. DWQ and many other
state agencies in North Carolina use this two-tiered system to identify watersheds for many
different programs. Most federal government agencies, including the US Geological Survey
(USGS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), use a different system of
defining watersheds. Under the federal system, the Lumber River basin is made up of hydrologic
areas referred to as hydrologic units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). The Lumber River basin is
made up of four whole hydrologic units: the Lumber, Little Pee Dee, Waccamaw and Carolina
Coastal-Sampit. Hydrologic units are further divided into smaller watershed units (14-digit
hydrologic units) that are used for smaller scale planning like that done by NCWRP (page 147).
There are 102 14-digit hydrologic units in the Lumber River basin.

2.2.2 Hydrologic Features

There are 2,232.5 freshwater stream miles, 8,965.9 acres of freshwater acres, 4,305.6 estuarine
acres, and 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin. Most of the Lumber River
basin contains extensive wetland communities where 88 percent of the freshwater streams are
supplementally classified as swamp waters. There are also areas of the Non-Riverine Swamps
and Peatlands ecoregion with flat, poorly drained soils of peat and muck. The basin starts in the
Sandhills physiographic region with about two-thirds of the basin in the Coastal Plain region.

Streams in the Sandhills ecoregion are typically swift-flowing sandy streams which receive
substantial flow from high quality groundwater during low rainfall periods.

Streams in the coastal plain are slow-moving blackwater streams, low-lying swamps and
productive estuarine waters. The Coastal Plain is flat and the larger waterbodies are meandering
and often lined with swamps and bottomland hardwoods. The swamp streams often stop flowing
in the summer and are stained by tannic acid. These streams have limited ability to assimilate
oxygen-consuming wastes. Swamp streams often have naturally low dissolved oxygen and pH
values. Coastal Plain soils are deep sands that have a high groundwater storage capacity.
Because of the flat topography and high groundwater supply, there are few reservoirs in the
Coastal Plain. Natural lakes include the remnants of bay lakes in the lower Coastal Plain.

2.2.3 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.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 11
The Resorts of Pinehurst, Inc. operates Lake Pinehurst dam (subbasin 03-07-50) in Moore
County on Horse Creek. Lake Pinehurst dam has a minimum flow release of 2.5 cfs or inflow,
whichever is less.

Lake Auman (Seven Lakes West) dam is operated by the Seven Lakes West Property Owners
Association, Inc. (subbasin 03-07-50). Lake Auman is located in Moore County on an unnamed
tributary of Jackson Creek and has a minimum flow release of 2.0 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less.

The Pinewild Country Club of Pinehurst operates Holly Course Lake dam (subbasin 03-07-50) in
Moore County on Sandy Run Creek. Holly Course Lake dam has a minimum flow release of 0.4
cfs or inflow, whichever is less.

Division of Water Resources conducted a streamflow study for Southern Pines’ proposed
increase in withdrawal from 4 MGD to 8 MGD from Drowning Creek and found that the
increase would not adversely impact downstream habitat. In addition, the town requested a
determination, in anticipation of 50-year sales projections, of how much they could exceed the 8
MGD withdrawal. The study determined that, from a physical habitat perspective, withdrawals
between 8 MGD and 14 MGD (21.6 cfs) would not be detrimental if a flow target of 36.2 MGD
(56 cfs) could be maintained at the downstream US Geological Survey gage at Highway US 1.

2.2.4 Water Withdrawals

Prior to 1999, North Carolina required water users to register their water withdrawals with the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) only if the amount was 1,000,000 gallons or more of
surface water or groundwater per day. In 1999, the registration threshold for all water users
except agriculture was lowered to 100,000 MGD.

There are six registered water withdrawals in the Lumber River basin not including those
associated with the two public water systems discussed below. All of these are surface water
withdrawals. Excluding the public water systems or power generating facilities, there is a
cumulative permitted capacity to withdraw 10.5 MGD of water. For more information on water
withdrawals, visit http://www.dwr.ehnr.state.nc.us/ or call DWR at [phone].

2.2.5 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 MGD or more. In addition, persons wishing to transfer 2 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. The 8-digit hydrologic unit boundaries (Figure A-7)
correspond to these basins within the Lumber River basin. Table A-3 summarizes IBTs
involving the Lumber River basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 12
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:

• 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; and
• 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 on water
withdrawals, visit http://www.ncwater.org or call DWR at [phone].

Table A-3 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the Lumber River Basin (1997)

Supplying
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated
Transfer (MGD)
Brunswick County Ocean Isle Beach Cape Fear River Shallotte River 0.386
Brunswick County Shallotte Cape Fear River Shallotte River 0.218

2.2.6 Water Supply

The following is summarized from the North Carolina Water Supply Plan developed by the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) for the Lumber River basin (NCDENR-DWR, January
2001). The information is compiled from Local Water Supply Plans submitted to DWR by two
public water systems. In 1995, the USGS estimated that total water use in the Lumber River
basin was 69 MGD, with slightly less than half coming from surface water sources.

Total water use in the Lumber River basin is reported to be approximately 26.9 MGD. Public
water systems supplied 11 MGD from surface water. For more information or to view local
water supply plans, visit http://www.dwr.ehnr.state.nc.us/ or call DWR at [phone].

2.3 Population and Growth Trends

Below are three different ways of presenting population data for the Lumber 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 summarize information on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. 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 watersheds in the basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 13
2.3.1 County Population and Growth Trends

Table A-4 shows the projected population for 2020 and the change in growth between 2000 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 Lumber River basin. This information is intended to present an estimate of expected
population growth in counties that have some land area in the Lumber River basin.

Table A-4 Past and Projected Population (1990, 2000, 2020) and Population Change by
County

County
Percent of
County
in Basin
1990 2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated
Pop Change
1990-2000
Estimated
Pop Change
2000-2020
Bladen 31 28,663 32,278 38,274 3,615 5,996
Brunswick 55 50,985 73,143 112,885 22,158 39,742
Columbus 89 49,587 54,749 63,283 5,162 8,534
Hoke 43 22,856 33,646 57,891 10,790 24,245
Montgomery 5 23,359 26,822 33,247 3,463 6,425
Moore 21 59,000 74,769 102,828 15,769 28,059
Richmond 19 44,511 46,564 49,825 2,053 3,261
Robeson 100 105,170 123,339 159,552 18,169 36,213
Scotland 99 33,763 35,998 39,932 2,235 3,934

Subtotal 417,894 501,308 657,717 83,414 156,409
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
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.

Populations of counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin increased by 83,414
people between 1990 and 2000. Figure A-5 presents projected population growth by county
(2000-2020) for the Lumber River basin. Hoke, Moore and Robeson counties are growing the
fastest in the upper basin, with Brunswick County growing the fastest in the lower basin. The
county populations are expected to grow by more than 156,000 by 2020. With the increased
population there will be increased drinking water demands and wastewater discharges. There
will also be loss of natural areas and increases in impervious surfaces associated with
construction of new homes and businesses.

For more information on past, current and projected population estimates, contact the Office of
State Budget and Management at [phone] or visit the North Carolina State Demographics
website at http://demog.state.nc.us/.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 15
2.3.2 Municipal Population and Growth Trends

Table A-5 presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities with
populations greater than 2,000 persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. The highest
urban population growth has occurred in the upper basin around Pinehurst and the lower basin
around Boiling Spring Lakes. Laurinburg also increased population substantially in the last ten
years. In 1999, Long Beach and Yaupon Beach incorporated to become the Town of Oak Island.

Table A-5 Population (1980, 1990, 2000) and Population Change for Municipalities Greater
Than 2,000 Located Wholly or Partly in the Lumber River Basin

Municipality County Apr-80 Apr-90 Apr-2000 Percent Change
(1980-90)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Aberdeen Moore 1,945 2,717 3,400 39.7 25.1
Boiling Spring Lakes • Brunswick 998 1,650 2,972 65.3 80.1
Chadbourn Columbus 1,975 2,005 2,129 1.5 6.2
Fairmont Robeson 2,658 2,519 2,604 -5.2 3.4
Laurinburg Scotland 11,480 11,643 15,874 1.4 36.3
Lumberton Robeson 18,241 18,733 20,795 2.7 11.0
Maxton Robeson, Scotland 2,711 2,576 2,551 -5.0 -1.0
Oak Island • Brunswick ….. 4,550 6,571 ….. 44.4
Pembroke Robeson 2,698 2,241 2,399 -16.9 7.1
Pinehurst • Moore 1,746 5,091 9,706 191.6 90.7
Raeford • Hoke 3,630 3,469 3,386 -4.4 -2.4
Red Springs Robeson 3,607 3,799 3,493 5.3 -8.1
Saint Pauls Robeson 1,639 1,992 2,137 21.5 7.3
Southern Pines • Moore 8,620 9,213 10,918 6.9 18.5
Tabor City Columbus 2,710 2,330 2,509 -14.0 7.7
Whiteville Columbus 5,565 5,078 5,148 -8.8 1.4
• - 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.
Note: Red Springs is listed only in Robeson County in the 2001 NC League of Municipalities Directory. However, it is listed
in Robeson and Hoke counties on the Office of State Planning website for the April 2001 municipality population data even
though there are no population figures listed for Hoke County.

2.3.3 Basin Population and Population Density

Most population data are collected from within county or municipal boundaries. It is difficult to
evaluate population and population density within watersheds using this information.
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. The
overall population of the Lumber River basin is 304,579, with approximately 92 persons/square
mile for counties which are partially or entirely in the basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 16
2.4 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin

The Lumber River basin encompasses all or portions of nine counties and 51 municipalities.
Table A-6 provides a listing of these municipalities, along with the regional planning jurisdiction
(Council of Governments). Eleven municipalities are located in more than one major river basin.

Table A-6 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Lumber River Basin

County Region Municipalities
Bladen N Bladenboro, Clarkton, Dublin ♦, Tar Heel ♦
Brunswick O Boiling Spring Lakes ♦, Bolivia, Calabash, Carolina Shores, Holden Beach, Oak Island ♦,
Ocean Isle Beach, Shallotte, Sunset Beach, Varnamtown
Columbus O Boardman, Bolton ♦, Brunswick, Cerro Gordo, Chadbourn, Fair Bluff, Lake Waccamaw,
Tabor City, Whiteville
Hoke N Raeford ♦
Montgomery G Candor ♦
Moore J Aberdeen, Foxfire Village, Pinebluff, Pinehurst ♦, Southern Pines ♦
Richmond N Hoffman ♦, Norman ♦
Robeson N Fairmont, Lumber Bridge, Lumberton, Marietta, Maxton *, McDonald, Orrum, Parkton,
Pembroke, Proctorville, Raynham, Red Springs, Rennert, Rowland, Saint Pauls
Scotland N East Laurinburg, Gibson, Laurinburg, Maxton *, Wagram
* 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
J Triangle J Council of Governments Durham
N Lumber River Council of Governments Lumberton
O Cape Fear Council of Governments Wilmington

2.5 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. Parts
2.5.1 and 2.5.2 below describe two different ways of presenting land cover in the Lumber 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.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 17
2.5.1 CGIA Land Cover

The North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database contains land cover information for the
Lumber 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 A-7. Figure A-6 provides an illustration of the relative
amount of land area that falls into each major cover type for the Lumber River basin. Section B
of this plan provides land cover data specific to each subbasin based on this information.

Table A-7 Description of Major CGIA Land Cover Categories

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.

Figure A-6 Percentages within Major CGIA Land Cover Categories in the Lumber River
Basin
Lumber River Basin Land Cover (1993-1995)
Cultivated cropland
28%
Urban
1%
Pasture/managed
herbaceous
4%
Forest/wetland
66%
Water
1%

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 18
2.5.2 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-NRCS, NRI,
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."

Table A-8 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 presented in
Table A-9. Figure A-7 also shows the relationship between the 8-digit hydrologic units and
DWQ subbasin. These data can be used to evaluate changes in land cover over the large area
represented by the 8-digit hydrologic units and should not be assumed to represent land cover
changes at smaller scales in specific watersheds. In the Lumber River basin, the 8-digit
hydrologic units extend into South Carolina, and thus, are partially contained in North Carolina.

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 67,000 acres. Uncultivated cropland decreased by
4,000 acres while pastureland remained about the same. Forest and cultivated cropland cover
significantly decreased by 30,000 and 41,000 acres, respectively. Most land cover change is
accounted for in the upper Lumber River basin hydrologic unit that includes rapidly growing
areas in Hoke, Moore and Robeson counties as well as the lower Lumber River basin hydrologic
unit in Brunswick County. Figure A-8 presents changes in land cover between 1982 and 1997.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 19
Table A-8 Land Cover in the Lumber River Basin by Major Watersheds – 1982 vs. 1997
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001)

MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS
Lumber Little Waccamaw Carolina Coastal- 1997 1982 %
Pee Dee Sampit TOTALS TOTALS change
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres % Acres % since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 309.6 28.7 76.5 30.9 153.3 22.8 10.1 5.9 549.5 25.3 590.7 27.2 -7.0
Uncult. Crop 12.6 1.2 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.7 18.2 0.8 -22.0
Pasture 22.0 2.0 5.6 2.3 7.4 1.1 5.3 3.1 40.3 1.9 40.6 1.9 -0.7
Forest 599.4 55.6 138.0 55.7 457.5 68.0 105.9 61.7 1300.8 59.9 1330.3 61.2 -2.2
Urban & Built-Up 81.2 7.5 14.5 5.9 26.0 3.9 32.1 18.7 153.8 7.1 86.5 4.0 77.8
Federal 6.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.3 6.5 0.3 0.0
Other 46.9 4.3 11.4 4.6 28.2 4.2 18.3 10.7 104.8 4.8 101.8 4.7 2.9
Totals 1078.2 100.0 247.6 100.0 672.4 100.0 171.7 100.0 2169.9 100.0 2174.6 100.0
% of Total Basin 49.6 11.4 30.9 7.9
SUBBASINS 03-07-50 03-07-51 03-07-56
03-07-52 03-07-53 03-07-55 03-07-57 03-07-59
03-07-54 03-07-58
8-Digit
Hydraulic Units 03040203 03040204 03040206 03040207
* = Watershed areas as defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ.
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 21
Table A-9 Description of Land Cover Types
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001)

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.

Figure A-8 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1997 for the Lumber River Basin
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001)
-7.0%
-22.0%<1%
-2.2%
77.8%
2.9%0%
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Cult. Crop
U ncult.Crop
Pasture
F orest
U rban & Built-U p
F ederal
Other
Land Cover Type
Ch
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

A
c
r
e
s

(
1
0
0
0
s
)

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 22
2.6 NPDES Permits 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. Stormwater point source discharges
include stormwater collection systems for
municipalities that serve populations greater than 100,000 and stormwater discharges associated
with certain industrial activities. 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.

2.6.1 Permitted Wastewater Discharges

Currently, there are 52 permitted
wastewater discharges in the Lumber
River basin. Table A-10 provides
summary information (by type and
subbasin) about the discharges. Various
types of dischargers listed in the table are
described in the inset box. A list of all
facilities can be found in Appendix I.
Facilities are mapped in each subbasin
chapter in Section B. A location key to the
facilities is provided at the beginning of
Appendix I. Because the GIS data have
not been updated as recently as the
NPDES database, refer to Appendix I to
determine the most current status of
individual NPDES permit holders.

The majority of NPDES permitted
wastewater flow into the waters of the
Lumber River basin are from major
municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Nonmunicipal discharges also contribute
substantial wastewater flow into the Lumber River basin. Facilities, large or small, where recent
data show problems with a discharge are listed and discussed in each subbasin chapter in Section
B.

The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:

* oxygen-consuming wastes,
* nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals.

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.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 23
Table A-10 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Lumber River
Basin (as of 11/27/02)

Lumber River Subbasin
Facility Categories 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 TOTAL

Total Facilities 4 14 3 5 0 11 2 4 6 3 52
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 6.97 22.88 3.5 1.2 0.0 5.38 0.4 1.64 4.27 0.02 46.26

Major Discharges 1 7 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 14
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 6.7 22.64 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.1 4.0 0.0 41.94

Minor Discharges 3 7 1 5 0 10 2 3 4 3 38
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.27 0.24 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.38 0.4 0.54 0.27 0.02 4.32

100% Domestic Waste 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 7
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.54 0.0 0.01 0.59

Municipal Facilities 1 4 2 3 0 4 1 1 3 0 19
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 6.7 13.31 3.5 1.2 0.0 5.02 0.4 1.1 4.24 0.0 35.47

Nonmunicipal Facilities 3 10 1 2 0 7 1 3 3 3 33
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.27 9.57 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.0 0.54 0.03 0.02 10.79

2.6.2 Other NPDES Permits

Stormwater permits are granted in the form of general permits (which cover a wide variety of
more common activities) or individual permits. Excluding construction stormwater general
permits, there are 122 general stormwater permits and four individual stormwater permits (see
Appendix I for a listing). Refer to page 69 for more information on stormwater programs and
permits.

2.7 Animal Operations

In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission 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. Figure A-9 displays general locations of animal operations in the Lumber
River basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 24

Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-2000)

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
Smithfield 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.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 26
Table A-11 summarizes, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total number
of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight as of January 2003. These
numbers reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent
the total number of animals in each subbasin. There are no registered cattle or poultry operations
in the Lumber River basin.

Overall the majority of registered swine operations are found in the middle portion of the basin.
Registered animal operations where recent data show problems are discussed in the appropriate
subbasin chapter in Section B.

Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is the result, in pounds, after a conversion factor has been
applied to the number (head count) of swine, cattle or poultry on a farm. The conversion factors,
which come from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) guidelines, vary depending on the type of animals on the farm and the type of
operation (for example, there are five types of hog farms). Since the amount of waste produced
varies by hog size, SSLW is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.

Between 1994 and 1998, there were substantial increases in swine and poultry in the basin and a
decrease in dairy operations. In several areas, animal density is much greater than human
populations. Information on animal capacity by subbasin (Table A-12) was provided by the
USDA.

Table A-11 Registered Swine Operations in the Lumber River Basin (as of 01/02/03)

Subbasin Number of
Facilities
Number of
Animals
Total
Steady State
Live Weight
03-07-50 10 55,128 6,881,772
03-07-51 16 95,632 11,483,790
03-07-52 7 53,360 8,157,240
03-07-53 37 264,161 29,416,913
03-07-54 15 88,998 10,915,290
03-07-55 30 203,442 28,916,760
03-07-56 6 46,400 6,261,500
03-07-57 15 60,244 7,948,420
03-07-58 34 236,943 31,976,186
03-07-59 1 3,750 506,250
Totals 171 1,108,058 142,464,121

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 27
Table A-12 Estimated Populations of Swine, Dairy and Poultry in the Lumber River Basin
(1998 and 1994)

Subbasin
Total Swine
Capacity
Swine
Change
Total Dairy
Capacity
Dairy
Change
Poultry
Capacity
Poultry
Change

1998 1994 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%)

03-07-50 13,357 1,453 819 0 0 0 1,760,682 1,683,482 5
03-07-51 189,760 69,136 174 55 15 267 1,391,000 710,600 96
03-07-52 43,475 32,200 35 2 0 2 363,300 182,900 99
03-07-53 203,688 97,169 110 0 4 -100 1,972,650 1,409,350 40
03-07-54 112,060 30,983 262 0 0 0 1,362,000 738,200 85
03-07-55 181,153 121,675 49 0 0 0 3,602,500 2,888,500 25
03-07-56 4,394 6,168 -29 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-57 92,833 40,563 129 0 775 -100 0 0 0
03-07-58 238,516 83,636 185 0 120 -100 50,300 50,300 0
03-07-59 10,709 7,542 42 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 1,089,945 490,525 122 57 914 -94 10,502,432 7,663,332 37
% of State Total 11% 9% <1% <1% 5% 4%

2.8 Permitted Wetland and Stream Losses and Mitigation

DWQ tracks wetland and stream losses that are authorized through the issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification. In addition to the permitted wetland and stream impacts that are tracked by
DWQ, an unknown amount of wetland and stream losses also occurs because projects that affect
less than one-third of an acre of wetland or less than 150 linear feet of stream are not required to
receive written confirmation from DWQ, and therefore, might not be reported. The magnitude of
unauthorized impacts to wetlands and streams is not known.

2.9 Natural Resources

2.9.1 Ecological Significance of the Lumber River Basin

The Lumber River basin encompasses three distinct ecological regions in North Carolina: the
Sandhills, the Carolina Bay region and the Southeastern Coastal Plain. This assemblage of
ecological regions gives the Lumber River basin a great diversity of natural communities. From
the vast pocosins of the Green Swamp to the large Carolina bay that became Lake Waccamaw to
the dry sandy hills cloaked with magnificent longleaf pines, the Lumber River basin is a
showcase of biological diversity. Of particular note in the Lumber River basin are wetland
communities associated with the blackwater river floodplains and pine savannas. Table A-13
presents rare aquatic and wetland-dwelling species found in the Lumber River basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 28
Table A-13 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Species in the Lumber River Basin (as of
March 2003)

Major
Taxon
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
State
Status
Federal
Status

Amphibian Ambystoma tigrinum Eastern tiger salamander T
Amphibian Rana heckscheri River frog SC
Amphibian Eurycea quadridigitata pop 1 Dwarf salamander - silver morph SC
Amphibian Ambystoma mabeei Mabee’s salamander SR
Amphibian Pseudacris ornata Ornate chorus frog SR
Amphibian Rana capito Carolina gopher frog T FSC
Amphibian Hyla andersonii Pine barrens treefrog SR
Crustacean Procambarus braswelli Waccamaw crayfish SC
Fish Noturus sp 1 Broadtail madtom SC
Fish Menidia extensa Waccamaw silverside T T
Fish Elassoma boehlkei Carolina pygmy sunfish T FSC
Fish Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC
Fish Gobionellus stigmaticus Marked goby SR
Fish Hypsoblennius ionthas Freckled blenny SR
Fish Cyprinella zanema pop 2 Santee chub - Coastal Plain population SC
Fish Etheostoma perlongum Waccamaw darter T
Fish Fundulus waccamensis pop 1 Waccamaw killifish - Lake Waccamaw population SC FSC
Fish Etheostoma mariae Pinewoods darter SC FSC
Insect Euphyes bimacula Two-spotted skipper SR
Insect Calephelis virginiensis Little metalmark SR
Insect Callophrys hesseli Hessel’s hairstreak SR
Insect Amblyscirtes reversa Reversed roadside-skipper SR
Insect Attaneuria ruralis A stonefly SR
Insect Triaenodes marginata A caddisfly SR
Insect Choroterpes basalis A mayfly SR
Insect Ceraclea cancellata A caddisfly SR
Insect Ephemerella argo A mayfly SR FSC
Mammal Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E E
Mollusk Cincinnatia sp 1 Waccamaw siltsnail SC
Mollusk Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel E FSC
Mollusk Elliptio folliculata Pod lance SC

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 29
Mollusk Lampsilis radiata radiata Eastern lampmussel T
Mollusk Leptodea ochracea Tidewater mucket T
Mollusk Amnicola sp 1 Waccamaw snail SC
Mollusk Elliptio marsupiobesa Cape Fear spike SC
Mollusk Elliptio waccamawensis Waccamaw spike T FSC
Mollusk Lampsilis fullerkati Waccamaw fatmucket T FSC
Mollusk Viviparus intertextus Rotund mysterysnail SR
Mollusk Triodopsis soelneri Cape Fear threetooth T FSC
Mollusk Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput E FSC
Reptile Caretta caretta Loggerhead T T
Reptile Seminatrix pygaea Black Swamp snake SR
Reptile Regina rigida Glossy crayfish snake SR
Reptile Deirochelys reticularia Chicken turtle SR
Reptile Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T T(S/A)

2.9.2 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Lumber River Basin

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program identifies areas that have outstanding conservation
value, either because they contain rare or endangered species, or because an area provides an
excellent, intact example of an ecological community which naturally occurs in the state. The
Lumber River basin contains more than 150 individual significant natural heritage areas (aquatic
and terrestrial). It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss even a large fraction of these
areas; however, some of the more impressive aquatic areas are mentioned. Refer to Figure A-10
for more information.

Lumber River Watershed

The Lumber River is one of the largest blackwater rivers in the state and it contains notable
wetland communities and high quality floodplain forests. These floodplain forests act as buffers,
preserving the water quality of the Lumber River. Consequently, the river continues to maintain
populations of rare animal species, including fishes such as the pinewoods darter, broadtail
madtom and the sandhills chub. In addition, Drowning Creek, Naked Creek, Ashpole Swamp
and Bear Swamp contain significant fish, mollusk and insect species.

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 (rare in North Carolina, but not yet officially listed as threatened or endangered)
SC = Special Concern (have limited numbers in North Carolina and vulnerable populations in need of monitoring)
FSC = Federal Species of Concern (those under consideration for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act)

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 31
Little Pee Dee Watershed

The significant wetland communities of this watershed consist of Sandhill Seeps, Streamhead
Pocosins, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamps, and Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forests.
Although less extensive than wetlands in other areas, wetland and aquatic communities in the
Sandhills harbor rare plants and animals, including rare fish, amphibians and plants. The most
significant natural areas in this watershed are uplands, especially the dry longleaf pine
communities of the Sandhills Game Land.

Waccamaw River Watershed

Encompassing the Green Swamp, Lake Waccamaw and the Waccamaw River, this watershed is
characterized by biological richness. Much of its outstanding diversity is due to the extensive
wetlands which include High Pocosins, Pine Savannas, Oxbow Lakes, Sand and Mud Bars, and
Wet Pine Flatwoods to name a few. Lake Waccamaw is nationally significant and contains a
number of endemic and near-endemic species, rare species, and natural communities. The most
significant natural areas in the Waccamaw River watershed form corridors along major
waterbodies, connecting Friar Swamp and Lake Waccamaw to the Green Swamp via Juniper
Creek and connecting all of these areas to a rich South Carolina estuary via the Waccamaw
River. In itself, the connectivity of these high quality natural places is an important ecological
feature which lends national significance to these already unique and biologically diverse sites.

L.B. Cahoon et al. conducted research on the unique, natural limestone formation and its effects
on productivity in Lake Waccamaw (Cahoon et al., 1993).

Coastal Area Watershed

The Coastal watershed includes the barrier islands and peninsulas off southeastern North
Carolina, along with a sizeable portion of inland Brunswick County including the Lockwoods
Folly River. The wetland communities of inland Brunswick County are diverse and include
many high quality nonriverine communities. High quality marshes and tidal wetlands line the
edges of the mainland and barrier islands. The barrier islands are home to a number of rare
species such as the federally threatened loggerhead turtle. Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland
Complex is a nonriverine wetland assemblage which lies on the border of two watersheds. The
natural area is punctuated by long, low ridges of sand, remnants of ancient dunes, interspersed
with swales containing shallow peat. Deeper peat fills the large Carolina bays scattered
throughout. The site is the largest hydrologically intact wetland complex in Brunswick County
and one of the largest in the Coastal Plain.

2.9.3 Conservation Lands

There are a number of state-owned lands within the Lumber River basin. The Division of Parks
and Recreation’s lands include the Lake Waccamaw State Park, Lumber River State Park and
Weymouth Woods State Natural Area (which lies in two watersheds). The Wildlife Resources
Commission owns and manages Sandhills Game Land, Bullard and Branch Hunting Preserve,
and Columbus County Game Land. The Division of Coastal Management manages the Bird
Island Coastal Reserve. The Department of Transportation owns over 1,000 acres of mitigation

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 32
sites -- sites which are permanently protected. The Department of Agriculture is protecting the
Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex and already owns over 3,000 acres of this ecologically
rich landscape.

The contribution of private organizations to conservation in the Lumber River basin has been
invaluable. The Nature Conservancy owns and manages a number of nationally significant
nature preserves, from small pine savanna and clay-based Carolina bay preserves to the over
16,000-acre Green Swamp Preserve. The Lumber River Conservancy and other local land trusts
have also been working to protect the landscape of the Lumber River basin from further
fragmentation, benefiting wildlife and improving the quality of life for residents. The Lumber
River Conservancy has acquired a total of 1,966 acres on the Lumber River and its tributaries by
transferring 566 acres to the Lumber River State Park and 43 acres to the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission. In addition, the Lumber River Conservancy continues to hold in fee 1,355.2 acres
along the Lumber River and its tributaries and holds a conservation easement of 486 acres along
Raft Swamp.

2.9.4 Fisheries

From 2000 through 2003, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) sampled the
resident fish community of the Lumber River mainstem at three sites using standard boat-
mounted electrofishing gear. The sampling locations were at Fair Bluff, the State Park at
Princess Ann, and behind Ed’s Tire store in downtown Lumberton. The Fair Bluff and Princess
Ann sites were sampled once each in late summer from 2000 through 2002 (6 total samples).
The Ed’s Tire site was sampled once, in August 2003. The number of species collected at these
sites ranged from 14-20 with a mean of 18 species. Freshwater fish species of recreational
importance found in the Lumber River included largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish,
redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, warmouth, dollar sunfish, spotted sunfish, channel catfish, white
catfish, chain pickerel, redfin pickerel, and yellow perch. All of the species mentioned above,
except catfish, are classified as inland game fish by the NCWRC. Nongame species commonly
encountered included American eel, bowfin, common carp, longnose gar, creek chubsucker,
gizzard shad, spotted sucker, golden shiner, ironcolor shiner, coastal shiner, dusky shiner,
satinfin shiner, brook silverside, and tessellated darter.

Largemouth bass support popular fisheries year-round throughout the river; however, peak
fishing is in late spring and early summer. The Lumber River mainstem provides excellent
fishing for redbreast sunfish from Wagram to Boardman as does the Big Swamp, a major
tributary to the Lumber River. The Big Swamp is a popular blackwater stream providing good
fishing for chain and redfin pickerel, redbreast sunfish, bluegill and largemouth bass. The Big
Swamp is managed under the WRC’s Black Bass Management Plan (NCWRC, 1993) and all
statewide fishing regulations apply.

Anadromous species found within the lower reaches of the Lumber River basin (lower Little Pee
Dee River in South Carolina) include striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, blueback
herring and alewife (Dan Crochet, SCDNR, pers. comm.). Blueback herring and alewife are
generally considered collectively as river herring. Anadromous fish typically spend their adult
lives in saltwater environments and migrate inland into the mainstem of the Great Pee Dee River

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 33
and the lower end of the Little Pee Dee River and its tributaries to spawn. Abundance of these
anadromous species is low in the upper reaches of the Lumber River in North Carolina.

2.9.5 Forestry in the Lumber River Basin

Forest Resources
Nearly two-thirds of the forestland in the Lumber River basin are owned by nonindustrial private
landowners, with most of the remaining one-third owned by forest industry. Less than four
percent of forestland in the basin is in public ownership. For comparison, statewide figures show
that over three-quarters of the forestland are owned by nonindustrial private landowners, while
only 13 percent of forestland is owned by forest industry. All data are from the most recent
study by the USDA-Forest Service in 1990 (USDA-North Carolina’s Forests, 1990, Southeastern
Forest Experiment Stn Resource Bulletin SE-142).

For the period of January 1998 through December 2002, nearly 39,000 acres of private land in
the Lumber River basin were recorded as having been regenerated in trees, with 70 percent of
these acres utilizing cost shared funding through various state or federal programs. Figures for
tree regeneration on forest industry land were not available.

From the most recent data available, only nine businesses in the basin are considered as "Primary
Processors" of forestry-related raw material, which represents just 3 percent of the total number
in North Carolina. A primary processor may include a sawmill, veneer, chip or paper mill.
Forest management is an important land use in the basin despite the low number of actual
processing plants, as evidenced by the higher proportion of land owned by the forest industry
within the basin, when compared to the rest of the state.

Forestry Regulation in North Carolina
Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Chapter 113A, Article 4 referred to as "SPCA"). However, forestry
operations may be exempt from the permit requirements in the SPCA, if the operations meet
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). Detailed information is available on the Water Quality
Section of the DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR) is delegated the authority, by the
Division of Land Resources, to monitor and evaluate forestry operations for compliance with
these laws. In addition, the DFR works to resolve identified FPG compliance questions brought
to its attention. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be resolved by the DFR
are referred to the Division of Land Resources for enforcement action. From 1998 through 2002,
the DFR conducted 1,501 FPG inspections of forestry and/or timber harvesting activities in the
Lumber River basin; 97 percent of the sites inspected were in compliance.

The lower portion of the Lumber River basin falls within the coverage area for one of the DFR’s
Water Quality Foresters, based in the Whiteville District office. The DFR has a Water Quality
Forester assigned in seven of the DFR’s 13 districts across the state. The Water Quality
Foresters conduct FPG inspections, develop pre-harvest plans, and provide training opportunities

Section A: Chapter 2 – Lumber River Basin Overview 34
for landowners, loggers and the public regarding water quality issues related to forestry. Service
Foresters and/or County Rangers handle water quality issues in the remainder of the basin, along
with their other forest management and fire control responsibilities. Contact information for
each district and/or county can be found on the DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

Forestry Best Management Practices
The implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) is encouraged by the DFR
in order to protect the water resources of North Carolina. The Forestry Best Management
Practices Manual describes recommended techniques that may be used to comply with the
state’s forestry laws. The BMP Manual is being revised; publication of the new edition is
expected during 2004. The new version of the manual will be printed in a pocket-sized version
and a full-sized desktop version. The smaller sized, condensed version will allow for greater
distribution and on-site use by loggers and equipment operators.

Among the BMPs promoted for timber harvesting is the use of bridgemats for establishing
temporary stream crossings. Currently, in the Lumber River basin, the DFR provides bridgemats
for short-term loan to loggers for use in all counties located in the basin. The DFR’s Bridgemat
Loan and Education Program is an educational and protection project which promotes the
benefits of using portable bridges for stream crossings, in lieu of using other techniques such as
culverts or hard-surface crossings; both of which have a greater potential to result in
sedimentation. All bridgemat purchases for the DFR’s Program are funded by grant awards from
the USEPA’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 35
Section A - Chapter 3
Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin

3.1 General Sources of Pollution

Human activities can negatively impact
surface water quality, even when the
activity is far removed from the
waterbody. With proper management of
wastes and land use activities, these
impacts can be minimized. Pollutants
that enter waters fall into two general
categories: point sources and nonpoint
sources.

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) (see page 22) permit
from the state.

Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land use activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are
typically carried to waters by rainfall, runoff or snowmelt. Sediment (see page 62) and nutrients
(see page 76) are most often associated with
nonpoint source pollution. Other pollutants
associated with nonpoint source pollution include
fecal coliform bacteria (see page 66), heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance
that may be washed off the ground or deposited
from the atmosphere into surface waters.

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.

Every person living in or visiting a watershed
contributes to impacts on water quality. Therefore, each
individual should be aware of these contributions and
take actions to reduce them.

Point Sources

Piped discharges from:
• Municipal wastewater treatment plants
• Industrial facilities
• Small package treatment plants
• Large urban and industrial stormwater systems

Nonpoint Sources

• Construction activities
• Roads, parking lots and rooftops
• Agriculture
• Failing septic systems and straight pipes
• Timber harvesting
• Hydrologic modifications

Cumulative Effects

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.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 36
3.2 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.

Statewide Classifications

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 A-14 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 and Wetlands of
North Carolina, 2000. Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s website:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html.

Table A-14 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.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 37
Statewide Water Quality Standards

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.

High Quality Waters

There are 140.6 stream miles and 21.0 estuarine
acres of HQW waters (Figure A-11) throughout the
Lumber River basin. 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.

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 one 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 one mile of and draining to HQWs.

Outstanding Resource Waters

There are 20.0 stream miles and 8,840.2 freshwater acres of ORW waters (Figure A-11) in the
Lumber River basin. These waters have excellent water quality (rated based on biological and
chemical sampling as with HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource.

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.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 39
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.

Primary Recreation (Class B and SB)

There are 135.6 stream miles, 115.0 freshwater acres and 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline
classified for primary recreation in the Lumber River basin. Primary recreation is also a
classified use of shellfish harvesting (Class SA) waters.

Water Supply Watersheds

There are 216.7 stream miles classified as water supply watersheds in the Lumber River basin
(Figure A-12). 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.

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.

Shellfish Harvesting

There are 4,280.8 acres of estuarine waters classified for shellfish harvesting (Figure A-12) in the
Lumber River basin. The best uses of Class SA waters are for shellfishing for market purposes
and any other usage specified by the "SB" or "SC" classification. Fecal coliform bacteria (see
page 66) in Class SA waters shall meet the current sanitary and bacteriological standards as

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.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 41
adopted by the Commission for Health Services. Domestic wastewater discharges are not
allowed, and there are provisions for stormwater controls. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0221 for
specifics on water quality standards in Class SA waters.

Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the Lumber River Basin

In 2000, by request from the Division of Water Resources and the Office of Conservation and
Community Affairs’ Natural Heritage Program, Lake Waccamaw (Columbus County) was
designated as ORW (Outstanding Resource Water).

3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Lumber River
Basin

Staff in the Environmental Sciences Branch 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 Lumber 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 Lumber 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.

3.3.1 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;
and a Biotic Index value, which gives an indication of overall community pollution tolerance.
Different benthic macroinvertebrate criteria have been developed for different ecoregions
(mountains, piedmont and coastal plain) within North Carolina. Bioclassifications fall into five
categories ranging from Poor to Excellent.

Extensive evaluation of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina suggests that current
coastal plain criteria are not appropriate for assessing the condition of water quality in these

DWQ monitoring programs for the
Lumber River Basin include:

• Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(Section 3.3.1)
• Fish Assessments
(Section 3.3.2)
• Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
(Section 3.3.3)
• Lake Assessment
(Section 3.3.4)
• Ambient Monitoring System
(Section 3.3.5)

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 42
special systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen,
lower pH, dark-colored water and sometimes very complex braided channels that may cease
flowing during summer low flow periods. This seasonal interruption in flow limits the diversity
of the fauna, requiring special criteria to properly rate such streams. As of December 2002,
DWQ finalized and approved a multi-metric system to refine biological criteria to assign
bioclassifications to these streams. However, the criteria were not finalized during the biological
assessment of the Lumber River basin (1996-2001). Refer to page 57 for more detailed
information.

Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

Appendix II lists all the benthic macroinvertebrate collections in the Lumber River basin
between 1983 and 2001, giving site location, collection date, taxa richness, biotic index values
and bioclassifications. There were 40 benthic samples collected during this assessment period.
Table A-15 lists the most recent bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the
Lumber River basin. Most of the streams listed as "Not Rated" are characterized as swamp
streams, page 57. Streams listed as "Good" or "Excellent" are generally found in the Sandhills
region, in the upper reaches of the Lumber River, and in the Waccamaw River. A designation of
Not Impaired may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification
(less than four meters in width), but meet the criteria for a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification
using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria. Refer to page 58 for more information.

Table A-15 Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Lumber River Basin

Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not
Impaired
Not
Rated Total
03-07-50 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 6
03-07-51 5 0 1 0 0 1 4 11
03-07-52 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
03-07-53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
03-07-54 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
03-07-55 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4
03-07-56 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3
03-07-57 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4
03-07-58 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
03-07-59 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3

Total (#) 7 8 3 0 0 1 21 40
Total (%) 17.5 20 7.5 0 0 2.5 52.5 100

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 43
3.3.2 Fish Assessments

Scores are assigned to fish community 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. Appendix II contains more
information regarding the NCIBI. 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. DWQ plans to sample 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. Refer to page 57 for further
information.

Overview of Fish Community Data

Appendix II lists all of the fish community collections in the Lumber River basin between 1990
and 2001, giving site location, collection date and NCIBI rating. Fish community samples have
been collected at 22 sites in six of the Lumber River subbasins during this assessment period.
Due to the ongoing revision in the NCIBI scoring and rating criteria for the Sandhills and Lower
Coastal Plain region and the development of evaluation protocols for small boat collecting, no
fish community sites were rated. Refer to page 57 for further information.

Lumber River Basin Fish Kills

DWQ has systematically tracked reported fish kill events across the state since 1996. From 1996
to 2000, DWQ field investigators reported 14 fish kill events in the Lumber River basin. Kill
activity extent and fish mortality remained light, never exceeding 50,000. No fish kill reports
were received in 1999. Causes listed on kill reports included algal blooms and low dissolved
oxygen levels. The extent to which fish kills are related to land use activities is not known. For
more information on fish kills in North Carolina, refer to
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Fishkill/2000killrep.pdf.

Overview of Fish Tissue Sampling

One fish tissue survey was conducted by DWQ in the basin in 2000. The purpose of the survey
was to analyze fish tissue samples for metal contaminants. The majority of fish tissue samples
collected from the Lumber River site near Boardman contained metal contaminants at
undetectable levels or at levels less than the EPA, Food and Drug Administration, and State of
North Carolina consumption criteria. However, elevated mercury concentrations were detected
in bowfin, chain pickerel and largemouth bass. These three species are at the top of the food
chain and are most often associated with mercury bioaccumulation in fish tissue in North
Carolina. For more information on this issue, refer to page 59. More detailed information
regarding this sampling event can be found in the appropriate subbasin chapter (03-07-51) in
Section B.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 44
3.3.3 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.

Twenty-six NPDES permits in the Lumber River basin currently require WET testing. Twenty-
four permits have a WET limit; the other facilities have episodic discharges, and their permits
specify monitoring but with no limit. The number of facilities required to monitor WET has
increased steadily since 1987, the first year that WET limits were written into permits in North
Carolina. The compliance rate has risen as well. Since 1996, the compliance rate has stabilized
at approximately 85-90 percent. Figure A-13 summaries WET monitoring compliance in the
Lumber River basin from 1987 to 1999. Facilities with toxicity problems during the most recent
two-year review period are discussed in Section B subbasin chapters.

0
5
10
15
20
25
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
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
Figure A-13 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Lumber River Basin

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 45
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program

Two lakes in the Lumber River basin were sampled as part of the Lakes Assessment Program in
the summer of 2001. These lakes, Pages Lake and Lake Waccamaw, are discussed in the
appropriate subbasin chapter (03-07-50 and 03-07-56) in Section B.

3.3.5 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 420 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide, including 32 stations
in the Lumber River basin. Each station is sampled monthly for 27 parameters. The location of
these stations are listed in Table A-16 and shown on individual subbasin maps in Section B.
Refer to the 2002 Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more detailed analysis of ambient water quality monitoring
data.

3.3.6 Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water
Quality Section

The Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section of the Division of
Environmental Health is responsible for monitoring and classifying coastal waters as to their
suitability for shellfish harvesting for human consumption and inspection and certification of
shellfish and crustacea processing plants. The section also administers the Recreational Beach
Monitoring Program and posts advisories, under the guidance of the State Health Director, for
those waters not suitable for bodily contact activities.

The Shellfish Sanitation Program is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set by the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) contained in the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish Model Ordinance. The NSSP is
administered by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Classifications of coastal waters
for shellfish harvesting are done by means of a Sanitary Survey which includes: a shoreline
survey of sources of pollution, a hydrographic and meteorological survey, and a bacteriological
survey of growing waters. Sanitary Surveys are conducted of all potential shellfish growing
areas in coastal North Carolina and recommendations are made to the Division of Marine
Fisheries of which areas should be closed for shellfish harvesting.

The Recreational Beach Monitoring Program determines the quality of coastal waters and
beaches for suitability for bodily contact activities. Shoreline surveys of potential sources of
pollution that could affect the area are also conducted. Swimming advisories are posted when
bacteriological standards are exceeded or point source discharges are found.

Water samples are collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria from numerous sampling
stations located throughout the coastal area for both the shellfish and recreational programs. The
Recreational Monitoring Program also tests waters for Escherichia coli.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 46
Table A-16 Locations of Ambient Monitoring Stations in the Lumber River Basin by
Subbasin

Station Location Water
Classification
03-07-50
I2090000 Drowning Creek at US 1 near Hoffman C Sw HQW
03-07-51
I2610000 Lumber River at US 401 near Wagram WS-IV & B Sw HQW
I2750000 Lumber River at SR 1303 near Maxton B Sw HQW
I2810000 Lumber River at NC 71 near Maxton B Sw HQW
I3050000 Lumber River at SR 1003 near Pembroke WS-IV & B Sw HQW
I4650000 Lumber River at SR 2121 near Kingsdale C Sw
I5690000 Lumber River at US 74 at Boardman C Sw
I6410000 Lumber River at NC 904 at Fair Bluff B Sw
03-07-52
I3690000 Raft Swamp at SR 1527 near Moss Neck WS-IV Sw
I3730000 Raft Swamp at NC 71 near Red Springs C Sw
03-07-53
I5370000 Big Swamp at NC 211 near Richardson C Sw
03-07-54
I6290000 Ashpole Swamp at SR 2258 near Barnesville C Sw
03-07-55
I0490000 Leiths Creek at SR 1609 near Johns C Sw
I0510000 Leiths Creek at SR 1615 near Smyrna Church C Sw
I1530000 Shoe Heel Creek at SR 1101 near Rowland C Sw
03-07-56
I7730000 Lake Waccamaw at dam spillway B Sw ORW
03-07-57
I8970000 Waccamaw River at NC 130 at Freeland C Sw
I9310000 Seven Creek at NC 905 near Bug Hill C Sw
I9350000 Waccamaw River at SC 9 near Longs, SC FW (B Sw)
03-07-59
I9380000 ICWW at CM R16 at Beaverdam Creek near Long Beach SA HQW
I9385000 Montgomery Slough at SR 1105 near Long Beach SA HQW
I9420000 Lockwood Folly River at NC 211 at Supply SC HQW
I9440000 Lockwood Folly River at Varnum SA HQW
I9450000 Lockwood Folly River at CM R8 at W Ch downstream of Varnum SA HQW
I9500000 Lockwood Folly River at West Channel Islands SA HQW
I9510000 ICWW at CM R42 West of Lockwood Folly River SA HQW
I9530000 ICWW at NC 130 near Holdens Beach SA HQW
I9700000 Shallotte River at Business US 17 at Shallotte SC
I9820000 Shallotte River at Shell Point near Shallotte SA HQW
I9840000 ICWW at NC 904 near Ocean Isle SA HQW
I9880000 ICWW at SR 1172 near Sunset Beach SA HQW
I9916000 Calabash Creek at NC 179 near Calabash SA HQW

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 47
3.4 Other Water Quality Research

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 303(d) list. Methodology for soliciting and
evaluating outside data is presented in North
Carolina’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report (NCDENR-DWQ, February 2003). There
were no data received during the open solicitation
period in October 2000. The next data solicitation
period for the Lumber River is planned for fall 2005.

3.5 Use Support Summary

3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support

Surface waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a
waterbody supports its uses (use support status) is an important method of interpreting water
quality data and assessing water quality.

Surface waters are rated Supporting and Impaired. These ratings refer to whether the classified
uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life protection and recreation) are being met. For
example, waters classified for fish consumption and aquatic life protection (Class C for
freshwater or SC for saltwater) are rated Supporting if data used to determine use support meet
certain criteria. However, if these criteria were not met, then the waters would be rated as
Impaired. Waters with inconclusive data are listed as Not Rated. Waters lacking data are listed
as No Data. More specific methods are presented in Part C of this appendix.

In previous use support assessments, surface waters were rated fully supporting (FS), partially
supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used to identify waters that
were meeting their designated uses. Impaired waters were rated PS and NS, depending on their
degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters lacking data or having inconclusive data.
The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the
EPA requested that states no longer subdivide the Impaired category. In agreement with this

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.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 48
guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Impaired category and rates waters as
Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated or No Data.

Historically, the Supporting use support rating was also subdivided into fully supporting (FS)
and fully supporting but threatened (ST). ST was used to identify waters that were fully
supporting but had some notable water quality concerns and could represent constant, degrading
or improving water quality conditions. North Carolina’s past use of ST was very different from
that of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which uses it to identify waters that
demonstrate declining water quality (EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State
Water Quality Assessments [305(b) Reports] and Electronic Updates, 1997). Given the
difference between the EPA and North Carolina definitions of ST and the resulting confusion
that arose from this difference, North Carolina no longer subdivides the supporting category.
However, these waters and the specific water quality concerns are identified in the Section B
subbasin chapters so that data, management and the need to address the identified concerns are
presented.

Use support methods have been developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk
through the development of use support ratings for six categories: aquatic life, recreation, fish
consumption, shellfish harvesting, water supply and "other" uses. These categories are tied to
the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers, streams and lakes. A
single water could have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the six
use support categories. For many waters, a use support category will not be applicable (N/A) to
the use 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. For more
detailed information regarding use support methodology, refer to Appendix III.

3.5.2 Comparison of Use Support Ratings to Streams on the Section 303(d) List

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters not meeting standards.
EPA must then provide review and approval of the listed waters. A list of waters not meeting
standards is submitted to EPA biennially. Waters placed on this list, termed the 303(d) list,
require the establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) intended to guide the
restoration of water quality. See Appendix IV for a description of 303(d) listing methodology.

Waters are placed on North Carolina’s 303(d) list primarily due to use support rating of
impairment. These use support ratings are based on biological and chemical data and, for some
categories, human health advisories. When the state water quality standard is exceeded, then this
constituent is listed as the problem parameter. TMDLs must be developed for problem
parameters on the 303(d) list. Other strategies may be implemented to restore water quality;
however, the waterbody must remain on the 303(d) list until improvement has been realized
based on either biological bioclassifications or water quality standards.

The 303(d) list and accompanying data are updated as the basinwide plans are revised. In some
cases, the new data will demonstrate water quality improvement and waters may receive a better
use support rating. These waters may be removed from the 303(d) list when water quality
standards are attained. In other cases, the new data will show a stable or decreasing trend in

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 49
overall water quality resulting in the same, or lower, use support rating. Attention remains
focused on these waters until water quality standards are met. Currently, there are 11 waters
listed on the North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report in the Lumber River
basin. These waters are listed for fish consumption advisories related to mercury. These waters
have not been monitored, but still are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis due to the
current fish consumption advice from the NC Department of Health and Human Services. Refer
to Appendix III and page 59 for more information.

3.5.3 Use Support Ratings for the Lumber River Basin

Aquatic Life

The aquatic life use support category is applied to all waters in North Carolina. Therefore, this
category is applied to all 2,232.5 stream miles, 8,965.9 freshwater acres, 4,306.6 estuarine acres,
and the 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin. Table A-17 presents the
aquatic life use support ratings by subbasin for all waters in basin.

Table A-17 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin (1996-2001)

Subbasin Units Supporting Impaired Not Rated No Data Total
03-07-50 miles 66.2 0 50.9 63.6 180.7
acres 35.2 0 0 78.8 114.0
03-07-51 miles 136.7 0 45.2 224.0 405.9
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-52 miles 37.0 0 19.9 85.4 142.3
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-53 miles 15.4 0 52.0 261.7 329.1
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-54 miles 25.7 0 6.7 57.7 91.1
acres 0 0 0 11.8 11.8
03-07-55 miles 106.5 0 28.5 125.2 260.3
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-56 miles 10.5 0 11.6 75.9 98.0
acres 8,840.2 0 0 0 8,840.0
03-07-57 miles 41.2 0 38.7 278.7 358.6
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-58 miles 0 0 29.5 191.0 220.5
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-59 miles 12.7 0 15.4 117.8 145.9
acres 0 0 0 0 0
Est. acres* 2,170.0 0 0 2,136.5 4,306.6
coast** 0 0 0 25.6 25.6
Total miles 451.9 0 299.4 1,481.2 2,232.5
acres 8,875.3 0 0 90.6 8,965.9
Est. acres* 2,170.0 0 0 2,136.5 4,306.6
coast** 0 0 0 25.6 25.6
* Indicates saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
** Indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin, not added to total mileage.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 50
Approximately 32 percent of stream miles (723.1 miles) were monitored for aquatic life; there
were no Impaired stream miles, freshwater acres or estuarine acres. Approximately 99 percent of
freshwater acres (8,875.3 acres) and 50 percent of estuarine acres (2,170.0 acres) were monitored
for aquatic life. Table A-18 summarizes aquatic life use support ratings for the entire basin.

Table A-18 Aquatic Life Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber River
Basin (1996-2001)

Aquatic Life
Use Support Ratings
All
Waters
Percent of
All Waters
Monitored
Waters
Percent of
Monitored Waters
Supporting 451.9 miles
8,875.3 acres
2,170.0 Est. acres
20.2
99.0
50.4
447.6 miles
8,875.3 acres
2,170 Est. acres
61.9
100.0
100.0
Impaired 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
Not Rated 299.4 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
13.4
0
0
275.5 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
38.1
0
0
No Data** 1,481.2 miles
90.6 acres
2,136.5 Est. acres
68.0
1.0
49.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOTAL 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,305.5 Est. acres
723.1* miles
8,875.3* acres
2,170.0* Est. acres

Note: Est. acres indicate saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
* 32.4 percent of all stream miles, 98.9 percent of all freshwater acres, and 50.4 estuarine acres were monitored.
** There are also 25.6 miles of Atlantic coastline with No Data, not added to total mileage.

Fish Consumption

Like the aquatic life use support category, the fish consumption category is also applied to all
waters in the state. Approximately 1 percent of stream miles (21.5 miles) and 100 percent of
coastline miles (25.6 coastline miles) were monitored for fish consumption. Fish consumption
use support ratings are based on fish consumption advice or specific advisories issued by the NC
Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). Refer to page 59 for more information
on this issue. If a limited fish consumption advice, advisory or a no consumption advisory is
posted at the time of use support assessment, the water is rated Impaired. For details about how
use support determinations are made, refer to Appendix III.

Table A-19 presents use support ratings by subbasin in the fish consumption use support
category. Due to high levels of mercury in three freshwater and four saltwater fish species, the
NC Division of Public Health has issued broad health advice for consumption of these fish
caught south and east of Interstate 85. For details about these advisories, refer to the discussion
beginning on page 59. A basinwide summary of current fish consumption use support ratings is
presented in Table A-20.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 51
Fish tissue was monitored in only 1 percent of stream miles (21.5) and 100 percent (25.6
coastline miles) in the Lumber River basin for the fish consumption use support category during
this basinwide planning cycle. A basinwide summary of current fish consumption ratings is
presented in Table A-20. Twenty-two fish tissue samples were collected from the Lumber River
at US 74 at Boardman during this basinwide cycle. All but two samples contained elevated
methylmercury levels that exceeded the state’s recommended criteria. See Section B, Chapter 2
for further discussion.

Table A-19 Fish Consumption Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin (1996-
2001)

Subbasin Units Impaired
03-07-50 miles 180.7
acres 114.0
03-07-51 miles 405.9
acres 0
03-07-52 miles 142.3
acres 0
03-07-53 miles 329.1
acres 0
03-07-54 miles 91.1
acres 11.8
03-07-55 miles 260.3
acres 0
03-07-56 miles 98.0
acres 8,840.0
03-07-57 miles 358.6
acres 0
03-07-58 miles 220.5
acres 0
03-07-59 miles 145.9
acres 0
Est. acres* 4,306.6
coast** 25.6
Total miles 2,232.5
acres 8,965.9
Est. acres* 4,306.6
coast** 25.6
* Indicates saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
** Indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin, not added to total mileage.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 52
Table A-20 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber
River Basin (1996-2001)

Fish
Consumption
All
Waters
Monitored
Waters
Percent
Monitored
Supporting 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
Impaired 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
25.6 coast
21.5 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
25.6 coast
1
0
0
100
Not Rated 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
TOTAL 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
25.6 coast
21.5 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
25.6 coast
1
0
0
100
Note: Est. acres indicate saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
Coast indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin.

Recreation

Like the aquatic life use support category, the recreation category is also applied to all waters in
the state. Table A-21 presents use support ratings by subbasin for all waters in the recreation use
support category. Approximately 12 percent of stream miles (262.2 miles) were monitored by
DWQ. There were no stream miles, freshwater acres or estuarine acres Impaired in the recreation
use support category. Approximately 99 percent of freshwater acres and 47 percent of estuarine
acres were monitored. Table A-22 summarizes recreation use support ratings for the entire basin.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 53
Table A-21 Recreation Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin (1996-2001)

Subbasin Units Supporting Impaired Not Rated No Data Total
03-07-50 miles 15.7 0 0 165.0 180.7
acres 0 0 0 114.0 114.0
03-07-51 miles 75.5 0 0 330.5 405.9
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-52 miles 37.0 0 0 105.3 142.3
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-53 miles 15.4 0 0 313.7 329.1
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-54 miles 6.9 0 0 84.2 91.1
acres 0 0 0 11.8 11.8
03-07-55 miles 52.1 0 5.1 203.1 260.3
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-56 miles 0 0 0 98.0 98.0
acres 8,840.2 0 0 0 8,840.2
03-07-57 miles 32.3 0 0 326.3 358.6
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-58 miles 0 0 0 220.5 220.5
acres 0 0 0 0 0
03-07-59 miles 22.1 0 0 123.7 146.5
acres 0 0 0 0 0
Est. acres* 2,039.2 0 0 2,267.3 4,305.5
coast** 25.6 0 0 0 25.6
Total miles 257.1 0 5.1 1,970.3 2,232.5
acres 8,840.2 0 0 125.7 8,965.9
Est. acres* 2,039.2 0 0 2,267.3 4,306.6
coast** 25.6 0 0 0 25.6
* Indicates saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
** Indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin (not added to mileage total).

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 54
Table A-22 Recreation Use Support Summary for Waters in the Lumber River Basin (1996-
2001)

Recreation All
Waters
Monitored
Waters
Percent of
Monitored Waters
Supporting 257.1 miles
8,840.2 acres
2,039.2 Est. acres
25.6 coast
257.1 miles
8,840.2 acres
2,039.2 Est. acres
25.6 coast
11.5
98.6
47.4
100
Impaired 0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0
0
0
Not Rated 5.1 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 coast
5.1 miles
0 acres
0 Est. acres
0 coast
0.2
0
0
0
No Data 1,970.3 miles
125.7 acres
2,276.3 Est. acres
N/A miles
N/A acres
N/A Est. acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOTAL 2,232.5 miles
8,965.9 acres
4,306.6 Est. acres
25.6 coast
262.2 miles
8,840.2 acres
2,039.2 Est. acres
25.6 coast

Note: Est. acres indicate saltwater (estuarine) acres; all other acres are freshwater acres.
Coast indicates miles of Atlantic coastline in the Lumber River basin.

Water Supply

There are 216.7 stream miles currently classified for water supply in the Lumber River basin. All
water supply waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional
water treatment consultants.

Shellfish Harvesting

There are 4,280.8 estuarine acres classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA) in the Lumber
River basin. All were monitored during the past five years by DEH Shellfish Sanitation (refer to
page 45). Table A-23 presents use support ratings by subbasin for all waters in the shellfish
harvesting use support category. Impaired estuarine acres accounted for 15.7 percent of the total
estuarine acres in the shellfish harvesting use support category. A basinwide summary of current
shellfish harvest use support ratings is presented in Table A-24.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 55
Table A-23 Shellfish Harvesting Use Support Ratings for All Waters Listed by Subbasin
(1996-2001)

Subbasin Units Supporting Impaired Not Rated No Data Total

03-07-59 acres 673.9 3,606.9 0 0 4,280.8

Total acres 673.9 3,606.9 0 0 4,280.8

Table A-24 Shellfish Harvesting Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Lumber
River Basin (1996-2001)

Shellfish
Harvesting
Monitored
Waters
Percent of
Monitored

Supporting 673.9 acres 15.7
Impaired 3,606.9 acres 84.3
Not Rated 0 acres 0
TOTAL 4,280.8 acres 100

Impaired Waters

Table A-25 presents Impaired waters (in all categories) in the Lumber River basin that were
monitored by DWQ within the last five years. The use support category for which a water is
Impaired is indicated in the table. Descriptions of Impaired segments, as well as problem
parameters, are outlined in Appendix III. Management strategies for each water are discussed in
detail in the appropriate subbasin chapter. Maps showing current use support ratings for waters
in the Lumber River basin are presented in each subbasin chapter in Section B.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Lumber River Basin 56
Table A-25 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Lumber River Basin (as of 2003)

Waterbody Subbasin Chapter in
Section B Classification Miles Acres Use Support
Category
Lumber River * 03-07-51 2 C Sw 21.5 0.0 Fish Consumption
Intracoastal Waterway 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2,117.6 Shellfish Harvesting
Lockwoods Folly River 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 606.2 Shellfish Harvesting
Mill Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2.0 Shellfish Harvesting
Mullet Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 5.7 Shellfish Harvesting
Lockwoods Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.2 0.0 Shellfish Harvesting
Spring Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2.4 Shellfish Harvesting
Shallotte River 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 647.3 Shellfish Harvesting
The Mill Pond 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 2.8 Shellfish Harvesting
Sams Branch 03-07-59 10 SA 0.6 0.0 Shellfish Harvesting
The Swash 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 3.9 Shellfish Harvesting
Shallotte Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 135.6 Shellfish Harvesting
Saucepan Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 62.6 Shellfish Harvesting
Jinnys Branch 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 1.0 Shellfish Harvesting
Goose Creek 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 4.2 Shellfish Harvesting
Big Gut Slough 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 0.3 Shellfish Harvesting
Kilbart Slough 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 0.7 Shellfish Harvesting
Calabash River 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 3.4 Shellfish Harvesting
Hangman Branch 03-07-59 10 SA 0.0 10.2 Shellfish Harvesting
Atlantic Coastline * 03-07-59 10 SB 25.6 0.0 Fish Consumption
* Although all waters in the basin are considered Impaired for the fish consumption use support category, only the Lumber River (21.5
miles) and the Atlantic coastline (25.6 miles) were monitored (see page 59).

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 57
Section A - Chapter 4
Water Quality Issues Related to
Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin

4.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the status of specific recommendations made for multiple watersheds in the
1999 Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Current status and future recommendations
are provided for each recommendation. Some of these recommendations were pertinent to
several watersheds or the basin as a whole, while others were specific to a particular stream or
area within a subbasin. Status of the more specific recommendations is reported within the
subbasin chapters in Section B. This chapter also discusses water quality problems that were
commonly noted during the most recent use support assessment (1996-2001). Specific waters
where these problems were observed are described in Section B. Current status and future
recommendations are discussed for each water quality problem.

4.2 Biological Criteria for Assessment of Aquatic Life

DWQ strives to properly evaluate the health of aquatic biological communities throughout the
state. Swamp stream systems, small streams and estuarine waters have presented unique
challenges for benthic macroinvertebrate evaluation, while nonwadeable waters and trout streams
have done the same for fish community evaluations. This section discusses some of these
challenges. Refer to Appendix II for further information.

4.2.1 Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Swamp Streams

Current Status
Extensive evaluation, conducted by DWQ, of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina
suggests that different criteria must be used to assess the condition of water quality in these
systems. Swamp streams are characterized by seasonally interrupted flows, lower dissolved
oxygen and often lower pH. They also may have very complex braided channels and dark-
colored water. Since 1995, benthic macroinvertebrates swamp sampling methods have been used
at over 100 sites in the coastal plain of North Carolina, including more than 20 reference sites.
Preliminary investigations indicate that there are at least five unique swamp ecoregions in the NC
coastal plain, and each of these may require different biocriteria. The lowest "natural" diversity
has been found in low-gradient streams (especially in the outer coastal plain) and in areas with
poorly drained soils.

DWQ has developed a multi-metric system to refine biological criteria to assign
bioclassifications to these streams (as is currently done for other streams and rivers across the
state). However, validation of this swamp criteria was not finalized and approved during this
Lumber River basinwide assessment (1996-2001) but will be used to assign bioclassifications in
the next five-year period. DWQ was required to collect data for several years from swamp
stream reference sites. Now, DWQ can properly evaluate such things as: year-to-year variation

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 58
at reference swamp sites, effects of flow interruption, variation among reference swamp sites,
and the effect of small changes in pH on the benthic macroinvertebrate community.

2003 Recommendations
As of December 2002, DWQ has finalized and approved the biological swamp criteria.
Assessment using the finalized swamp criteria will first be used in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
The next Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (2008) will contain use support on swamp
streams from the finalized criteria.

4.2.2 Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Small Streams

Current Status
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
information from small streams to identify potential impacts to small streams even in cases when
a use support rating cannot be assigned. Gum Swamp, site B-3, in subbasin 03-07-51 (Section B,
Chapter 2) is the only site in the basin which received a Not Impaired bioclassification.

2003 Recommendations
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.

4.2.3 Assessing Fish Communities

Current Status
Fish communities in most wadeable streams can be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using
backpack electrofishers and following the DWQ Standard Operating Procedures. The data are
evaluated using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) (NCDENR-DWQ, 2001).
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.

2003 Recommendations
In order to obtain data from nonwadeable coastal plain streams (that are difficult to evaluate
using benthic macroinvertebrates), a fish community boat sampling method is being developed
with the goal of expanding the geographic area that can be evaluated using fisheries data. This
project may take many years to complete. DWQ will continue to use this monitoring

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 59
information to identify potential impacts to these waters even though a use support rating is not
assigned.

4.3 Mercury Contamination and Fish Consumption

In April 2002, the NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) developed new
guidelines to advise people as to what fish are safe to eat. DWQ considers uses of waters with a
consumption advice or advisory for one or more species of fish to be Impaired. Elevated
methylmercury levels have been found in shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish, largemouth
bass, bowfin (or blackfish) and chain pickerel (or jack), and these fish species fall under the
NCDHHS guidelines.

4.3.1 Mercury-Related Fish Consumption Information

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. However, mercury in wastewater is typically not at
levels that could be solely responsible for elevated levels in fish.

The NC Department of Health and Human Services issues fish consumption advisories and
advice for those fish species which have median and/or average methylmercury levels of 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. As a result of this advice, DWQ considers all waters in the
Lumber River basin to be Impaired for the fish consumption use support category. Refer to
Appendix III for more information regarding use support ratings and assessment methodology.

DWQ has sampled fish tissue from one location on the Lumber River mainstem. Refer to
subbasin chapter 03-07-51 for more information.

Fish Consumption Advice

Fish is an excellent source of protein and other nutrients. However, several varieties of
freshwater fish may contain high levels of mercury, which may pose a risk to human health.
These guidelines will help you make healthy food choices. A "meal" is defined as six ounces of
cooked fish for adults and children 15 years or older and two ounces of cooked fish for younger
children.

Women of childbearing age (15-44 years), pregnant or nursing women, and children under 15:

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 60
• Do not eat shark, swordfish, tilefish or king mackerel; or blackfish (bowfin),
largemouth bass or jack fish (chain pickerel) caught in North Carolina waters south and
east of Interstate 85. These fish likely contain high concentrations of mercury.
• Eat up to two meals per week of other fish.

Men, other women, and children 15 years and older:

• Eat no more than one meal per week of shark, swordfish, tilefish or king mackerel; or
blackfish (bowfin), largemouth bass or jack fish (chain pickerel) caught in North
Carolina waters south and east of Interstate 85. These fish likely contain high
concentrations of mercury.
• Eat up to four meals per week of other fish.

For more information regarding fish consumption, visit the NC Department of Health and
Human Services website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html or call [phone].

4.3.2 2003 Recommendations

Improved Ambient Sampling Techniques
DWQ aims to stay abreast of new technology and sampling techniques to ensure that water
quality data are accurate, precise and of highest value. In 2000, DWQ started training water
quality sampling staff on the new EPA Method 1631 technique. Current monitoring using a
higher detection limit (EPA Method 245.1) has consistently yielded non-detected values, and
DWQ aims to use the 1631 Method to allow detection levels three orders of magnitude lower
than EPA Method 245.1.

NC Eastern Regional Mercury Study
In an effort to better manage state waters that may have methylmercury issues, DWQ initiated a
study using grant funding from EPA Region IV. The study aims to provide information that may
be used in water quality standard and TMDL development. The study goals include:

• determining levels of ambient mercury in the surface water system;
• estimating site-specific total mercury: methylmercury translators to evaluate water quality
criteria;
• develop site-specific water to fish bioaccumulation factors; and
• determine levels of mercury in treatment plant effluent.

DWQ aims to complete this study in April 2004, and results will be available to the public. For
more information, contact the DWQ Planning Branch Modeling/TMDL Supervisor at (919) 733-
5083.

DWQ Mercury Workgroup
DWQ is committed to characterizing methylmercury exposure levels and determining if NPDES
sources need to be controlled. DWQ formed an internal Mercury Workgroup to improve
communication from all programs which directly affect mercury issues (i.e., Pretreatment,
Environmental Sciences, Basinwide Planning, etc.). The workgroup meets as needed to share

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 61
information and determine next steps in addressing mercury issues associated with the aquatic
environment.

DWQ will continue to host an internal workgroup to stay abreast of current mercury issues. The
public has voiced concerns that DWQ should be working on the ecological components and
consequences of mercury bioavailability to biota in these areas and the biogeochemical cycling
and production of methylmercury from associated wetlands along these streams.

DWQ will continue to monitor concentrations of various contaminants in fish tissue across the
state and will work to identify and reduce wastewater contributions of mercury to surface waters.
The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) evaluates mercury levels in rainwater on a regular basis
through the EPA Mercury Deposition Network. EPA continues to focus on nationwide mercury
reductions from stack emissions and through pollution prevention efforts. Pollution prevention
efforts are being investigated on a state and federal level to reduce mercury emissions.
Additionally, a significant historical source of atmospheric mercury deposition from the
Holtrachem plant in Columbus County ceased operations in October 2000. The facility was a
former chlor-alkali manufacturing plant that produced chlorine, sodium hydroxide, sodium
hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid using the mercury cell process.

NPDES Mercury Requirement, Implementation of EPA Method 1631
NPDES permittees have worked with the state to reduce potential risks from this pollutant,
including tasks associated with collecting and reporting more accurate data. The most commonly
used laboratory analysis for total mercury (EPA Method 245.1) has a method detection level of
0.2 µg/l, while the current water quality standard is an order of magnitude lower at 0.012 µg/l.
Thus, true compliance with the water quality standard could not be judged. A more recently
approved laboratory method (EPA Method 1631) has a detection level below the water quality
standard (0.0005 µg/l), which would allow the Division to assess potential water quality impacts
from dischargers more accurately.

A total of 155 facilities statewide will be required to use EPA Method 1631 (or subsequent low
level mercury methods approved by EPA in 40 CFR 136) when analyzing for total mercury
beginning September 1, 2003. These facilities are subject to this new requirement because of
either criteria: 1) the facility has a current total mercury limit in its NPDES permit that is <0.20
µg/l; or 2) the facility has limited instream dilution (i.e., the instream waste concentration (IWC)
is >6 percent). This requirement complies with 15 A NCAC 2B.0505(e)(4), which requires that
"test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels below the permit discharge
requirements".

There are ten facilities in the Lumber River basin which are required to analyze for total mercury
using EPA Method 1631. For more information on NPDES Mercury requirement, visit the
NPDES permitting website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/NPDESweb.html or contact the DWQ
Point Source Branch/NPDES Supervisor at [phone].

Lumber River Basin Mercury TMDL Report
The Lumber River basin currently has several waters listed on the North Carolina 303(d) List for
fish consumption advisories related to mercury (see Appendix V). Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 62
or which have Impaired uses. The 303(d) process requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) be developed for each of the listed waters, where technically feasible. A TMDL, titled
TMDL Study: Mercury Loads to Impaired Waters in the Lumber River Basin, North Carolina,
was developed by DWQ and approved by EPA in 2000. This TMDL describes sources and
allowable Hg loads to surface waters.

Past fish consumption advisories for waters in the Lumber River basin have primarily been in the
Lumber River and Waccamaw River watersheds. There are four aquatic point source dischargers
in the Lumber River watershed and one in the Waccamaw River watershed that analyze effluent
for mercury. However, these aquatic point sources are not believed to be the most significant
source of mercury to surface waters in these watersheds. Rather, a significant portion of mercury
sources is believed to be from atmospheric sources. Mercury emissions to the atmosphere have
increased since the industrial revolution. Local deposition of mercury occurs near an
atmospheric point source; however, much of the atmospheric mercury can travel across countries
and continents.

During this basin cycle, NPDES permit limits will be issued to facilities that show a reasonable
potential to exceed state water quality standards. Other facilities may be asked to monitor
effluent for mercury if it is likely that mercury is present in the effluent. Current and future
NPDES discharges in the Lumber River and Waccamaw River watershed will not be allowed to
increase the total mercury already present in the system.

Even with restrictions on point sources, mercury levels in the Lumber River and Waccamaw
River fish are not likely to change appreciably over the next several years. Thus, efforts should
be made to educate the public in and around the Lumber River and Waccamaw River watersheds
with regard to mercury pollution.

The State of North Carolina alone cannot eliminate the atmospheric deposition of mercury over
surface waters. Actions for reducing atmospheric mercury will also be needed at the national and
international levels. The Mercury Report to Congress (EPA, 1997) lists initiatives under the
Clean Air Act that may reduce atmospheric mercury emissions from industrial sources. The
most significant initiative is emission limits for municipal waste combustors and medical waste
incinerators.

North Carolina, in conjunction with EPA, will need to assess the relative inputs of mercury from
within and outside the state using a regional air quality model. Modeling results may indicate
that a significant portion of the mercury load to the Lumber River and Waccamaw River
watersheds is not due to local sources. In this case, assistance will be needed from EPA to
address mercury emissions reductions across river basins and state boundaries.

4.4 Habitat Degradation

Instream habitat degradation is identified in the use support summary (Appendix III) where there
is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative change in habitat. This term includes
sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles,
loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour. Good instream habitat is necessary for aquatic life
to survive and reproduce. Streams that typically show signs of habitat degradation are in

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 63
watersheds that have a large amount of land-
disturbing activities (construction, mining,
timber harvest and agricultural activities) or a
large percentage of impervious surfaces. 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.

Determining the cause and 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
perhaps 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.

4.4.1 Land Clearing Activities

Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using
appropriate BMPs. In fact, substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to
minimize the (1) amount and (2) time the land is exposed. DWQ’s role in sediment control is to
work cooperatively with those agencies that administer sediment control programs in order to
maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to protect water quality. Where programs are
not effective, as evidenced by a violation of instream water quality standards, and where DWQ
can identify a source, then appropriate enforcement action can be taken. Generally, this entails
requiring the landowner or responsible party to install acceptable BMPs.

As a result of new stormwater rules enacted by EPA in 1999, construction or land development
activities that disturb one acre or more are required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit (refer
to page 69). An erosion and sediment control plan must also be developed and approved for
these sites under the state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) administered by the
NC Division of Land Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre are required to use
BMPs, but a plan is not required.

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Chapter 113A, Article 4 referred to as "SPCA"). However, forestry
operations may be exempted from the permit requirements in the SPCA, if the operations meet
compliance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A

Some Best Management Practices

Agriculture
• Using no till or conservation tillage practices
• Fencing livestock out of streams and rivers
• Leaving natural buffer areas around small
streams and rivers

Construction
• Using phased grading/seeding plans
• Limiting time of exposure
• Planting temporary ground cover
• Using sediment basins and traps

Forestry
• Controlling runoff from logging roads
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas around small
streams and rivers

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 64
NCAC 1I .0101-.0209, referred to as "FPGs") and General Statutes regarding stream obstruction
(G.S. 77-13 and G.S. 77-14). Detailed information is available on the Water Quality Section of
the DFR’s website at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us.

For agricultural activities which are not subject to the SPCA, sediment controls are carried out on
a voluntary basis through programs administered by several different agencies (see Appendix VI
for further information).

4.4.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation

During the 2001 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic
communities at several sites throughout the Lumber 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 (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2002).

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
lining a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water
temperatures as well as the higher levels of dissolved oxygen cooler water provides. Trees,
shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing
streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that
aquatic insects and fish need to survive.

Livestock grazing with unlimited access to the stream channel and banks can cause severe
streambank erosion resulting in degraded water quality. Although they often make up a small
percentage of grazing areas by surface area, riparian zones (vegetated stream corridors) are
particularly attractive to cattle that prefer the cooler environment and lush vegetation found
beside rivers and streams. This concentration of livestock can result in increased sedimentation
of streams due to "hoof shear", trampling of bank vegetation, and entrenchment by the
destabilized stream. Despite livestock’s preference for frequent water access, farm veterinarians
have reported that cows are healthier when stream access is limited (EPA, 1999).

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 (NCDENR-DWQ, February
2002). To obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call [phone],
ext. 558.

4.4.3 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats

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

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 65
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 Lumber River basin is directly related to the absence of riparian vegetation (refer
to Part 4.2.2 above). Organic microhabitats are critical to headwater streams, the health of which
is linked to the health of the entire downstream watershed.

4.4.4 Channelization

Channelization refers to the physical alteration of naturally occurring stream and riverbeds.
Typical modifications are described in the text box. 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).

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).

Channelization of streams within the continental United States 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).

4.4.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation

In March 2002, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) sent a letter to the
Sedimentation Control Commission (SCC) expressing seven recommendations for improving
erosion and sedimentation control, based on a comprehensive performance review of the

Typical Channel Modifications

• Removal of any obstructions,
natural or artificial, that inhibit a
stream’s capacity to convey
water (clearing and snagging).
• Widening, deepening or
straightening of the channel to
maximize conveyance of water.
• Lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 66
turbidity standard conducted in 2001 by DWQ staff. Specifically the recommendations are that
the EMC and SCC:

1. Evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether statutory authority is
adequate to mandate temporary ground cover over a percentage of the uncovered area at a
construction site within a specific time after the initial disturbance of the area. If it is found
that statutory authority does not exist, then the EMC and SCC should prepare resolutions for
the General Assembly supporting new legislation to this effect.
2. Prepare resolutions supporting new legislation to increase the maximum penalty allowed in
the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act from $5,000 to $25,000 for the initial response to a
noncompliant site.
3. Jointly support a review of the existing Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual by DLR. This review should include, but not be limited to, a redesign of the
minimum specifications for sedimentation basins.
4. Evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether the statutory authority
is adequate for effective use of the "Stop Work Order" tool and, if found not to be adequate,
to prepare resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new legislation that will enable
staff to more effectively use the "Stop Work Order" tool.
5. Support increased research into and experimentation with the use of polyacrylamides (PAMs)
and other innovative soil stabilization and turbidity reduction techniques.
6. Jointly support and encourage the awarding of significant monetary penalties for all activities
found to be in violation of their Stormwater Construction General Permit, their Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, or the turbidity standard.
7. Hold those individuals who cause serious degradation of the environment through excessive
turbidity and sedimentation ultimately responsible for restoration of the area.

DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with DLR and local programs that administer
sediment control in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to take appropriate
enforcement action when necessary to protect or restore water quality. However, more voluntary
implementation of BMPs is needed for activities that are not subject to these rules in order to
substantially reduce the amount of sedimentation.

Additionally, more public education is needed basinwide to educate landowners about the value
of riparian vegetation along small tributaries and the impacts of sedimentation to aquatic life.
Funding is available through numerous federal and state programs for landowners to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams (refer to Section C). EPA’s Catalog of Federal
Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines some of these
and other programs aimed at protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling the
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at [phone] or by visiting
the website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html. Local contacts for various
state and local agencies are listed in Appendix VI.

4.5 Fecal Coliform

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

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 67
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 which
could make water unsafe for human contact (swimming) or the harvesting and consumption of
shellfish. 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. In the Lumber River basin, data from DWQ’s ambient monitoring
stations in subbasin 03-07-55 and 03-07-59 (Section B, Chapters 6 and 10) show high levels of
fecal coliform bacteria. Many areas in the coastal region of the basin (subbasin 03-07-59) are
Impaired because of shellfish harvesting area closures. There are also many waters that have
high levels of fecal coliform bacteria associated mostly with stormwater runoff in urban areas.
DWQ is currently developing TMDLs (see Appendix IV) for waters that are on the 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.

Pathogens associated 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.

Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for
recreation and shellfish harvesting (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. The
200 colonies/100ml standard is intended to ensure that waters are safe for water contact through
recreation.

The standard for Class SA waters (waters used for shellfishing) is a median or geometric mean
fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) not greater than 14 MPN/100ml. In addition, not
more than 10 percent of the samples can be in excess of 43 MPN/100ml. Many areas closed to
shellfish harvesting have median levels below 14 MPN/100ml, but fail to meet the second
criteria due to periodic contamination that occurs after moderate to heavy rainfall events.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 68
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
(DEH) has subdivided all of the state’s coastal waters
into shellfish growing areas in which a sanitary survey
is conducted every three years. Beginning in the
summer of 1997, DEH began assessing fecal coliform
levels in coastal recreation waters. These assessments
provide a gauge of water quality along the North
Carolina coast over the short and long-term.

If a certain area along the coast is found to have
potential water quality problems related to stormwater
pipes or high levels of indicator bacteria, health
officials will post signs recommending that people not
swim there or harvest shellfish from the area. The
location will be listed on the DEH website at
(http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/shellfish/), and local media and county health departments will be
notified.

The state does not encourage swimming in surface waters since a number of factors which are
beyond the control of any state regulatory agency contribute to elevated levels of disease-causing
bacteria. 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 and shellfish harvesting 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.

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.

4.6 Water Quality Problems Resulting from Hurricanes

Current Status
The Natural Resources Conservation Services’ (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)
is responsible for emergency de-snagging (removal of piles of woody debris from stream and
river channels) activities. The EWP program is intended to respond to watersheds impacted by
natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and fire. The purpose of the program is to restore
watershed functions to predisaster conditions. Areas selected for debris removal are based on the
amount and location of debris and the increased risk of flooding to improved property (including
cropland) or public safety (primarily roads and bridges). Location maps and a description of all
proposed work are sent to appropriate federal and state agencies for review and comment prior to
contracting the work. The programs’ intent is to consider environmental concerns.

Sources of Fecal Coliform
in Surface Waters

• Urban stormwater
• Wild animals and domestic pets
• Improperly designed or managed
animal waste facilities
• Livestock with direct access to
streams
• Improperly treated discharges of
domestic wastewater, including
leaking or failing septic systems
and straight pipes

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 69
The activity of debris removal is of great interest to DWQ as the excessive removal of debris can
impact the aquatic habitat and aquatic life within a stream reach. The decision to remove debris
is made considering topography, proximity of improved property subject to damage, location of
culverts, bridges and other restrictions, comparison of costs and benefits, and potential
environmental impacts. NRCS, along with other state and federal agencies, are in the process of
developing guidelines for debris removal that will improve the decision-making process with
regard to eligibility and damage thresholds, as well as improving the standards and specifications
for removing woody debris in a manner that leaves enough to provide suitable habitat. Debris
removal under EWP is not intended to remove all debris from stream channels, only that which
causes or may cause an increased risk of flooding or streambank erosion.

Woody debris is the predominant habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates in larger, slower-moving
coastal stream and wetland systems. Therefore, removal of these snags removes the habitat
available for aquatic life. If care is not taken in properly removing woody debris, the
streambanks and streambed can be altered as well as causing moderate to severe habitat
degradation.

2003 Recommendations
DWQ is aware of the need to remove obstructions to water flow, including snags, near bridges or
other structures in emergency situations because of safety concerns, to reduce economic loss in
the event of natural disasters, and to reduce the risk of flooding. NRCS has recently adopted an
Interagency Coordination and Implementation Plan for the EWP program that allows for a direct
and ongoing role for several agencies to play in the implementation process. The method in
which snags are removed, the amount of debris that is removed, and the sites selected should all
be chosen following a thorough review by the various agencies responsible for the
implementation of the EWP program. Local governments that receive additional funding for this
type of activity should also implement the same management strategies as outlined in the EWP
implementation plan to reduce impacts to water quality, aquatic habitat and aquatic life.

4.7 DWQ Stormwater Programs

There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs affects many communities in the Lumber 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. Those 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 A-26.

4.7.1 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.
Phase I also had requirements for ten categories of industrial sources to be covered under
stormwater permits. Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in categories

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 70
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.

4.7.2 NPDES Phase II

Current Status
The Phase II stormwater program is an extension of the Phase I program that will include permit
coverage for smaller municipalities and cover 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.

Two counties (Table A-26) in the basin are automatically required (1990 and/or 2000 US Census
designated Urbanized Areas) to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit under the Phase II rules if
they own and operate a small MS4. The local governments designated based on the 1990 US
Census, that own and operate a small MS4, are required to submit applications for NPDES
stormwater permits by March 2003. Those designated based on the 2000 US Census have until
May 2004 to submit applications. DWQ has developed criteria that will be used to determine
whether other public entities should be required to obtain a NPDES permit and how the NPDES
stormwater program will be implemented in North Carolina. The criteria are contained in
temporary rule language (15A NCAC 2B .0126) that went into effect on November 1, 2002.
DWQ is currently working on permanent state rules to implement the Phase II stormwater
requirements. Also, the South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority was issued a NPDES
Phase II permit in 2001.

2003 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.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 71
Table A-26 Communities in the Lumber River with Stormwater Requirements

NPDES
Local Government Phase I Phase II*
Coastal
Stormwater
Rules
State
Stormwater
Program*
Water Supply
Watershed
Stormwater
Requirements
Municipalities
Aberdeen
Boiling Spring Lakes
Chadbourn
Fairmont
Laurinburg
Lumberton X X
Maxton
Oak Island X
Pembroke X
Pinehurst X
Raeford
Red Springs
Saint Pauls
Southern Pines
Tabor City
Whiteville
Counties
Bladen
Brunswick X X X
Columbus X
Hoke X X X
Moore X X
Montgomery X
Richmond X X
Robeson X X
Scotland X X
Note: More local governments may be designated based on designation criteria set forth in state rule 15A NCAC 2B .0126.
* Counties listed under State Stormwater Program do not pertain to the entire county, just those waters draining to HQWs
and/or ORWs.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 72
4.7.3 State Stormwater Program and Coastal Stormwater Rules

Current Status
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 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) major permit under the
coastal stormwater rules 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
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.

Table A-26 shows the one coastal county, Brunswick County, in the Lumber River basin where
permits may be required under the stormwater management program and the coastal stormwater
rules under CAMA or ORW stormwater rules. Several other counties are depicted in Table A-26
which may be required to obtain permits under the state stormwater rules where development
activities drain to HQW or ORW waters. Note, however, this does not pertain to the entire
county, just the waters in the county which drain to HQWs and/or ORWs. Also, all development
requiring an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more acres) must
obtain a stormwater permit.

2003 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.

4.7.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules

Current Status
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. The program attempts to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff by
utilizing low density development or stormwater treatment in high density areas.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 73
All local governments in the Lumber River basin that have jurisdiction within a water supply
watershed have an EMC approved water supply watershed protection ordinance. Refer to page
39 for more information on classified water supply waters and watersheds in the Lumber River
basin. Table A-26 shows a listing of local governments that have approved water supply
ordinances.

2003 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.

4.8 Protection and Restoration of Streams in Urbanized and Developing
Watersheds

4.8.1 Current Status

Urbanization often has greater hydrologic effects than any other land use, as native vegetation is
replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved roads, buildings, parking lots, and
residential homes and driveways. Urbanization results in increased surface runoff and
correspondingly earlier and higher peak flows after storms. 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 streams and increases suspended
sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of habitat in streams leading to degradation of
benthic macroinvertebrate populations and loss of fisheries (EPA, 1999). Most of the impacts
are in terms of habitat degradation (page 62), but runoff from developed and developing areas
can also carry toxic pollutants and pathogens to surface waters (NCDENR-DWQ, November
2001). For these streams to support aquatic life, good water quality and aquatic habitat must be
maintained.

Currently, in the Lumber River basin in subbasin 03-07-59, there are 3,606.9 estuarine acres
(Class SA) that are Impaired due to the loss of shellfish harvesting where stormwater runoff is a
contributing factor. These waters around the high growth areas of the basin are, and will
increasingly be, impacted by urban stormwater runoff as land use changes from agriculture and
forest uses to urban and suburban land uses.

4.8.2 2003 Recommendations

Maintain Riparian Buffers
The presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands in urban areas can lessen these impacts,
and restoration of these watershed features should be considered where feasible; however, the
amount of impervious cover should be limited as much as possible. Wide streets, huge cul-de-
sacs, 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.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 74
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
lining a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water
temperatures as well as the higher levels of dissolved oxygen cooler water provides. Trees,
shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing
streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that
aquatic insects and fish need to survive (WNCT, 1999).

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 [phone], ext. 558.

Protect Headwater Streams
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. 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. However, impairment of
headwater streams can (and does) impact the larger stream or river.

Headwater areas are found from the mountains to the coast along all river systems and drain all
of the land in a river basin. 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 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, please refer to EPA’s Watershed
Academy website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/watershedmgt/principle1.html.

Reduce Impacts of Future Development
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 Lumber 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.

Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a
manner that minimizes impacts to water quality. These planning efforts must find a balance
among water quality protection, natural resource management and economic growth. Growth
management requires planning for the needs of future population increases as well as developing

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 75
and enforcing environmental protection measures. These actions are critical to water quality
management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin.

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 (below), refer to EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection
and the Center for Watershed Protection website at www.cwp.org. Additional public education is
also needed in the Lumber 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 [phone],
ext. 558.

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 streams beyond existing buffer regulations.
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.

Establish Long–Term Restoration Plans for Impaired Streams
Many streams in existing urban areas have been Impaired for a very long time. Because of the
large amounts of established structures, it is generally considered to be too expensive to
undertake a stream restoration project in many urban watersheds. These streams are important to
ecosystem health, water quality in the basin, and to
the quality of life in general. The following steps
can be incorporated into a long-term redevelopment
plan that will eventually provide opportunity for a
stream restoration project.

1. Maintain good water quality and aquatic habitat
of nearby unimpacted watersheds. Streams in
these watersheds will be needed to establish
reference conditions and as a source of aquatic
life for repopulating restored streams.
2. Identify urban watersheds and encourage
community groups, local business and industry
to become involved in the long-term planning,
fund raising and eventual restoration projects.
3. Target streamside properties that can be
purchased or put into easement as the existing
structures are removed to provide space for restoration of riparian areas.
4. When streamside properties are redeveloped, structures and parking lots should be sited to
provide as much space as possible for restoration of stream channels and riparian areas.

Planning Recommendations
for New Development

• Minimize number and width of
residential streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas (angled
parking and narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways, parking lot
islands and highway dividers to increase
infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer zones
along streams and tributaries.
• Minimize floodplain development.
• Protect and restore wetland/bog areas.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 76
5. Minimize impervious surfaces during redevelopment with the goal of having less impervious
surface than was previously on the site.
6. Install BMPs that can hold and treat stormwater runoff from the site during and after
redevelopment.
7. When enough stream reach has restoration opportunity, proceed with restoration projects.
8. Proactive planning efforts through local land use plans, refer to Section C, Part 1.3.

Although this process may take many years before urban stream water quality and aquatic habitat
are restored, the end product will be an important feature of urban areas.

4.9 Capacity Use Investigation

Current Status
A capacity use area investigation occurs at the request of the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) under the guidance of the Water Use Act of 1967 (G.S. 143-215.11). The
EMC can request an investigation to determine whether rules for capacity use area designation
and procedures for water use permitting should be written. Under G.S. 143-215.13(b) a capacity
use area can be defined if the EMC finds that the combined uses of water have exceeded or
threaten to exceed availability.

Of special concern in the Lumber River basin are the declining groundwater levels in the upper
Cape Fear aquifer centered under the Smithfield Packing, Inc. plant in Bladen County and
extending into Cumberland and Robeson counties. This aquifer supplies the bulk of the drinking
and industrial groundwater needs in this region. Elizabethtown, Bladen County water districts,
White Lake, Bladenboro and other small towns make use of this resource. Groundwater levels
have declined to the top of the aquifer under Smithfield Packing plant; dewatering of the upper
Cape Fear aquifer is already occurring or will occur in the near future. Also, these withdrawals
may cause lateral or vertical saltwater encroachment.

2003 Recommendations
In the fall of 2002, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) requested the Division
of Water Resources (DWR) to submit a report entitled "Proposed Bladen County Capacity Use
Investigation Scope of Work and Timeline for Completion" to the Water Allocation Committee
(WAC). The DWR presented the report to the WAC on December 11, 2002. The WAC
recommended that DWR perform a capacity use investigation and report on the results in 18
months. The EMC approved the recommendation of the WAC on December 12, 2002.

4.10 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas

Current Status
Impacts to streams from agricultural activities can include excessive nutrient loading, pesticide
and herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination and sedimentation. In the coastal plain,
many agricultural areas are ditched, thereby, increasing the delivery of the contaminants to
surface waters.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 77
There are stream miles that are being impacted in areas where agriculture is the predominant land
use, and biologists have noted these impacts to streams related to nutrient loading and
sedimentation. There has been a loss of approximately 41,000 acres of cultivated cropland in the
Lumber River basin since 1982 (page 18). Much of this land has been converted into more
intensive uses such as urban and suburban areas.

2003 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 (DSWC) 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. Refer to Appendix VI for agricultural
nonpoint source agency contact information.

4.11 Confined Animal Operations

Waste produced by confined animal operations in North Carolina is a valuable soil amendment
and source of nitrogen, phosphorus and other crop nutrients, when applied to land in proper
amounts (the traditional waste management approach). But, if not properly used or disposed, or
if applied in amounts that exceed plant needs, animal waste can leach through soil to contaminate
groundwater or can be transported by runoff to pollute rivers and streams.

DWQ recommends that the agricultural community work to implement best management
practices and/or other alternatives to avoid excessive land application.

4.12 Addressing Waters on the State’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report

Current Status
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a 303(d) list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have Impaired uses. States are also required to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed
waters to address impairment. In the last few years, the TMDL program has received a great deal
of attention as the result of a number of lawsuits filed across the country against EPA. These
lawsuits argue that TMDLs have not been developed by states or the EPA. As a result of these
lawsuits, EPA issued a guidance memorandum in August 1997 that called for states to develop
schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list. The schedules for TMDL
development, according to this EPA memo, are to span 8-13 years.

In 2002, per EPA guidance, DWQ submitted required information on a format similar to that
specified in the 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (EPA,
2001b). This integrated report is considered a hybrid report, incorporating elements of old and
new EPA guidance on 305(b) and 303(d) reporting. EPA confirms this report satisfies Clean
Water Act (CWA) requirements for both the 2002 Section 305(b) water quality report and the
2002 Section 303(d) priority ranking of Impaired waterbodies, commonly referred to as the
Section 303(d) list.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 78
The rigorous and demanding task of developing TMDLs for each of these waters during an 8 to
13-year time frame will require the focus of much of the water quality program’s resources.
Therefore, it will be a priority for North Carolina’s water quality programs over the next several
years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters.

2003 Recommendations
For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a priority. The waters in the Lumber River basin that are on this list are
presented in the individual subbasin descriptions in Section B and in Section A, Chapter 3, Table
A-25. For information on listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.

4.13 Golf Courses

There were 17,108 golf courses in the United States in 2000; and in that year, 524 new courses
were built, 707 were under construction, and 1,049 were being planned (NGF, 2001). In North
Carolina, 150,000 acres of new turf areas, including athletic fields, recreational areas, home
lawns and golf courses, are developed each year and the rate of development continues to grow
(NCCES, 1995). Without proper site design, construction practices and maintenance, all turf
areas can serve as a source of sediment, nutrients and other contaminants that can impact water
quality. Golf courses, because of their size, location and historical design practices, can cause
significant impacts to small streams. In order to insure water quality protection, best
management practices (BMPs) that maximize resources while minimizing risk to the
environment should be implemented throughout the life of a golf course from design to
construction to daily maintenance.

Proper site design works with the landscape. The design should designate environmentally
sensitive areas throughout the course and strive to protect them with minimal disturbance. The
design can prevent or minimize erosion and stormwater runoff by maintaining natural vegetated
riparian areas near streams, wetlands and lake shorelines as much as possible. Good design also
minimizes the development of gullies, avoids channelization (straightening) of streams, and
prohibits the unnecessary disruption of streambanks and lake shorelines (NCCES, 1995).

During golf course construction, the exposed soils and steep slopes are highly susceptible to
erosion thus sedimentation to any adjacent streams. North Carolina requires that an erosion and
sediment control plan be submitted to the Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources, 30
days prior to the start of clearing or grading for areas larger than one contiguous acre. In order to
reduce erosion and sedimentation from the site, strategies to effectively control sediment by
minimizing the loss of topsoil and protecting water resources should be implemented throughout
the construction of the course (CRM, 1996). Establishing ground cover as soon as possible after
soil disturbance is one very effective BMP to implement during construction activity (NCCES,
1995).

Maintenance of the golf course also has the potential to impact water quality through improper
fertilization, mowing and irrigation. Fertilizer applications should be based on a soil test to
determine the appropriate timing, level and type of fertilizer necessary for the type of grass on
particular areas of the course. Fertilizers should also not be applied on the steep slopes near
surface waters or directly to lakes, streams and drainage areas. It is a good practice to maintain a

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Lumber River Basin 79
buffer of low-maintenance grasses or natural vegetation between areas of the highly maintained
portions of the golf course and surface waters (NCCES, 1995).

The appropriate level of irrigation for a golf course is vital to the health of the grasses and the
preservation of water quality. Over-irrigating increases the potential for leaching fertilizers,
pesticides and nutrients from the soil and increasing runoff. A properly designed irrigation
system will apply a uniform level of water at the desired rate and time. The amount and
frequency of watering should be based on the type of grass and soil and weather conditions
(NCCES, 1995).

Golfers can also play a role in protecting water quality on the golf course. Players should respect
designated environmentally sensitive areas within the course and recognize that golf courses are
managed areas that complement the natural environment. Golfers should also support and
encourage maintenance practices that protect and enhance the environment and encourage the
development of environmental conservation plans for the course. In addition, golfers can choose
to patronize courses that are designed, constructed and maintained with protection of natural
resources in mind (CRM, 1996).

Section B: Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin 80

Section B

Water Quality Data
and
Information by Subbasin

Section B: Chapter 1 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50 81
Section B - Chapter 1
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50
Drowning Creek and Naked Creek

1.1 Subbasin Overview

The headwaters of the Lumber River are located in this
subbasin and contain the drainage of Drowning and
Naked Creeks and their tributaries. Since this subbasin
lies entirely in the Sandhills ecoregion, it reflects high
water quality from both sandy soil characteristics (which
promote groundwater infiltration) and undisturbed
forested land use. Additionally, Naked Creek (from
source to Drowning Creek) and Rocky Ford Branch (from
source to Naked Creek) are designated ORW (page 36).

Population growth in this subbasin is concentrated around
Southern Pines, Pinehurst and Aberdeen. Pinehurst is the
most rapidly growing municipality in the basin
(population: 9,706). Hoke County will be required to
develop a stormwater program under Phase II (see page
69 for more information on state stormwater programs).
Hoke and Moore counties have rapid growth increases
projected for 2020 (refer to Table A-5 in Section A).
There are four NPDES wastewater discharge permits in
this subbasin. The largest is Moore County WWTP
which discharges 6.7 MGD to Aberdeen Creek. Refer to
Appendix I for identification and more information on
NPDES permit holders. There are also 10 registered
swine operations in this subbasin (see page 23 for more information regarding animal
operations).

Benthic macroinvertebrate community data were collected from four sites. Two of the sites
remained at the same Excellent bioclassification while the other two lowered to a Good
bioclassification. Two additional benthic macroinvertebrate sites were also sampled as part of a
special study investigation. There were eight fish community sites sampled as part of basinwide
monitoring in 2001. Six sites were monitored for the first time. All of the fish community sites
were Not Rated, as biocriteria are being developed (page 57). Four of the fish community sites
were part of a special studies collection. Lakes assessment was conducted on Pages Lake and
was determined to be mesotrophic from the 2001 basinwide sampling. The only ambient
monitoring station is located on Drowning Creek near Hoffman. Monitoring data from this
location reflect conditions in the upper reaches of Drowning Creek, including the entire Naked
and Horse Creeks. There were no parameter exceedances observed from this station during the
assessment period (1996-2001). Figure B-1 shows locations of all biological/chemical
monitoring sites and use support ratings.

Subbasin 03-07-50 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 325 mi2
Land area: 324 mi2
Water area: 1 mi2

Population
2000 Est. Pop.: 31,681 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 80
Surface Water: 1
Urban: 1
Agriculture: 18

Counties
Hoke, Montgomery, Moore,
Richmond and Scotland

Municipalities
Aberdeen, Candor, Foxfire Village,
Hoffman, Norman, Pinebluff,
Pinehurst and Southern Pines

Section B: Chapter 1 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50 83
Table B-1 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-50

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site 1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Jackson Creek2 Moore SR 1122 Excellent Good
B-2 Naked Creek2 Richmond SR1003 Excellent Excellent
B-3 Drowning Creek2 Richmond SR 1004 Excellent Excellent
B-4 Horse Creek2 Moore SR 1102 Excellent Good
SB-1 Mountain Creek2 Hoke SR 1215 -- Not Rated (1998)
SB-2 Quewhiffle Creek2 Hoke SR 1214 -- Not Rated

Fish Community Monitoring Sites
Site 1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
F-1 Drowning Creek2 Moore NC 73 Not Rated Not Rated
F-2 Jackson Creek Moore SR 1122 -- Not Rated
F-3 Naked Creek2 Richmond SR 1003 Not Rated Not Rated
F-4 Deep Creek Moore SR 1113 -- Not Rated
F-5 Aberdeen Creek Moore SR 1105 -- Not Rated
F-6 Quewhiffle Creek Hoke SR 1225 -- Not Rated
F-7 Mountain Creek Hoke SR 1215 -- Not Rated
F-8 Buffalo Creek Hoke SR 1203 -- Not Rated

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted
Parameters3
A-1 Drowning Creek Richmond US 1 I2090000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; F = fish community; A = ambient monitoring station; and SB = benthic macroinvertebrates
special study site.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

Table B-1 contains a summary of monitoring data types, locations and results. Refer to the 2002
Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A,
Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 1.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 1.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 1.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 1.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

Section B: Chapter 1 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50 84
1.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-50 were assigned for aquatic life, fish
consumption, recreation and water supply categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered
Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). All water supply
waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment
plant consultants. Refer to Table B-2 for a summary of use support ratings by category for
waters in the subbasin.

Table B-2 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-50

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored 62.0 mi
35.2 ac
0 15.7 mi

0 mi
0 ac
Supporting
All Waters 66.2 mi
35.2 ac
0 15.7 mi

93.6 mi
0 ac
Monitored 0 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 180.7 mi
114.0 ac
0 0
Not Rated Monitored 50.9 mi 0 0 0
No Data N/A
(No Data)
63.6 mi
78.8 ac
0 165.0 mi
114.0 ac
0
Monitored 112.8 mi
35.2 ac
15.7 mi
0 ac
0 Total
All Waters 180.7 mi
114.0 ac
180.7 mi
114.0 ac
180.7 mi
114.0 ac
93.6 mi
0 ac
Percent
Monitored
62.4% mi
30.9% ac
0% 8.7% mi
0% ac
0%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan in this subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis
because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in
subbasin 03-07-50. Refer to Part 1.4 below for information on waters with noted water quality
impacts.

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 some waters based on this assessment.

Section B: Chapter 1 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50 85
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

1.4.1 Drowning Creek, SR 1004 [AU# 14-2-(6.5)]

Current Status
Drowning Creek at SR 1004 is currently Supporting based on an Excellent bioclassification at
site B-3 with very diverse instream habitat. However, notable bank erosion was observed during
the 1996 and 2001 investigations. Refer to page 62 for more information regarding habitat
degradation.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
In 2000, Sandhills Area Land Trust prepared a riparian corridor conservation design for the
Conservation Trust for North Carolina and the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF).
The goal of the design is to protect existing riparian buffers as wide as the wetlands associated
with Drowning Creek and its tributaries, plus an additional 100-300 feet depending on the
topography and other local conditions.

As of December 2002, the Sandhills Area Land Trust received $600,250 in grants from the
CWMTF to acquire over 671 acres for permanent conservation easements along Drowning,
Naked and Deep Creeks and other tributaries. See page 152 for project descriptions.

1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-50

This 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 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds

Even though the streams in this subbasin are not already Impaired from urban stormwater runoff,
they are threatened throughout by development pressure. In order to prevent aquatic habitat
degradation and impaired biological communities, protection measures should be put in place
immediately. Refer to page 73 for a description of urban stream water quality problems and
recommendations for reducing impacts and restoring water quality.

Section B: Chapter 1 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-50 86
1.5.2 Water Supply Watersheds
(Drowning Creek, Horse Creek, Deep Creek, Jackson Creek)

Over half of the total stream miles (51.8 percent) in this subbasin are classified as water supply
watersheds (WS-II). By definition, these waters are also classified as HQW because
requirements for this level of water supply protection are at least as stringent as those for HQWs.
In addition, Naked Creek and Rocky Ford Branch are designated ORWs. See page 36 for more
information regarding surface water classifications. Local governments having jurisdiction
within the water supply watersheds are encouraged to implement a more protective local water
supply watershed ordinance than the state’s minimal requirements. For example, a more
protective land use ordinance could require a wider natural, undisturbed riparian buffer. Local
governments are also encouraged to retain these WS-II classifications. This will continue further
protection for the water supply watersheds. See page 39 for more information regarding this
issue.

1.5.3 Golf Courses

The number of golf courses in this subbasin is significant, making many of the small towns
centers of golfing activity. Utilizing best management practices during and after construction of
the courses can greatly reduce nonpoint source pollution to adjacent streams. It is critical to
implement and maintain these management practices throughout the life of the golf course. See
page 78 for more information.

Section B: Chapter 2 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-51 87
Section B - Chapter 2
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-51
Lumber River

2.1 Subbasin Overview

The Lumber River mainstem and its tributaries are located
in this subbasin. Although the headwaters are within the
Sandhills ecoregion, the Lumber River below Lumberton
lies in the Coastal Plain ecoregion. Here the Lumber
River is typical of a coastal plain system, wider and
deeper, although a fast flow is maintained. The tributaries
are swamp streams and usually have very little flow
during the summer months.

There are 7,937 acres of managed public lands in this
subbasin as the Lumber River State Park. A total of 115
miles of the Lumber River is of State Natural and Scenic
Water designation and 81 miles have also been designated
as a National Wild and Scenic Water.

The Lumber River mainstem flows through the largest
urbanized area, Lumberton, in the middle portion of the
subbasin (population: 20,795).

There are 14 NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this
subbasin with a permitted flow of 46 MGD. The largest is
Lumberton WWTP discharging to the Lumber River at 10
MGD. There is also one individual NPDES stormwater
permit in the subbasin. Refer to Appendix I for
identification and more information on individual NPDES permit holders. Hoke County will be
required to develop a stormwater program under Phase II (page 69). Hoke County’s estimated
population change is 24,245 for the 2000-2020 year projection (see Table A-5 in Section A for
more details). There are also 16 registered swine operations in this subbasin (see page 23 for
more information regarding animal operations).

There were 11 benthic macroinvertebrate community sites sampled in 2001 as part of the
basinwide monitoring. One of the benthic sites improved and eight sites remained at the same
bioclassification. Two benthic sites were monitored for the first time. The six fish community
sites were Not Rated, as biocriteria are being developed (page 57). Four of the fish community
sites were part of a special study. Fish tissue samples were collected from a site on the Lumber
River mainstem near Boardman. Data were collected from seven ambient monitoring stations as
well (Figure B-2 and Table B-3). Refer to the 2002 Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report
at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on
monitoring.

Subbasin 03-07-51 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 476 mi2
Land area: 470 mi2
Water area: 6 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 48,514 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 57
Surface Water: 1
Urban: 1
Agriculture: 41

Counties
Columbus, Hoke, Robeson and
Scotland

Municipalities
Boardman, Cerro Gordo,
Chadbourn, Fair Bluff, Lumberton,
Maxton, Orrum, Pembroke and
Wagram

Section B: Chapter 2 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-51 89
Table B-3 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-51

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Lumber River2 Scotland SR 1404 Excellent Excellent
B-2 Lumber River2 Robeson NC 71 Excellent Excellent
B-3 Gum Swamp Robeson SR 1312 -- Not Impaired
B-4 Lumber River2 Robeson SR 1003 Excellent Excellent
B-5 Back Swamp Robeson SR 1003 -- Not Rated
B-6 Bear Swamp2 Robeson SR 1339 Not Rated Not Rated
B-7 Lumber River2 Robeson NC 41/72 Excellent Excellent
B-8 Lumber River2 Robeson NC 72 Good-Fair Good-Fair
B-9 Lumber River2 Robeson US 74 Good Excellent
B-10 Porter Swamp2 Columbus SR 1503 Not Rated Not Rated
B-11 Gapway Swamp2 Columbus SR 1356 Not Rated Not Rated

Fish Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
F-1 Back Swamp2 Robeson SR 1003 Not Rated Not Rated
F-2 Gapway Swamp Columbus SR 1356 -- Not Rated
SF-1 Lumber River Robeson NC 73 -- Not Rated
SF-2 Lumber River Robeson SR 2246 -- Not Rated
SF-3 Lumber River Robeson SR 2246 -- Not Rated
SF-4 Lumber River Robeson SR 2246 -- Not Rated
Fish Tissue Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
T-1 Lumber River Columbus US 74 -- --
Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted Parameters3
A-1 Lumber River Scotland US 401 I2610000 None
A-2 Lumber River Robeson NC 71 I2810000 None
A-3 Lumber River Robeson SR 1303 I2750000 None
A-4 Lumber River Robeson SR 1003 I3050000 None
A-5 Lumber River Robeson SR 2121 I4650000 None
A-6 Lumber River Robeson US 74 I5690000 None
A-7 Lumber River Robeson NC 904 I6410000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; F = fish community; SF = fish community special study site; T = fish tissue; and A = ambient
monitoring station.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

Section B: Chapter 2 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-51 90
Use support ratings are summarized in Part 2.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 are discussed in Part 2.3 below.
Current status and future recommendations for newly Impaired waters are discussed in Part 2.4
below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in Part 2.5 below.
Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 2.6. Refer to Appendix
III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

2.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-51 were assigned for aquatic life, fish
consumption, recreation and water supply categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered
Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). All water supply
waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment
consultants. Refer to Table B-4 for a summary of use support ratings by category for waters in
the subbasin.

Table B-4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-51

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored 136.7 mi 0 75.5 mi 0 Supporting
All Waters 136.7 mi 0 75.5 mi 83.7 mi
Monitored 0 21.5 mi 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 406.0 mi 0 0
Monitored 45.2 mi 0 0 0 Not Rated
All Waters 0 0 0
No Data N/A
(No Data)
224.0 mi 0 330.5 mi 0
Monitored 181.9 mi 21.5 mi 75.5 mi 0
All Waters 406.0 mi 406.0 mi 406.0 mi 83.7 mi
Total
Percent
Monitored
44.8% 5.3% 18.6% 0%
Note: All waters includes monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously Impaired Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan in this subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 2 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-51 91
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters

Waters in the following section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

2.4.1 Lumber River [AU# 14-(13)e]

Current Status
All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of fish
consumption advice (page 59). However, 21.5 miles of the Lumber River, from below the
Fairbluff WWTP at SR 1620/72 in Robeson County to NC 74 in Robeson County, are Impaired
on a monitored basis in the fish consumption category. Of the 22 fish samples collected from
this section of the Lumber River, 20 samples contained levels that exceeded the state’s
recommended criterion for methylmercury.

2003 Recommendations
DWQ will monitor for fish tissue in the Lumber River downstream of Fair Bluff for organics and
metals including mercury in 2003. This assessment will be for the purpose of evaluating changes
in levels of methylmercury and other contaminants. Refer to page 59 for more information on
this issue.

2.5 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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

2.5.1 Lumber River [AU# 14-(13)a]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
This section of the Lumber River from US Hwy 301 bypass to SR 2289 is currently Supporting
based on an Excellent bioclassification at site B-7. The watershed drains the urbanized portions
of Lumberton. In this downtown area, the riparian zone, in many places, has been completely
removed. In addition, the Lumberton WWTP continues to experience inflow and infiltration

Section B: Chapter 2 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-51 92
problems after rainfall events. DWQ will continue to work with the facility regarding this issue.
Refer to page 73 for a description of urban stream problems and recommendations for reducing
impacts and restoring water quality.

Also, during this assessment period a private developer was assessed a civil penalty for land
disturbance of filling wetlands and excavation of the floodplain on the Lumber River. DWQ has
required the developer to implement a restoration plan as well as retrofit the development to meet
state stormwater requirements.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
As of December 2002, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation received $950,000 in grants
from the CWMTF to acquire over 3,520 acres for permanent conservation easements along the
Lumber River. Lumberton also received $69,000 in grants from the CWMTF to acquire 24 acres
for permanent conservation easements along the Lumber River. In addition, Lumberton received
a total of $1,692,000 in grants from the CWMTF, a $1,000,000 State Revolving Grant, and a
$1,566,350 State Revolving Loan for wastewater facility upgrades. Also, the towns of Wagram
and Pembroke received CWMTF grants for wastewater facility upgrades. See page 152 for
project descriptions.

2.5.2 Bear Swamp at SR 1339 [AU# 14-9-(1.5)]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Bear Swamp is currently Not Rated. Site B-6 did not meet the necessary criteria to assign
bioclassifications (page 57). Most of the Bear Swamp catchment above site B-6 has a heavy
agricultural land use (page 76). Trees along the riparian zone have been clear-cut, degrading the
habitat (page 62).

Current Water Quality Initiatives
Bear Swamp watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that has been
identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need
and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher
priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects.
Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

2.5.3 Long Branch [AU# 14-18-3]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
An unnamed tributary of Long Branch was impacted by discharge of animal wastewater from a
sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil penalty. DWQ will continue to inspect this
operation.

2.5.4 Porter Swamp [AU# 14-27]

Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives
Porter Swamp is currently Not Rated. Cape Fear RC&D received a $20,150 grant from the
CWMTF for a no-till drill. See page 152 for project description.

Section B: Chapter 2 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-51 93
2.5.5 Cow Branch, Ivey Branch, Gum Swamp and Mill Branch

Current Water Quality Initiatives
Cow Branch, Ivey Branch, Gum Swamp and Mill Branch watersheds comprise four of 20
watersheds in the Lumber River basin that have been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland
restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for
the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more
information.

2.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-51

This 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.

2.6.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds

Most of the streams in this subbasin that are not already Impaired from urban stormwater runoff
are threatened by development pressure throughout this subbasin. In order to prevent aquatic
habitat degradation and impaired biological communities, protection measures must be put in
place immediately. Refer to page 73 for a description of urban stream water quality problems
and recommendations for reducing impacts to and restoring water quality in these waters.

2.6.2 Water Supply Watersheds
(Back Swamp, Lumber River, Bear Swamp, Jacks Branch)

A total of 83.7 total stream miles (20.6 percent) in this subbasin are classified as water supply
watersheds (WS-IV and WS-V). The water supply classifications on the Lumber River are also
designated as HWQ. See page 36 for more information regarding surface water classifications.
Local governments having jurisdiction within the water supply watersheds are encouraged to
implement a more protective local water supply watershed ordinance than the state’s minimal
requirements. For example, a more protective land use ordinance could require a wider natural,
undisturbed riparian buffer. Local governments are also encouraged to retain these water supply
classifications. This will continue further protection for the water supply watersheds. See page
39 for more information regarding this issue.

2.6.3 Timber Harvesting
(Lumber River Mainstem)

Clear-cutting was observed in areas near the banks of the Lumber River. These activities were
most commonly observed during drought conditions. During harvesting activities, the
implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) and meeting compliance
standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines is encouraged by the Divisions of Forest
Resources and Water Quality to avoid stormwater runoff to the adjacent streams and rivers (see
page 33 for more information).

Section B: Chapter 3 – Lumber Subbasin 03-07-52 94
Section B - Chapter 3
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-52
Raft Swamp

3.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin is within Hoke and Robeson counties. The
riparian zones along Raft Swamp and many of the major
tributaries contain wetlands. The upland sections of the
catchments are in heavy agricultural land use.

Little Raft Swamp drains out of the heaviest populated
municipality, Red Springs (population: 3,493). There are
three NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 3.5 MGD (Figure
B-3). The largest is Red Springs WWTP discharging 2.5
MGD. Refer to Appendix I for identification and more
information on NPDES permit holders. Hoke County will
be required to develop a stormwater program under Phase
II (page 69). Hoke County’s estimated population change
is 24,245 for the 2000-2020 year projection, see Table A-
5 in Section A for more details. There are also seven
registered swine animal operations in this subbasin.

There were three benthic macroinvertebrate community
sites sampled in 2001 as part of basinwide monitoring.
All three sites were Not Rated, as biocriteria were being
developed (page 57) to assess swamp streams. One of the
benthic sites was a special study investigation. Data were collected from two ambient
monitoring stations as well. See Figure B-3 and Table B-5 for more information on location and
summaries for these data sites. Refer to the 2002 Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 3.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 3.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 3.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 3.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

Subbasin 03-07-52 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 171 mi2
Land area: 170 mi2
Water area: 1 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 18,848 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 49
Surface Water: <1
Urban: 1
Agriculture: 1

Counties
Hoke and Robeson

Municipalities
Lumberton, Raeford, Red Springs
and Rennert

Section B: Chapter 3 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-52 96
Table B-5 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-52

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Raft Swamp Robeson SR 1505 -- Not Rated
B-2 Little Raft Swamp Robeson SR 1505 -- Not Rated
SB-1 Little Raft Swamp Robeson SR 1776 -- Not Rated

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted Parameters2
A-1 Raft Swamp Robeson SR 1527 I3690000 None
A-2 Raft Swamp Robeson NC 71 I3730000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; SB = benthic macroinvertebrates special study site; and A = ambient monitoring station.
2 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

3.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-52 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish
consumption and water supply categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on
an evaluated basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). All water supply waters are
Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment
consultants. Refer to Table B-6 for a summary of use support ratings by category for waters in
the subbasin.

Table B-6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-52

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life Recreation Fish
Consumption
Water
Supply
Monitored 37.0 mi 37.0 mi 0 0 Supporting
All Waters 37.0 mi 37.0 mi 0 39.4 mi
Monitored 0 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 0 142.3 mi 0
Not Rated Monitored 19.9 mi 0 0 0
No Data N/A 85.4 mi 105.3 mi 0 0
Monitored 56.9 mi 37.0 mi 0 0
All Waters 142.3 mi 142.3 mi 142.3 mi 39.4 mi
Total
Percent
Monitored
40.0% 26% 0% 0%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

Section B: Chapter 3 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-52 97
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
52. Refer to Part 3.4 below for information on waters with noted water quality impacts.

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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

3.4.1 Little Raft Swamp [AU# 14-10-5]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Little Raft Swamp is currently Not Rated. The Red Springs WWTP has experienced past
noncompliance problems with fecal coliform bacteria and ammonia levels as well as toxicity test
failures. The facility is under a Special Order of Consent and is required to address these issues
as well as investigate other alternatives for discharge relocation. In February 2001, DWQ
conducted a benthic macroinvertebrate special study investigation on Little Raft Swamp to
determine if there were impacts from the WWTP. While the conductivity was much lower at the
upstream site than at the downstream site, there was no clear shift in the benthic community.
Refer to the 2002 Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
As of December 2002, the Town of Red Springs received a $351,000 grant from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund for sewer rehabilitation. See page 152 for project description.

3.4.2 Lower Raft Swamp

Current Water Quality Initiatives
Lower Raft Swamp watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that
has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the
greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be

Section B: Chapter 3 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-52 98
given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration
projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-52

This section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not specific
to particular streams. The issues discussed may be related to waters near certain land use
activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.

3.5.1 Water Supply Watersheds
(Raft Swamp, Richland Swamp, Burnt Swamp, White Oak Branch, Holy Swamp)

A total of 39.4 total stream miles (27.7 percent) in this subbasin are classified as water supply
watersheds (WS-IV). See page 36 for more information regarding surface water classifications.
Local governments having jurisdiction within the water supply watersheds are encouraged to
implement a more protective local water supply watershed ordinance than the state’s minimal
requirements. For example, a more protective land use ordinance could require a wider natural,
undisturbed riparian buffer. Local governments are also encouraged to retain these water supply
classifications. This will continue further protection for the water supply watersheds. See page
39 for more information regarding this issue.

Section B: Chapter 4 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53 99
Section B - Chapter 4
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53
Big Swamp

4.1 Subbasin Overview

Big Swamp is the main tributary in this subbasin. Many
of the riparian zones contain undeveloped, forested
pocosin wetlands. Big Swamp and its tributaries are
typical swamp streams with tannin-colored water and very
low summer flows. This subbasin is rural and is heavily
farmed, primarily in row crops. Larger municipalities
include the towns of Bladenboro, Saint Pauls and Parkton.

There are five NPDES wastewater discharge permits in
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 1.2 MGD.
Refer to Appendix I for identification and more
information on NPDES permit holders. Hoke County will
be required to develop a stormwater program under Phase
II (page 69). Hoke County’s estimated population change
is 24,245 for the 2000-2020 year projection (see Table A-
5 in Section A for more details). The largest number of
registered swine animal operations in the entire Lumber
River basin is located in this subbasin at 37 facilities.

Two benthic macroinvertebrate community sites were
sampled in 2001 as part of basinwide monitoring. Both
sites were Not Rated, as biocriteria were being developed
(page 57) to assess swamp streams. One fish community
site was sampled as part of a special study investigation for developing criteria to assess
nonwadeable coastal streams (page 57). Data were collected from one ambient monitoring
station as well. See Figure B-4 and Table B-7 for locations and summaries of these monitoring
sites. Refer to the 2002 Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 4.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 4.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 4.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 4.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

Subbasin 03-07-53 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 454 mi2
Land area: 445 mi2
Water area: 9 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 47,513 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 46
Surface Water: <1
Urban: <1
Agriculture: 37

Counties
Bladen, Columbus, Hoke and
Robeson

Municipalities
Bladenboro, Boardman, Dublin,
Lumber Bridge, Parkton, Rennert,
Saint Pauls and Tar Heel

Section B: Chapter 4 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53 101
Table B-7 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-53

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Little Marsh Swamp Robeson SR 1907 -- Not Rated
B-2 Big Marsh Swamp2 Robeson SR 1924 -- Not Rated
Fish Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
SF-1 Big Swamp Robeson SR 1002 -- Not Rated
Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted Parameters3
A-1 Big Swamp Robeson NC 211 I5370000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; SF = fish community special study site; and A = ambient monitoring station.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

4.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-53 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation and
fish consumption categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Refer to Table B-8 for a summary of use
support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin.

Table B-8 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-53

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life Recreation Fish
Consumption
Monitored 15.4 mi 15.4 mi 0 Supporting
All Waters 15.4 mi 15.4 mi 0
Monitored 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 0 329.1 mi
Not Rated Monitored 48.0 mi 0 0
No Data N/A 265.8 mi 313.7 mi 0
Monitored 63.4 mi 15.4 mi 0
All Waters 329.1 mi 329.1 mi 329.1 mi
Total
Percent Monitored 19.3% 4.7% 0%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

Section B: Chapter 4 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53 102
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
53. Refer to Part 4.4 below for information on waters with noted water quality impacts.

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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

4.4.1 Dunns Marsh [AU# 14-22-1-3-2]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
The Parkton WWTP has experienced significant noncompliance issues with fecal coliform
bacteria levels and failing toxicity tests. The plant has improved and continues to improve
regarding their fecal coliform levels. As of December 2002, the facility continued to experience
toxicity problems associated with chlorine and has made modifications to address this issue.
DWQ will continue to work with the plant regarding failing toxicity tests.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
As of December 2002, the facility received a $670,000 grant from the CWMTF for sewer
rehabilitation. See page 152 for project description.

4.4.2 Mill Swamp [AU# 14-22-9]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Mill Swamp, a tributary of Big Swamp, was impacted by discharge of animal wastewater from a
sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil penalty. DWQ will continue to inspect this
operation.

Section B: Chapter 4 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-53 103
4.4.3 Cold Camp Creek

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Cold Camp Creek watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that
has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the
greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be
given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration
projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

4.4.4 Big Marsh Swamp [AU# 14-22-2]

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Town of St. Pauls received a total of $391,000 in grants from the CWMTF and a $1,186,000
State Revolving Grant for wastewater facility upgrades. See page 152 for project descriptions.

4.4.5 Bryant Swamp [AU# 14-22-15]

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Town of Bladenboro received a $1,863,000 grant from the CWMTF for a wastewater land
application system. See page 152 for project description.

4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-53

This section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not specific
to particular streams. The issues discussed may be related to waters near certain land use
activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.

A large majority of the land use in this subbasin is agriculture. Most of these streams are
threatened by excessive loading of nutrients, contaminants and sedimentation. In order to
prevent aquatic habitat degradation and impaired biological communities, protection measures
must be put in place immediately. Refer to page 76 for a description of water quality problems
and recommendations for reducing impacts to and restoring water quality in these waters.

Section B: Chapter 5 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-54 104
Section B - Chapter 5
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-54
Ashpole Swamp

5.1 Subbasin Overview

Streams in this subbasin are very wide, with tannin-
colored water and little visible current under summer low
flow conditions, typical of coastal plain streams.

Land use is a mixture of agriculture and forest, with
small amounts of urban development near Fairmont.

A total of 15 registered swine operations are located in
this subbasin. There used to be only one NPDES
wastewater discharge permit, Fairmont WWTP, in the
subbasin. However, this WWTP has since constructed a
new regional plant and is now discharging into the
Lumber River, subbasin 03-07-51.

Two benthic macroinvertebrate community sites were
sampled in 2001 as part of basinwide monitoring. Both
sites were Not Rated, as biocriteria were being developed
(page 57) to assess these swampy streams. Data were
also collected from one ambient station. See Figure B-5
and Table B-9 for locations and summaries of these
monitoring sites. Refer to the 2002 Lumber River
Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 5.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 5.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 5.4 below. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all
monitored waters.

Subbasin 03-07-54 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 226 mi2
Land area: 220 mi2
Water area: 6 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 28,523 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 46
Surface Water: 1
Urban: <1
Agriculture: 52

Counties
Robeson

Municipalities
Fairmont, Marietta, McDonald,
Proctorville and Raynham

Section B: Chapter 5 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-54 106
Table B-9 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-54

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Ashpole Swamp2 Robeson NC 41 Not Rated Not Rated
B-2 Hog Swamp2 Robeson SR 2262 Not Rated Not Rated

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted Parameters3
A-1 Ashpole Swamp Robeson SR 2258 I6290000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; A = ambient monitoring station
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

5.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-54 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation and
fish consumption categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Refer to Table B-10 for a summary of use
support ratings by use support category for waters in the subbasin.

Table B-10 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-54

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life Recreation Fish
Consumption
Monitored 25.7 mi 6.9 mi 0 Supporting
All Waters 25.7 mi 6.9 mi 0
Monitored 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 0 91.1 mi
11.8 ac
Not Rated Monitored 4.9 mi 0 0
No Data N/A 60.9 mi
11.8 ac
84.2 mi
11.8 ac
0
Monitored 30.6 mi 6.9 mi 0
All Waters 91.1 mi
11.8 ac
91.1 mi
11.8 ac
329.1 mi
11.8 ac
Total
Percent Monitored 33.6% mi 7.6% mi 0%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

Section B: Chapter 5 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-54 107
5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
54. Refer to Part 5.4 below for information on waters with noted water quality impacts.

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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

5.4.1 Pittman Mill Branch [AU# 14-30-7-4-3]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
The former Fairmont WWTP, which currently does not discharge, did experience noncompliance
issues with total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand in this assessment period.
The town received $1,000,000 from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to construct a new
Fairmont Regional WWTP. This new regional plant which now discharges to the Lumber River
is functioning and in compliance.

5.4.2 Ashpole Swamp [AU# 14-30a&b]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Ashpole Swamp is currently Not Impaired in North Carolina. However, it is Impaired in South
Carolina for dissolved oxygen. Consequently, in the future, North Carolina would be subject to
an interstate TMDL. DWQ will work cooperatively with South Carolina as they develop a
TMDL for Ashpole Swamp.

Section B: Chapter 6 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55 108
Section B - Chapter 6
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55
Gum Swamp, Leith Creek and Shoe Heel Creek

6.1 Subbasin Overview

Most of this subbasin lies within the Sandhills ecoregion,
characterized by sandy streams with year-round flow.
The headwaters of Gum Swamp and Shoe Heel Creek are
located in the Sandhills Game Land Area. Land use is a
mixture of agriculture and forest, with some urban areas
near Laurinburg and Maxton. Portions of Richmond,
Scotland and Robeson counties are located in this
subbasin.

There are 11 NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 5.4 MGD. There
is one individual NPDES stormwater permit in the
subbasin, and there are also 30 registered swine operations
in this subbasin.

There were four benthic macroinvertebrate community
sites sampled in 2001 as part of basinwide monitoring.
Two of the sites remained at the same bioclassification.
One site received a higher bioclassification since the 1996
sampling and the other site received a lower
bioclassification. Five fish community sites were
sampled for the first time in this subbasin. All of the fish
community sites were Not Rated, as biocriteria are being developed (page 57). See Figure B-6
and Table B-11 for locations and summaries of these monitoring sites. Refer to the 2002 Lumber
River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3
for more information on monitoring.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 6.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 6.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 6.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 6.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

Subbasin 03-07-55 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 391 mi2
Land area: 387 mi2
Water area: 4 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 44,626 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 61
Surface Water: 1
Urban: 1
Agriculture: 37

Counties
Gibson, Laurinburg, Maxton,
Rowland and Wagram

Municipalities
Richmond, Robeson and Scotland

Section B: Chapter 6 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55 110
Table B-11 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-55

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Gum Swamp2 Scotland SR 1323 Good-Fair Good
B-2 Gum Swamp2 Scotland US 15/401 Good Good
B-3 Shoe Heel Creek2 Robeson SR 1101 Excellent Good
B-4 Jordan Creek Scotland US 401 Good-Fair Good-Fair

Fish Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
F-1 Gum Swamp Scotland SR 1344 -- Not Rated
F-2 Joes Creek Scotland NC 79 -- Not Rated
F-3 Shoe Heel Creek Scotland SR 1433 -- Not Rated
F-4 Jordan Creek Scotland SR 1324 -- Not Rated
F-5 Juniper Creek Scotland SR 1405 -- Not Rated

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted Parameters3
A-1 Leith Creek Scotland SR 1609 I0490000 None
A-2 Leith Creek Scotland SR 1615 I0510000 Fecal coliform
bacteria
A-3 Shoe Heel Creek Robeson SR 1101 I1530000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; F = fish community; A = ambient monitoring station.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

6.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-55 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation and
fish consumption category. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Refer to Table B-12 for a summary of use
support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 6 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55 111
Table B-12 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-55

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation
Monitored 106.4 mi 0 52.1 mi Supporting
All Waters 106.4 mi 0 52.1 mi
Monitored 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 254.1 mi 0
Not Rated Monitored 28.5 mi 0 5.0 mi
No Data N/A 125.2 0 203.1 mi
Monitored 134.9 mi 0 57.2 mi
All Waters 260.2 mi 260.2 mi 260.2 mi
Total
Percent Monitored 51.8% 0% 22.5%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
55. Refer to Part 6.4 below for information on waters with noted water quality impacts.

6.4 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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

Section B: Chapter 6 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55 112
6.4.1 Leith Creek [AU# 14-33b]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Leith Creek is currently Supporting for the aquatic life category. It is concurrently Not Rated for
the recreation category. Data from the ambient monitoring station I0510000, located at SR 1615
near Smyrna Church in Scotland County, show an elevated fecal coliform bacteria level.
Specifically, these data show more than 20 percent of the samples were greater than 400 colonies
per 100 ml. Typically, these data are identified for potential follow-up monitoring conducted
five times within 30 days as specified by the state fecal coliform bacteria standard. 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 additional five times within 30 days sampling.
However, this stream segment is classified C, Sw and follow-up water quality sampling for Class
C waters will be performed as resources permit. See page 66 for more information on fecal
coliform bacteria. For more detailed information regarding use support methodology, refer to
Appendix III.

Current Water Quality Initiative
The Town of Gibson received a $286,500 grant from the CWMTF to rehabilitate the wastewater
collection system. See page 152 for project description.

6.4.2 Shoe Heel Creek [AU# 14-34]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Shoe Heel Creek at SR 1101 in Robeson County is currently Supporting based on a Good
bioclassification at site B-3. However, the bioclassification has lowered from the 1996 sample.
DWQ will continue to monitor this site to determine if there are any long-term changes in water
quality. Rowland WWTP has been noncompliant with inflow and infiltration limits. The facility
is currently on a Special Order of Consent. DWQ will continue to work with the facility to
rectify their issue.

Current Water Quality Initiative
During this assessment period (1996-2001), the Town of Wagram tied into Laurinburg-Maxton
Airport WWTP which eliminated the town’s septic system.

6.4.3 Jordan Creek [AU# 14-34-4-(2)]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Jordan Creek at US 401 in Scotland County has the same bioclassification as in 1996 and
currently is Supporting based on a Good-Fair bioclassification at site B-4. However, the stream
appears to be channelized at the US 401 bridge and sand has filled in many of the pools. A lack
of good instream habitat was also noted in the 2001 assessment, thus, resulting in a benthic
macroinvertebrate abundance decline. DWQ will continue to monitor this site to determine if
there are any long-term changes in water quality.

Section B: Chapter 6 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-55 113
6.4.4 Upper Beaverdam Creek [AU# 14-32-9]

Current Water Quality Initiative
NC Wildlife Resources Commission received a $46,000 grant from the CWMTF to acquire 100
acres along Upper Beaverdam Creek. See page 152 for project description.

6.4.5 Panther Swamp/Bear Creek, Wilkinson Creek and Mitchell Swamp

Current Water Quality Initiatives
Panther Swamp/Bear Creek, Wilkinson Creek and Mitchell Swamp watersheds comprise three of
20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that have been identified by the NC Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and
wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than nontargeted
watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 147 in Section
C for more information.

6.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-55

This 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.

Most of the streams in this subbasin that are not already Impaired from urban stormwater runoff
are threatened by development pressure throughout this subbasin. In order to prevent aquatic
habitat degradation and impaired biological communities, protection measures must be put in
place immediately. Refer to page 73 for a description of urban stream water quality problems
and recommendations for reducing impacts to and restoring water quality in these waters.

Section B: Chapter 7 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56 114
Section B - Chapter 7
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56
Lake Waccamaw, Big Creek, Upper Waccamaw River and Bogue Swamp

7.1 Subbasin Overview

Land use in this subbasin is primarily forested and
agriculture with some developed areas around Lake
Waccamaw. Portions of Bladen and Columbus counties
are located in this subbasin. All tributary streams tend to
be intermittent with little or no flow during summer
months. This pattern is related to the poorly drained soils
of the region with little storage of groundwater.

There are 1,732 acres of managed public lands in this
subbasin associated with the Lake Waccamaw State Park.
Lake Waccamaw is the largest natural bay lake in
southeastern North Carolina and is widely considered to
be one of the most unique lakes in southeastern United
States. The shallow, clear, high water quality and
limestone bluffs along Lake Waccamaw’s north shore
neutralizes the lake’s water and provides a unique habitat
for a very diverse aquatic community such as endemic
fish and mollusk species. In 2000, Lake Waccamaw was
designated an Outstanding Resource Water (see page 36,
regarding surface water classifications). The Town of
Lake Waccamaw, in conjunction with Friends of Lake
Waccamaw State Park, has received a Section 319 grant to reduce nonpoint source impacts to the
lake (refer to Section C for more information).

There are two NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow
of 0.4 MGD. Refer to Appendix I for identification and more information on individual NPDES
permit holders. There are six registered swine operations in this subbasin.

Three benthic macroinvertebrate community sites were sampled (Figure B-7 and Table B-13) in
2001 as part of basinwide monitoring. Both sites on Friar Swamp were Not Rated, as biocriteria
were being developed (page 57) to assess these swampy streams. Lakes assessment was also
conducted in 2001 on Lake Waccamaw as part of basinwide monitoring. Data showed
mesotrophic to oligotrophic conditions, with generally low to moderate nutrient concentrations
for the lake. Data were also collected from one ambient station. Refer to the 2002 Lumber River
Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for
more information on monitoring.

Subbasin 03-07-56 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 216 mi2
Land area: 202 mi2
Water area: 14 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 10,959 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 79
Surface Water: 7
Urban: 1
Agriculture: 13

Counties
Bladen and Columbus

Municipalities
Bolton and Lake Waccamaw

Section B: Chapter 7 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56 116
Table B-13 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-56

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Waccamaw River2 Columbus SR 1928 -- Good
B-2 Friar Swamp Columbus SR 1740 Not Rated Not Rated
SB-1 Friar Swamp Columbus SR 1740 Not Rated
(1997-1999)
--

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted Parameters3
A-1 Waccamaw River Columbus Dam spillway I7730000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; SB = benthic macroinvertebrates special study site; A = ambient monitoring station.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 7.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 7.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 7.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 7.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

7.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-56 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation and
fish consumption categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Refer to Table B-14 for a summary of use
support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 7 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56 117
Table B-14 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-56

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation
Monitored 10.5 mi
8,840.2 ac
0 8,840.2 ac Supporting
All Waters 10.5 mi
8,840.2 ac
0 8,840.2 ac
Monitored 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 98.0 mi
8,840.2 ac
0
Not Rated Monitored 12.0 mi 0 0
No Data N/A 75.9 mi 0 98.0 mi
0 ac
Monitored 22.1 mi
8,840.2 ac
0 8,840.2 ac
All Waters 98.0 mi
8,840.2 ac
98.0 mi
8,840.2 ac
98.0 mi
8,840.2 ac
Total
Percent Monitored 22.6% mi
100% ac
0% 100% ac
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
56. Refer to Part 7.5 below for information on waters with noted water quality impacts.

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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

Section B: Chapter 7 – Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-56 118
7.4.1 Upper Waccamaw River [AU# 15-(1)c]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Upper Waccamaw River at SR 1928 in Columbus County is currently Supporting based on a
Good bioclassification from the B-1 site. Habitat degradation (page 62) was noted with bank
erosion, breaks in riparian zones and de-snagging efforts. When last sampled prior to this
assessment in 1991, this site received an Excellent bioclassification. DWQ will continue to
monitor this segment to determine if this decline is due to a change in water quality or due to
hurricane-related changes in habitat.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Upper Waccamaw River watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River
basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area
with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed
will be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP
restoration projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

7.4.2 Lake Waccamaw [AU# 15-2]

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Town of Lake Waccamaw received a $4,500,000 grant from the CWMTF to construct a
stormwater retention system. See page 152 for project description. Lake Waccamaw has also
been funded a $588,000 State Revolving Loan for new collection lines.

7.4.3 Friar Swamp [AU# 15-2-6-3]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Friar Swamp is currently Not Rated. An unnamed tributary of Friar Swamp was impacted by
discharge of animal wastewater from a sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil
penalty. DWQ will continue to inspect this operation.

7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-56

This 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.

Many streams in the subbasin have noted impacts from the recent hurricanes. The biological
community in the streams can recover rapidly if instream habitat is maintained. De-snagging
operations should carefully remove debris from stream channels to restore natural flow and leave
enough instream habitats so the biological community can recover. For more information on this
issue, refer to page 68.

Section B: Chapter 8 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57 119
Section B - Chapter 8
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57
Lower Waccamaw River

8.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin lies partially in Columbus and Brunswick
counties with population growth concentrating primarily
around Tabor City (population: 2,509) and Calabash.
Land use in this subbasin is largely forest and agriculture.
Most of the tributary streams tend to be intermittent with
little or no flow during the summer months.

There are four NPDES wastewater discharge permits in
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 1.6 MGD.
The largest is Tabor City WWTP which discharges 1.1
MGD to Grissett Swamp. Refer to Appendix I for
identification and more information on individual NPDES
permit holders. Brunswick County will be required to
develop a stormwater program under Phase II (page 69).
There are also 15 registered swine operations in this
subbasin.

There were four benthic macroinvertebrate community
sites sampled in 2001 as part of basinwide monitoring.
One site received a Good bioclassification and was last
sampled in 1991. One site increased in bioclassification,
and one site was Not Rated, as biocriteria were being
developed (page 57) to assess these swampy streams. There were two special study sites (SB-1
and SF-1) collected in the subbasin during the assessment period and were Not Rated as
biocriteria are being developed. Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring
stations. Refer to Figure B-8 and Table B-15 for locations and summaries of these monitoring
sites. Refer to the 2002 Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

Subbasin 03-07-57 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 555 mi2
Land area: 552 mi2
Water area: 3 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 37,457 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 74
Surface Water: 1
Urban: <1
Agriculture: 25

Counties
Brunswick and Columbus

Municipalities
Carolina Shores, Calabash, Tabor
City and Shallotte

Section B: Chapter 8 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57 121
Table B-15 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-57

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Waccamaw River2 Columbus NC 130 Good-Fair Good
B-2 Waccamaw River2 Columbus NC 904 -- Good
B-3 Grissett Swamp Columbus SR 1141 -- Not Rated
SB-1 Caw Caw Swamp Brunswick SR 1305 Not Rated Not Rated

Fish Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
SF-1 Seven Creek Columbus NC 905 Not Rated

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted
Parameters3
A-1 Waccamaw River Columbus NC 130 I8970000 None
A-2 Seven Creek Columbus NC 905 I9310000 None
A-3* Waccamaw River Horry SC SC 9 near Longs SC I9350000 None
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; SB = benthic macroinvertebrates special study site; SF = fish community special study site;
and A = ambient monitoring station.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.
* Not shown on map.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 8.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 8.3 below. Water quality issues related to specific waterbodies with noted
impacts are discussed in Part 8.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are
discussed in Part 8.5. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all
monitored waters.

8.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-57 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation and
fish consumption categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Refer to Table B-16 for a summary of use
support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 8 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57 122
Table B-16 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-57

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life Recreation Fish
Consumption
Monitored 41.2 mi 32.3 mi 0 Supporting
All Waters 41.2 mi 32.3 mi 0
Monitored 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 0 358.7 mi
Not Rated Monitored 33.1 mi 0 0
No Data N/A 284.3 mi 326.3 mi 0
Monitored 74.4 mi 32.3 mi 0
All Waters 358.7 mi 358.7 mi 358.7 mi
Total
Percent Monitored 20.7% 9.0% 0%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

8.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
57.

8.4 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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

Section B: Chapter 8 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57 123
8.4.1 Lower Waccamaw River [AU# 15-(1)e]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Waccamaw River at NC 130 and NC 904 in Columbus County is currently Supporting based on
Good bioclassifications at sites B-1 and B-2. However, habitat degradation was noted with steep
and severely eroded riverbanks. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the river to
evaluate possible impacts.

Although, the Waccamaw River is currently Not Impaired in North Carolina, it is Impaired in
South Carolina for dissolved oxygen, copper and mercury. Consequently, in the future, North
Carolina would be subject to an interstate TMDL. DWQ will work cooperatively with South
Carolina as they develop a TMDL for the Lower Waccamaw River.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
In 2000, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust prepared a riparian corridor conservation design
for the Conservation Trust for North Carolina and the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund.
The goal of the design is to protect 59 miles of existing riparian buffers along the Waccamaw
River and Juniper Creek. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission received a $9,000,000 grant
from the CWMTF for acquiring 2,530 acres along the Waccamaw River and Juniper Creek. See
page 152 for project description.

8.4.2 Grissett Swamp [AU# 15-17-1-(5)]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Grissett Swamp is currently Not Rated. Tabor City WWTP experienced noncompliance issues
with fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand and toxicity test failures in
this assessment period. In the spring of 2001, the facility completed a SOC. DWQ staff
continues to work with the facility.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
As of August 2002, Tabor City received a State Revolving Grant of $3,000,000 to extend their
wastewater lines to the Waccamaw River. However, other alternatives are being investigated and
a final solution has not been determined. As of December 2002, Tabor City WWTP received a
$570,000 grant from the CWMTF for wastewater improvements. See page 152 for project
description.

8.4.3 Bear Branch [AU# 15-11]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
The Waccamaw Elementary School-Brunswick County experienced noncompliance issues with
fecal coliform bacteria and ammonia. As of May 2003, the facility’s noncompliance problems
have not been resolved. DWQ continues to work with the facility to rectify the problems.

Section B: Chapter 8 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57 124
8.4.4 Leonard Branch [AU# 15-7-4]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Leonard Branch, a tributary of Juniper Creek, was impacted by discharge of animal wastewater
from a sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil penalty. DWQ will continue to
inspect this operation.

8.4.5 Big Branch [AU# 15-17-1-12-1-1]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Big Branch, a tributary of Beaver Dam Swamp, was impacted by discharge of animal wastewater
from a sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil penalty. DWQ will continue to
inspect this operation.

8.4.6 Juniper Swamp, Upper Waccamaw River, Middle Waccamaw River, Gore Creek
and Big Creek

Current Water Quality Initiatives
Juniper Swamp, Upper Waccamaw River, Middle Waccamaw River, Gore Creek and Big Creek
watersheds comprise five of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that have been identified
by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and
opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher
priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects.
Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

8.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-57

This section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin. The issues
discussed may be related to waters near certain land use activities or within proximity to different
pollution sources.

8.5.1 Impacts of Post-Hurricane De-Snagging on Instream Habitats
(Monie Swamp)

Many streams in the subbasin have noted impacts from the recent hurricanes. Monie Swamp was
not sampled during this assessment period because de-snagging efforts eliminated much of the
important habitat for aquatic fauna. The biological community in the streams can recover rapidly
if instream habitat is maintained. De-snagging operations should carefully remove debris from
stream channels to restore natural flow and leave enough instream habitats so the biological
community can recover. For more information on this issue, refer to page 68.

8.5.2 Green Swamp

A proposed 100-acre landfill by Reigel Ridge LLC in the Green Swamp near the Columbus and
Brunswick County line has been a very contentious issue for local residents and environmental
groups. One primary concern is that a portion of the landfill would be constructed in the

Section B: Chapter 8 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-57 125
floodplain causing potential impacts (leachate) to groundwater and surface water. As of
September 2003, the Division of Solid Waste Management returned the application to Reigel
Ridge LLC for failure to provide sufficient financial information.

8.5.3 Golf Courses
(Caw Caw Swamp, Calabash River)

The number of golf courses in Brunswick County has expanded so vastly over the last five years
making many of the small towns centers for golfing activity. Utilizing best management
practices during and after construction of the courses can greatly reduce nonpoint source
pollution to adjacent streams. It is critical to implement and maintain these management
practices throughout the life of the golf course. See page 78 for more information.

Section B: Chapter 9 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-58 126
Section B - Chapter 9
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-58
White Marsh

9.1 Subbasin Overview

Population growth in the subbasin is concentrated around
Chadbourn and Whiteville. Land use in the subbasin is
mostly forest and agriculture areas. Most streams have a
braided channel, a wide floodplain with little or no flow
during the summer months.

There are six NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 4.27 MGD. The
largest NPDES facility is Whiteville WWTP which
discharges 3.0 MGD to White Marsh. Refer to Appendix
I for identification and more information on individual
NPDES permit holders. There are also 34 registered
swine operations in this subbasin.

There were two benthic macroinvertebrate community
sites sampled (Figure B-9 and Table B-17) in 2001 as part
of basinwide monitoring. Both sites were Not Rated, as
biocriteria were being developed (page 57) to assess these
swampy streams. There are no ambient monitoring
stations located in this subbasin. Refer to the 2002
Lumber River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3
for more information on monitoring.

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 9.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 9.3 below. Water quality issues related to specific waterbodies with noted
impacts are discussed in Part 9.4. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more
information on all monitored waters.

Subbasin 03-07-58 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 308 mi2
Land area: 306 mi2
Water area: 2 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 15,281 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 62
Surface Water: 1
Urban: 1
Agriculture: 37

Counties
Bladen and Columbus

Municipalities
Brunswick, Chadbourn, Clarkton
and Whiteville

Section B: Chapter 9 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-58 128
Table B-17 DWQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Locations and Bioclassifications
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-58

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 White Marsh Columbus SR 1001 -- Not Rated
B-2 Elkton Marsh Bladen SR 1710 Not Rated Not Rated
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates

9.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-58 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation and
fish consumption categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Refer to Table B-18 for a summary of use
support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin.

Table B-18 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-58

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life Recreation Fish
Consumption
Monitored 0 0 0 Supporting
All Waters 0 0 0
Monitored 0 0 0 Impaired
All Waters 0 0 220.5 mi
Not Rated Monitored 18.0 mi 0 0
No Data N/A 202.5 mi 220.5 mi 0
Monitored 18.0 mi 0 0
All Waters 220.5 mi 220.5 mi 220.5 mi
Total
Percent Monitored 8.2% 0% 0%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

9.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

There were no Impaired streams identified in the 1999 Lumber River Basinwide Plan in this
subbasin. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a
fish consumption advice (page 59). There are no other newly Impaired waters in subbasin 03-07-
58.

Section B: Chapter 9 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-58 129
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.
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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

9.4.1 Soules Swamp [AU# 15-4-8]

Current Status and Water Quality Initiative
Chadbourn WWTP was experiencing noncompliance problems with BOD during the assessment
period (1996-2001). The facility received a $1,312,000 grant from the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund and a new plant has been constructed. To date, the facility has been in compliance.

9.4.2 Horseshoe Swamp [AU# 15-4-1-1-2-2]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Horseshoe Swamp was impacted by discharge of animal wastewater from a sprayfield operation.
The owner was assessed a civil penalty. DWQ will continue to inspect this operation.

9.4.3 Elkton Marsh [AU# 15-4-1-1-2]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Elkton Marsh is currently Not Rated. An unnamed tributary of Elkton Marsh was impacted by
discharge of animal wastewater from a sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil
penalty. DWQ will continue to inspect this operation.

9.4.4 Brown Marsh Swamp [AU# 15-4-1-1-1]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
An unnamed tributary of Brown Marsh Swamp was impacted by discharge of animal wastewater
from a sprayfield operation. The owner was assessed a civil penalty. DWQ will continue to
inspect this operation.

9.4.5 White Marsh [AU# 15-4a, b & c]

Current Water Quality Initiative
The Nature Conservancy received a total of $374,000 in grants from the CWMTF to acquire 517
acres along White Marsh. See page 152 for project descriptions.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 130
Section B - Chapter 10
Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59
Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte Rivers

10.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin is entirely located in Brunswick County and
is the only subbasin in the entire Lumber River basin
where all waters drain to the Atlantic Ocean. Population
growth in the subbasin is primarily concentrated in the
coastal communities but also around the towns of
Shallotte and Calabash. Brunswick County has the
highest estimated population change for the 2000-2020
year projection of 39,742 (refer to Table A-5, Section A
for further information).

There are three NPDES wastewater discharge permits in
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 0.02 MGD.
There is also one individual NPDES stormwater permit in
the subbasin. Brunswick County and South Brunswick
Water and Sewer Authority are required to develop a
stormwater program under Phase II (page 69). There is
also one registered swine operation in this subbasin.

There were three benthic macroinvertebrate community
sites sampled in 2001 as part of basinwide monitoring.
One site was Not Rated, as biocriteria were being
developed (page 57) to assess swamp streams. Another
site received a Fair bioclassification, and the last benthic
site sampled was part of a special study investigation.
There was one fish community site sampled and was Not Rated due to biocriteria still in
development. Data were also collected from 13 ambient stations. See Figure B-10 and Table B-
19 for locations and summaries of data from these monitoring sites. Refer to the 2002 Lumber
River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter 3
for more information on monitoring.

The Division of Environmental Health Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality
Section (page 45) has classified 674 acres as approved, 1,426 acres as conditionally approved-
open, 711 acres as conditionally approved-closed, and 1,469 acres as prohibited/restricted.

Subbasin 03-07-59 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 267 mi2
Land area: 260 mi2
Water area: 7 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 21,177 people

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 75%
Surface Water: 3%
Urban: 4%
Agriculture: 18%

Counties
Brunswick

Municipalities
Boiling Spring Lakes, Bolivia,
Carolina Shores, Holden Beach,
Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach,
Shallotte, Sunset Beach and
Varnumtown

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 132
Table B-19 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1996-2001) for Subbasin 03-07-59

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
B-1 Royal Oak Swamp Brunswick NC 211 Good-Fair Not Rated
B-2 Shallotte River2 Brunswick Near US 17 Good-Fair Fair
Good-Fair
(resample 2003)
SB-1 Royal Oak Swamp Brunswick NC 211 Not Rated
(1998)
Not Rated
(1999)

Fish Community Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location 1996 2001
F-1 Royal Oak Swamp2 Brunswick NC 211 -- Not Rated

Ambient Monitoring Sites
Site1 Waterbody County Location Station # Noted
Parameters3
A-1 Intracoastal Waterway Brunswick CM R16 at
Beaverdam Creek
I9380000 None
A-2 Montgomery Slough Brunswick SR 1105 I9385000 Fecal coliform
bacteria*
A-3 Lockwoods Folly
River
Brunswick NC 211 I9420000 None
A-4 Lockwoods Folly
River
Brunswick At Varnum I9440000 Fecal coliform
bacteria*
A-5 Lockwoods Folly
River
Brunswick CM R8 - downstream
of Varnum
I9450000 Fecal coliform
bacteria*
A-6 Lockwoods Folly
River
Brunswick West Channel Islands I9500000 None
A-7 Intracoastal Waterway Brunswick CM R42 West of
Lockwoods Folly River
I9510000 Fecal coliform
bacteria*
A-8 Intracoastal Waterway Brunswick NC 130 I9530000 None
A-9 Shallotte River Brunswick Business US 17 I9700000 None
A-10 Shallotte River Brunswick At Shell Point I9820000 None
A-11 Intracoastal Waterway Brunswick NC 904 I9840000 None
A-12 Intracoastal Waterway Brunswick SR 1172 I9880000 Fecal coliform
bacteria*
A-13 Calabash Creek Brunswick NC 179 I9916000 pH, Fecal
coliform
bacteria*
* Fecal coliform bacteria levels exceeded criteria for shellfish harvesting waters only.
1 B = benthic macroinvertebrates; F = fish community; A = ambient monitoring station; SB = benthic macroinvertebrates special
study site.
2 Historical data available at this site. Refer to Appendix II.
3 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in greater than 10 percent of all samples.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 133
Use support ratings are summarized in Part 10.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 are discussed in Part 10.3 below.
Current status and future recommendations for newly Impaired waters are discussed in Part 10.4
below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in Part 10.5 below.
Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 10.6. Refer to Appendix
III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

10.2 Use Support Summary

Use support ratings (page 47) in subbasin 03-07-59 were assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish
consumption and shellfish harvesting categories. All waters in the subbasin are considered
Impaired on an evaluated basis because of a fish consumption advice (page 59). Also 25.6
Atlantic coastline miles are Impaired in the fish consumption category based on fish tissue
monitoring data.

Refer to Table B-20 for a summary of use support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin.
Use support ratings for waters that were monitored and Impaired for the shellfish harvesting
category in 1999 are presented in Table B-21. Use support ratings for specific waterbodies that
were monitored and Impaired for the shellfish harvesting category in 2003 are presented in Table
B-22 where these waters are identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired
waters list. 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.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 134
Table B-20 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-07-59

Use Support
Rating Basis Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Shellfish
Harvesting
Monitored 22.2 mi
2,170.0 Est. ac
0 22.2 mi
2,039.2 Est. ac
25.6 coast
673.9 Est. ac Supporting
All Waters 22.2 mi
2,170.0 Est. ac
0 22.2 mi
2,039.2 Est. ac
25.6 coast
673.9 Est. ac
Monitored 0 25.6 coast 0 3,607.0 Est. ac Impaired
All Waters 0 146.5 mi
4305.6 Est. ac
0 3,607.0 Est. ac
Not Rated Monitored 5.9 mi 0 0 0
No Data N/A 118.4 mi
2,135.5 Est. ac
0 123.7 mi
2,267.3 Est. ac
0
Monitored 28.1 mi
2,170.0 Est. ac
25.6 coast 22.2 mi
2,039.2 Est. ac
25.6 coast
4,280.8 Est. ac
All Waters 146.5 mi
4,305.6 Est. ac
25.6 coast
146.5 mi
4,305.6 Est. ac
25.6 coast
146.5 mi
4,305.6 Est. ac
25.6 coast
4,280.8 Est. ac
Total
Percent
Monitored
19.2% mi
50.4% Est. ac
100.0% coast 15.2% mi
47.4% Est. ac
100% coast
100%
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

Table B-21 Previously Impaired Shellfish Harvesting (SA) Waters in Subbasin 03-07-59

Name 1999
Status Acres
Calabash (DEH Area A-1) Partially Supporting 1,138
Shallotte River (DEH Area A-2) Partially Supporting 571
Lockwoods Folly River (DEH Area A-3) Partially Supporting 913
Total 1999 Impaired Acres 2,622

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 135
Table B-22 Currently Impaired Shellfish Harvesting (SA) Waters in Subbasin 03-07-59

Name Assessment Unit
Number
DEH Classification
Status *
Acres

Portions of Intracoastal Waterway 15-25 CAO, PRO, CAC 2,118
Portions of Lockwoods Folly River 15-25-1-(16) CAO, PRO, CAC 606.2
Portions of Shallotte River 15-25-1-(10) CAO, PRO, CAC 647.3
Mullet Creek 15-25-1-19 PRO 5.7
Sams Branch 15-25-2-12-(2) PRO 1
Spring Creek 15-25-1-21 PRO 2.4
Jinnys Branch 15-25-2-16-1-(2) PRO 1
Kilbart Slough 15-25-4 PRO 0.7
Mill Creek 15-25-1-18-(2) PRO 2
The Mill Pond 15-25-2-11-(2) PRO 3
The Swash 15-25-2-14 CAO 3.9
Shallotte Creek 15-25-2-15-(3) CAO 135.6
Saucepan Creek 15-25-2-16 PRO 62.6
Goose Creek 15-25-2-16-4-(2) PRO 4.2
Calabash River 15-25-5 PRO 3.4
Hangman Branch 15-25-5-1 PRO 10.2

Total 2003 Impaired Acres 3,606.9
* Division of Environmental Health Classifications: PRO = prohibited; COA = Conditionally Approved-Open; and
CAC = Conditionally Approved Closed.

10.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously Impaired Waters

10.3.1 Impaired Class SA Waters

Portions of Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte Rivers, Intracoastal Waterway and all of Calabash
Creek were partially supporting in the 1999 basin plan because they were classified as prohibited
and conditionally approved closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 45). It was
recommended that management strategies be developed for shellfish harvesting waters. These
strategies included, but were not limited to, reducing NPS runoff, resolving septic system
impacts, and working more closely with other state and local agencies to address all pollution
impacts to SA waters. The differences in acreage estimates between years are not necessarily
related to changes in water quality, but to different methods of estimating acreage and changes in
use support methodology (Appendix III). These waters are discussed below in Part 10.4.1.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 136
10.4 Status and Recommendations of Waters Newly Impaired Waters

10.4.1 Portions of the Intracoastal Waterway, Lockwoods Folly River, Shallotte River,
Mullet Creek, Sams Branch, Spring Creek, Jinnys Branch, Kilbart Slough, Mill
Creek, The Mill Pond, The Swash, Shallotte Creek, Saucepan Creek, Goose Creek,
Calabash River, Hangman Branch

Current Status
Portions or all of these waters are currently Impaired (see Table B-22 for listing and acreages).
These areas are prohibited, conditionally approved-closed or conditionally approved-open to
shellfish harvesting because of bacteria levels (page 66) that do not meet approved area criteria.
All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an evaluated basis because of fish
consumption advice (page 59).

2003 Recommendations
DWQ, DEH SS and NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program (refer to page 156) are developing the
database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish harvesting use support using a frequency of
closure based approach. This database will allow DWQ to better assess the extent and duration
of closures in Class SA waters. These tools are not available for use support determinations in
Class SA waters for the 2003 Lumber River basin assessment. DWQ believed it important to
identify frequency of closures in these waters, resulting in an interim methodology to be used
based on existing databases and GIS shapefiles. This will likely bring changes in reported
acreages in future assessments using the permanent methods and tools that define areas and
closure frequency.

For the 2003 Lumber River basin assessment, DWQ used an interim frequency of closures based
method to assign use support ratings to Class SA waters. DWQ worked with DEH SS to
determine the number of days and acreages that identified conditionally approved-open Class SA
waters which were closed to shellfish harvesting in the Lumber River basin during the
assessment period (September 1, 1996 to August 31, 2001). For the one growing area with
conditionally approved-open (CAO) Class SA waters, DEH SS and DWQ staff defined subareas
(within the larger conditionally approved-open area) that were opened and closed at the same
time. The number of days these conditionally approved-open waters were closed was determined
using proclamation summary sheets and the original proclamations. The number of days that
approved areas in the growing area were closed due to preemptive closures because of named
storms was not counted. DEH SS will continue to monitor bacteriological water quality in these
waters. DWQ, DEH, DCM and DMF are currently developing tools to better track water quality
changes, make use support decisions, and support research in shellfish harvesting waters of
North Carolina (refer to Appendix III for more information).

DMF is in the process of developing Coastal Habitat Protection Plans (CHPP) with DWQ and
DCM. These plans will identify existing and potential threats to habitats important to coastal
fisheries and recommend actions to restore and protect them. The plans will also provide a
framework for adoption of rules to protect habitats vital to coastal fisheries. The plans will help
to assure consistent actions among the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) and the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC). For more

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 137
information on these plans, contact the Habitat Protection Section at [phone] or visit the
CHPP website at http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chpp1.htm.

In November 1999, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) enacted rules designed to protect
coastal waters. The rules require a 30-foot buffer for new development along coastal shorelines
in the 20 CAMA counties. The new rules became effective in August 2000. Visit
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/ for more information on these rules.

A Land Use Plan Review Team authorized by the CRC has recommended better implementation
of land use plans and involvement of local governments in the basinwide planning process. In
September 2000, the team provided the CRC with a set of recommendations to restructure the
existing land use planning program. Since land use plans affect permit decisions, growth
patterns and community visions, any revisions to the process can potentially have widespread
impact to coastal decision-making and inevitably water quality. Therefore, DWQ will play an
active role in land use planning discussions, especially with respect to water quality concerns
(refer to page 145 for more information).

Local governments should consider water quality impacts in all aspects of government
operations. Land use planning should discourage development in wetlands and areas draining to
sensitive coastal areas. Land use plans should incorporate preservation and limited development
of land adjacent to approved shellfish harvesting areas. Best management practices should be
implemented during all land-disturbing activities to reduce runoff and delivery of bacterial
contaminants to shellfish harvesting waters. Local governments with jurisdictions around the
large areas of conditionally approved-open waters should work together with the DENR agencies
to develop strategies for reducing sources and delivery of bacterial contaminants to these waters
in an effort to reduce the extent and duration of temporary closures. A long-term strategy should
be put in place to eventually restore shellfish harvesting to prohibited areas where human
activities have caused these closures.

10.4.2 Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(1)]

Current Status and 2002 Recommendations
The Atlantic Ocean (25.6 coastline miles) is currently Impaired in the fish consumption category
because there is a statewide consumption advice for mercury in fish tissue that is applied to
waters east and south of I-85, including the Atlantic Ocean where king mackerel fish tissue was
analyzed in 1999.

10.5 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are Supporting designated uses based on DWQ’s use
support assessment and are not considered to be Impaired unless otherwise noted. However,
notable water quality problems and concerns have been documented for some waters based on
this assessment. 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#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and the 303(d) Impaired

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 138
waters list. 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.

10.5.1 Calabash River [AU# 15-25-5]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Calabash River is currently Impaired for shellfish harvesting. However, it is observed from the
DWQ ambient monitoring station, I9916000, that the pH values (site A-13) were lower than 6.8
in 18.4 percent of the samples. The 10th percentile illustrates the value of the lower 10 percent of
the measurements. The 10th percentile of pH was 6.7. The state’s standard for saltwater is a
range of 6.8 to 8.5. Possible adjacent swamp waters could be influencing this watershed. It was
also observed at this ambient site that the fecal coliform values exceeded the geometric mean of
14/100 ml in more than 10 percent of the samples for class SA waters. See page 66 for more
information. DWQ will continue to monitor this site.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
Calabash River watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that has
been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest
need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given
higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration
projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority received a $3,000,000 State Revolving Grant for a
new collection system. See page 145 for more information.

10.5.2 Shallotte River [AU# 15-25-2-(1)]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Site B-2 near US 17 was reduced from a Good-Fair bioclassification in 1996 to a Fair
bioclassification during the 2001 assessment. The decrease in bioclassification was possibly due
to drought conditions and subsequent affects of brackish intrusion during the low flow period.
DWQ resampled this site in September 2003 to assess potential drought impacts. The site
assessment in 2003 received a Good-Fair bioclassification. However, this assessment found the
highest number of taxa out of its historical sampling regime including the freshwater/brackish
shrimp, Macrobrachium olfersii. This crayfish-like species inhabits the transitional zones
between fresh and brackish water and is rarely seen. This individual is only the second one
found in North Carolina. The Shallotte River is currently rated Supporting for the aquatic life
category.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Shallotte River watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin that
has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the
greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be
given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration
projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 139
10.5.3 Lockwoods Folly River [AU# 15-25-1-(11) & 15-25-(16)a & b]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
Lockwoods Folly River from north of Varnum to the mouth is Impaired for the shellfish
harvesting category. The data from ambient monitoring sites, I9440000 and I9450000, showed
the fecal coliform values exceeded the geometric mean of 14/100 ml in more than 10 percent of
the samples for Class SA waters. See page 66 for more information. DWQ will continue to
monitor these stations.

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The NC Coastal Land Trust received a $652,000 grant from the CWMTF to acquire 263 acres
along Lockwoods Folly River and Sandy Branch. See page 152 for project description.

Lockwoods Folly River watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber River basin
that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the
greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be
given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration
projects. Refer to page 147 for more information.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a $1,440,000 aquatic habitat restoration project on the Lower
Lockwoods Folly River (see page 144 for details on the project).

10.5.4 Doe Creek [AU# 15-25-1-13]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
A private developer was assessed a civil penalty for land clearing activities where earth and fill
were deliberately placed into wetlands. These activities caused extreme turbid water in an
unnamed tributary to Doe Creek. DWQ has required the developer to implement a restoration
plan.

10.5.5 Mill Creek [AU# 15-25-1-18-(2)]

Current Status and 2003 Recommendations
A private owner was assessed a civil penalty for excavating 19,000 linear feet of ditches in
wetlands. An unnamed tributary of Mill Creek was impacted by this activity. DWQ has required
the owner to implement a restoration plan.

10.5.6 Jinny’s Branch and Saucepan Creek

Current Status and Water Quality Initiatives
Jinny’s Branch and Saucepan Creek are currently Impaired for the shellfish harvesting category.
The Jinny’s Branch/Saucepan Creek watershed comprises one of 20 watersheds in the Lumber
River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an
area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This
watershed will be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for the implementation of
NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 147 in Section C for more information.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 140
10.5.7 Davis Creek

Current Water Quality Initiatives
The Town of Long Beach received a $456,000 grant from the CWMTF to acquire 30 acres along
Davis Creek. See page 152 for project description.

10.5.8 Bird Island

Current Water Quality Initiatives
NC Division of Coastal Management received a $2,750,000 grant from the CWMTF to purchase
Bird Island. See page 152 for project description.

10.5.9 Montgomery Slough [AU# 15-25v]

Current Status
Montgomery Slough is currently Supporting for the aquatic life category. However, it is
currently Impaired for the shellfish harvesting category.

Current Water Quality Initiative
The Town of Oak Island received a total of $2,200,155 from the State Revolving Grants Program
for new collections lines and treatment modifications. See page 145 for more information.

10.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-59

This 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.

10.6.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds

Streams in this subbasin are already impacted from urban stormwater runoff in shellfish
harvesting waters and continue to be threatened development pressure. In order to prevent
aquatic habitat degradation and impaired biological communities, protection measures must be
put in place immediately. Refer to page 73 for a description of urban stream water quality
problems and recommendations for reducing impacts and restoring water quality.

10.6.2 Impacts of Post-Hurricane De-Snagging on Instream Habitats

Many streams in the subbasin have noted impacts from the recent hurricanes. The biological
community in the streams can recover rapidly if instream habitat is maintained. De-snagging
operations should carefully remove debris from stream channels to restore natural flow and leave
enough instream habitats so the biological community can recover. Refer to page 68 for more
information on this issue.

Section B: Chapter 10 - Lumber River Subbasin 03-07-59 141
10.6.3 Golf Courses

The number of golf courses in Brunswick County has grown vastly through the last five years
making many of the small towns’ centers of golf activity. Utilizing best management practices
during and after construction of the courses can greatly reduce nonpoint source pollution to
adjacent streams. It is critical to implement and maintain these management practices throughout
the life of the golf course. See page 78 for more information.

Section C: Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives 142

Section C

Current and Future
Water Quality Initiatives

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 143
Section C - Chapter 1
Current Water Quality Initiatives

1.1 Workshop Summaries

In December 2002, there were two workshops held by DWQ in the Lumber River basin in the
towns of Southern Pines and Bolivia. There were 33 people in attendance representing a variety
of interests. Figure C-1 gives an estimation of groups/interests represented based on information
recorded on attendance sheets.

Figure C-1 Total Attendance by Various Interests at DWQ Water Quality Workshops in the
Lumber River Basin (2002)

DWQ staff gave presentations about general water quality in the Lumber River basin, basinwide
planning and the Wetlands Restoration Program. Participants at each workshop also gave brief
presentations about local water quality initiatives. Workshop attendees were asked to discuss the
following questions in small groups:

1. What are the main threats to water quality in the Lumber River basin?
2. Where are the problem areas or waters?
3. What recommendations do you have for addressing these problems/waters?
4. What local agencies or organizations should be involved in addressing the problems?

A detailed outline of each small group’s discussion of these questions is available upon request.
Good discussion was generated at each workshop, and all of the information was considered and,
in some cases, incorporated into this draft plan. The most frequently cited threats to water
quality identified by workshop participants are discussed below.

Natural Resource
Agencies
Agricultural
Interests
Education
Media
Industry/
Consulting
Environmental
Organizations
Local/Regional
Governments

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 144
Important Issues Basinwide

The most important issues identified by workshop participants were related to development and
nonpoint sources of pollution. Increasing urbanization was a concern identified throughout the
basin in Brunswick, Moore and Robeson counties. Losses of forestland and wetlands, increases
in nutrient loading from many sources, and stormwater runoff were identified as threats to water
quality at the workshops. Issues related to enforcement of existing rules and monitoring, lack of
BMP maintenance, mercury contamination and better drought planning were also of concern.
Refer to Appendix V for summary tables from the workshops.

1.2 Federal Initiatives

1.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration
projects. Approximately $3.46 million is available annually for demonstration and education
projects across the state. 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, including application deadlines and requests for proposals, is available
online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/bigpic.htm.

A total of $227,667 has been funded for two projects in the Lumber River basin that have been
funded (federal Section 319 money must be matched with nonfederal dollars) through the
Section 319 base program between 1999 and 2003.

Many projects sponsored through Section 319 funding have basinwide applications. Many are
demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for the dissemination of information
to the public. Such programs include Friends of Lake Waccamaw State Park, which has been
responsible for hosting education workshops with audio-visuals and on-site demonstrations of
nonpoint source pollution solutions. They also produce and distribute a bimonthly newsletter to
all landowners in Lake Waccamaw area.

Descriptions of the projects listed below and other Section 319 program information are
available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/319.htm.

1.2.2 Lower Lockwoods Folly River (Subbasin 03-07-59)

The US Army Corps of Engineers has a $1,440,000 aquatic habitat restoration project on the
Lower Lockwoods Folly River. This project seeks to improve the water quality and resource
deterioration by modifying (restoring) the tidal circulation through the Galloway Flats and the
Eastern Channel. Also, the placement of oyster culch will be conducted, where needed, to
establish oyster habitat in both Galloway Flats and areas adjacent to the Eastern Channel. The
dredging (construction) phase is expected to be completed in April 2004, in conjunction with
pre- and post-construction monitoring and maintenance (page 144).

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 145
Table C-1 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319

FY Project
Name Agency Project
Area Description Total Amount
Funded
1999 Sandhills Longleaf
Pine Ecosystem/
Waste Management
Project
Environmental
Impact
(RC&D), Inc.
Moore,
Montgomery
and Richmond
counties
Waste Management
(determine the impact of
poultry waste application on
longleaf pine ecosystem)
$61,667
2001 Lake Waccamaw
Nonpoint Source
Management and
Assessment Project
Town of Lake
Waccamaw
Lake
Waccamaw
Management of stormwater
from agricultural and urban
sources, education
$166,000

1.3 State Initiatives

1.3.1 NC Division of Water Quality and NC Division of Coastal Management
Collaboration

North Carolina’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) share similar goals regarding water quality, and each program recognizes the value of
enhanced coordination in accomplishing program missions. In an effort to enhance coordination,
the two programs have agreed to work towards many improved collaborative efforts.
Collaboration is intended to increase collaboration through periodic updates, increased review of
each other’s work products, and joint efforts to provide guidance and technical support between
local land use planning programs and basinwide water quality planning.

Some of agreements include the following:

• DCM will provide written annual updates to DWQ on all types of permit activities occurring
in the coastal region when the CAMA Permitted Activities Database is operational. Until
that time, DCM will provide file access to any DWQ staff to compile the data themselves.
This information will inform DWQ of potential impending cumulative effects of permits
issued through CAMA.
• DWQ will periodically contact DCM district offices to relay information and gain feedback
about the development or implementation of basinwide water quality plans.
• DWQ will discuss the draft basinwide water quality plan with DCM during the public review
phase before soliciting the EMC’s endorsement.
• DWQ will provide water quality use support methodology updates to DCM staff.
• DCM and DWQ to discuss the information provided to local land use planners (i.e., data
packet, water quality designation information, etc.) on an annual basis.
• DCM to update DWQ periodically on local land use plan certifications.
• DCM to update DWQ on incremental reviews of local land use plan implementation pending
recent regulation amendments.
• DCM and the CRC should encourage local governments to participate in the Basinwide
Planning Program throughout its planning cycle. DCM will share local governments’ contact
information with DWQ and distribute DWQ programmatic information. DCM staff will also
attend basinwide planning workshops and public meetings to the extent they can.

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 146
• DCM will provide a list to DWQ of each local government updating its land use plan at least
annually. DWQ will provide each local government updating its plan a summary of the
applicable water quality and basinwide plan information contained within that local
government’s jurisdiction. DWQ will provide the information based on the DWQ basinwide
planning scale.
• DWQ will incorporate or at least acknowledge applicable local policies contained in certified
local land use plans in the development of the respective basinwide plans. In Section C of
the basinwide plans, DWQ will identify those local governments that have developed or
implemented programs directed toward water quality restoration or protection.
• DWQ will review all draft local land use plans, provide comments to DCM within 30 days
identifying potential problem areas, make suggestions for improvements, and identify
violations or potential violations of water quality regulations.
• DCM will update DWQ periodically on the status of permitting analysis/cumulative and
secondary impacts assessment. DCM and DWQ will work cooperatively to determine the
Permitted Activities database query needs. Once the permit tracking system is operational,
DCM will provide access for DWQ to conduct queries.
• DCM and DWQ will discuss the information provided in the Reviewer’s Guide for the
Consideration of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts of Proposed Development in
NEPA/SEPA Documents specifically related to coastal water quality.
• DCM and DWQ to discuss DCM’s guidelines for assessing and mitigating cumulative and
secondary impacts during the CAMA permitting process.

For more information, contact the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone].

1.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program

The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program 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 2002, $3,005,169 was provided for projects in counties wholly or partially in the
Lumber River basin. The projects affected over 52,633 acres and saved almost 269,151 tons of
soil from erosion. Also, 2,614,440 pounds of nitrogen and 342,223 pounds of phosphorus were
saved (NCDENR-DSWC, 2003, ACSP Report: BMP Summary).

Soil and Water Conservation District contacts for the Lumber River basin are included in
Appendix VI or visit the website at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/files/acs.htm for more information.

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 147
1.3.3 North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program

The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is a nonregulatory program
responsible for implementing wetland and stream restoration projects throughout the state. The
focus of the program is to improve watershed functions in the 17 river basins across the state by
restoring wetlands, streams and riparian buffers within selected local watersheds. These vital
watershed functions include water quality protection, floodwater retention, fisheries and wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities. The NCWRP is not a grant program. Instead, the
program funds local restoration projects directly through the Wetlands Restoration Fund.

Restoration sites are targeted through the development and use of Watershed Restoration Plans
(formerly called "Basinwide Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plans"). The restoration plans are
developed, in part, using information compiled in DWQ’s Basinwide Water Quality Plans and
Basinwide Assessment Reports. The NCWRP Plans evaluate resource data and existing water
quality initiatives within local watersheds in order to select "Targeted Local Watersheds".
Targeted Local Watersheds are areas with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and
wetlands restoration efforts, and where NCWRP resources can be most efficiently focused for
maximum restoration benefit. The NCWRP Watershed Restoration Plans are updated every five
years, generally on the same timeline as DWQ’s Basinwide Water Quality Plans.

The selection of Targeted Local Watersheds (at the scale of NRCS 14-digit Hydrologic Units, or
HUs) does not necessarily restrict the location of NCWRP restoration project sites. However,
these targeted HUs are given higher priority than nontargeted HUs in considering the selection of
NCWRP candidate restoration project sites. Targeted Local Watersheds are simply local
watersheds where stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration projects will make the most
sense in the context of overall watershed and wetlands protection.

The NCWRP is also working to develop comprehensive Local Watershed Plans within certain
Targeted Local Watersheds identified in the Watershed Restoration Plans. These locally-based
plans develop comprehensive watershed assessments to identify causes and sources of nonpoint
source impairment. They also identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches, riparian
buffer areas and best management practices that will provide significant water quality
improvement and other environmental benefits to local watersheds. The NCWRP will
coordinate with local community groups, local governments and others to develop and
implement these plans.

Selection of a watershed as a Targeted Local Watershed does not mean that a Local Watershed
Plan will be initiated in that area. Local Watershed Plans are developed in areas that have
extensive future mitigation needs, while Targeted Local Watersheds are selected as part of the
NCWRP planning process for the Basinwide Watershed Restoration Plans.

The NCWRP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs
or environmental groups. For example, the NCWRP’s efforts can complement projects funded
through 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
benefits of the project. The NCWRP actively seeks landowners within the Lumber River basin
that have restorable wetland, riparian and stream sites.

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 148
For more information about the NCWRP and its Watershed Restoration Plans, please contact
George Norris at [phone] or visit the DWQ website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ (click on
Wetlands Restoration Program).

Table C-2 below lists the NCWRP’s Targeted Local Watersheds [stream names and 14-digit HU
codes] in the Lumber River basin. This table also indicates the pertinent factors that led to the
selection of each Targeted Local Watershed. The Targeted Local Watersheds are selected on the
basis of available data indicating the need and opportunity for local stream and wetlands
restoration projects. Factors such as water quality problems, degraded aquatic habitat, cleared
riparian buffers, significant natural areas or species, and increasing development pressures in the
watershed are weighted heavily in determining these priority watersheds. Also, the presence of
existing or planned water quality or habitat restoration projects in the same local watershed can
be a significant factor in the choice of these watersheds. In some cases, NCWRP has used the
water quality information alone (e.g., use impairment, potential increases in nonpoint source
pollution) to support the selection of a specific Targeted Local Watershed. Targeted local
watersheds are presented in Figure C-2.

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 149
Table C-2 Wetlands Restoration Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2003)

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)
Downward
Trend in
W. Quality
Public
Water
Supply
SA
Waters
ORW
or
HQW
Aquatic
NHP
Elements
Existing,
Planned
Projects
Municipality(ies);
Phase I or II
Local Resource
Professional
Recommendation
03-07-51 03040203030010
Mill Branch Yes
03-07-51 03040203040010
Gum Swamp
Yes
03-07-51 03040203050010
Bear Swamp Yes
03-07-51 03040203080020
Ivey Branch Yes Yes Yes
DOT
03-07-51 03040203190010
Cow Branch Yes
NCWRP
03-07-52 03040203160030
Lower Raft Swamp Yes
03-07-53 03040203110010
Cold Camp Creek Yes
03-07-55 03040204010060
Panther Swamp/
Bear Creek
Yes
03-07-55 03040204048010
Wilkinson Creek Yes
03-07-55 0304020403710
Mitchell Swamp Yes
03-07-56 03040206020040
Upper Waccamaw River Yes Yes Yes
03-07-57 03040206030010
Juniper Swamp Yes Yes

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 150
03-07-57 03040206010070
Upper Waccamaw River Yes Yes
03-07-57 03040206050010
Middle Waccamaw River Yes Yes
03-07-57 03040206060010
Gore Creek Yes Yes
03-07-57 03040206090010
Big Creek Yes Yes
03-07-59 03040207020030
Lockwoods Folly Yes Yes Yes
03-07-59 03040207020060
Shallotte River Yes Yes Yes
03-07-59 03040207020110
Calabash Creek Yes Yes Yes
03-07-59
03040207020090
Jinny’s Branch/
Saucepan Creek
Yes Yes

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 152
1.3.4 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) was established by the
General Assembly in 1996 (Article 13A; Chapter 113 of the North Carolina General Statutes).
At the end of each fiscal year, 6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance in North Carolina’s
General Fund (or a minimum of $30 million) goes into the CWMTF. Revenues from the
CWMTF are then allocated in the form of grants to local governments, state agencies and
conservation nonprofit organizations to help finance projects that specifically address water
pollution problems. The 18-member, independent, CWMTF Board of Trustees has full
responsibility over the allocation of moneys from the fund.

The CWMTF funds projects that: 1) enhance or restore degraded waters; 2) protect unpolluted
waters; and/or 3) contribute toward a network of riparian buffers and greenways for
environmental, educational and recreational benefits. In the Lumber River basin, 30 projects
have been funded for over 20 million dollars ($20,232,900). Table C-3 presents total basin
funding amounts by year and category listed by individual grants. For more information on the
CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Table C-3 Projects in the Lumber River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (as of 12/02)

FY Application
Name
Proposed
Project Description
Amount
Funded Subbasin
2002A-
027
Sandhills Area Land Trust
– Acq / Drowning Cr. II:
Camp Mu-Sha-Ni
Acquire permanent conservation easement on 84.3 acres along
Drowning Creek. CWMTF would fund 50% of the cost of the
conservation easement, attorney and deed registration fees.
$44,000 03-07-50
1999B-
015
Sandhills Area Land Trust
– Drowning Creek
Conservation Easement
Acquire through permanent conservation easements 68 acres
along Drowning Creek and tributaries. CWMTF funds to
acquire easement on 21 acres of riparian land and landowners
to donate an additional 47 acres.
$31,250 03-07-50
2001B-
047
Sandhills Area Land Trust
– Acquisition / Drowning
& Naked Creeks
Provide funds to cover transactional and stewardship costs.
Project to protect 105 acres through purchase of permanent
conservation easements (5 acres) and donated easements (100
acres) on Drowning and Naked Creeks.
$40,000 03-07-50
1998A-
203
Sandhills Area Land Trust
– Drowning Creek
Conservation Easements
Provides planning funds to pursue permanent conservation
easements along Drowning Creek and tributaries. Includes
$10,000 for options.
$96,000 03-07-50
2001A-
027
Sandhills Area Land Trust
– Drowning Creek Land
Acquisition
Acquire through fee simple purchase and permanent
conservation easements 414 acres along Drowning Creek and
Deep Creek. Acquire one tract in fee simple and three tracts
by conservation easements.
$389,000 03-07-50
2001B-
013
Lumberton –
Acquisition and Greenway
/ Lumber River
Acquire through fee simple purchase or permanent
conservation easements 24 acres and fund greenway planning
and design along the Lumber River.
$69,000 03-07-51
1999B-
509
Lumberton – I/I Replace existing pumps with submersible pumps and raise
walls at Station #1. Clean and inspect 10,000 liner feet of
sewer main. Install backup power generation at 10 pump
stations.
$692,000 03-07-51

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 153
1998B-
511
Lumberton –
Combined Sewer /
Stormwater Separation
Separate combined sewer and stormwater lines and repair
leaking sewer lines. Propose to separate 4,650 LF of
combined sewer and stormwater lines.
$1,000,000 03-07-51
2000A-
901
Cape Fear RC&D –
Columbus County /
No-Till Drill
Provide funds for a no-till drill to be used primarily in the
Porter Swamp watershed.
$20,150 03-07-51
1997B-
002
NC Div Parks & Rec –
Acq / Princess Ann
Swamp & Lumber River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 1,831 acres in the
Princess Anne Swamp Area along the Lumber River.
$550,000 03-07-51
1997A-
108
NC Div Parks & Rec –
Acq / Big McQueen Tract
/ Lumber River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 1,690 acres in two tracts
along the Lumber River.
$400,000 03-07-51
1998A-
602
Pembroke –
Wastewater Collection
System to Deep Branch
School
Install pumping station and sewer line (17,200 LF) to reroute
wastewater from Deep Branch School's failing sand filter
system to the Town of Pembroke's WWTP. Decommission
school system. WWTP repairs (valve for chlorine and sludge
pump).
$380,000 03-07-51
1997B-
611
Wagram –
Wastewater Collection
System
Construct sewer collection system (83,000 GPD) to eliminate
over 370 failing septic systems. Waste will be pumped to the
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission's WWTP.
$400,000 03-07-51
2001A-
506
Red Springs –
Sewer Rehabilitation
Fund the first major phase of the town’s I&I and sewer rehab
program. Construct two new pump stations and a new force
main (2000 LF), abandon a leaking gravity outfall, and
rehabilitate a section of another leaking gravity outfall (5,000
LF).
$351,000 03-07-52
1999B-
510
Parkton –
Sewer Rehabilitation
Rehabilitate existing wastewater collection system (11,582 LF
and 46 manholes) to reduce groundwater and rainwater inflow
and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system and to eliminate
toxicity problems at WWTP.
$670,000 03-07-53
1999B-
515
St. Pauls –
Backup Generation
Purchase and install two 3-phase generators to support WWTP
and pump stations and to prevent sewer overflows and
bypasses during power outages. Purpose to prevent frequent
sewer spills to Big Marsh Swamp.
$95,000 03-07-53
2001A-
509
St. Pauls –
WWTP Improvements
Design and construct improvements at the town’s WWTP, to
eliminate discharge of untreated wastewater. Includes
constructing a second clarifier and an equalization basin.
Monitor results.
$296,000 03-07-53
2001B-
501
Bladenboro –
Wastewater Land
Application & Acquisition
/ Bryant Swamp
Provide up to 80% of the cost of constructing a wastewater
land application system to treat up to 0.25 MGD of its 0.5
MGD permitted discharge into Bryant Swamp. Funds for
acquisition of 135-acre spray site and irrigation equipment.
$1,863,000 03-07-53
1997A-
118
Fairmont –
WWTP Construction &
Consolidation /
Pittmans Mill Branch
Construct new, consolidated wastewater treatment plant that
will discharge to Lumber River, rather than a zero flow stream.
Eliminate school discharge. CWMTF pays approximately
15% of total costs.
$1,000,000 03-07-54
2000B-
012
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission – Breeden
Tract / Sandhills Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 100 acres along Upper
Beaverdam Creek. CWMTF funds to purchase a portion of the
riparian acreage.
$46,000 03-07-55
1997B-
506
Gibson –
Sewer Rehabilitation
Rehabilitate Gibson's existing wastewater collection system
(5,000 LF and manholes) in order to reduce groundwater and
rainwater inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer
system.
$286,500 03-07-55

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 154
2000B-
705
Lake Waccamaw –
Stormwater Management
System / Lake Waccamaw
Construct comprehensive stormwater system for runoff
flowing into Lake Waccamaw. Includes 3 wet retention ponds,
3 pump stations, and new and upgraded storm sewers. Town
to adopt ordinance to prohibit stormwater discharges into the
lake. Monitor results.
$4,500,000 03-07-56
2001B-
040
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission – Acquisition
/ Waccamaw River and
Juniper Creek
Acquire through fee simple purchase 2,530 acres along the
Waccamaw River and Juniper Creek.
$900,000 03-07-57
1997A-
117
Tabor City –
WWTP Improvements
Add a tertiary filtration process (deep sand beds) to the
wastewater management system, prior to chlorination. Should
substantially reduce suspended solids and oxygen demanding
wastes. Discharge monitoring will be reported to DWQ-
WiRO.
$570,000 03-07-57
1998A-
508
Chadbourn – Sewer Rehab
& Collection Sys / Soules
& White Marsh Swamp
Rehabilitate Chadbourn's existing wastewater collection
system in order to reduce groundwater and rainwater inflow
and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system.
$1,312,000 03-07-58
2000B-
007
Nature Conservancy –
Acq – Waccamaw River /
Railroad Tract
Acquire through fee simple purchase 61 acres along White
Marsh swamp, a tributary of the Waccamaw River.
$84,000 03-07-58
2001B-
022
Nature Conservancy –
Acquisition / White Marsh
and Waccamaw River
Acquire 456 acres through fee simple purchase along White
Marsh and the Waccamaw River.
$290,000 03-07-58
2002A-
020
NC Coastal Land Trust Acquire a permanent conservation easement on 263 acres
along Lockwoods Folly River and Sandy Branch. CWMTF
would fund acquisition of easement on 143 riparian acres.
$652,000 03-07-59
1998A-
001
Long Beach – Acq / Septic
Tank Mgmt / Drainage
Impv – Davis Creek
Acquire 30-acre tract (The Point) and easements on Davis
Creek. Restore free flow drainage by removing obstacles at
two bridges. Small program to assess septic tanks.
$456,000 03-07-59
2001A-
019
NC Div Coastal
Management, NCCLT &
NCCF – Bird Island Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase Bird Island, totaling 1200
acres.
$2,750,000 03-07-59

1.3.5 NC Construction Grants and Loans Program

The NC Construction Grants and Loans Section provides grants and loans to local government
agencies for the construction, upgrade and expansion of wastewater collection and treatment
systems. As a financial resource, the section administers two major programs that assist local
governments, the federally funded Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and the
NC Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program. These programs can provide both low
interest loan and grant funds for wastewater treatment projects. In the Lumber River basin, seven
applicants have been offered a total of $13,032,255 in SRG projects, and two applicants have
been offered a total of $2,154,350 in SRL projects (Table C-4).

As a technical resource, the Construction Grants and Loans Section, in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency, has initiated the Municipal Compliance Initiatives Program.
It is a free technical assistance program to identify wastewater treatment facilities that are
declining but not yet out of compliance. A team of engineers, operations experts and managers
from the section work with local officials to analyze the facility’s design and operation.

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 155
For more information, visit the website at http://www.nccgl.net/. You may also call [phone]
or email [e-mail].

Table C-4 Projects in the Lumber River Basin Funded by the NC Construction Grants and
Loans Section

Funded Grant (Clean Water Bond or SRG) Projects
Applicant Grant Offered Project
Calabash/SBWSA $3,000,000 New Collection & Transmission System
Gibson $646,100 WWTP Upgrade & Expansion
Lumberton $3,000,000 I/I and CSO Correction
Oak Island $563,000 Treatment Modifications
Oak Island $1,637,155 New Collection Lines
St. Pauls $1,186,000 New Collection Lines
Tabor City $3,000,000 New Collection Lines

Funded Grant State Revolving Loan (SRL) Projects
Applicant Loan Offered Project
Lake Waccamaw $588,000 New Collection Lines
Lumberton $1,566,350 Divert Flow to SW Interceptor

1.3.6 North Carolina Stream Watch

The realization that local residents are best suited to keep an eye on their nearby waterways is
what prompted North Carolina to begin project Stream Watch. With Stream Watch, citizens
groups "adopt" a waterway, or a portion of one, and act on its behalf. Stream Watchers become
the adoptive parents of a stream and, as such, become its primary caretakers.

With the help of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division of Water
Resources, Stream Watchers become informed stewards, learning how to react to the changing
stream conditions. Local efforts combined with state support allow North Carolina’s 37,000
miles of waterways to be monitored by those with the best view--local residents. In the Lumber
River basin, there are four different groups monitoring different stream segments. For more
information on Stream Watch, call [phone] or visit the website at
http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Stream_Watch/.

1.3.7 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

In 1991, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
Bureau implemented the Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy in order to more
efficiently protect and improve the quality of South Carolina’s surface water resources. This

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 156
management strategy recognizes the interdependence of water quality and all the activities that
occur in the associated drainage basin. Under the watershed management approach, monitoring,
assessment, problem identification and prioritization, water quality modeling, planning,
permitting and other SCDHEC initiatives are coordinated by basin. A watershed water quality
assessment document is produced for each basin on a five-year rotating schedule. The first
Watershed Water Quality Assessment for the Pee Dee River basin was published in May 2000
and will be updated on a five-year rotational basis.

To obtain a copy of the Watershed Water Quality Assessment or for further information about
water quality in the Pee Dee River basin in South Carolina, contact Mark A. Giffin at (803) 898-
4022 or by email [e-mail] or visit the website at http://www.scdhec.net/water.

1.3.8 North Carolina Coastal Nonpoint Source Program

Section 6217 of the Federal 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
requires every state participating in the Coastal Zone Management Act Program to develop a
Coastal Nonpoint Source Program (CNPSP). The purpose of this requirement, as stated in the
Act, is to "strengthen the links between Federal and State coastal zone management and water
quality management programs and to enhance State and local efforts to manage land use
activities that degrade coastal waters and coastal habitats." To accomplish these goals, the
federal agencies established 56 Management Measures that are to be used by each state to
address the following nonpoint source pollution categories (first five items) and that provide
tools to address the various sources of nonpoint pollution (last item):

• Agricultural Sources
• Forestry
• Urban Areas (urban runoff; construction activities; existing development; on-site
disposal systems; pollution prevention; and roads, highways, and bridges)
• Marinas and Recreational Boating (siting and design; and marina and boat
operation/maintenance)
• Hydrologic Modification (channelization and channel modification; dams; and
streambank and shoreline erosion)
• Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

At the federal level, the program is called the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program and is
administered jointly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Within North Carolina, the state program is
administered by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) and is referred to as the Coastal Nonpoint Source Program. The state program currently
has one full time permanent staff person and one temporary employee, both located in the
Nonpoint Source Planning Unit of DWQ.

The 56 Management Measures are defined in Section 6217(g)(5) of CZARA as: "economically
achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollutants from existing and new
categories and classes of nonpoint sources of pollution, which reflect the greatest degree of
pollutant reduction achievable through application of the best available nonpoint pollution
control practices technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods or other alternatives."

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 157
Detailed descriptions of the management measures, where they are intended to be applied, their
effectiveness, and their costs can be found in EPA’s "Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters" at the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/.

North Carolina received approval from NOAA and EPA for its state program on August 13,
2003. To receive this approval, North Carolina had to identify that we have enforceable policies
and mechanisms for the 56 Management Measures and establish our program boundary. We are
now required to develop a strategy to ensure all applicable Management Measures to protect and
restore water quality are implemented within 15 years.

North Carolina is relying on existing authorities and programs and proposed projects to meet
federal requirements but it may become apparent in the future that additional Management
Measures and new regulations are needed to address significant sources of nonpoint sources. If a
need arises for new or modified regulations they would be proposed under existing agency
frameworks.

The core of the state’s CNPSP is increased communication and coordination between DWQ and
key state agencies that have regulatory responsibilities for controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution. This increased dialogue is facilitated in part by the state’s CNPSP Coordinator and
promotes identification of gaps, duplications, inadequacies and/or inefficiencies of existing
programs and policies. Responsibilities of the state program coordinator also include developing
the 15-year Strategy Plan, serving as a liaison between DWQ and DCM, and participating in the
development of nonpoint source outreach and educational activities. For more information,
contact the NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator at [phone], ext. 567 or
[e-mail].

1.3.9 North Carolina Flood Plain Mapping Program

The State of North Carolina, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s)
Cooperating Technical Partnership initiative, has been designated as the first Cooperating
Technical State (CTS). As a CTS, the state will assume primary ownership and responsibility of
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for North
Carolina CTS Flood Mapping Program will include conducting flood hazard analyses and
producing updated, digital FIRMs. For more specific information on the Lumber River basin
efforts, visit http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/pubdocs/Final_Basin_Plan_Lumber.pdf.

1.4 Local Initiatives

1.4.1 Friends of Lake Waccamaw State Park

The Friends of Lake Waccamaw State Park (FLWSP) members and volunteers have been
committed to the protection of water quality and the national significance for biological diversity
on the park lands and in Lake Waccamaw as well as the Waccamaw River watershed since 1986.
Initiatives include funding for projects to improve and support clean water in and around Lake
Waccamaw and the Waccamaw River. FLWSP is currently providing ongoing education

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 158
programs, newsletters and water quality testing funded by the EPA 319 Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program. FLWSP continues to support the Town of Lake Waccamaw in acquiring
funds for reducing nonpoint source pollution with a grant from the NC Clean Water Management
Trust Fund for a stormwater management project and local regulation of stormwater pollution.
Friends of Lake Waccamaw State Park can be contacted at [e-mail].

1.4.2 Winyah Rivers Foundation

The Waccamaw Watershed Academy, in the Center for Marine and Wetland Studies at Coastal
Carolina University (CCU) in South Carolina, has sponsored a variety of research and
educational activities in concert with the Waccamaw Riverkeeper. These projects include
scientific work funded by an USEPA Section 319 grant and is conducted in-house by a state-
certified environmental quality lab. For further information, visit the website at
http://www.coastal.edu/envsci/ or contact [e-mail]. The Waccamaw Riverkeeper is licensed
by the Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. and housed within CCU’s Center for Marine and Wetland
Studies. The Riverkeeper is supported by the Winyah Rivers Foundation where the mission is
to protect, preserve, monitor and revitalize the health of the lands and waters of the Greater
Winyah Watershed. The foundation currently has 350 members. More information can be
obtained from http://www.winyahrivers.org and contacting the Waccamaw Riverkeeper, Hamp
Schuping, at [e-mail].

1.5 Regional Initiatives

1.5.1 Conservation Trust for North Carolina

The Conservation Trust for North Carolina and CWMTF have funded two riparian corridor
conservation plans in the Lumber River basin. Plans were prepared for the Drowning Creek
watershed (subbasin 03-07-50) and the Waccamaw River (subbasin 03-07-56 and 03-07-57).

1.5.2 Lumber River Council of Government

Surface Water Initiatives of the Lumber River COG

In 1998, the Lumber River Council of Governments (LRCOG) published a report on the
potential regionalization of wastewater discharge points within a large portion of the Lumber
River basin. A section on this report contained a recommendation to begin organizing a
basinwide planning organization comprised of the region’s stakeholders. Since 1998, the
LRCOG has taken the initiative in addressing water resource concerns within the southeastern
region of North Carolina, particularly within the Lumber River basin. In 2000, the LRCOG
established the Lumber River Basin Consortium. The consortium is a multi-stakeholder
membership which includes business and industry; environmental groups; federal, state and local
agencies such as Cooperative Extension and Soil and Water Conservation Service; the
agricultural community; and educational/research institutions. The consortium’s goal is to
provide direction and recommendations for implementation on surface water issues and extend
its reach to: 1) provide water quality research; 2) assist in water conservation education; and 3)
promote wise stewardship of surface water resources. The consortium hopes to serve as a forum

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 159
to provide coordinated management, communication among stakeholders, and assist in resolving
water resource issues and concerns within the basin. In December of 2002, the LRCOG
completed the Lumber River Basin Strategic Plan. This document lists strategies to help the
consortium establish its leadership role in the Lumber River basin. Components of the plan will
include descriptions of the current status and future needs related to:

1. River Monitoring
2. Education
3. Advocacy
4. Intra-State Agreements
5. Inter-State Agreements with South Carolina
6. Riparian Buffers
7. River-Cleanup/Restoration
8. Public Awareness

References 160
References

Cahoon, L.B. et al. 1993. The Effects of Chemical Weathering on Limestone Dissolution and
Phosphate Release into Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Scientific
Society, 109(3). 1993. pp. 123-134.

Center for Resource Management (CRM). 1996. Monitoring, Research, and Assessment
Components for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Sacramento, CA.

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.

Crocket, Dan. 2000. Personal communication. South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources. Florence, SC.

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.

National Golf Foundation (NGF). 2001. Golf Facilities Are in the US: 2001 Edition. Juniper,
FL.

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (NCCES). 1995. Water Quality and Golf Course
Superintendents. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Soil
and Water Conservation (DSWC). 2003. ACSP Report: BMP Summary. Raleigh, NC.

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). February 2003. North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated
305(b) and 303(d) Report. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. June 2002. Basinwide Assessment Report,
Lumber River Basin. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. February 2002. Buffers for Clean Water. Raleigh NC.

____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. November 2001. Basinwide Assessment
Report, Neuse River Basin. Raleigh, NC.

References 161
References

____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. Biological Assessment Unit. 2001. Standard
Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment and
Fish Tissue. Raleigh, NC.

____. Division of Water Resources (DWR). January 2001. North Carolina State Water Supply
Plan. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Environmental Sciences Branch. Ecosystems Analysis Unit. Biological Assessment
Group. 1997. Standard Operating Procedures: Biological Monitoring. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1993. The North Carolina Black
Bass Management Plan. Raleigh, NC. 14 pp.

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. Updated June
2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory. North Carolina State Office. Raleigh, NC.

____. Forest Service. 1990. North Carolina’s Southeastern Forest Experiment Stn Resource
Bulletin SE-142.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001b. 2002 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report. EPA.

____. 1999. Watershed Academy Website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/.

____. 1997. Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection. EPA 841-B-97-
008. Office of Water (4503F). EPA. Washington, DC. 98 pp.

Western North Carolina Tomorrow (WNCT). 1999. Sediment and Erosion Control Webpage:
http://wnct.org/psas/sediment.htr.

Appendices

Appendix I

NPDES Dischargers
and
Individual Stormwater Permits
in the
Lumber River Basin

NPDES Dischargers for the Lumber River Basin (as of November 27, 2002)

A-I-1
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream

NC0035904 NC Department of Correction McCain Hospital WWTP Hoke Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.2 03-07-50 Mountain Creek
NC0037508 Moore County Public Utilities Moore County WWTP Moore Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 6.7 03-07-50 Aberdeen Creek
NC0049778 Town of Southern Pines Southern Pines WTP Moore Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-50 Aberdeen Creek
NC0086398 Newfields, Inc. Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site Moore Fayetteville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.072 03-07-50 Aberdeen Creek

NC0004618 Alamac American Knits LLC Lumberton Plant Robeson Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.56 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0005321 Buckeye Lumberton Inc Buckeye Lumberton Incorporated Robeson Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.5 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0005363 CP&L - A Progress Energy Company Weatherspoon Steam Electric Plant Robeson Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0005762 West Point Stevens, Inc Wagram Plant Scotland Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 4.5 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0020729 Town of Fair Bluff Fair Bluff Town - WWTP Columbus Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.23 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0024571 City of Lumberton Lumberton WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 10.0 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0027103 Town of Pembroke Town of Pembroke WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 1.33 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0034100 Robeson County Schools Orrum High School Robeson Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 03-07-51 Flowers Swamp
NC0048577 Robeson County Water Department Maxton WTP Robeson Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0058301 Lumberton Power LLC Lumberton Power LLC Robeson Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0084204 Robeson County Water Department Kenric Road WTP Robeson Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0086550 Town of Fairmont Fairmont Regional WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 1.75 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0086738 City of Lumberton Lowery Street WTP Robeson Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-51 Lumber River
NC0086991 Robeson County Water Department Sanchez Drive WTP Robeson Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-51 Little Back Swamp

NC0025577 Town of Red Springs Red Springs WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 2.5 03-07-52 Little Raft Swamp
NC0044725 Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission Laurinburg-Maxton Airport WWTP Scotland Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 2.0 03-07-52 Lumber River
NC0086045 Hoke County Antioch WTP Hoke Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-52 Raft Swamp

NC0020095 Town of St. Pauls St. Pauls WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-07-53 Big Marsh Swamp
(Marsh Swamp) (Lake McNeill, Odom Pond)
NC0026352 Town of Bladenboro Town of Bladenboro WWTP Bladen Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-07-53 Bryant Swamp
NPDES Dischargers for the Lumber River Basin (as of November 27, 2002)

A-I-2
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream

NC0026921 Town of Parkton Parkton WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.2 03-07-53 Dunns Marsh (Hughes Mill Pond)
NC0085685 Robeson County Water Department Lumber Bridge WTP Robeson Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-53 Big Marsh Swamp
(Marsh Swamp) (Lake McNeill, Odom Pond)
NC0086037 Hoke County Arabia WTP Hoke Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-53 Little Marsh Swamp

NC0005479 Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission Laurel Hill/Maxton WWTP Scotland Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.3 03-07-55 Gum Swamp Creek (Lytchs Pond)
NC0005754 Springs Industries Springfield Plant Scotland Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.03 03-07-55 Gum Swamp Creek (Lytchs Pond)
NC0020656 City of Laurinburg Leiths Creek WWTP Scotland Fayetteville Municipal, Large Major 4.0 03-07-55 Shoe Heel Creek
(Big Shoe Heel Creek) (Maxton Pond)
NC0021661 City of Laurinburg Libbey-Owens-Ford WWTP Scotland Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.03 03-07-55 Little Shoe Heel Creek
NC0027120 Town of Maxton Maxton WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.6 03-07-55 Little Shoe Heel Creek
NC0029769 NC Department of Correction Scotland County Correctional Center Scotland Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.018 03-07-55 Shoe Heel Creek
(Big Shoe Heel Creek) (Maxton Pond)
NC0035777 Scotland County Schools Scotland Accelerated Academy Scotland Fayetteville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0112 03-07-55 Lower Beaverdam Creek
NC0036773 City of Laurinburg Laurinburg WTP Scotland Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-55 Big Branch
NC0049514 Libbey-Owens-Ford Company Plant 75 Scotland Fayetteville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-07-55 Little Shoe Heel Creek
NC0069612 Town of Rowland Rowland WWTP Robeson Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.387 03-07-55 Shoe Heel Creek
(Big Shoe Heel Creek) (Maxton Pond)
NC0086894 Robeson County Water Department Raemon Well WTP Robeson Fayetteville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-07-55 First Swamp

NC0006858 Council Tool Company Council Tool Company Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-07-56 Lake Waccamaw
NC0021881 Town of Lake Waccamaw Lake Waccamaw WWTP Columbus Wilmington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.4 03-07-56 Bogue Swamp

NC0026000 Town of Tabor City Tabor City WWTP Columbus Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 1.1 03-07-57 Grissett Swamp
NC0043745 Columbus County Schools Old Dock Elementary School WWTP Columbus Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-07-57 Gum Swamp Run
NC0044873 Carolina Blythe Utility Co., Inc. Carolina Shores WWTP Brunswick Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.53 03-07-57 Persimmon Swamp
NC0045276 Brunswick County Schools Waccamaw Elementary School Brunswick Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0057 03-07-57 Bear Branch

NPDES Dischargers for the Lumber River Basin (as of November 27, 2002)

A-I-3
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream

NC0005801 Georgia-Pacific Corporation Whiteville Plywood Plant Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-07-58 Juniper Creek
NC0006785 National Spinning Company Whiteville Plant Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.03 03-07-58 White Marsh
NC0021610 Town of Clarkton Clarkton WWTP Bladen Fayetteville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.24 03-07-58 Brown Marsh Swamp
NC0021865 Town of Chadbourn Chadbourn WWTP Columbus Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 1.0 03-07-58 Soules Swamp (Benson Millpond)
NC0021920 City of Whiteville Whiteville WWTP Columbus Wilmington Municipal, Large Major 3.0 03-07-58 White Marsh
NC0072168 Georgia-Pacific Corporation Whiteville Timber Facility Columbus Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-07-58 Soules Swamp (Benson Millpond)

NC0045250 Brunswick County Schools Bolivia Elementary School Brunswick Wilmington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-07-59 Bolivia Branch
NC0074942 Green’s Oyster Company Inc Green’s Oyster Company Incorporated Brunswick Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.005 03-07-59 Shallotte River
NC0076830 Lloyd’s Oyster Company Lloyd’s Oyster Company Brunswick Wilmington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.005 03-07-59 Shallotte River

NPDES Individual Stormwater Permits in the Lumber River Basin (as of January 7, 2003)

A-I-4

Permit # Facility
Name
Receiving
Stream Subbasin County

NCS000293 Southern States Cooperative UT Jacob Swamp 03-07-51 Robeson
NCS000374 Buckeye Lumberton, Inc. UT Lumber River 03-07-51 Robeson
NCS000236 Industrial and Agricultural Chemical Walnut Creek 03-07-52 Robeson
NCS000005 Carolmet, Inc. UT Lumber River 03-07-55 Scotland

Appendices

Appendix II

Biological Water Quality Data
Collected by DWQ

A-II-1
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods and Criteria

Freshwater Wadeable and Flowing Waters

Benthic macroinvertebrates can be collected from wadeable, freshwater, flowing waters using
two sampling procedures. The Division of Water Quality’s standard qualitative sampling
procedure includes 10 composite samples: two kick-net samples, three bank sweeps, two rock or
log washes, one sand sample, one leafpack sample, and visual collections from large rocks and
logs (NCDEHNR, 1997). The purpose of these collections is to inventory the aquatic fauna and
produce an indication of relative abundance for each taxon. Organisms are classified as Rare (1-
2 specimens), Common (3-9 specimens), or Abundant (10 specimens).

Several data analysis summaries (metrics) can be produced to detect water quality problems.
These metrics are based on the idea that unstressed streams and rivers have many invertebrate
taxa and are dominated by intolerant species. Conversely, polluted streams have fewer numbers
of invertebrate taxa and are dominated by tolerant species. The diversity of the invertebrate
fauna is evaluated using taxa richness counts; the tolerance of the stream community is evaluated
using a biotic index.

EPT taxa richness (EPT S) is used with DWQ criteria to assign water quality ratings
(bioclassifications). "EPT" is an abbreviation for Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera,
insect groups that are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution. Higher EPT taxa richness
values usually indicate better water quality. Water quality ratings also are based on the relative
tolerance of the macroinvertebrate community as summarized by the North Carolina Biotic Index
(NCBI).

Both tolerance values for individual species and the final biotic index values have a range of 0-
10, with higher numbers indicating more tolerant species or more polluted conditions. Water
quality ratings assigned with the biotic index numbers are combined with EPT taxa richness
ratings to produce a final bioclassification, using criteria for coastal plain streams. EPT
abundance (EPT N) and total taxa richness calculations also are used to help examine between-
site differences in water quality. If the EPT taxa richness rating and the biotic index differ by
one bioclassification, the EPT abundance value is used to determine the final site rating.

Benthic macroinvertebrates can also be collected using an EPT sampling procedure. Four rather
than 10 composite qualitative samples are taken at each site: 1 kick, 1 sweep, 1 leafpack and
visual collections. Only EPT groups are collected and identified, and only EPT criteria are used
to assign a bioclassification.

Both EPT taxa richness and biotic index values also can be affected by seasonal changes. DWQ
criteria for assigning bioclassification are based on summer sampling: June - September. For
samples collected outside summer, EPT taxa richness can be adjusted by subtracting out
winter/spring Plecoptera or other adjustment based on resampling of summer site. The biotic
index values also are seasonally adjusted for samples outside the summer season.

A-II-2
Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent to each
benthic sample. These bioclassifications primarily reflect the influence of chemical pollutants.
The major physical pollutant, sediment, is not assessed as well by a taxa richness analysis.

Boat Sampling and Coastal B Criteria

Coastal B rivers are defined as waters in the coastal plain that are deep (nonwadeable) with little
or no visible current under normal or low flow conditions and that have freshwater. Other
characteristics may include open canopy, low pH and low dissolved oxygen. These waters
require a boat for sampling. These are usually large coastal plain rivers, including the lower
sections of the Alligator, Chowan, Meherrin, Neuse, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Roanoke, Tar,
South, Black, Waccamaw, Wiccacon, Northeast Cape Fear and Cape Fear Rivers. In such
habitats, petite Ponar dredge sampling replaces kick-net samples, but all other standard
qualitative collections techniques are still useable.

The standard boat method still aims at a total of 10 composite samples per site:

• Dredges - 3 composite samples using a petite Ponar.
• Sweeps - 3 samples collected from bank habitats, sampling as much of the edge
habitat as possible, including aquatic macrophytes, roots and areas of debris.
• Leaf packs/Debris wash -1 composite sample of leaves and other large particulate
organic matter are to be rinsed in a wash bucket.
• Epifaunal collections - 2 composite samples of macrophytes and well-colonized logs
both in the current and along the shore.
• Visuals - should cover macrophytes, logs along the shore, and especially logs in the
current.

The Biological Assessment Unit has limited data on Coastal B rivers and has had a difficult time
gathering more data. Criteria have been developed based only on EPT taxa richness (Table A-II-
1), although using biotic index values and total taxa richness values were also evaluated. The
criteria that are presented here will continue to be evaluated, and any bioclassifications derived
from them should be considered tentative and not used for use support decisions.

Swamp streams

Swamp streams are located in the coastal plain area and cease flowing during summer low flow
periods. This seasonal interruption in flow limits the diversity of the fauna, requiring special
criteria to properly rate such streams. The swamp stream sampling method utilizes a variety of
collection techniques to inventory the macroinvertebrate fauna at a site. Nine sweep samples
(one series of three by each field team member) are collected from each of the habitat types:
macrophytes, root mats/undercut banks, and detritus deposits. If one of these habitat types is not
present, a sweep from one of the other habitats should be substituted. A sweep for the swamp
method is defined as the area that can be reached from a given standing location. Three
log/debris washes also are collected. Visual collections are the final technique used at each site.

Samples are picked on site. The primary output for this sampling method is a taxa list with an
indication of relative abundance (Rare, Common or Abundant) for each taxon. Sampling during

A-II-3
winter flow periods provides the best opportunity for detecting impacts, and only winter benthos
(February and March) data can be used to evaluate swamp streams.

A draft multi-metric system is being developed to evaluate swamp streams, using the NC Biotic
Index (BI), habitat score, total taxa richness (S), and EPT abundance (EPT N). The system uses
data from the Lumber, White Oak, Cape Fear, Neuse and Tar River basins. Other basins will
need different criteria. Swamp streams are divided into two broad types: streams with a distinct
channel and streams with a braided channel. EPT abundance and total taxa richness are expected
to be lower in braided swamp streams. Stream pH also affects these metrics, and scoring criteria
will likely be adjusted for all sites with pH <5.5.

References

Chutter, F. M. 1972. An Empirical Biotic Index of the Quality of Water in South African
Streams and Rivers. Water Research. 6:19-30.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1977. Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. Technical Bulletin No. 100.

Lenat, D. L. 1993. A Biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of
Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water Quality Ratings. J. North American
Benthological Society. 12:279-290.

Flow Measurement

Changes in the benthic macroinvertebrate community are often used to help assess between-year
changes in water quality. Some between-year changes in the macroinvertebrates, however, may
be due largely to changes in flow. High flow years magnify the potential effects of nonpoint
source runoff, leading to scour, substrate instability and reduced periphyton. Low flow years
may accentuate the effect of point source dischargers by providing less dilution of wastes.
For these reasons, all between-year changes in the biological communities are considered in light
of flow conditions (high, low or normal) for one month prior to the sampling date. Daily flow
information is obtained from the closest available USGS monitoring site and compared to the
long-term mean flows. High flow is defined as a mean flow >140 percent of the long-term mean
for that time period, usually July or August. Low flow is defined as a mean flow <60 percent of
the long-term mean, while normal flow is 60-140 percent of the mean. While broad scale
regional patterns are often observed, there may be large geographical variation within the state,
and large variation within a single summer period.

Habitat Evaluation

The Division has developed a habitat assessment form to better evaluate the physical habitat of a
stream. The habitat score has a potential range of 1-100, based on evaluation of channel
modification, amount of instream habitat, type of bottom substrate, pool variety, bank stability,
light penetration and riparian zone width. Higher numbers suggest better habitat quality, but no
criteria have been developed to assign impairment ratings.

A-II-4
Table A-II-1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data, Lumber River Basin, 1983 – 2001
(Basin sites are in bold.)

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPTBI BioClass
03-07-50
Drowning Cr SR 1124 Moore 14-2-(1) 02/16/89 35 35 3.45 3.45 Good
White Cedar
Br
USGS site Richmond 14-2-(1) 03/05/86 47 10 5.01 2.97 Good
02/09/84 35 10 4.59 2.78 Good
Jackson Cr SR 1122 Moore 14-2-5 07/09/01 --- 23 --- 3.16 Good
07/08/96 --- 25 --- 2.88 Excellent
02/16/89 --- 26 --- 3.39 Good-Fair
Naked Cr SR 1490 Richmond 14-2-6 01/17/90 94 46 4.45 3.30 Excellent
Naked Cr SR 1003 Richmond 14-2-6 07/13/01 98 41 4.55 3.61 Excellent
07/08/96 81 33 4.75 3.61 Excellent
09/09/91 94 35 4.61 2.91 Excellent
11/07/90 83 31 5.12 3.89 Excellent
07/17/90 80 34 4.58 3.15 Excellent
05/09/90 --- 39 --- 3.45 Excellent
04/06/90 92 42 4.82 3.12 Excellent
01/17/90 --- 37 --- 3.13 Excellent
02/16/89 --- 46 --- 3.20 Excellent
10/23/86 98 33 4.66 2.95 Excellent
03/01/85 101 35 4.28 2.74 Excellent
12/12/84 93 37 4.55 2.88 Excellent
02/09/84 85 35 4.26 2.67 Excellent
05/18/83 86 32 4.66 3.18 Excellent
Joe’s Br near SR
1003
Richmond 14-2-6 05/09/90 --- 16 --- 3.10 Excellent
03/05/85 40 14 4.59 3.60 Good
02/09/84 45 13 4.74 3.35 Good
Rocky Ford Br SR 1424 Richmond 14-2-6-1 05/09/90 --- 27 --- 3.93 Excellent
Drowning Cr SR 1004 Richmond 14-2-(6.5) 07/13/01 81 31 4.51 2.81 Excellent
07/08/96 74 34 4.57 3.26 Excellent
09/09/91 90 39 4.50 2.81 Excellent
02/16/89 --- 40 --- 2.65 Excellent
07/14/88 87 30 4.67 2.69 Excellent
09/11/85 74 28 4.36 2.76 Excellent
Horse Cr SR 1102 Moore 14-2-10 07/09/01 --- 20 --- 2.80 Good
07/08/96 --- 28 --- 2.78 Excellent
09/09/91 --- 26 --- 2.39 Excellent
UT Deep Cr USGS site Moore 14-2-10-1-(1) 03/06/86 48 13 5.07 2.90 Excellent
02/14/84 49 12 4.64 2.72 Excellent
Aberdeen Cr SR 1102 Moore 14-2-11-(6) 10/08/87 --- 23 --- 3.17 Good
Aberdeen Cr below
WWTP
Moore 14-2-11-(6) 10/08/87 --- 21 --- 3.92 Good
Quewhiffle Cr SR 1214 Hoke 14-2-14 03/05/98 --- 7 --- 3.56 Not Rated
04/24/89 40 12 4.94 3.40 Not Rated
01/30/84 27 4 6.42 3.75 Not Rated
Quewhiffle Cr SR 1225 Hoke 14-2-14 04/24/89 73 26 4.69 2.99 Good
01/30/84 79 22 4.74 3.03 Good
Mountain Cr SR 1219 Hoke 14-2-16-(2) 07/13/01 --- 9 --- 4.96 Not Rated
Buffalo Cr SR 1203 Hoke 14-2.5 01/30/84 69 22 5.30 3.99 Good
03-07-51
Lumber R SR 1404 Scotland 14-(3) 07/17/01 90 36 4.57 3.45 Excellent
07/09/96 75 33 4.06 2.98 Excellent
05/03/94 104 46 4.49 3.18 Excellent
09/10/91 83 30 5.17 2.99 Excellent
10/22/86 85 36 5.02 3.62 Excellent
07/14/86 88 30 5.06 3.69 Excellent
10/22/85 89 34 5.05 2.84 Excellent

A-II-5
Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPTBI BioClass
Lumber R SR 1433 Scotland 14-(3) 07/14/86 89 30 5.02 3.59 Excellent
10/22/85 90 29 5.33 3.25 Good
Lumber R NC 71 Robeson 14-(4.5) 07/17/01 92 34 5.27 4.06 Excellent
07/09/96 69 27 4.77 3.49 Excellent
05/03/94 85 29 4.97 3.51 Good
09/10/91 78 23 5.54 3.84 Good
08/07/90 92 26 5.88 4.46 Good
07/13/88 88 29 5.25 3.59 Excellent
10/22/86 69 27 5.11 3.50 Excellent
07/17/85 74 22 5.23 4.01 Excellent
04/03/85 97 36 5.77 3.85 Excellent
Lumber R SR 1303 Robeson 14-(4.5) 04/03/85 79 32 5.42 3.48 Excellent
Lumber R SR 1153 Robeson 14-(4.5) 04/03/85 88 38 5.44 3.76 Excellent
Lumber R SR 1354 Robeson 14-(4.5) 10/22/86 73 26 5.20 3.63 Excellent
07/14/86 71 25 4.97 3.99 Excellent
Gum Swp SR 1312 Robeson 14-5 07/17/01 --- 15 --- 5.73 Not
Impaired
02/08/01 75 21 6.10 4.64 Not Rated
Lumber R SR 1003 Robeson 14-(7) 07/18/01 92 32 5.10 4.03 Excellent
07/09/96 71 31 4.79 3.79 Excellent
09/11/91 86 30 5.79 3.89 Excellent
08/07/90 87 28 5.37 4.18 Excellent
07/13/88 88 28 5.20 4.25 Excellent
10/23/86 82 31 5.21 3.56 Excellent
07/15/86 84 32 5.27 4.06 Excellent
07/17/85 84 30 5.31 4.25 Excellent
07/27/83 95 30 5.43 3.90 Excellent
07/27/83 79 24 5.29 4.41 Excellent
Lumber R NC 72/711 Robeson 14-(7) 09/11/91 67 27 5.98 4.48 Good
Back Swp SR 1003 Robeson 14-8-(2.5) 07/17/01 61 11 6.16 4.81 Not Rated
02/08/01 80 25 5.90 4.84 Not Rated
Back Swp US 301 Robeson 14-8-(2.5) 09/11/91 --- 15 --- 4.85 Good-Fair
Bear Swp SR 1339 Robeson 14-9-(1.5) 07/18/01 --- 11 --- 6.31 Not Rated
02/08/01 79 17 6.22 4.89 Not Rated
03/14/96 58 20 6.13 5.31 Not Rated
Lumber R NC 41/72 Robeson 14-(13) 07/18/01 91 30 5.77 4.58 Excellent
07/10/96 73 30 5.40 4.30 Excellent
Lumber R SR 2289 Robeson 14-(13) 09/11/91 84 29 5.73 3.86 Good
07/15/86 73 28 5.79 4.21 Good
10/23/85 91 29 5.62 3.99 Good
07/16/85 78 28 6.03 4.56 Good
Lumber R SR 2202 Robeson 14-(13) 07/16/85 62 15 6.53 3.71 Good-Fair
Lumber R above
WWTP
Robeson 14-(13) 07/16/86 77 22 6.75 4.28 Good-Fair
10/23/85 75 19 6.63 3.59 Good-Fair
Lumber R NC 72,
below
WWTP
Robeson 14-(13) 08/21/01 53 12 6.46 4.61 Good-Fair
07/11/96 57 15 6.33 4.38 Good-Fair
07/16/86 43 5 8.08 6.53 Poor
07/16/85 65 15 7.35 4.18 Good-Fair
Lumber R US 74 Robeson 14-(21) 09/10/01 92 32 5.64 4.55 Excellent
07/11/96 82 26 5.58 4.31 Good
09/10/91 53 20 5.00 4.07 Good
07/13/88 92 27 5.46 4.32 Excellent
06/24/86 73 27 5.71 4.45 Good
Lumber R NC 904 Robeson 14-(21) 07/10/96 81 30 5.06 3.65 Excellent
09/10/91 69 23 4.96 4.11 Excellent
Porter Swp SR 1503 Columbus 14-27 02/06/01 49 6 7.51 5.17 Not Rated
03/15/96 41 6 7.32 3.20 Not Rated
03/05/92 60 6 7.66 6.94 Not Rated
09/11/91 --- 3 --- 6.59 Not Rated

A-II-6
Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPTBI BioClass
Gapway Swp SR 1356 Columbus 14-31 01/06/01 71 11 7.62 6.40 Not Rated
03/15/96 57 16 7.10 5.98 Not Rated
03-07-52
Raft Swp SR 1505 Robeson 14-10-(1) 02/07/01 82 20 5.99 4.33 Not Rated
Big Raft Swp NC 211 Robeson 14-10-(1) 09/11/91 --- 16 --- 4.64 Good-Fair
12/29/88 75 24 6.28 4.82 Good-Fair
L Raft Swp SR 1776 Robeson 14-10-5 02/21/01 48 8 7.47 7.11 Not Rated
L Raft Swp SR 1505 Robeson 14-10-5 02/07/01 64 9 7.56 5.78 Not Rated
Big Raft Swp SR 1526 Robeson 14-10-(5.5) 12/29/88 87 30 6.24 4.98 Good-Fair
Burnt Swp above RR Robeson 14-10-8-4-
(0.5)
06/04/91 41 4 7.09 5.88 Not Rated
Burnt Swp SR 1515 Robeson 14-10-8-4-
(0.5
06/04/91 44 5 7.39 5.59 Not Rated
03-07-53
Big Swp NC 211 Robeson 14-22 07/10/96 --- 15 --- 4.24 Good-Fair
09/23/91 59 14 6.30 3.93 Good-Fair
Big Swp SR 1002 Robeson 14-22 09/23/91 61 15 6.11 3.70 Good-Fair
Gallberry Swp NC 20 Robeson 14-22-1 09/12/91 --- 19 --- 4.40 Good
L Marsh Swp SR 1907 Robeson 14-22-1-3 02/07/01 67 17 6.03 4.52 Not Rated
Big Marsh Swp above Croft
Metals
Robeson 14-22-2 08/11/92 45 10 6.76 6.11 Not Rated
Big Marsh Swp below
Croft
Metals
Robeson 14-22-2 08/11/92 49 10 6.85 5.87 Not Rated
Big Marsh Swp SR 1924 Robeson 14-22-2 02/07/01 77 20 6.25 4.73 Not Rated
09/12/91 16 4.67 Not Rated
Jackson Br SR 2100 Robeson 14-22-3-7 03/04/92 69 10 7.62 5.65 Not Rated
03-07-54
Ashpole Swp NC 41 Robeson 14-30 01/30/01 53 11 6.68 5.55 Not Rated
03/15/96 53 10 6.67 5.84 Not Rated
09/11/91 --- 8 --- 5.64 Not Rated
Ashpole Swp SR 2258 Robeson 14-30 06/24/86 45 3 8.08 7.79 Not Rated
Hog Swp SR 2262 Robeson 14-30-7 01/31/01 52 11 6.72 6.40 Not Rated
03/13/96 51 13 6.69 6.10 Not Rated
09/22/91 --- 8 --- 6.62 Not Rated
Indian Swp SR 2255 Robeson 14-30-8 03/04/92 57 4 8.27 5.75 Not Rated
03-07-55
Gum Swamp
Cr
SR 1323 Scotland 14-32-(7) 07/09/01 --- 22 --- 3.01 Good
07/10/96 --- 15 --- 2.71 Good-Fair
09/09/91 --- 17 --- 2.86 Good-Fair
Gum Swamp Cr SR 1319 Scotland 14-32-(10) 02/06/90 51 16 5.33 4.53 Good-Fair
Gum Swamp Cr below
Fieldcrest
Mills
Scotland 14-32-(10) 02/06/90 39 17 6.26 4.63 Good-Fair
Gum Swamp
Cr
US 15/401 Scotland 14-32-(12) 07/09/01 --- 20 --- 2.86 Good
07/09/96 --- 21 --- 3.45 Good
09/09/91 --- 24 --- 3.85 Excellent
Leiths Cr SR 1610 Scotland 14-33 09/10/91 --- 12 --- 5.95 Good-Fair
Shoe Heel Cr SR 1369 Scotland 14-34 09/06/90 82 27 5.70 3.74 Good
Shoe Heel Cr SR 1612 Scotland 14-34 09/05/90 76 19 6.38 5.06 Good-Fair
Shoe Heel Cr SR 1101 Robeson 14-34 07/10/01 53 18 4.87 3.44 Good
07/10/96 68 25 4.53 3.54 Excellent
09/10/91 75 26 5.47 3.67 Good
08/07/90 80 28 5.37 3.78 Excellent
07/07/87 73 24 4.89 5.58 Excellent
09/17/85 70 21 5.04 3.94 Good

A-II-7
Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPTBI BioClass
Jordan Cr USGS site Scotland 14-34-4-(1) 03/05/86 43 13 4.83 2.96 Good
02/23/84 39 11 4.75 3.24 Good
Jordan Cr US 401 Scotland 14-34-4-(2) 07/09/01 --- 12 --- 3.54 Good-Fair
07/10/96 --- 15 --- 3.17 Good-Fair
03-07-56
Waccamaw R below dam Columbus 15-(1) 06/19/91 55 13 6.36 4.92 Good-Fair
Waccamaw R Crusoe
Island
Columbus 15-(1) 06/19/91 84 28 5.86 4.47 Good
Waccamaw R SR 1928 Columbus 15-(1) 07/17/01 23 18 5.03 5.14 Good
06/17/91 78 27 5.27 4.03 Excellent
Big Cr SR 1947 Columbus 15-2-6 06/18/91 42 2 7.70 7.28 Not Rated
Friar Swp SR 1740 Columbus 15-2-6-3 02/01/01 49 11 6.72 6.21 Not Rated
02/18/99 45 10 6.47 5.19 Not Rated
03/03/98 44 9 6.27 5.78 Not Rated
02/25/97 48 13 6.51 5.98 Not Rated
03/13/96 48 12 6.30 6.11 Not Rated
Slap Swp SR 1740 Columbus 15-2-6-4 03/15/96 45 6 7.29 6.20 Not Rated
03-07-57
Waccamaw R NC 130 Columbus 15-(1) 07/17/01 62 22 5.79 4.58 Good
09/02/97 54 19 6.38 4.55 Good-Fair
06/17/91 94 27 6.08 4.22 Good
08/08/90 78 19 6.43 3.34 Good-Fair
06/07/87 72 19 6.08 4.73 Good-Fair
07/09/84 90 22 6.21 4.26 Good-Fair
Waccamaw R NC 904 Columbus 15-(1) 05/09/01 84 21 6.51 5.04 Good-Fair
07/17/01 --- 23 --- 4.63 Good
09/10/91 57 19 6.07 4.50 Good-Fair
07/26/83 56 7 7.51 5.11 Fair
Juniper Cr NC 211 Brunswick 15-7 06/18/91 30 3 6.53 5.62 Not Rated
Juniper Cr SR 1928 Columbus 15-7 06/17/91 50 10 6.50 4.29 Not Rated
Grissett Swp SR 1173 Columbus 15-17-1-(5) 09/11/91 --- 5 --- 6.92 Not Rated
Grissett Swp SR 1141 Columbus 15-17-1-(5) 02/05/01 36 6 7.40 5.53 Not Rated
Monie Swp SR 1006 Columbus 15-17-1-12 03/27/96 33 6 7.34 6.75 Not Rated
09/11/91 --- 5 --- 7.04 Not Rated
Caw Caw Swp SR 1305 Brunswick 15-23 03/03/98 --- 5 --- 3.97 Not Rated
07/09/96 --- 5 --- 5.72 Not Rated
03-07-58
White Marsh above US
74 Bus
Columbus 15-4 09/29/94 49 3 7.32 3.93 Not Rated
White Marsh old RR
grade
Columbus 15-4 09/29/94 38 2 8.06 7.42 Not Rated
White Marsh SR 1001 Columbus 15-4 02/01/01 33 2 7.05 6.61 Not Rated
Brown Marsh
Swp
SR 1700 Bladen 15-4-1-1-1 03/13/96 41 2 7.93 4.92 Not Rated
Elkton Marsh SR 1710 Bladen 15-4-1-1-2 02/05/01 29 4 6.19 4.19 Not Rated
03/13/96 37 5 7.15 6.44 Not Rated
Soules Swp SR 1420 Columbus 15-4-8 03/05/92 63 6 8.25 6.97 Not Rated
03-07-59
Freshwater
sites

Lockwoods
Folly R
SR 1501 Brunswick 15-25-1-(1) 07/08/96 66 14 6.33 5.41 Good-Fair
07/10/84 67 6 7.79 7.33 Good-Fair
Royal Oak
Swp
NC 211 Brunswick 15-25-1-12 07/11/01 --- 13 --- 5.49 Not Rated
02/05/01 58 18 6.01 4.56 Not Rated
02/18/99 75 21 6.41 5.19 Not Rated
03/03/98 55 18 6.24 4.96 Not Rated
07/08/96 --- 15 --- 3.45 Not Rated

A-II-8
Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPTBI BioClass
Shallotte R US 17 Brunswick 15-25-2-(5) 07/11/01 31 6 6.84 6.11 Fair
07/08/96 50 9 6.29 5.59 Good-Fair
09/09/91 58 11 6.92 5.79 Good-Fair
07/13/83 48 7 6.87 5.59 Good-Fair
Estuarine sites
ICWW CM 105 #1 Brunswick 15-25 06/25/96 79 Not Rated
ICWW CM 105 #2 Brunswick 15-25 06/25/96 62 Not Rated
ICWW CM 105 #3 Brunswick 15-25 06/25/96 92 Not Rated
ICWW Ocean Isle
Canal
Brunswick 15-25 06/25/96 105 Not Rated
Lockwoods
Folly R
NC 211 Brunswick 15-25-1-
(11)
09/09/91 38 Not Rated
Lockwoods
Folly R
CM 14 Brunswick 15-25-1-
(16)
06/26/96 51 Not Rated
Shallotte R Shallotte
Cr
Brunswick 15-25-2-
(10)
06/26/96 106 Not Rated
Calabash R CM 7 Brunswick 15-25-5 06/25/96 48 Not Rated

A-II-9
Fish Community Sampling Methods and Criteria

Wadeable Stream Sampling Methods

At each sample site, a 600-foot section of stream was selected and measured. The fish in the
delineated stretch of stream were then collected using two backpack electrofishing units and two
persons netting the stunned fish. After collection, all readily identifiable fish were examined for
sores, lesions, fin damage or skeletal anomalies, measured (total length to the nearest 1 mm), and
then released. Those fish that were not readily identifiable were preserved and returned to the
laboratory for identification, examination and total length measurement. Detailed descriptions of
the sampling methods may be found in NCDENR (2001) or electronically at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/IBI%20Methods%202001.pdf.

Nonwadeable Small Boat Sampling Methods

At each site, a 400 m section of stream is measured off into 100 m segments. There are four
segments along each shoreline and two segments down the center of the stream, for a total of 10
segments. For each of the 100 m segments, fish are collected and processed the same as those
collected using the wadeable stream method. The last collection technique used at each location
is a timed catfish collection effort outside the measured stream reach. Data from each of the
100-meter segments and the catfish sampling are currently treated as a separate subsample.

NCIBI Analysis

The scoring criteria, metric performance and fish community ratings are currently being revised
for wadeable streams in the Sandhills and coastal plain. Evaluation protocols for nonwadeable
streams sampled with the small electrofishing boat are also currently under development.

References

Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh, NC.

Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries. 6:21-27.

NCDENR. 2001. Stream Fish Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Standard Operating
Procedure Biological Monitoring. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.

A-II-10
Table A-II-2 Fish Community Structure Data Collected in the Lumber River Basin, 1990 – 2001
(Current basinwide sites are bolded.)

Subbasin Waterbody Station County Index No. Date Rating
03-07-50
Drowning Cr NC 73 Moore 14-2-(1) 03/25/96 Not Rated
05/31/96 Not Rated
06/06/01 Not Rated
Jackson Cr SR 1122 Moore 14-2-5 06/06/01 Not Rated
Naked Cr SR 1003 Richmond 14-2-6 03/25/96 Not Rated
05/31/96 Not Rated
06/06/01 Not Rated
Rocky Ford Br SR 1424 Richmond 14-2-6-1 08/20/90 Not Rated
Deep Cr SR 1113 Moore 14-2-10-1-(1) 06/07/01 Not Rated
Aberdeen Cr SR 1105 Moore 14-2-11-(6) 06/07/01 Not Rated
Quewhiffle Cr SR 1225 Hoke 14-2-14 06/05/01 Not Rated
Mountain Cr SR 1215 Hoke 14-2-16-(2) 06/05/01 Not Rated
Buffalo Cr SR 1203 Hoke 14-2.5 06/05/01 Not Rated
03-07-51
Gum Swp NC 71 Robeson 14-5 09/30/91 Not Rated
03/26/96 Not Rated
Back Swp SR 1003 Robeson 14-8-(2.5) 07/24/91 Not Rated
03/26/96 Not Rated
05/22/01 Not Rated
Porter Swp SR 1503 Columbus 14-27 04/29/92 Not Rated
03/27/96 Not Rated
Gapway Swp SR 1356 Columbus 14-31 05/22/01 Not Rated
03-07-54
Ashpole Swp NC 41 Robeson 14-30 03/26/96 Not Rated
07/25/91 Not Rated
10/22/92 Not Rated
03-07-55
Gum Swp Cr SR 1344 Scotland 14-32-(1) 05/24/01 Not Rated
Joes Cr NC 79 Scotland 14-32-14 05/24/01 Not Rated
Shoe Heel Cr SR 1433 Scotland 14-34 05/23/01 Not Rated
L Shoe Heel Cr SR 1405 Scotland 14-34-3 09/30/91 Not Rated
03/25/96 Not Rated
Jordan Cr SR 1324 Scotland 14-34-4-(2) 05/23/01 Not Rated
Juniper Cr SR 1405 Scotland 14-34-4-3 05/23/01 Not Rated
03-07-56
Friar Swp SR 1740 Columbus 15-2-6-3 03/27/96 Not Rated
03-07-57
Juniper Cr SR 1928 Columbus 15-7 12/11/91 Not Rated
Grissett Swp SR 1141 Columbus 15-17-1-(5) 04/29/92 Not Rated
Monie Swp SR 1006 Columbus 15-17-1-12 04/29/92 Not Rated
Toms Fork Cr SR 1118 Columbus 15-17-1-10 04/29/92 Not Rated
03-07-58
Brown Marsh Swp SR 1700 Bladen 15-4-1-1 03/27/96 Not Rated
08/11/92 Not Rated
03-07-59
Lockwoods Folly R US 17 Brunswick 15-25-1-(1) 04/28/92 Not Rated
04/02/96 Not Rated
Royal Oak Swp NC 211 Brunswick 15-25-1-12 04/25/92 Not Rated
05/21/01 Not Rated
Cool Run US 17 Brunswick 15-25-2-3 04/28/92 Not Rated
04/02/96 Not Rated

A-II-11
Fish Tissue Criteria

In evaluating fish tissue analysis results, several different types of criteria are used. Human health
concerns related to fish consumption are screened by comparing results with Federal Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels (USFDA, 1980), Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
recommended screening values, and criteria adopted by the North Carolina State Health Director (Table
A-II-3). Individual parameter results which appear to be of potential human health concern are evaluated
by the NC Division of Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology by request from DWQ.

The FDA levels were developed to protect humans from the chronic effects of toxic substances consumed
in foodstuffs, and thus, employ a "safe level" approach to fish tissue consumption. Presently, the FDA
has only developed metals criteria for mercury.

The USEPA has recommended screening values for target analytes which are formulated from a risk
assessment procedure (USEPA, 1995). These are the concentrations of analytes in edible fish tissue that
are of potential public health concern. The DWQ compares fish tissue results with USEPA screening
values to evaluate the need for further intensive site-specific monitoring.

Although the USEPA has suggested a screening value of 0.7 ppt (pg/g) for dioxins, the State of North
Carolina currently uses a value of 3.0 ppt in issuing an advisory.

Table A-II-3 Fish Tissue Criteria (All wet weight concentrations are reported in parts per

Contaminant FDA Action Levels US EPA Screening Values NC Health Director
Metals
Cadmium 10.0
Mercury 1.0 0.6 0.4
Selenium 50.0 5.0
Organics
Aldrin 0.3
Chlorpyrifos 30.0
Total chlordane 0.08
Cis-chlordane 0.3
Trans-chlordane 0.3
Total DDT1 0.3
o,p DDD 5.0
p, p DDD 5.0
o,p DDE 5.0
p,p DDE 5.0
o,p DDT 5.0
p,p DDT 5.0
Dieldrin 0.007
Dioxins (total) 0.7 3.0
Endosulfan (I and II) 60.0
Endrin 0.3 3.0
Heptachlorepoxide 0.01
Hexachlorobenzene 0.07
Lindane 0.08
Mirex 2.0
Total PCBs 0.01
PCB-1254 2.0
Toxaphene 0.1
1 Total DDT includes the sum of all its isomers and metabolites (i.e., p,p DDT, o,p DDT, DDE and DDD).
2 Total chlordane includes the sum of cis-and trans- isomers as well as nonachlor and oxychlordane.

A-II-12
Table A-II-4 Wet Weight Concentrations of Mercury (Hg), Arsenic (As), Chromium (Crt), Copper
(Cu), Nickel (Ni) and Zinc (Zn) in Fish Tissue from the Lumber River at US 74
(Subbasin 51), near Boardman, Columbus County, July 2000

Species
Length
(mm)
Weight
(g)
Hg

As

Crt

Cu

Ni

Zn

Amia calva 410 663 0.50 0.18 0.19 0.18 ND ND
530 1532 1.2 0.28 0.23 ND ND 0.86
550 1853 1.2 0.43 0.29 0.12 ND 1.5
522 1490 1.4 0.30 0.29 0.13 ND 0.57
590 2256 1.5 0.34 0.26 0.14 ND 1.8
Esox niger 340 365 0.62 ND 0.30 0.17 ND 4.1
306 190.5 0.64 ND 0.24 0.17 ND 6.1
435 554 0.67 ND 0.25 0.10 ND 3.0
294 185.5 0.70 ND 0.27 0.16 0.15 5.4
307 212 0.89 ND 0.18 0.19 ND 5.9
375 388 0.92 ND 0.27 0.14 ND 4.2
Ictalurus punctatus 495 1291 0.58 ND 0.26 0.19 ND 2.6
Lepomis microlophus 208 207.5 0.30 ND 0.21 0.15 ND 6.4
250 357 0.30 ND 0.25 0.52 ND 4.0
230 290.5 0.43 ND 0.28 0.18 ND 3.5
250 388 0.66 ND 0.25 0.36 ND 2.5
Micropterus salmoides 275 327 0.72 ND 0.24 0.19 ND 4.2
302 453 0.86 ND 0.22 0.31 0.51 2.7
440 1303 1.8 ND 0.23 0.19 ND 1.4
Minytrema melanops 475 1617 0.50 ND 0.31 0.14 ND 2.0
450 1187 0.51 ND 0.25 0.14 ND 3.0
Pomoxis nigromaculatus 270 328 0.79 ND 0.23 0.22 ND 5.5
Cadmium and lead were non-detectable in all samples.
ND = non-detect; detection level for arsenic and nickel = 0.1

Lake Sampling Methodology

Lake monitoring stations are sited to provide representative samples of lake water quality based on
morphology, size and site-specific considerations. Physical field measurements (dissolved oxygen, pH,
water temperature and conductivity) are made with a calibrated HydrolabTM. Readings are taken at the
surface of the lake (0.15 meters) and at one-meter increments to the bottom of the lake. Secchi depths are
measured at each sampling station with a weighted Secchi disk attached to a rope marked off in
centimeters. Surface water samples (0.15 meters) are collected for chloride, hardness, fecal coliform
bacteria and metals.

A LablineTM sampler is used to composite water samples within the photic zone (a depth equal to twice
the Secchi depth). Nutrients, chlorophyll a, solids, turbidity and phytoplankton are collected at this depth.
Nutrients and chlorophyll a from the photic zone are used to calculate the North Carolina Trophic State
Index score. The LablineTM sampler is also used to collect a grab water samples near the bottom of the
lake for nutrients. Water samples are collected and preserved in accordance with protocols specified in
the Standard Operating Procedures Manual, Physical and Chemical Monitoring (NCDEHNR, February
1996 and subsequent updates).
Appendices

Appendix III

Use Support Methodology
and
Use Support Ratings

A-III-1

A. Introduction to Use Support

Surface waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a
waterbody supports its uses (use support status) is an important method of interpreting water
quality data and assessing water quality.

Surface waters are rated Supporting and Impaired. These ratings refer to whether the classified
uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life protection and recreation) are being met.
For example, waters classified for fish consumption, aquatic life protection and secondary
recreation (Class C for freshwater or SC for saltwater) are rated Supporting if data used to
determine use support meet certain criteria. Waters are rated as Impaired if these criteria were
not met. Waters with inconclusive data are listed as Not Rated. Waters lacking data are listed as
No Data. More specific methods are presented in Part C of this appendix.

In previous use support assessments, surface waters were rated fully supporting (FS), partially
supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used to identify waters that
were meeting their designated uses. Impaired waters were rated PS and NS, depending on their
degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters lacking data or having inconclusive data.
The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that states no longer subdivide the
Impaired category. In agreement with this guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the
Impaired category and rates waters as Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated or No Data.

Historically, the Supporting use support rating was also subdivided into fully supporting (FS)
and fully supporting but threatened (ST). ST was used to identify waters that were fully
supporting but had some notable water quality concerns and could represent constant, degrading
or improving water quality conditions. North Carolina’s past use of ST was very different from
that of the EPA, which uses the rating to identify waters that demonstrate declining water quality
conditions (EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality
Assessments [305(b) Reports] and Electronic Updates, 1997). Given the difference between the
EPA and North Carolina definitions of ST and the resulting confusion that arose from this
difference, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Supporting category. However, these waters
and the specific water quality concerns are identified in the Section B subbasin chapters so that
data, management and the need to address the identified concerns are presented.

B. Interpretation of Data and Information

Data used in use support assessments include biological, chemical/physical, lakes assessments,
fish consumption advisories from the NC Department of Health and Human Services, and
swimming advisories and shellfish sanitation growing area classifications from the NC Division
of Environmental Health (as appropriate). Available land cover and land use information is also
used, along with annual water supply reports from regional water treatment plant consultants.

A-III-2
Although there is a general procedure for analyzing the data and information for determining use
support ratings, each waterbody is reviewed individually, and best professional judgment is
applied during these determinations.

When interpreting the use support ratings, it is important to understand its associated limitations
and degree of uncertainty. The assessments are not intended to provide precise conclusions
about pollutant budgets for specific watersheds. Rather, the intent of use support assessments is
to gain an overall picture of water quality for the five-year assessment window, to describe how
well surface waters support the uses for which they were classified, and to document the
potential contribution made by different pollution sources.

It is also important to understand that use support methods continue to improve over time, and
the information and technology used to make use support determinations also continues to
become more accurate. 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.

C. Assessment Methodology

Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk using six use support categories: aquatic life, fish
consumption, primary/secondary recreation, water supply, shellfish harvesting and "other" uses.
These categories are tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC
rivers and streams. A single water could have more than one use support rating corresponding to
one or more of the six use support categories, as shown in the table below. 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: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Surface Waters of North Carolina (15A NCAC 2b .0100 and .0200).

Use Support Categories
Primary
Classification
Ecosystem
Approach
Human Health
Approach
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption
Primary/
Secondary
Recreation
Water
Supply
Shellfish
Harvesting Other
C X X X N/A N/A X
SC X X X N/A N/A X
B X X X N/A N/A X
SB X X X N/A N/A X
SA X X X N/A X X
WS I – WS IV X X X X N/A X

Many types of information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify causes and
sources of water quality impairment. A use support data file is maintained for each of the 17

A-III-3
river basins. All existing data pertaining to a stream segment for each applicable use support
category are entered into record and include, but are not limited to, use support ratings, basis of
assessment, biological data, ambient monitoring data, problem parameters and potential sources.
The following describes the data and methodologies used to make use support assessments for
the surface water classifications (described in Section A, Chapter 3 of each basin plan) using the
six use support categories. These methods will continue to be refined as additional information
becomes 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.

Summary of Basis for Assigning Use Support Ratings to Surface Waters
Use Support
Status
Overall
Basis
Specific
Basis Description
Supporting/
Impaired

Not Rated

Supporting

Monitored Monitored
(M)

Monitored
(M)

Monitored/
Evaluated
(ME)
Monitored stream segmentsa with datab ≤5c years old where a
bioclassification has been assigned to the sampling site and/or ambient
and/or fish tissue data exist and/or DEH shellfish growing area data and/or
information on posted swimming closures are available; may be applied to
any use support category being assessed.
Monitored stream segmentsa with datab ≤5c years old where a
bioclassification has not been assigned to the sampling site; can only be
applied to the Aquatic Life use support category.
Stream segmenta is not monitored, but is assigned a use support rating
based on another segment of same stream for which datab ≤5c years old are
available where a bioclassification has been assigned to the sampling site
and/or ambient data are available and the segment is given a Supporting
rating; can only be applied to the Aquatic Life use support category.
Supporting

Impaired

Not Rated

Evaluated Evaluated
(E)

Evaluated
(E)
Evaluated
(E)
Applied to unmonitored streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to
monitored stream segments rated Supporting in the Aquatic Life use
support category that share similar land use to the monitored stream
segment; waters in the Water Supply use support category where no
significant problems have been noted in the Regional Surface Water
Supply Reports; waters in the Fish Consumption use support category in
river basins within the regional fish consumption advice area.
Only applied to waters in the Fish Consumption use support category in
river basins within the regional fish consumption advice area.
Unmonitored streams that receive effluent from a NPDES discharger that
has been found to be in "significant noncompliance" or has failed three or
more WET tests during the two-year review period; only applied to the
Aquatic Life use support category.
No Data
(ND)
Insufficient or no data available to determine use support; includes
unmonitored streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to stream
segments rated Impaired.
a) A stream segment is a stream, or a portion thereof, listed in the Classifications and Water Quality Standards for a river basin.
Each segment is assigned a unique identification number (index number).
b) Major data sources include benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community bioclassifications and chemical/physical
monitoring data.
c) From the year that basin monitoring was done.

A-III-4
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
parameters or sources (except general NPS) are not applied to unmonitored tributaries. Impaired
ratings are not extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries.

Problem Parameters

Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is listed in the
DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified by
DWQ biologists based on site visits, it is listed and attempts are made to identify the type of
habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation, loss of woody habitat, loss of pools, loss of 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.

Potential Sources

General nonpoint sources (NPS) and point sources (PS) of pollution are identified where there is
sufficient information.

Aquatic Life Use Support

The aquatic life use support category is an ecosystem approach to assess whether aquatic life
(benthic macroinvertebrates and fish) can live and reproduce in the waters. This category is
applied to all waters of the state. Biological data, ambient monitoring data and NPDES
discharger data are all considered in assessing the aquatic life use support category. The
following is a description of each data type and methods used to assess how well a water is
meeting the criteria for aquatic life protection.

Biological Data

There are two main types of biological data: benthic marcoinvertebrate and fish community.
Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both
are evaluated in assessing use support. It is important to note that where both ambient
monitoring data and biological data are available, biological data are given greater weight. This
is particularly true when ambient chemical and biological data are conflicting. When these two
indicators conflict, additional information is gathered (e.g., land use and land use changes, etc.)
and best professional judgement is used to determine an appropriate use support rating.

In special situations, where there are currently insufficient biological data available, the
basinwide planner will make a request of the DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch to determine
whether a biological survey is appropriate. If a biological survey is appropriate, the use support
rating will be determined by the bioclassification resulting from the survey. If a biological
survey is not appropriate, then the stream will be Not Rated.

A-III-5
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent 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 collection. The benthic
macroinvertebrate bioclassifications are translated into use support ratings according to the
following scheme:

Bioclassification Use Support Rating
Excellent Supporting
Good Supporting
Good-Fair Supporting
Fair Impaired
Poor Impaired

Due to the increased emphasis placed on Fair or Poor bioclassifications and the borderline nature
of some bioclassification scores, sites should be resampled within 12 to 24 months after a Fair
rating is obtained in 1999 and beyond, if this Fair rating will result in a lower use support rating
or if data are from a site never sampled before. This resampling will be done to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will not be given a use support rating until the second sample is
obtained. The table below shows how a final use support rating is obtained for sites that are
resampled.

New Benthic Macroinvertebrate Classifications (1999 and Beyond)
and Data Causing a Decline in Use Support Ratings
Pre-1999
Bioclassification
1st Sample
Bioclassification
Draft Use
Support Rating
2nd Sample
Bioclassification
Final Use
Support Rating
N/A Fair Not Rated;
resample
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Supporting
N/A Fair Not Rated;
resample
Fair or Poor Impaired
N/A Poor Impaired N/A Impaired
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair Not Rated;
resample
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Supporting
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair Not Rated;
resample
Fair or Poor Impaired
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Poor Impaired N/A Impaired
N/A – Not Applicable NR = Not Rated

The use of benthic macroinvertebrate data can be limited in some waters. The accumulation of
swamp stream data over nearly a decade suggests that not all swamp streams support similar
fauna. The development of swamp stream criteria is complex, and one set of criteria is not
appropriate for all swamp streams. Benthic macroinvertebrate data will not be used in waters
characterized or classified by DWQ as swamp waters until the bioclassification criteria for these
waters can be used with confidence. Benthic macroinvertebrate data are also not used to develop

A-III-6
use support ratings for estuarine waters. Until bioclassification criteria for swamp and estuarine
waters are developed, a designation of Not Rated will be used, and these waters will be listed as
Not Rated for aquatic life use support assessments.

Benthic macroinvertebrate data are used to provide bioclassifications for high elevation trout
streams. The benthic macroinvertebrate data, while not a direct measure of the trout population,
are a robust measure of stream integrity. Loss of canopy, increase in stream temperature,
increased nutrients, toxicity and increased sedimentation will affect the benthic
macroinvertebrate and fish communities. For these reasons, the benthic macroinvertebrate
bioclassifications provide a valuable assessment of the integrity of trout waters.

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.

Fish Community Bioclassifications

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. The NCIBI is translated into use
support ratings according to the following scheme:

NCIBI Use Support Rating
Excellent Supporting
Good Supporting
Good-Fair Supporting
Fair Impaired
Poor Impaired

The NCIBI was recently revised by DWQ (NCDENR, 2001). Currently, the focus of using and
applying the NCIBI is restricted to wadeable streams that can be sampled by a crew of four
persons. Infrequently, larger wadeable streams can be sampled if there is a crew of six persons.
The bioclassifications and criteria have also been recalibrated against regional reference site data
(NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b and 2001a).

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 the "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.

A-III-7
• 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.

Due to the increased emphasis placed on Fair or Poor bioclassifications and the borderline nature
of some bioclassification scores, sites should be resampled within 12 to 24 months after a Fair
rating is obtained in 1999 and beyond, if this Fair rating will result in a lower use support rating
or if data are from a site never sampled before. This resampling will be done to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will not be given a use support rating until the second sample is
obtained. The table below shows how a final use support rating is obtained for sites that are
resampled.

New Fish Community Classifications (1999 and Beyond)
and Data Causing a Decline in Use Support Ratings
Pre-1999
Bioclassification
1st Sample
Bioclassification
Draft Use
Support Rating
2nd Sample
Bioclassification
Final Use
Support Rating
N/A Fair Not Rated;
resample
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Supporting
N/A Fair Not Rated;
resample
Fair or Poor Impaired
N/A Poor Impaired N/A Impaired
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair Not Rated;
resample
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Supporting
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair Not Rated;
resample
Fair or Poor Impaired
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Poor Impaired N/A Impaired
N/A – Not Applicable NR = Not Rated

A-III-8
Ambient Monitoring Data

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring
System. These data are downloaded from the Surface Water Information Management System
for analysis. Total number of samples and percent of samples exceeding the NC water quality
standards are evaluated for the development of use support ratings along with other data or alone
when other data are not available. Where both ambient data and biological data are available,
biological data are given greater weight.

When reviewing ambient data, a five-year window that ends on August 31 of the year of
biological sampling is used. For example, if biological data are collected in a basin in 2000, then
the five-year window for the ambient data would be September 1, 1995 to August 31, 2000.
Selected ambient parameters are used to assess aquatic life use support. These parameters
include ammonia, dissolved oxygen, pH, chloride, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel and lead.
These parameters are measured against standards for a minimum of ten samples as follows:

Standards Violation Rating
Criterion exceeded ≤10% Supporting
Criterion exceeded 11-25% Impaired

Data for copper, iron and zinc are not used according to the scheme outlined above. These
metals have action level standards because they are generally not bioaccumulative and have
variable toxicity to aquatic life depending on chemical form, solubility and stream
characteristics. In order for an action level standard to be violated, there must be a toxicological
test that documents an impact on a sensitive aquatic organism. The action level standard is used
to screen waters for potential problems with copper, iron and zinc.

Metals data for copper and iron are screened at the 85th percentile of five years of ambient data
ending on August 31 of the year of biological sampling. Sites, other than estuarine and swamp
waters, with an 85th percentile of f iron are identified and
flagged for instream chronic toxicity testing by DWQ. Chronic toxicity testing in estuarine and
swamp waters is not ecologically meaningful. Criteria are still being developed for zinc. If a
stream does not have biological data that would deem a Supporting rating, then the stream can be
rated Impaired for aquatic life if instream chronic toxicity is found. Criteria for evaluating
instream chronic toxicity are three chronic pass/fail tests over three months using Ceriodaphnia.
Two fails result in an Impaired rating.

It is important to note that some waters may exhibit characteristics outside the numerical
standards due to natural conditions (e.g., many swamp waters are characterized by low pH and
dissolved oxygen). These natural conditions do not constitute a violation of water quality
standards.

NPDES Discharger Data

Aquatic Toxicity Data
For facilities that perform Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests according to state NPDES
discharge permit requirements, a review of the results of a five-year window that ends on August

A-III-9
31 of the year of biological sampling is used. For example, if biological data are collected in a
basin in 2000, then the five-year window for the aquatic toxicity data would be September 1,
1995 to August 31, 2000. If a stream with a WET test facility has not been sampled for instream
chronic toxicity, biological community data or has no ambient data, and that facility has failed
three or more WET tests in the most recent two years, the stream is Not Rated. If failures
continue, DWQ will work with the facility to correct the failures and assess stream impacts
before the next basin sampling cycle begins with either a biological survey or instream chronic
toxicity testing, if possible.

Discharge Effluent Data

NPDES effluent data are reviewed by analyzing monthly averages of water quality parameters
over a two-year period of data ending on August 31 of the year of biological sampling in a basin.
Prior to May 31, 2000, facilities were screened for criterion 40 percent in excess of state water
quality standards for conventional pollutant limitations or 20 percent in excess of state water
quality standards for toxic pollutants for two or more months during two consecutive quarters, or
chronic violations of either conventional or toxic pollutant limitations for four or more months
during two consecutive quarters.

After May 31, 2000, facilities are screened for criterion 20 percent in excess of state water
quality standards for both conventional and toxic pollutants for two or more months during two
consecutive quarters, or chronic violations of either conventional or toxic pollutant limitations
for four or more months during two consecutive quarters. Streams with discharges that are in
excess of permit limits will not be rated if no biological or ambient monitoring data are available.
Therefore, streams will not be rated Impaired based on effluent data alone. Appropriate DWQ
staff will be given a list of these facilities for follow-up.

Fish Consumption Use Support

The fish consumption use support category is a human health approach to assess whether humans
can safely consume fish from a water. This use support 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 (NCDHHS). If a limited fish consumption
advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the time of use support assessment, the water
is rated Impaired.

The NCDHHS has developed regional fish consumption advice (all water south and east of I-85)
for certain fish species shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. These fish
species include shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish, as well as largemouth bass, bowfin
(or blackfish) and chain pickerel (or jack). This regional advice is used to determine use support
for the fish consumption category. It is recognized that bowfin only live and reproduce in waters
of the piedmont and coastal plain. Therefore, the use support ratings will be based on the
combination of the current regional fish consumption advice and the documented presence of
bowfin in each river basin as found in Freshwater Fisheries of North Carolina (Menhinick,
1991). In river basins where there are documented populations of bowfin (Roanoke, Chowan,
Pasquotank, White Oak, Lumber, Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Cape Fear, Yadkin-Pee Dee and
Catawba), all waters will be rated Impaired for the fish consumption category. In river basins
where there are no documented populations of bowfin (Little Tennesee, Hiwassee, Savannah,

A-III-10
Watauga, New, French Broad and Broad), the waters will be rated Supporting for the fish
consumption category unless there is a site-specific advisory.

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 and in the use support summary tables of the basin plans.
A review of the methods for assessing the fish consumption use support category is being
conducted and these methods may be modified in the future.

Primary/Secondary Recreation Use Support

This human health related use support 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 supporting these uses are
classified as Class B, SB and SA waters. This use support category also evaluates whether
waters support 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 supporting these uses are classified as Class C, SC and WS waters.
The use support ratings applied to this category are based on the North Carolina water quality
standard for fecal coliform bacteria where data are available or where swimming advisories are
posted by local and state health agencies.

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 bacteria standard is not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies per 100 ml
of at least five samples over a 30-day period and not to exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in more
than 20 percent of the samples during the same period. The 200 colonies per 100 ml standard is
intended to ensure that waters are safe enough for water contact through recreation.

Beginning in the summer of 1997, the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) began testing
coastal recreation waters (beaches) for fecal coliform bacteria levels to assess the relative safety
of these waters for swimming. The Shellfish Sanitation Section of DEH routinely tests
approximately 275 coastal sites once a week during the tourist recreational season (April to
September), less often the rest of the year. These tests give researchers and the public a gauge of
bacteria levels along the North Carolina coast. If an area has elevated bacteria levels, health
officials will advise that people not swim there by posting a swimming advisory in the area, and
by notifying the local media and county health department.

The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) does not have a comprehensive weekly monitoring
program to assess inland waters for fecal coliform bacteria levels. North Carolina has more than
37,000 miles of inland waters, and resources are not sufficient to perform comprehensive weekly
bacteria monitoring. Rather, DWQ conducts monthly ambient water quality monitoring at
approximately 375 locations across the state. These monthly samplings include fecal coliform
bacteria testing of selected lakes, rivers and streams. Ambient water quality samples are
routinely collected and sent to DWQ laboratories for analysis using EPA approved laboratory
methods, with the exception that sample holding times are not typically within the prescribed

A-III-11
six-hour limit. These data collection and analysis restrictions may impact the quality assurance
of the sample results.

Because use support decisions are made in conjunction with the development of DWQ’s
basinwide water quality management strategies, all available information and data are evaluated
for use support ratings using a five-year assessment period. A five-year data window that ends
on August 31 of the year of biological sampling is used. For example, if biological data are
collected in a basin in 2000, then the five-year window for the fecal coliform data and swimming
advisories would be September 1, 1995 to August 31, 2000. However, an annual screening
review of all DWQ ambient fecal coliform data is conducted by DWQ to assess the need for
additional monitoring or the need for immediate action by the local or state health agencies to
protect public health. In most cases, management strategies to correct waters considered to be
Impaired due to elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels may require substantial resources and
time. Therefore, impairment decisions for bacteria must be made using sound science and data.

Decades of monitoring experience have demonstrated that bacteria concentrations may fluctuate
widely in surface waters over a period of time. Thus, a five-year data window and multiple
sampling efforts are used to evaluate waters against the North Carolina water quality standard for
recreational use support. This level of sampling is needed before waters should be considered
Impaired, and therefore, in need of TMDL’s or other management strategies. This procedure,
however, does not preclude any health agency from immediately posting health advisories to
warn recreational users of a temporary increase in health risks related to bacterial contamination
or other health related episodes.

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. In addition, appropriate
health agencies are notified of these locations. If an initial five times within 30 days sampling
indicates a geometric mean greater than 200 colonies per 100 ml, or more than 20 percent of
these samples exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml, then the location will continue to be sampled for
bacteria persistence. 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 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.

Recreational use support decisions are based on a review of both DWQ and DEH monitoring
data for the five-year data window. A formal solicitation for readily available and suitable fecal
coliform bacteria monitoring data from other sources is conducted in accordance with EPA
Section 303(d) guidance. Recreational use support assessments include an annual review of all
readily available DWQ ambient monitoring data and may include additional sampling of five

A-III-12
times within 30 days. The use support impairment status of any given water and the resulting
listing of that water on the State 303(d) List will be determined using two procedures.

Monitored Class B, SB and SA waters are rated Supporting for primary recreation if the
geometric mean over the five-year data window is less than or equal to 200 colonies per 100 ml,
and if less than 20 percent of these samples did not exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml. These
waters will be rated Impaired if either portion of these state standards are not met, or if additional
five times within 30 days sampling exceeded either portion of the state standard. Monitored
Class C, SC and WS waters are rated Impaired if a fecal coliform standard has been exceeded for
that waterbody during the five-year data window and subsequent monitoring of five times within
30 days exceeded the 200 colonies per 100 ml geomean, or greater than 20 percent of these
samples exceeded 400 colonies per 100 ml over the five-year data window. These waters are
rated Supporting for secondary recreation if neither portion of the state standard is exceeded.
Waters without sufficient fecal coliform data or swimming advisories are Not Rated and waters
with no data are noted as having No Data.

DWQ attempts to determine if there are any inland swimming areas monitored by county or local
health departments or estuarine (Class SA and SB) waters as assessed 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. When reviewing DEH fecal coliform data and local
swimming advisories, the same five-year window that ends on August 31 of the year of
biological sampling is used. If a water was posted with a swimming advisory for at least two
months within the five-year data window, it is further evaluated for the persistence of elevated
fecal coliform bacteria levels. Those waters posted with swimming advisories for more than two
months in the five-year data window are rated Impaired unless county or state health agencies
believe that the cause of the swimming advisory is not persistent. If DEH has no data on an
estuarine water, that water will not be rated for recreational uses.

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 determine use support ratings for shellfish waters and to
determine causes and sources of impairment for these 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 fecal coliform bacteria
sampling, locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource. Growing
waters are classified as follows:

A-III-13
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)

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. Thus, the
DWQ Class SA waters must be separated out and rated for shellfish harvesting use support. The
acreage of Supporting and Impaired waters are calculated using GIS showing DWQ and DEH
classifications as attribute information. However, 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.

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 those areas that DWQ Class SA (shellfish harvesting waters). This will result in a difference
of acreage between DEH areas classified as CAC, PRO, RES and DWQ waters rated as
Impaired. For example, if DEH classifies a 20-acre area CAC, but only ten acres are Class SA,
only those ten acres of Class SA waters are rated 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 procedure will continue to be used. A point source
discharge is only listed as a potential source when NPDES permit limits are exceeded.

A-III-14
DWQ and DEH are developing the database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish
harvesting use support using a frequency of closures-based approach. This database will allow
DWQ to better assess the extent and duration of closures in Class SA waters. These tools will
not be available for use support determinations in Class SA waters for the 2001 White Oak, 2002
Neuse and 2003 Lumber River basin use support assessments. DWQ believes it is important to
identify frequency of closures in these waters, so an interim methodology will be used based on
existing databases and GIS shapefiles. There will likely be changes in reported acreages in
future assessments using the permanent methods and tools that result from this project. DWQ
and DEH hope to have these tools fully developed for using the frequency of closure-based
methods for the 2005 Cape Fear River use support assessment and basin plan.

Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology

The interim method will be 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.

Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Use Support Ratings

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 P/R** 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 will work with DEH to determine the number of days and acreages that
CAO Class SA waters were closed to shellfish harvesting during a five-year window of data that
ends on August 31 of the year of biological sampling. For example, if biological data are
collected in a basin in 2000, then the five-year window for data review would be September 1,
1995 to August 31, 2000. For each growing area with CAO Class SA waters, DEH and DWQ
staff will define subareas within the CAO area that were opened and closed at the same time.
The number of days these CAO areas were closed will be 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 is 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.

A-III-15
Proposed Permanent Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology

Over the next few years DWQ, DEH, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) will be engaged in developing a fully functionally database with related
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. DWQ proposes to
use information generated by these new tools to do frequency of closure-based shellfish
harvesting use support assessments in Class SA waters, starting with the 2005 Cape Fear River
basin use support assessment.

Using the new database with 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. The
percent of the five-year data window that individual Class SA waters are closed will be used to
make use support determinations for areas that are classified by DEH as CAO. PRO, RES and
CAC areas will be rated Impaired, and CAO areas will be rated Supporting or Impaired based on
the methodology outlined above in the interim methods. Growing areas that have been
reclassified by DEH during the data window from a lower classification to APP will be rated FS.
Areas that are reclassified from APP to CAO during the data window will be rated as described
above in the interim methods, taking into account the total days closed during the data window,
including when the area was classified as APP.

Water Supply Use Support

This use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters and is a human health approach
to assess whether a water can be used for water supply purposes. Many drinking water supplies
in NC are drawn from human-made reservoirs that often have multiple uses.

Water supply use support is assessed using information from the seven regional water treatment
plant (WTP) consultants. Each January, the WTP consultants 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 for the WTP, and the
reason for the closure or switch.

The WTP consultants’ spreadsheets are reviewed 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. In general, North
Carolina’s surface water supplies are currently rated Supporting. Specific criteria for rating
waters Impaired are yet to be determined.

Other Uses: All Waters in the State

This category of use will be assessed infrequently but could be applied to any water in the state.
Examples of uses that could fall into this category are aesthetics and industrial and agricultural
water supply. This category allows for the assessment of any use that is not considered for
aquatic life, primary/secondary recreation, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting or water
supply.

A-III-16
D. 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 60 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 used 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
problem parameters. 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.

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

F. Nutrient Enrichment Issues

One of the main causes of impacts to lakes is nutrient enrichment, or eutrophication. Several
water quality variables help to describe the level of eutrophication. These include pH,
chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, turbidity, total dissolved gases and other
quantitative indicators, some of which have specific water quality standards. It is generally
agreed that excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are the principal culprits in
eutrophication related use impairment. These variables are important concerns; however,
climate, hydrology and biological response factors (chlorophyll, phytoplankton, fish kills, etc.)
are also essential to evaluate because they may control the frequency of episodes related to
potential use impairment. In addition, many of North Carolina’s lakes are human-made
reservoirs that do not mimic natural systems.

Violations of water quality standards in lakes or estuaries are not equated with use impairment
unless uses are not met. DWQ does not determine eutrophication related use impairment with
the quantitative assessment of an individual water quality variable (i.e., chlorophyll a).
Likewise, DWQ does not depend on a fixed index composed of several water quality variables,

A-III-17
which does not have the flexibility to adapt to numerous hydrological situations, to determine
use impairment. Instead, the weight of evidence approach is used to determine use support in
lakes. This approach can be flexibly applied depending on the amount and quality of available
information. The approach uses the following sources of information:

• Multiple quantitative water quality variables (e.g., dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a)
• Third party reports
• Analysis of water quality or aesthetic complaints, and taste and odor observations
• Algal bloom reports
• Macrophyte observations
• Fish kill reports
• Frequency of noxious algal activity
• Reports/observations of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, lake associations and water
treatment plant operators

References

Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Commission. 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.

Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Drowning Creek 14-2-(1)a From source to Jackson Creek WS-II Sw 03-07-50 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Drowning Creek 14-2-(1)b From Jackson Creek to Naked Creek WS-II Sw 03-07-50 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Drowning Creek 14-2-(10.5)
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of US
Hwy 1 to Lumber River C Sw HQW 03-07-50 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Drowning Creek 14-2-(6.5) From Naked Creek to Horse Creek WS-II Sw 03-07-50 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Drowning Creek 14-2-(9)
From Horse Creek to a point 0.4 mile
upstream of US Hwy 1 (Town of Southern
Pines water supply intake)
WS-II Sw
CA 03-07-50 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Buffalo Creek 14-2.5 From source to Lumber River C 03-07-50 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Deep Creek 14-2-10-1-(2)
From a point 3,500 feet upstream from
Moore County SR 1122 to Horse Creek WS-II 03-07-50 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Horse Creek
(Pinehurst Lake)14-2-10b From SR 1115 to Drowning Creek WS-II 03-07-50 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Aberdeen Creek
[Pages Lake
(Aberdeen Lake)]
14-2-11-(5)
From backwaters of Pages Lake (Aberdeen
Lake) at normal lake elevation to dam of
Pages Lake (Aberdeen Lake)
B 03-07-50 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 S M
Aberdeen Creek 14-2-11-(6)
From dam at Pages Lake (Aberdeen Lake)
to Drowning Creek C 03-07-50 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Quewhiffle Creek 14-2-14 From source to Drowning Creek C 03-07-50 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Mountain Creek 14-2-16-(2)
From dam at Mountain Lake to Drowning
Creek C 03-07-50 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Jackson Creek
(Curries Pond)14-2-5 From source to Drowning Creek WS-II 03-07-50 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Naked Creek 14-2-6 From source to Drowning Creek
WS-II
ORW 03-07-50 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(1)
From source (junction of Buffalo Creek
and Drowning Creek) to a point 2.0 miles
upstream of US Hwy 401
WS-V Sw
HQW 03-07-51 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(10.3)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of Powell
Branch to Raw Water Supply Intake for
City of Lumberton
WS-IV Sw
HQW CA 03-07-51 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
A-III-18
Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Lumber River 14-(11)
From Raw Water Supply Intake for City of
Lumberton to US Hwy 301 Bypass B Sw HQW 03-07-51 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(13)a
From US Hwy 301 Bypass to SR 2289,
Robeson County C Sw 03-07-51 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(13)b
From SR 2289, Robeson County to
Lumber River above Alpha Cellulose SR
2202
C Sw 03-07-51 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(13)c
From above Alpha Cellulose SR 2202 to
WWTP at Robeson County C Sw 03-07-51 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(13)d
From WWTP at Robeson County to
below WWTP at SR 1620/72 Robeson
County
C Sw 03-07-51 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(13)e
From below WWTP at SR 1620/72
Robeson County to NC 74 Robeson
County
C Sw 03-07-51 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(13)f From NC 74 Robeson County to NC 904 C Sw 03-07-51 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(28)
From NC Hwy 904 to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line B Sw 03-07-51 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(3)a
From a point 2.0 miles upstream of US
Hwy 401 to SR 1404, Scotland Co.
WS-IV&B
Sw HQW 03-07-51 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(3)b
From SR 1404 to a point 1.1 miles
upstream of NC Hwy 71
WS-IV&B
Sw HQW 03-07-51 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(4)
From a point 1.1 miles upstream of NC
Hwy 71 to Robeson County Water Supply
Intake (located 0.5 mile upstream of NC
Hwy 71)
WS-IV&B
Sw HQW
CA
03-07-51 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(4.5)a
From Robeson County Water Supply
Intake (located 0.5 mile upstream of NC
Hwy 71) to NC 71
B Sw HQW 03-07-51 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(4.5)b From NC 71 to SR 1303 B Sw HQW 03-07-51 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(4.5)c
From SR 1303 to SR 1153 Robeson
County B Sw HQW 03-07-51 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
A-III-19
Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Lumber River 14-(4.5)d
From SR 1153 Robeson County to
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad bridge near
Pembroke
B Sw HQW 03-07-51 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Lumber River 14-(7)
From Seaboard Coast Line Railroad bridge
near Pembroke to a point 0.5 mile
upstream of Powell Branch
WS-IV&B
Sw HQW 03-07-51 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Porter Swamp 14-27 From source to Lumber River C Sw 03-07-51 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Gapway Swamp
(Buffkin Pond,
Richardson Pond)
14-31 From source to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line C Sw 03-07-51 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Gum Swamp 14-5 From source to Lumber River C 03-07-51 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Back Swamp 14-8-(2.5)
From Roberson County SR 1157 to
Lumber River WS-IV Sw 03-07-51 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Bear Swamp 14-9-(1.5)
From Robeson County SR 1515 to Lumber
River WS-IV Sw 03-07-51 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Raft Swamp 14-10-(1) From source to Robeson County SR 1318 C Sw 03-07-52 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Raft Swamp 14-10-(5.5)
From Robeson County SR 1318 to Lumber
River WS-IV Sw 03-07-52 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Little Raft
Swamp 14-10-5 From source to Raft Swamp C Sw 03-07-52 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Little Marsh
Swamp 14-22-1-3 From source to Gallberry Swamp C Sw 03-07-53 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Big Marsh
Swamp
(Marsh Swamp)
(Lake McNeill,
Odom Pond)
14-22-2 From source to Big Swamp C Sw 03-07-53 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Big Swamp 14-22a From source to NC 211 C Sw 03-07-53 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Hog Swamp 14-30-7 From source to Ashpole Swamp C Sw 03-07-54 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Ashpole Swamp 14-30a From source to Hog Swamp C Sw 03-07-54 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Ashpole Swamp 14-30b
From Hog Swamp to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line C Sw 03-07-54 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
A-III-20
Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Gum Swamp
Creek (Pine
Lake, Gum
Swamp Lake)
14-32-(1) From source to Crawford Branch C 03-07-55 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Gum Swamp
Creek
(Ida Mill Pond)
14-32-(10)From dam at Richmond Mill Lake to US
Hwy 74 C Sw 03-07-55 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Gum Swamp
Creek
(Lytchs Pond)
14-32-(12)From US Hwy 74 to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line B Sw 03-07-55 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Gum Swamp
Creek (Richmond
Mill Lake)
14-32-(7)From Crawford Branch to dam at
Richmond Mill Lake B 03-07-55 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Joes Creek
(Guinns Mill
Pond)
14-32-14 From source to Gum Swamp Creek C Sw 03-07-55 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Leith Creek
(Johns Pond)14-33a From source to Bridge Creek C Sw 03-07-55 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Leith Creek
(Johns Pond)14-33b From Bridge Creek to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line C Sw 03-07-55 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Shoe Heel Creek
(Big Shoe Heel
Creek)
(Maxton Pond)
14-34 From source to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line C Sw 03-07-55 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Jordan Creek
[Monroe Mill
Pond (Lake
Andrews)]
14-34-4-(1) From source to dam at Monroe Mill B Sw 03-07-55 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Jordan Creek 14-34-4-(2)
From dam at Monroe Mill Pond to Shoe
Heel Creek C Sw 03-07-55 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Juniper Creek
(McNair Pond)14-34-4-3 From source to Jordan Creek C Sw 03-07-55 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Waccamaw River 15-(1)a
From source at dam at Lake Waccamaw to
0.1 mi below Lake Waccamaw C Sw 03-07-56 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
A-III-21
Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Waccamaw River 15-(1)b
From 0.1 mi below dam at Lake
Waccamsw to off SR 1930 C Sw 03-07-56 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 S ME
Waccamaw River 15-(1)c From site off SR 1930 to SR 1928 C Sw 03-07-56 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lake Waccamaw 15-2 Entire Lake B Sw 03-07-56 0.0 8840.2 0.0 0.0 S M
Fryer Swamp
(Council
Millpond)
15-2-6-3 From source to Big Creek C Sw 03-07-56 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Waccamaw River 15-(1)d From SR 1928 to NC 130 C Sw 03-07-57 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Waccamaw River 15-(1)e From NC 130 to NC 904 C Sw 03-07-57 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Waccamaw River 15-(18)
From NC Hwy 904 to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line B Sw 03-07-57 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Seven Creeks
(Joe Lake)15-17 From source to Waccamaw River C Sw 03-07-57 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Grissett Swamp 15-17-1-(5) From dam at Lake Tabor to Seven Creeks C Sw 03-07-57 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Cawcaw Swamp 15-23 From source to Waccamaw River C Sw 03-07-57 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M NP
Elkton Marsh 15-4-1-1-2 From source to Brown Marsh C Sw 03-07-58 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
White Marsh 15-4b
From Richardson Swamp to Waccamaw
River C Sw 03-07-58 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(11)From mouth of Royal Oak Swamp to
Brunswick County SR 1200 SC HQW 03-07-59 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)a
From Brunswick County, SR 1200 to a
line crossing Lockwood Folley River 520
meters north of Myrle Point of the east
shore to a point of the west shore 704
meters north of Mullet Creek.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 123.6 0.0 S M
A-III-22
Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)b
From a line crossing Lockwood Folley
River 520 meters north of Myrtle Point of
the east shore to a point of the west shore
704 meters north of Mullet Creek to a line
crossing Lockwood Folly River 146
meters north of Genoes Point on the east
shore to a point on the west shore 777
meters south of Mullet Creek.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 275.6 0.0 S M
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)c
From a line crossing Lockwood Folly
River 146 meters north of Genoes Point on
the east shore to a point on the west shore
777 meters south of Mullet Creek to a line
crossing Lockwood Folly River 628
meters south of Genoes Point on the east
shore to Gores Landing on the east shore.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 207.0 0.0 S ME
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)d
From a line crossing Lockwood Folly
River 628 meters south of Genoes Point on
the east shore to Gores Landing on the east
shore to ICWW.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 S M
Royal Oak
Swamp 15-25-1-12a From source to NC 211 C Sw 03-07-59 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(1) From source to NC Hwy 130 C Sw HQW 03-07-59 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)c
From a line crossing the Shallotte River
459 meters north of Shell Point on the east
bank across to a point 651 meters north of
the Swash to a line crossing the Shallotte
River from Shell Point across to the
Swash.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 89.0 0.0 S ME
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)d
From a line crossing the Shallotte River
from Shell Point across to the Swash to the
Intracoastal Waterway.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 340.6 0.0 S M
Calabash River 15-25-5
From source to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 S M NP
A-III-23
Lumber River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Fresh
water
Acres
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis Source
Problem
Parameter(s)
Potential
Sources
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25d
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R
ev. 4 sec "22" to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 315.6 0.0 S M NP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25i
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R
ev. 4 sec "22" to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 65.8 0.0 S M NP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25t
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R
ev. 4 sec "22" to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 292.8 0.0 S M NP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25u
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R
ev. 4 sec "22" to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.0 403.5 0.0 S M NP
Montgomery
Slough 15-25v
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R
ev. 4 sec "22" to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 03-07-59 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
I = Impaired
NR = Not Rated
lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
ABBREVIATION KEY
P = Point Source Pollution (Major source)
NP = Nonpoint Source Pollution
M = Monitored
S = Supporting
NOTES
"Rating" = Use Support Rating
"Basis" = Rating basis
"Habitat degradation" is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization,
A-III-24
Lumber River Basin Use Support Recreation December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Subbasin Description Class
Stream
Miles
Fresh
Water
Acres
Estaurine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
Drowning Creek 14-2-(10.5) 03-07-50 From a point 0.4 mile upstream of US Hwy 1 to Lumber River C Sw HQW 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(13)e 03-07-51
From below WWTP at SR 1620/72 Robeson County to NC 74
Robeson County C Sw 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(13)f 03-07-51 From NC 74 Robeson County to NC 904 C Sw 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(3)a 03-07-51
From a point 2.0 miles upstream of US Hwy 401 to SR 1404,
Scotland Co.
WS-IV&B Sw
HQW 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(4.5)a 03-07-51
From Robeson County Water Supply Intake (located 0.5 mile
upstream of NC Hwy 71) to NC 71 B Sw HQW 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(4.5)b 03-07-51 From NC 71 to SR 1303 B Sw HQW 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lumber River 14-(7) 03-07-51
From Seaboard Coast Line Railroad bridge near Pembroke to a
point 0.5 mile upstream of Powell Branch
WS-IV&B Sw
HQW 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Raft Swamp 14-10-(1) 03-07-52 From source to Robeson County SR 1318 C Sw 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Raft Swamp 14-10-(5.5) 03-07-52 From Robeson County SR 1318 to Lumber River WS-IV Sw 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Big Swamp 14-22a 03-07-53 From source to NC 211 C Sw 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Ashpole Swamp 14-30b 03-07-54 From Hog Swamp to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line C Sw 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Leith Creek
(Johns Pond)14-33a 03-07-55 From source to Bridge Creek C Sw 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Leith Creek
(Johns Pond)14-33b 03-07-55 From Bridge Creek to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line C Sw 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 NR M
Shoe Heel Creek
(Big Shoe Heel
Creek)
(Maxton Pond)
14-34 03-07-55 From source to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line C Sw 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lake Waccamaw 15-2 03-07-56 Entire Lake B Sw 0.0 8840.2 0.0 0.0 S M
Waccamaw River 15-(1)e 03-07-57 From NC 130 to NC 904 C Sw 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Waccamaw River 15-(18) 03-07-57 From NC Hwy 904 to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line B Sw 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Seven Creeks
(Joe Lake)15-17 03-07-57 From source to Waccamaw River C Sw 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(11) 03-07-59
From mouth of Royal Oak Swamp to Brunswick County SR
1200 SC HQW 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
A-III-25
Lumber River Basin Use Support Recreation December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Subbasin Description Class
Stream
Miles
Fresh
Water
Acres
Estaurine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)a 03-07-59
From Brunswick County, SR 1200 to a line crossing Lockwood
Folley River 520 meters north of Myrle Point of the east shore
to a point of the west shore 704 meters north of Mullet Creek.
SA 0.0 0.0 123.6 0.0 S M
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)b 03-07-59
From a line crossing Lockwood Folley River 520 meters north
of Myrtle Point of the east shore to a point of the west shore 704
meters north of Mullet Creek to a line crossing Lockwood Folly
River 146 meters north of Genoes Point on the east shore to a
point on the west shore 777 meters south of Mullet Creek.
SA 0.0 0.0 275.6 0.0 S M
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)d 03-07-59
From a line crossing Lockwood Folly River 628 meters south of
Genoes Point on the east shore to Gores Landing on the east
shore to ICWW.
SA 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 S M
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(1) 03-07-59 From source to NC Hwy 130 C Sw HQW 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)d 03-07-59
From a line crossing the Shallotte River from Shell Point across
to the Swash to the Intracoastal Waterway.SA 0.0 0.0 340.6 0.0 S M
Calabash River 15-25-5 03-07-59 From source to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line SA 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 S M
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25d 03-07-59
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec "22" to
North Carolina-South Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 0.0 0.0 315.6 0.0 S M
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25i 03-07-59
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec "22" to
North Carolina-South Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 0.0 0.0 65.8 0.0 S M
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25j 03-07-59
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec "22" to
North Carolina-South Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 0.0 0.0 165.2 0.0 S M
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25t 03-07-59
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec "22" to
North Carolina-South Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 0.0 0.0 292.8 0.0 S M
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25u 03-07-59
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec "22" to
North Carolina-South Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 0.0 0.0 403.5 0.0 S M
Montgomery
Slough 15-25v 03-07-59
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec "22" to
North Carolina-South Carolina State Line, including all sloughs,
sounds, inlets and connecting channels
SA 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 S M
A-III-26
Lumber River Basin Use Support Recreation December 2003
Name Assessment
Unit Number Subbasin Description Class
Stream
Miles
Fresh
Water
Acres
Estaurine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
Atlantic Ocean 99-(1) 03-07-59
The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that portion of
the Waccamaw River Drainage Area of the Lumber River Basin
extending from the Cape Fear River Basin to the North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line
SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 S M
I = Impaired
NR = Not Rated
"Basis" = Rating basis
ABBREVIATION KEY
M = Monitored
S = Supporting
NOTES
"Rating" = Use Support Rating
A-III-27
Lumber River Basin Use Support Shellfish Harvesting December 2003
Name Assessment Unit
Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
DEH
Class
Percent
Closed
Big Gut Slough 15-25-3 From source to Intracoastal Waterway SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.3 0.0 I M PRO 100
Calabash River 15-25-5
From source to North Carolina-South Carolina State
Line SA 03-07-59 0.0 3.4 0.0 I M PRO 100
Goose Creek 15-25-2-16-4-(2)
From Brunswick County SR 1143 to Saucepan
Creek SA 03-07-59 0.0 4.2 0.0 I M PRO 100
Hangman Branch 15-25-5-1 From source to Calabash Creek SA 03-07-59 0.0 10.2 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25a
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 222.8 0.0 I M CAC
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25b
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 102.1 0.0 I M CAC
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25c
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 50.7 0.0 I M CAC
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25d
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 315.6 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25e
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 358.6 0.0 I M CAO 11.6
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25f
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 81.5 0.0 I M CAO 11.6
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25g
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 44.6 0.0 I M PRO 100
A-III-28
Lumber River Basin Use Support Shellfish Harvesting December 2003
Name Assessment Unit
Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
DEH
Class
Percent
Closed
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25h
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 22.5 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25i
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 65.8 0.0 I M CAO 11.6
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25j
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 165.2 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25k
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 89.2 0.0 I M CAO 9.9
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25l
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 55.0 0.0 I M CAO 9.6
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25m
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 53.0 0.0 S M APP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25n
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 159.5 0.0 S M APP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25o
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 63.6 0.0 I M PRO 100
A-III-29
Lumber River Basin Use Support Shellfish Harvesting December 2003
Name Assessment Unit
Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
DEH
Class
Percent
Closed
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25p
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 115.5 0.0 S M APP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25q
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 8.9 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25r
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 67.5 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25s
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.5 0.0 I M PRO 100
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25t
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 292.8 0.0 S M APP
Intracoastal
Waterway 15-25u
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 0.0 403.5 0.0 I M PRO 100
Jinnys Branch 15-25-2-16-1-(2)
From Brunswick County SR 1143 to Saucepan
Creek SA 03-07-59 0.0 1.0 0.0 I M PRO 100
Kilbart Slough 15-25-4 From source to Intracoastal Waterway SA 03-07-59 0.0 0.7 0.0 I M PRO 100
Lockwoods Creek 15-25-1-20 From source to Lockwoods Folly River SA 03-07-59 0.2 0.0 0.0 I M PRO 100
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)a
From Brunswick County, SR 1200 to a line crossing
Lockwood Folley River 520 meters north of Myrle
Point of the east shore to a point of the west shore
704 meters north of Mullet Creek.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 123.6 0.0 I M PRO 100
A-III-30
Lumber River Basin Use Support Shellfish Harvesting December 2003
Name Assessment Unit
Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
DEH
Class
Percent
Closed
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)b
From a line crossing Lockwood Folley River 520
meters north of Myrtle Point of the east shore to a
point of the west shore 704 meters north of Mullet
Creek to a line crossing Lockwood Folly River 146
meters north of Genoes Point on the east shore to a
point on the west shore 777 meters south of Mullet
Creek.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 275.6 0.0 I M CAC
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)c
From a line crossing Lockwood Folly River 146
meters north of Genoes Point on the east shore to a
point on the west shore 777 meters south of Mullet
Creek to a line crossing Lockwood Folly River 628
meters south of Genoes Point on the east shore to
Gores Landing on the east shore.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 207.0 0.0 I M CAO 17.4
Lockwoods Folly
River 15-25-1-(16)d
From a line crossing Lockwood Folly River 628
meters south of Genoes Point on the east shore to
Gores Landing on the east shore to ICWW.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 53.1 0.0 S M APP
Mill Creek 15-25-1-18-(2)
From Brunswick County SR 1112 to Lockwoods
Folly River SA 03-07-59 0.0 2.0 0.0 I M PRO 100
Montgomery
Slough 15-25v
From Cape Fear River Basin at Buoy FI R ev. 4 sec
"22" to North Carolina-South Carolina State Line,
including all sloughs, sounds, inlets and connecting
channels
SA 03-07-59 2.3 0.0 0.0 I M PRO 100
Mullet Creek 15-25-1-19 From source to Lockwoods Folly River SA 03-07-59 0.0 5.7 0.0 I M PRO 100
Sams Branch 15-25-2-12-(2)
From proposed dam approximately 3/4 mile
upstream from Shallotte River channel to Shallotte
River
SA 03-07-59 0.6 0.0 0.0 I M PRO 100
Saucepan Creek 15-25-2-16 From source to Shallotte River SA 03-07-59 0.0 62.6 0.0 I M PRO 100
Shallotte Creek 15-25-2-15-(3) From Bell Branch to Shallotte River SA 03-07-59 0.0 135.6 0.0 I M CAO 17
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)a
From mouth of Mill Pond to a line crossing the
Shallotte River from a point 948 meters north of
Shell Point on the east bank across to the south
mouth of Middle Dam Creek.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 158.3 0.0 I M PRO 100
A-III-31
Lumber River Basin Use Support Shellfish Harvesting December 2003
Name Assessment Unit
Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Estuarine
Acres
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
DEH
Class
Percent
Closed
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)b
From a line crossing the Shallotte River from a
point 948 meters north of Shell Point on the east
bank across to the south mouth of Middle Dam
Creek to a line crossing the Shallotte River 459
meters north of Shell Point on the east bank across
to a point 651 meters north of the Swash.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 59.4 0.0 I M CAC
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)c
From a line crossing the Shallotte River 459 meters
north of Shell Point on the east bank across to a
point 651 meters north of the Swash to a line
crossing the Shallotte River from Shell Point across
to the Swash.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 89.0 0.0 I M CAO 17.6
Shallotte River 15-25-2-(10)d
From a line crossing the Shallotte River from Shell
Point across to the Swash to the Intracoastal
Waterway.
SA 03-07-59 0.0 340.6 0.0 I M CAO 17
Spring Creek 15-25-1-21 From source to Lockwoods Folly River SA 03-07-59 0.0 2.4 0.0 I M PRO 100
The Mill Pond 15-25-2-11-(2)
From a point 1.0 mile below Brunswick County SR
1145 to Shallotte River SA 03-07-59 0.0 2.8 0.0 I M PRO 100
The Swash 15-25-2-14 From source to Shallotte River SA 03-07-59 0.0 3.9 0.0 I M CAO 17
"Basis" = Rating basis
ABBREVIATION KEY
CAO = Conditionally Approved-Open
CAC = Conditionally Approved-Closed
PRO = Prohibited
I = Impaired
S = Supporting
M = Monitored
APP = Approved
NOTES
"Rating" = Use Support Rating Problem Parameter for all impaired Class SA waters is fecal coliform bacteria
A-III-32
Lumber River Basin Use Support Fish Consumption December 2003
Name Assessment Unit
Number Description Class Subbasin
Stream
Miles
Coastline
Miles Rating Basis
Problem
Parameter
Major
Source
Potential
Source(s)
Lumber River 14-(13)e
From below WWTP at SR 1620/72 Robeson County to
NC 74 Robeson County C Sw 03-07-51 21.5 I M
Atlantic Ocean 99-(1)
The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that
portion of the Waccamaw River Drainage Area of the
Lumber River Basin extending from the Cape Fear River
Basin to the North Carolina-South Carolina State Line
SB 03-07-59 25.6 I M
NOTES
"Rating" = Use Support Rating
I = Impaired
NR = Not Rated
"Basis" = Rating basis
ABBREVIATION KEY
M = Monitored
S = Supporting
A-III-33

Appendices

Appendix IV

303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology

A-IV-1
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 are 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 requires
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. For 2002, EPA delayed the submittal until October 1,
2002 (EPA, 2001a). 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.

North Carolina submitted a combined 305(b) and 303(d) Integrated Report to EPA on October 2,
2002. 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, or segments, into one unique assessment category (EPA, 2001b). Although
EPA specifies five unique assessment categories, North Carolina elects to use seven categories in
order to maintain continuity with the 2000 North Carolina 303(d) list. Each category is
described in detail below:

Category 1: Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened. This
category consists of those waters where all applicable use support categories are rated
"Fully 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 waters where at least
one of the applicable use support categories are rated "Fully Supporting" and the other
use support categories are rated "Not Rated". Also included in this category are waters
where at least one of the applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are

A-IV-2
rated "Fully Supporting"; the remaining applicable use support categories, except Fish
Consumption, are rated "Not Rated"; and the Fish Consumption category is rated
"Partially Supporting-Evaluated". Data and information are available to support a
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 waters where all applicable use support
categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated", and the Fish Consumption
category is rated "Partially Supporting-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
waters for which EPA has approved or established a TMDL and water quality
standards have not yet been achieved. Monitoring data will be considered when
evaluating Category 4a waterbodies for potential delisting.

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 waters 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 by
the next regularly scheduled listing cycle. 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 waters 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 believes that in situations
where the impairment is not caused by a pollutant, a TMDL is generally not the
appropriate solution to the problem. Future monitoring will be used to confirm
that there continues to be no 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 waters 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,

A-IV-3
municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water." When more than one
pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody in this category, the
water 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 waters
historically referred to as "Biologically Impaired" waterbodies; these waterbodies have no
identified cause(s) of impairment although aquatic life impacts have been documented.
Identification of the cause(s) of impairment will precede movement of these waters to
Category 5 or Category 4c of the integrated list. EPA has recognized in the past that in
specific situations the data are not available to develop TMDLs. Data collection and
analysis will be performed in an attempt to determine the cause(s) of impairment.

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
refers 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 waters 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 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
included in this document. 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 4, 5, 6
and 7 contain those assessment units that have been determined to be Impaired in North Carolina.
Therefore, Categories 4, 5, 6 and 7 constitute the 2002 North Carolina 303(d) List for the
State of North Carolina.

Prioritization of Impaired Waters

North Carolina has developed a priority ranking scheme that reflects the relative value and
benefits those waterbodies provide to the state. The priority ranking system is designed to take
into account the severity of the impairment, especially threats to human health and endangered
species, and the designated uses of the waterbody as required by CWA 303(d)(1)(A). Since other
agencies and local governments also use this ranking to direct resources and funding, the priority
ranking system has intentionally not included factors to reflect the availability of DWQ resources
to address either TMDL development schedules or restoration.

A priority of High, Medium or Low has been assigned to all waterbodies in Categories 4b, 5, 6
and 7 of the integrated list. A high priority is assigned to all waterbodies that are classified as
water supplies. A high priority is also automatically assigned to all waterbodies harboring
species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). A
medium priority has minimally been assigned to waters harboring state listed endangered and

A-IV-4
threatened species. As a way of addressing anti-degradation concerns, classified outstanding
resource waters and high quality waters start at the medium priority.

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. 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.

The movement of waters from Category 6 (Impaired based on biological data) to either Category
5 or 4c will require a large allocation of resources. North Carolina has used biological data to
place the majority of waters 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 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 they are affected by pollution, pollutants or a
combination. Scheduling these waters for TMDL development prior to determining the causes of
impairment is misleading and counterproductive.

During this listing cycle, significant resources and a grant from the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund were utilized to study multiple waters that were considered Impaired based on
biological data. One goal of this project was to determine the cause of impairment for these
waters. Several of these studies have been completed and causes have been identified. These
waters will now move from Category 6 to other locations within the integrated list.

Delisting Waters

In general, waters will move from Categories 4, 5, 6 or 7 when data show that a water is fully
supporting its uses. 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 or 3 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

A-IV-5
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).

Appendices

Appendix V

Lumber River Basin
Workshop Summaries

A-V-1
Issues Associated with Specific Waters of the Lumber River Basin

Water or Area Subbasin Issue Workshop
Naked Creek 03-07-50 Mining operation in headwaters. Southern Pines
Lumber River 03-07-51 Salvage yard in floodplain of HQW portion of river, (west of I-95). Southern Pines
Lumber River 03-07-51 Timber harvesting practices, removal of buffers. Southern Pines
Pinebluff Lake 03-07-50 High levels of E. Coli from failing septic systems. Southern Pines
Lumber River 03-07-51 Need for special monitoring during drought conditions. Southern Pines
Robeson County 03-07-51, 52, 53, 54 & 55 Straight piping/failing septic systems. Southern Pines
White Marsh 03-07-58 Loss of wetlands. Bolivia
Gapway Swamp 03-07-51 Channelization. Bolivia
Dunn Swamp 03-07-51 Channelization. Bolivia
Shallotte River 03-07-59 Development impacts. Bolivia
Lockwoods Folly River 03-07-59 Development impacts and natural flushing problems at the mouth. Bolivia
Waccamaw River and
Lake Waccamaw 03-07-56 & 57 Develop a trace system and identify corridors ½ - 1 mile and put in protection
measures (i.e., buy-out, education). Bolivia
Gum Swamp 03-07-57 Beavers. Get Beaver Management Assistant Program more staff. Bolivia
Calabash River 03-07-59 Fecal coliform bacteria problems. Bolivia
Caw Caw Swamp 03-07-57 Sedimentation, bulldozing stream ditches, nutrients. Bolivia
Big Swamp 03-07-53 Logging of buffers, Alligator weed. Southern Pines
Ocean Isle Beach 03-07-59 Bulkheads and canals caving in. Town council has committee to work on this. Bolivia
Green Swamp 03-07-56 Alteration of hydrology. Bolivia

A-V-2
Issues Related to Urbanization and Land Use Changes Basinwide

Specific Issue Recommendation Workshop
Lack of coordinated planning Southern Pines
Destruction of wetlands Restoration efforts. Southern Pines and Bolivia
Need for grassroots and nonprofit organizations Southern Pines
Need for canoe/boating accesses Southern Pines
Increasing impervious surface Tight zoning and better enforcement. Promotion of low impact development. Southern Pines and Bolivia
DOT projects and lack of sedimentation control Better use of BMPs and increase size of culverts. Southern Pines and Bolivia
Golf course nutrient and chemical runoff Southern Pines and Bolivia
Hydromodification Southern Pines and Bolivia
Lack of defining timber harvesting versus development NC Forestry Service guidelines need to be reassessed and become law. Southern Pines
Stormwater runoff More regional approach. Development of stormwater utilities. Southern Pines and Bolivia
Adverse weather and hurricanes Better planning in reference to wastewater and stormwater. Bolivia

Issues Related to Water Supply Quantity and Protection

Issue Workshop

Lack of planning by local governments to provide water for future needs. Southern Pines
Low groundwater levels – high withdrawal. Southern Pines
Hog operations’ lagoons leaking to groundwater/surface water. Southern Pines

A-V-3
Issues Related to Enforcement, Permitting, Rule Making and Monitoring

Specific Issue Recommendation Workshop
Noxious weeds, Alligator weed Need to monitor. Get money to get rid of noxious weeds. Southern Pines
BMPs Need to retrofit stormwater BMPs. Need better enforcement with greater penalties.
Better maintenance and construction. Southern Pines
Straight piping/failing septic systems Southern Pines
General noncompliance with existing rules Provide performance information and more research on efficiency. Southern Pines
Animal operations nutrient inputs
Lack of adequate number of inspections Southern Pines
Lack of appropriate stormwater management Southern Pines
Mercury and atmospheric deposition Southern Pines and Bolivia

Issues Related to Funding Sources and Education

Specific Issue Recommendation Workshop
Lack of education about water quality More workshops/seminars/specific programs. Southern Pines
Straight piping/failing septic systems Homeowners’ responsibility. Southern Pines
Lack of understanding of who to contact regarding
development and timber harvesting Southern Pines
Sewer systems County/State to provide grant funds to help get towns tied in with central
sewer systems and grant writers and locating grant resources. Southern Pines and Bolivia
Residential lawn care use More specifications. Bolivia
Media coverage Have better media coverage about water quality educational programs. Bolivia

Appendices

Appendix VI

Lumber River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

A-VI-1
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:

1. Coordinate implementation of state and federal initiatives addressing watershed protection
and restoration.
2. Continue to target geographic areas and waterbodies for protection based upon best available
information.
3. Strengthen and improve existing nonpoint source management programs.
4. Develop new programs that control nonpoint sources of pollution not addressed by existing
programs.
5. Integrate the NPS Program with other state programs and management studies (e.g.,
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program).
6. Monitor the effectiveness of BMPs and management strategies, both for surface water 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 is available online at
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 Alan Clark at [phone], ext. 570.
Most employees of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, including the
Division of Water Quality, Division of Land Resources and Division of Forest Resources, can be
reached by email using the following formula: [e-mail].

A-VI-2
Agriculture
US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS):
This agency was formerly called the Soil Conservation Service. NRCS district conservationists:
• Certify waste management plans for animal operations.
• Provide certification training for swine waste applicators.
• Work with landowners on private lands to conserve natural resources and install BMPs.
• Help farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and needs.
• Administer several federal agricultural cost share and incentive programs.
• Assist rural and urban communities to conserve and protect natural resources.
• Conduct soil surveys and offer farmers technical assistance on wetlands identification.
County/Area Contact Person Phone Address
Area 2 Michael E. Sugg 704-637-2400 530 W. Innes St., Salisbury 28144
Area 3 William J. Harrell 919-751-0976 208 Mallory St., Suite C, Goldsboro 27534

Bladen Christopher W. Bordeaux 910-862-3179 Ag. Services Center, Ice Plant Rd., Room 122,
Elizabethtown 28337
Brunswick Eric West 910-253-2830 10 Referendum Dr., Bolivia 28422
Columbus Donna G. Register 910-642-2196 45 Government Complex Rd., Suite B, Whiteville
28472
Hoke John M. Ray, Jr. 910-875-8685 122 W. Elwood Ave., Room 202, Raeford 28376
Montgomery Renessa Hardy-Brown 910-572-2700 227-D N. Main St., Troy 27371
Moore Angela D. Little 910-947-5183 707 Pinehurst Ave., Ag. Center Carthage 28372
Richmond Vilma Mendez-Colombani 910-997-8244 123 Caroline St., Suite 300, Rockingham 28379
Robeson Edward L. Holland 910-739-5478 440 Caton Rd, Lumberton 28358-0450
Scotland Edward L. Holland 910-277-2433 231 E. Cronly St., Suite 800, Laurinburg 28352
County Soil and Water Conservation Districts:
District technicians:
• Administer the Agriculture Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.
• Identify areas needing soil and/or water conservation treatment.
• Allocate cost share resources and sign cost share contracts with landowners.
• Provide technical assistance for planning and implementation of BMPs.
• Encourage the use of appropriate BMPs to protect water quality.
County District Chairman Phone Address
Bladen Ronald J. Allen 910-648-6077 6593 Center Rd., Bladenboro 28320
Brunswick Bryan R. Smith 910-287-3315 7520 N. Pireway Rd., Longwood 28452
Columbus Bobby N. Stanley 910-653-2925 10571 Clarendon-Chadbourn Rd., Clarendon 28432
Hoke Joanne H. Hendrix 910-875-2921 5604 Fayetteville Rd., Raeford 28376
Montgomery Don Thompson 910-572-3126 271 Brewer Rd., Mount Gilead 27306
Moore Nowell Brown 910-947-5920 316 Alston House, Sanford 27330-8713
Richmond Myers Waddell 910-895-2865 1116 Ann St., Rockingham 28379
Robeson William A. Davis 910-422-3551 734 McLeod Rd., Rowland 28358
Scotland T. G. Gibson, III 910-368-3421 PO Box 165, Gibson 28343-0165

A-VI-3
Agriculture (con’t)
NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC):
DSWC staff:
• Administer the Agriculture Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP).
• Allocate ACSP funds to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
• Provide administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and engineering.
• Distribute Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee.
Office/Area Contact Phone Address
Central Office Deborah Gaul 919-715-6100 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh 27626
Area 8 Ralston James 704-663-1699 919 N. Main St., Mooresville 28115
Area 7 Jerry Raynor 910-486-1541 Wachovia Bldg., # 714, Fayetteville 28301
NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) Regional Agronomists:
NCDA technical specialists:
• Certify waste management plans for animal operations.
• Provide certification training for swine waste applicators.
• Track and monitor the use of nutrients on agricultural lands.
• Operate the state Pesticide Disposal Program.
• Enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws.
Office Contact Phone Address
Central Office Tom Ellis 919-733-7125 Box 27647, Raleigh 27611
Regional Office Rick Morris 910-866-5485 3184 Old NC 41, Bladenboro 28320
David Dycus 919-776-9338 3996 Center Church Road, Sanford 27330
Tim Hall 910-324-9924 PO Box 444, Richlands 28574
Education
NC State University Cooperative Extension Service (CES):
CES staff provide practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses
and communities.
County Contact Person Phone Address
Bladen Kent Wooten 910-862-4591 450 Smith Dr. Circle, Elizabethtown 28337
Brunswick Martha Warner 910-253-2610 Government Ctr., PO Box 109, Bolivia 28422
Columbus Jacqueline Roseboro 910-640-6606 PO Box 569, Whiteville 28472
Hoke Clinton A. McRae 910-671-3276 116 W. Prospect Ave., Raeford 28376
Montgomery Susan Hamilton 910-576-6011 203 W. Main St., Troy 27371
Moore Bert Coffer 910-947-3188 707 Pinehurst Ave., Ag. Center, Carthage 28372
Richmond Mary B. Bowles 910-997-8255 114 Franklin St., Rockingham 28379
Robeson Everett Davis 910-671-3276 455 Caton Rd., Owens Ag. Center, Lumberton
28359-2280
Scotland Cathy L. Graham 919-277-2422 231 E. Cronly St., Laurinburg 28352

A-VI-4
Forestry
NC Division of Forest Resources (DFR):
DFR staff:
• Develop, protect and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina’s forests through professional stewardship.
• Enhance the quality of life for our citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources.
Office/District Contact Title Phone Address
Central Office Forestry NPS Unit 919-733-2162 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh 27604
District 8 Water Quality 910-642-5093 1413 Chadburn Hwy., Whiteville 28472
District 6 Assistant District
Forester 910-437-2620 221 Airport Rd., Fayetteville 28306
District 3 Assistant District
Forester 910-997-9220 1163 N. US Hwy. 1, Rockingham 28379
General Water Quality
NC Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section (DWQ):
DWQ Water Quality Section staff:
• Implement water quality protection from point sources (municipal and industrial wastewater discharges) and from
nonpoint sources (for example, land application of waste).
• Issue permits for both wastewater discharges and on-site wastewater treatment systems.
• Conduct compliance inspections.
• Monitor water quality throughout the state.
• Administer Section 319 grant projects statewide.
Region Contact Person Phone Address
Fayetteville Region Paul Rawls 910-486-1541 225 Green St., Suite 714, Fayetteville 28301
Wilmington Region Rick Shiver 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext., Wilmington 28405
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC):
WRC staff:
• Manage, restore, cultivate, conserve, protect and regulates the state’s wildlife resources.
• Administer the laws enacted by the General Assembly relating to game and non-game freshwater fish, and other
wildlife resources in a constructive, comprehensive, continuing and economical manner.
Office/Region Contact Person Phone Address
Central Office David Cox 919-528-9886 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-
1721
District Office Shannon Deaton 919-733-3633 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-
1721

A-VI-5
General Water Quality (con’t)
US Army Corps of Engineers:
Corps staff:
• Investigate, develop and maintain the nation’s water and related environmental resources.
• Construct and operate projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and
protection.
• Develop hydropower.
• Conserve and enhance water supplies, fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation.
• Respond to emergency relief activities directed by other federal agencies.
• Administer laws for the protection of navigable waters, emergency flood control and shore protection.
• Issue wetlands and 404 Federal Permits.
Office/Region Contact Person Phone Address
Wilmington District David Timpy 910-251-4745 PO Box 1890, Wilmington 28402-1890
NC Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section:
DWQ Groundwater Section staff:
• Enforce groundwater quality protection standards and cleanup requirements.
• Review permits for wastes discharged to groundwater.
• Issue permits for well construction.
• Control underground injections.
• Administer and develop the well head protection program.
• Monitor ambient groundwater.
Office/Region Contact Person Phone Address
Central Office Carl Bailey 919-733-3221 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh 27604
Fayetteville Region Art Barnhardt 910-486-1541 225 Green St., Fayetteville 28301-5043
Wilmington Region Charlie Stehman 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext., Wilmington 28405
Construction/Mining
NC Division of Land Resources (DLR):
DLR staff administer the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations.
Office/Region Contact Person Phone Address
Central Office Mell Nevils, Chief 919-733-4574 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh 27626
Tracy Davis, Mining 919-733-4574 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh 27626
Fayetteville Region Gerald Lee 910-486-1541 225 Green St., Fayetteville 28301-5043
Wilmington Region Dan Sams 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext., Wilmington 28405

A-VI-6
Solid Waste
NC Division of Waste Management (DWM):
DWM staff:
• Manage solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment.
• Implement three programs – Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund and the Resident Inspectors Program.
Office/Region Contact Person Phone Address
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-733-0692 401 Oberlin Rd, Suite 150, Raleigh 27605
Fayetteville Region Mark Fry 910-486-1541 225 Green St., Suite 714, Fayetteville 28301
Wilmington Region
Wazard Waste Bobby Nelms 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Ext. Dr., Wilmington 28405
Solid Waste John Crowder 910-395-3900 127 Cardinal Ext. Dr., Wilmington 28405
On-Site Wastewater Treatment
NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH) and County Health Departments:
DEH and County Health Department staff:
• Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through modern environmental health science,
the use of technology, rules, public education and dedication to the public trust.
• Train and delegate authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater.
• Conduct engineering reviews for wastewater systems and industrial process wastewater systems with below-
ground discharges.
• Provide technical assistance to local health departments, state agencies and industry.
County/Office Contact Person Phone Address
Central Barbara Hartley-Grimes, PhD 919-715-0141 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh 27604
Bladen Myra Johnson 910-862-6900 PO Box 1889, Elizabethtown 28337
Brunswick Donald J. Yousey 910-253-2250 25 Courthouse Dr., NE Bolivia 28422
Columbus Marian W. Duncan 910-640-6617 PO Box 810, Whiteville 28472
Hoke Don Womble, MPH, R.S. 910-875-9014 429 E. Central Ave., Raeford 28376
Montgomery Kathleen Devore-Jones 910-572-8175 217 S. Main St., Troy 27371
Moore Robert R. Wittmann 910-947-6283 PO Box 279, Carthage 28327
Richmond Tommy Jarrell 910-997-8320 125 Caroline St., Rockingham 28379
Robeson William J. Smith 910-671-3200 460 Country Club Rd, Lumberton 28358
Scotland Jane Murray 910-277-2492 PO Box 69, Laurinburg 28352

• DENR Fayetteville Region covers the following counties within the Lumber River basin: Bladen, Hoke,
Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, Robeson and Scotland.
• DENR Wilmington Region covers the following counties within the Lumber River basin: Columbus and
Brunswick.
Appendices

Appendix VII

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

A-VII-1
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.

A-VII-2
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
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.
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-VII-3
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.

A-VII-4
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.
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.

A-VII-5
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".
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.