03020103Final

3.1

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Lo w e r Ta r ri v e r Su b b a S i n
Subbasin HUC 03020103
Includes the Tar River and Tributaries
Wa t e r Qu a l i t y Ov e r v i e W :
This subbasin funnels water from the Tar River tributaries
before entering the Pamlico Estuary and collectively
delivers accumulated concentrations of stressors (e.g.,
nutrients) directly to the estuary. Nutrient concentrations
from ambient stations within this subbasin indicate TP
remaining steady and below the 1991 concentrations,
while TN concentrations have increased slightly. Water
quality on an individual stream basis has improved;
specifically the removal of Chicod Creek from the Impaired
waters list is a success due to TMDL and agricultural
BMPs implementation. Non-point source and development
pressures continue to be a concern in the entire subbasin.
Ge n e r a l De s c r i p t i O n
The Lower Tar River Subbasin, hydrologic unit code (HUC)
03020103, contains the mainstem Tar River from Tarboro
downstream to Washington covering ~960 square miles;
this area was previously delineated as DWQ subbasins 03-
03-03, 03-03-05 and 03-03-06 (Figure 3-1).
The western section of the Lower Tar River Subbasin lies
within the Southeastern Plains ecoregion while the eastern
portion is contained in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
ecoregion.
The middle section of the subbasin includes approximately
40 river miles of the Tar River from the confluence of Swift
Creek in Edgecombe County to the confluence of Conetoe
Creek in Pitt County. It also includes the catchments of
Cokey Swamp, Ballahack Canal, and Bynums Mill, Conetoe,
Crisp, Otter, and Town Creeks. Land use is primarily
forest and agriculture. Many streams in this area were
channelized 35 or more years ago. The two areas with the
greatest potential for impacts from agricultural nonpoint
source pollution are the Cokey Swamp and Conetoe Creek
catchments. Cokey Swamp also receives urban runoff from
Rocky Mount.
The lower section of the subbasin includes approximately
35 river miles of the Tar River from the confluence of
wa T e r S h e d a T a GL a n c e
cO u n t i e s : Nash, Edgecombe, Wilson,
Martin, Pitt, Beaufort
Municipalities: Rocky Mount,
Sharpsburg, Elm City, Pinetops,
Macclesfield, Tarboro, Princeville,
Conetoe, Bethel, Parmele,
Robersonville, Everetts, Bear Grass,
Falkland, Fountain, Greenville,
Simpson, Grimesland, Washington
pe r M i t t e D Facilities
npDes WWtp:..........................8
Major.............................3
Minor.............................5
nO n -Di s c h a r G e :..........................5
stO r M W at e r :
General.........................34
Individual........................1
an i M a l Op e r at i O n s :.....................45
2000 pO p u l a t i O n : 142,407
ar e a : 960 Sq m i .
iM p e r v i O u s su r F a c e es t i M at e : 15 S q m i .
pr i M a r y classiFicatiOns:
Freshwater ~Miles....................612
su p p l e M e n ta l classi FicatiOns M i l e s :
B;NSW...................................10
C;NSW..................................397
C;Sw,NSW..............................154
WS-IV;NSW..............................50
WS-IV;NSW,CA...........................1
Classification descriptions are found at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/
classifications
3.2
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
f i G u r e 3-1. huc 03020103 ma p
3.3

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Conetoe Creek in Pitt County to just upstream of Washington, NC and the most downstream
freshwater reach of the Tar River. It is located within the Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods and the Mid-
Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces ecoregions. The main stem of the Tar River here is deep,
slow flowing and tidally influenced. Chicod Creek is the major tributary with the greatest potential
for nonpoint source pollution. While runoff from crop and forage lands were historic problems
in this watershed, an influx of intensive poultry and hog operations during the early 1990s has
become the largest nonpoint concern. Tranters Creek is another major tributary, entering the
lower Tar River just above Washington (at which point HUC 03020104 begins). Subwatersheds
within the lower Tar River section of this subbasin include, Green Mill Run, Cannon, Flat, Old Ford
and Horsepen Swamps, Whichard Branch, Chicod, Grindle, Hardee, Parker, Tranters and Tyson
Creeks.
Current Status and Significant Issues
Use Support Assessment Summary
All surface waters in the state are assigned a classification reflecting the best-intended use
of that water. Chemical, physical, and biological parameters are regularly assessed by DWQ
to determine how well waterbodies are meeting their best-intended use. These data are used
to develop use support ratings every two years as reported to EPA. The collected list of all
monitored waterbodies and their water quality rating is called the Integrated Report (IR). Water
not meeting surface water standards are rated as Impaired and reported on the 303(d) list.
Water quality evaluation levels and how a waterbody earns a rating of Supporting or Impaired
is explained in detail in the IR methodology. The 2010 IR is based on data collected between
2004 and 2008; the IR and methodology are available on the DWQ Modeling/TMDL website:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment. The most current use support ratings for this
subbasin are in Appendix 3A.
In this subbasin, use support ratings were assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption,
and water supply categories. Waters are either Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, or No Data
in the aquatic life and recreation categories on a monitored or evaluated basis. All waters are
Impaired in the fish consumption category on an evaluated basis, based on statewide fish
consumption advice issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. All waters are
Supporting in the water supply category. This evaluation is based on reports from Division of
Environmental Health regional water treatment plant consultants.

General Biological Health
Biological samples at 20 benthic macroinvertebrate sites and eight fish community sites were
sampled as part of the basinwide sampling cycle. Eastern North Carolina experienced extreme
drought in 2007, which was more pronounced than the drought of 2002. Decreased runoff
in 2007 contributed to less pollution entering streams; water chemistry data support this
conclusion. At nearly all the sites sampled in 2007, pH and specific conductance values were
lower than in 2002. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide summaries of benthic and fish sample site results
and a description of the stream location to correspond to Figure 3-1. Site specific information is
available in Appendix 3B and the entire Biological Assessment Report can be found at: http://
www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/documents/2008TARbasinwiderptfinal.pdf.
Benthos Community Sampling Summary
The 20 benthic sites consisted of five summer sites (Coastal A and B) and 15 winter sites
(Swamps). Of the five summer sites, one rated Excellent (Tar River-OB89), two rated Good (Tar
River-OB90, Town Creek) and two rated Good-Fair (Tar River-OB119, Grindle Creek). Most of the
winter swamp sites rated Moderate in 2007. Three streams rated Natural (Hardee, Latham and
Chicod Creeks) and only one stream had Severe Stress (Ballahack Canal).
3.4
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Water quality in this subbasin appears to have slightly improved since 2002. Most sites (n=12)
received the same bioclassification in 2007 that they did in 2002 with five sites showed improved
ratings from 2002 to 2007 (Chicod Creek, Cokey Swamp, Bynums Mill Creek, Conetoe Creek-
OB75 and Crisp Creek). Only one site declined in bioclassification (Old Ford Swamp). The most
downstream site on the Tar River-OB119 was Not Rated in 2002 due to saltwater intrusion. Town
Creek was not sampled in 2002 but the rating it received in 2007 was the same as in 1997;
however, a tributary to Town Creek was sampled as part of a special study and received a Severe
rating.
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities and habitat characteristics were surveyed at an
additional five stream sites in eastern Edgecombe and central Pitt counties during March 2004,
to assist the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in prioritizing restoration sites. Holly Creek, Crisp
Creek and Cow Swamp received Moderate bioclassifications and were considered impacted due
to rural nonpoint source pollution (e.g., agriculture, residences, deforested areas). Greens Mill
Run and Hendricks Creek catchments are dominated by urban runoff and associated high flow
events resulting in very severe bank erosion and scour leading to a Severe bioclassification
results.
Ta b L e 3-1. be n T h o S bi o L o G i c a L Sa m p L e re S u L T S
si t e iD*Wat e r b O D y De s c r i p t i O n lO c a t i O n cO u n t y au#.Da t e biOcl a s s
OB87 Sasnet Mill Br From source to Cokey Swamp SR 1222 Edgecombe 28-83-3-3 2/7/01 Not
Rated
OB161
Special
Study
UT Town Cr From source to Town Creek SR1400 Wilson 28-83ut8 2/7/07 Severe
OB91 Town Cr From source to Tar River SR 1601 Edgecombe 28-83 6/27/07 Good
OB80 Holly Cr From source to Hendricks Creek US 64A Edgecombe 28-81-1 3/1/04 Moderate
OB79 Hendricks Cr From source to Tar River St James St Edgecombe 28-81 3/1/04 Severe
OB90 Tar R From Tarboro Raw Water Supply
Intake to Suggs Creek US 64 BUS Edgecombe 28-(80)6/27/07 Good
OB89 Tar R From Tarboro Raw Water Supply
Intake to Suggs Creek NC 42 Edgecombe 28-(80)6/28/07 Excellent
OB163
Special
Study
Tar R From 030303/030305 boundary
to Johnsons Mill Creek US 264 Pitt 28-(84)b 6/25/07 Excellent
OB159 Tar R
From Greenville Raw Water
Supply Intake to 1.2 miles
downstream of the mouth of
Broad Run
US 264A Pitt 28-(94)6/25/07 Excellent
OB119 Tar R
From a point 1.2 miles
downstream of the mouth of
Broad Run to the upstream side
of the mouth of Tranters Creek
SR 1565 Pitt 28-(99.5)6/26/07 Good-Fair
OB91 Town Cr From source to Tar River SR 1601 Edgecombe 28-83 6/27/07 Good
OB71 Cokey Swp From source to Dickson Branch NC 43 Edgecombe 28-83-3a 2/8/07 Moderate
OB70 Bynums Mill Cr From source to Town Creek SR 1120 Edgecombe 28-83-4 2/7/07 Moderate
OB86 Otter Cr From source to a point 0.7 mile
upstream of Kitten Creek SR 1614 Edgecombe 28-86-(0.3)2/7/07 Moderate
OB76 Conetoe Cr From source to SR 1516 SR 1516 Edgecombe 28-87-(0.5)a 2/6/01 Not
Rated
OB75 Conetoe Cr From SR 1516 to 1350 meters
North of NC 42 SR 1510 Edgecombe 28-87-(0.5)b 2/6/07 Moderate
3.5

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
si t e iD*Wat e r b O D y De s c r i p t i O n lO c a t i O n cO u n t y au#.Da t e biOcl a s s
OB73 Conetoe Cr From 1350 meters North of NC
42 to Crisp Creek NC 42 Edgecombe 28-87-(0.5)c 2/6/07 Moderate
OB77 Conetoe Cr From Crisp Creek to Pitt County
SR 1404 US 64A Pitt 28-87-(0.5)d 2/6/01 Fair
OB74
special
study
Conetoe Cr From Crisp Creek to Pitt County
SR 1404 SR 1409 Pitt 28-87-(0.5)d 11/2/00 Poor
OB78 Crisp Cr From source to Conetoe Creek SR 1527 Edgecombe 28-87-1 2/6/07 Moderate
OB68 Ballahack
Canal From source to Conetoe Creek NC 42 Edgecombe 28-87-1.2 2/6/07 Severe
OB168 Parker Cr From source to Tar River SR 1579 Pitt 28-95 6/25/09 Poor
OB167 Parker Cr From source to Tar River SR 1591 Pitt 28-95 6/25/09 Poor
OB110 Greens Mill
Run From source to Tar River Greensprings
Park Pitt 28-96 3/2/04 Severe
OB112 Hardee Cr From source to Tar River NC 33 Pitt 28-97 2/14/07 Natural
OB111 Grindle Cr From Whichard Branch to Tar
River US 264 Pitt 28-100b 6/25/07 Good-Fair
OB120 Whichard Br From source to Grindle Creek SR 1521 Pitt 28-100-2 2/13/07 Moderate
OB107 Chicod Cr From source to Tar River SR 1777 Pitt 28-101 2/14/07 Natural
OB108 Cow Swp From source to Chicod Creek SR 1756 Pitt 28-101-5 3/2/04 Moderate
OB126 Tranters Cr From source to subbasin
030305/030306 boundary SR 1552 Edgecombe 28-103a 2/13/07 Moderate
OB121 Flat Swp
From 1.5 miles downstream of
Robersonville WWTP discharge
to Tranters Creek
SR 1157 Martin 28-103-2b 2/13/07 Moderate
OB124 Old Ford Swp From source to Aggie Run US 17 Beaufort 28-103-14-1 2/12/07 Moderate
OB123 Lathams Cr From source to Aggie Run SR 1410 Beaufort 28-103-14-2 2/12/07 Natural
OB122 Horsepen Swp From source to Tranters Creek SR 1001 Beaufort 28-103-10 2/13/07 Moderate
Bioclassification of Excellent, Good, Natural, Good-Fair, Not Impaired or Moderate Stress = Supporting
Fair, Severe, Severe Stress or Poor = Impaired
* Coordinates with Station ID on Figure 3-1
The bioclassification trends for this subbasin are shown in Figure 3-2. In terms of non-swamp
streams, there has been little change in bioclassification trends in this subbasin overtime.
However, many of the swamp samples in this subbasin improved in bioclassification, with the
largest shift being
sites improving
from Severe Stress
to Moderate Stress.
Examples of this
trend included
Crisp Creek-OB78,
Conetoe Creek-
OB75, Cokey
Swamp-OB71, and
Bynums Mill Creek-
OB70. The most
striking example
of a site with a
nonpoint dominated
fi G u r e 3-2. bioc L a SSificaTion Tr e n d S in huc 03020103
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1992 1997 2002 2007
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
a
m
p
l
e
s
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Natural swamp
Moderate swamp
Severe swamp
3.6
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
watershed improving bioclassification due to drought was observed at Chicod Creek-OB107
which improved from Severe swamp in 2002 to Natural swamp in 2007.
Fish Community Sampling Summary
The fish community metrics for Coastal Plain streams are currently under development; therefore
all eight of the fish community samples in this subbasin received a Not Rated classification. The
eight waterbodies sampled for fish communities represent either streams with natural channels
or channelized streams. Tyson Creek is the best example of a waterbody with a natural channel
in this subbasin. In natural or less modified streams, fish densities are typically lower than in
channelized systems. In the channelized Parker Creek and Cannon Swamps, fish densities were
very high, constituting the second and third highest catch rate of fish sites in the Tar Basin in
2007.
Of the eight streams sampled in 2007, fish have been previously collected at two of them, Cokey
Swamp (in 1997) and Parker Creek (in 2002). Both streams saw an increase in the number of
species collected in 2007.
Ta b L e 3-2. fi S h co m m u n i T y Sa m p L e re S u L T S
si t e iD*Wat e r b O D y De s c r i p t i O n lO c a t i O n cO u n t y au#Da t e
ncibi
ra t i n G
OF9 Chicod Cr From source to Tar River SR 1777 Pitt 28-101 4/16/02 Not
Rated
OF10 Cokey Swp From source to Dickson Branch SR 1135 Edgecombe 28-83-3a 5/09/07 Not
Rated
OF20 Grindle Cr From Whichard Branch to Tar R US 264 Pitt 28-100b 4/16/02 Not
Rated
OF21 Hardee Cr From source to Tar River NC33 Pitt 28-97 4/16/02 Not
Rated
OF30 Otter Cr From source to a point 0.7
mile upstream of Kitten Creek SR 1614 Edgecombe 28-86-(0.3)4/17/02 Not
Rated
OF52 Conetoe Cr From SR 1516 to 1350 meters
North of NC 42 SR 1510 Edgecombe 28-87-(0.5)b 5/09/07 Not
Rated
OF53 Crisp Cr From source to Conetoe Creek SR 1527 Edgecombe 28-87-1 5/09/07 Not
Rated
OF54 Ballahack
Canal From source to Conetoe Creek NC 42 Edgecombe 28-87-1.2 5/09/07 Not
Rated
OF57 Tyson Cr From source to Tar River SR 1255 Pitt 28-88 5/10/07 Not
Rated
OF31 Parker Cr From source to Tar River NC 33 Pitt 28-95 5/10/07 Not
Rated
OF56 Cannon
Swp From source to Moyes Run US 264 Pitt 28-99-1-1 5/10/07 Not
Rated
OF55 Whichard
Br From source to Grindle Creek SR 1521 Pitt 28-100-2 5/10/07 Not
Rated
Not Rated = Fish community metrics and criteria have yet to be developed for Coastal Plain streams
* Coordinates with Station ID on Figure 3-1
3.7

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Stream Flow
Stream flow is monitored
at U.S. Geological Survey
gaging stations. Flow, often
abbreviated as “Q”, is measured
in terms of volume of water per
unit of time, usually cubic feet
per second (cfs). There are nine
gaging stations in this subbasin.
Figure 3-3 provides an example
of average stream flow over
a 12 year period and gives an
idea of which years received
heavier precipitation. For more
information about instream flow
see DWR website: http://www.
ncwater.org/About_DWR/Water_
Projects_Section/Instream_Flow/
welcome.html
Ambient Data
Subbasinwide, monthly chemical and physical samples are taken by DWQ (6 stations) and by
the Tar Pamlico Basin Association (10 stations), starting in 2007. A majority of the ambient
stations are associated with waterbody locations where potential pollution could occur from
known land use activities. There are also portions of the subbasin where no water quality data
are collected; therefore, we cannot evaluate the condition of the water quality in those areas.
Parameters collected depend on the waterbody classification, but typically include conductivity,
dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, turbidity, nutrient measurements, metals, and fecal coliform.
Each classification has an associated set of standards the parameters must meet in order to be
considered supporting its designated uses. Stressors are either chemical parameters or physical
conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their
designated use. Ten sample results are required within the five year data collection window in
order to evaluate the water quality parameter and compare it to the water quality standards.
Ambient stations are listed in Table 3-3, and their locations are found in Figure 3-1 and on
watershed maps provided in Appendix 3D.
Ta b L e 3-3. am b i e n T ST a T i o n S in huc 03020103
st a t i O n iD aG e n c y
ac t i v e
si n c e
Wat e r b O D y au#st a t i O n lO c a t i O n st r e s s O r s
O5250000 Both 8/6/73 Tar River 28-(80)NC 33 And US 64 Bus at
Tarboro -
O5600000 TPBA 3/1/07 Town Creek 28-83 NC 111 SR 1202 near Wiggins
Crossroads Low DO, Low pH
O5990000 TPBA 3/1/07 Town Creek 28-83 US 258 near Cobbs
Crossroads Low DO, Low pH
O6000000 TPBA 3/1/07 Tar River 28-(80)NC 42 at Old Sparta -
O6200000 NCAMBNT 10/10/73 Tar River 28-(84)a NC 222 near Falkland -
O6201000 TPBA 3/1/07 Ballahack
Canal 28-87-1.2 SR 1526 near Conetoe
Low DO, Low pH,
Turbidity, Fecal
Coliform Bacteria
O6205000 NCAMBNT 8/1/84 Conetoe Creek 28-87-(0.5)d SR 1409 near Bethel Low DO, Low pH
O6240000 TPBA 11/16/05 Tar River 28-(84)b US 264 Byp near Greenville -
fi G u r e 3-3. ST r e a m fL o w a T uSGS 02084000 Ta r ri v e r in
Gr e e n v i L L e (ye a r L y av e r a G e b a S e d o n da i L y me a n S )
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ye
a
r
l
y

A
n
n
u
a
l

F
l
o
w
(c
u
b
i
c

f
e
e
t

p
e
r

s
e
c
o
n
d
)
3.8
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
st a t i O n iD aG e n c y
ac t i v e
si n c e
Wat e r b O D y au#st a t i O n lO c a t i O n st r e s s O r s
O6450000 NCAMBNT 8/1/84 Chicod Creek 28-101 SR 1760 near Simpson
Low DO, Low pH,
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
O6500000 NCAMBNT 7/5/68 Tar River 28-(99.5)SR 1565 near Grimesland
O6700000 TPBA 3/1/07 Grindle Creek 28-100a SR 1427 near Bethel
O6798000 TPBA 3/1/07 Grindle Creek 28-100b US 264 at Pactolus
O7000000 TPBA 3/1/07 Flat Swamp 28-103-2a SR 1159 Third St at
Robersonville
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
O7100000 TPBA 3/1/07 Flat Swamp 28-103-2b SR 1157 near Robersonville Turbidity, Fecal
Coliform Bacteria
O7300000 NCAMBNT 10/10/73 Tranters Creek 28-103a SR 1403 near Washington Chlorophyll a
TPBA= Tar Pamlico Basin Association, NCAMBNT= DWQ
“-” indicates no stressors identified
The following discussion of ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median
and mean concentration values for all ambient stations (n=15) in this subbasin for a specific
parameter over each year. These graphs are not intended to provide statistically significant
trend information or loading numbers, but rather provide an idea of how changes in land use
or climatic conditions effect parameter readings over the long term. The difference between
median and mean results indicate the presence of outliers in the dataset. Box and whisker plots
of individual ambient stations were completed by parameter for data between 2002-2007 and
can be found in the Ambient Monitoring report: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_
file?uuid=994c08a8-a98d-4ff5-9425-656cadf8cfa4&groupId=38364. Summary sheets for ambient data
are found in Appendix 3C.
Turbidity
The turbidity standard for freshwater (Class C) streams is 50 NTUs. Currently, Ballahack Canal
at SR 1526 near Conetoe (AU# 28-87-1.2) indicated turbidity as a stressor (3 out of 10 samples
exceeded 50 NTUs) and is considered Impaired. One out of 10 samples in Flat Swamp at SR 1157
near Robersonville (AU# 28-103-2a) also exceeded turbidity standards.
Turbidity is a measure of cloudiness in water and is often accompanied with excessive sediment
deposits in the streambed. Excessive sediments deposited on stream and lake bottoms can
choke spawning beds (reducing fish survival and growth rates), harm fish food sources, fill in
pools (reducing cover from prey and high
temperature refuges), and reduce habitat
complexity in stream channels. Excessive
suspended sediments can make it more
difficult for fish to find prey and at high
levels can cause direct physical harm,
such as clogged gills. Sediments can
cause taste and odor problems, block
water supply intakes, foul treatment
systems, and fill reservoirs. (USEPA,
1999 and Waters, 1995). It is important
to note that the turbidity standard does
not capture incident duration or the
amount of sedimentation, both of which
can impact aquatic species. Increasing
turbidity levels is of special concern in
fi G u r e 3-4. Su m m a r i z e d TurbidiTy v a L u e S f o r a L L d a T a
c o L L e c T e d a T am b i e n T ST a T i o n S in huc 03020103
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

N
T
U
s
Median Mean
3.9

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
this basin as phosphorous binds to sediment and is transported downstream and can contribute
to nutrient enrichment conditions in the estuary.
Figure 3-4 shows data from 1,078 samples over the 12 year period, of which only 10 samples
(1%) had results over 50 NTUs. Turbidity exceedances are likely a result of specific incidences
(land use disturbance) and are not a subbasinwide issue.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The fecal coliform bacteria standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geomean of
200 colonies/100ml or 400 colonies/100ml in 20% of the samples where five samples have
been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30). Only results from a 5-in-30 study are to be used to
indicate whether the stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a classification of B (primary
recreation water) will receive priority for 5-in-30 studies. Other waterbodies will be studied as
resources permit. Data through 2007 indicate several streams where bacteria colony numbers
exceeded 400 colonies/100ml. Streams currently impacted by fecal coliform bacteria include:
Ballahack Canal (C, NSW) at SR 1526 near Conetoe (AU# 28-87-1.2)
Conetoe Creek (C, NSW) at SR 1409 near Bethel (AU# 28-87-(0.5)d)
Flat Swamp (C, Sw,NSW) near Robersonville (AU#s 28-103-2a & 28-103-2b)
Chicod Creek (C, NSW) at SR 1760 near Simpson (AU# 28-101)
The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in aquatic environments indicates that the water has
been contaminated with the fecal material of humans or other warm-blooded animals. At the
time this occurred, the source water might have been contaminated by pathogens or disease
producing bacteria or viruses that can also exist in fecal material. The presence of fecal
contamination is an indicator that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to this
water. Fecal coliform bacteria may occur in ambient water as a result of the overflow of domestic
sewage or nonpoint sources of human and animal waste.
Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard for Class C waters is not less than a daily
average of 5.0 mg/L with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4 mg/L, the latter
standard being the most commonly used. Swamp waters may have lower values if the low DO
level is caused by natural conditions. Dissolved oxygen can be produced by wind or wave action
that mix air into the water or through aquatic plant photosynthesis. During the day, DO levels are
higher when photosynthesis occurs and they drop at night when respiration occurs by aquatic
organisms. High levels are found mostly in cool, swift moving waters and low levels are found
in warm, slow moving waters. In slow moving waters, such as reservoirs or estuaries, depth is
also a factor. Wind action and plants can cause these waters to have a higher dissolved oxygen
fi G u r e 3-5. Su m m a r i z e d fe c a L co L i f o r m ba c T e r i a n u m b e r S f o r a L L d a T a c o L L e c T e d a T am b i e n T ST a T i o n S
in huc 03020103 Figure 3-5 shows data from 1,081
samples over the 12 year period,
of which 67 samples (6%) had fecal
coliform bacteria levels above 400
colonies/100ml.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
19971998 1999 20002001 2002 20032004 2005 20062007 2008
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

B
a
c
t
e
r
i
a

Co
l
o
n
i
e
s
/
1
0
0
m
l
Geomean Mean
3.10
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
concentration near the surface, while biochemical reactions lower in the water column may result
in concentration as low as zero at the bottom.
There are many sites in the basin that have low DO measurements. However, most of these
sites were first sampled during the 2007 drought; the Tar Pamlico Basin Association sites began
monitoring in March 2007. Nearly the entire monitoring history for these sites was during the
2007-08 drought, which, due to drops in flow, suppressed dissolved oxygen levels. Additional
monitoring data during non-drought conditions will aid in identifying whether DO conditions are
altered by anthropogenic pollutants.
pH
The water quality standard for pH in surface freshwater is 6.0 to 9.0 standard units. Swamp water
(supplemental Class Sw) may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions. pH
is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration that is used to express whether a solution is acidic or
alkaline (basic). Values outside the 6.0-9.0 standard unit range can have chronic effects on the
community structure of macroinvertebrates, fish and phytoplankton. The following waterbodies
have experienced low pH levels at the sample sites.
Town Creek near Wiggins Crossroads (AU#28-83)
Ballahack Canal at SR 1526 near Conetoe (AU# 28-87-1.2)
Conetoe Creek at SR 1409 near Bethel (AU# 28-87-(0.5)d)
Figure 3-6 represents results from
769 samples collected over a 12 year
period, of which 180 samples (23%) had
instantaneous readings below 4 mg/L. A
majority of the low DO levels occurred
during the 2007-08 drought.
fi G u r e 3-6. Su m m a r i z e d di S S o Lv e d ox y G e n Le v e L S f o r a L L d a T a c o L L e c T e d
a T am b i e n T ST a T i o n S in huc 03020103
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1997 1998 1999 20002001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

O
x
y
g
e
n

L
e
v
e
l

m
g
/
l
Median Mean
fi G u r e 3-7. Su m m a r i z e d ph v a L u e S f o r a L L d a T a c o L L e c T e d a T
am b i e n T ST a T i o n S in h u c 03020103
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
pH

V
a
l
u
e
Median pH Values Figure 3-7 graph shows data from
1,329 samples over the 12 year
period, of which only 113 samples
(9%) had low pH readings.
3.11

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Nutrient Enrichment
Compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus are major components of living organisms and thus are
essential to maintain life. These compounds are collectively referred to as “nutrients”. Nitrogen
compounds include ammonia as nitrogen (NH3), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and nitrite+nitrate
nitrogen (NO2+NO3). Total nitrogen (TN) is the sum of TKN and NO2+NO3. Phosphorus is
measured as total phosphorus (TP) by DWQ. When nutrients are introduced to an aquatic
ecosystem from municipal and industrial treatment processes or runoff from urban or agricultural
land, the growth of algae and other plants may be accelerated. In addition to the possibility of
causing algal blooms, ammonia-nitrogen may combine with high pH water to form ammonium
hydroxide (NH4OH), a form toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Due to excessive levels of nutrients resulting in massive algal blooms and fish kills the entire Tar-
Pamlico River Basin was designated as Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) in 1989. This designation
resulted in the development and implementation of a nutrient management strategy to achieve
a decrease in TN by 30% and no increase in TP loads compared to 1991 conditions. Even though
implementation of the strategy has occurred by wastewater treatment dischargers, municipal
stormwater programs, and agriculture, nutrient enrichment continues to be cumulatively
impacting the Pamlico Estuary. A review of the NSW strategy, including implementation activities,
progress towards meeting the loading goals and additional actions are discussed in Chapter 6.
Basin trend analyses were completed for nutrient concentration and daily loads to evaluate
progress towards meeting TMDL reduction goals, as discussed in detail in the NSW Chapter 6.
These analyses detected a statistically significant increase in TKN concentration and a decrease
in NH3 and NO2+NO3. There were no basinwide detected trends for TN or TP concentrations. TKN
is defined as total organic nitrogen and NH3. An increase in organic nitrogen is the likely source
for the increase in TKN concentrations since NH3 concentrations have decreased basinwide.
Further analysis of these parameters were completed on a subbasin scale to determine whether
concentrations changed over an 11 year time period. Currently, NC does not have nutrient
standards; however, NC normal nutrient levels in class C waters are typically:
TP = < 0.05 mg/L
TN= < 0.8 mg/L
TKN= <0.5 mg/L
NH3= < 0.05 mg/L
In early 2001, the DWQ Laboratory Section reviewed its internal Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) programs and analytical methods. This effort resulted in a marked increase
in reporting levels for certain parameters. New analytical equipment and methods were
subsequently acquired to establish new lower reporting levels and more scientifically supportable
quality assurance. As a result, the reporting levels quickly dropped back down to at or near the
previous reporting levels. Nutrients were especially affected by these changes, as shown below:
Reporting Level by Date (mg/L)
Parameter Pre-2001 3/13/2001 to 3/29/2001 3/30/2001 to 7/24/2001 7/25/2001 to present
NH3 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.01
TKN 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.2
NO2+NO3 0.01 0.5 0.15 0.01
TP 0.01 0.5 0.1 0.02
Note: Do not let increased reporting levels be interpreted as a sudden upward trend. The DWQ Laboratory Section
cautions that the establishment of minimum reporting levels may have been inconsistent and undocumented prior
to those established in July 2001.
3.12
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Figure 3-8 represents data over a 12
year period, where 4,316 samples
were taken, of which 4,079 (95%)
samples had TP levels above 0.05
mg/L. These data and the estuarine
algal response to nutrient loading
indicates TP inputs to streams
continues to be a problem.
For comparison, 1991 TP
concentration data, shown in green:
Median= 0.13 Mean = 0.11
fi G u r e 3-8. Su m m a r i z e d To T a L ph o S p h o r u S v a L u e S f o r a L L
d a T a c o L L e c T e d a T am b i e n T ST a T i o n S in huc 03020103
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1991 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
TP

m
g
/
L
Median Mean
fi G u r e 3-9. Su m m a r i z e d To T a L ni T r o G e n v a L u e S f o r a L L
d a T a c o L L e c T e d a T am b i e n T ST a T i o n S in huc 03020103
Figure 3-9 represents data from
4,307 samples collected over
12 years, of which 2,717 (63%)
of them had TN levels above
0.8 mg/L. These data and the
estuarine algal response to
nutrient loading indicates TN
inputs to streams continues to be
a problem.
For comparison, 1991 TN
concentration data, shown in
green: Median= 1.13 Mean = 1.34
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1991 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
TN

m
g
/
L
Median Mean
The noted basinwide TKN increase
is also seen in TKN concentrations
summarized for all stations within
this subbasin (Figure 3-10). This
subbasin is influenced by organic
nitrogen inputs for HUCs 03020101
& 03020103.
For comparison, 1991 TKN
concentration data, shown in green:
Median= 0.45 Mean = 0.47
fi G u r e 3-10. Su m m a r i z e d TKn c o n c e n T r a T i o n
d a T a f o r a L L S T a T i o n S in huc 03020101
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
19
9
1
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
TK
N

m
g
/
L
YearMedianMean
3.13

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Build
Partnership
S
T
A
R
T
Characterize
Watershed
Set G
o
a
l
s
Identi
f
y
Soluti
o
n
s
Measur
e

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
Make A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Implement
Plan
Design
Implementation
Program
Improve
Plan
fi G u r e 16. waT e r S h e d pL a n n i n G
Restoration and Protection Opportunities
The following section provides more detail about specific streams where special studies have
occurred or stressor sources information is available. Specific stream information regarding
basinwide biological samples sites are available in Appendix 3B. Use support information on all
monitored streams can be found in Appendix 3A. Detailed maps of each of the watersheds are
found in Appendix 3D or by clicking on the following small maps. Interactive elements have been
incorporated within all 10-digit watershed maps. To use the new features click on the Layers tab
on the left side of the Adobe Reader window. Expand the folder tree by clicking on the (+) sign to
the left of the map name. Each item in the subsequent folder tree is a layer on the map. These
layers can be turned on or off by clicking the symbol to the left of the layer name. To return to
your previous place within the text click the smaller map in the upper left corner of the 10-digit
watershed map.
To assist in identifying potential water quality issues, we are requesting information be gathered
by citizens, watershed groups and resource agencies through our Impaired and Impacted Stream/
Watershed Survey found at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/impactedstreamssurvey
T o w n cr e e K wa T e r S h e d (0302010301)
Recommendations
Currently, there is not a sample site that can quantify nutrients
draining from this watershed. Nutrient data should be collected at
ambient site O5990000 to help target areas within the basin for
further nutrient reductions.
Restoration Opportunities & Protection Priorities
Cokey Swamp (HUCs 030201030103 & 030201030104) is a tributary to Town Creek and drains
eastern Nash and western Edgecombe counties. Cokey Swamp is currently classified as C; NSW
even though physically and biologically it appears to be Swamp Waters. NC Natural Heritage
Program has designated part of the subwatershed as Significant Natural Heritage Area. Since
2002 the upper 8.6 miles of the stream (AU# 28-83-3a) have been Impaired based on a Severe
Stress bioclassification, however the 2007 sample showed some improvement to a Moderate
Stress bioclassification leading to the stream to no longer being on the 303(d) list. Urban runoff
from Rocky Mount and Sharpsburg and agriculture nonpoint source pollution potentially impact
the stream. There are also several waste residual application sites located within the lower
subwatershed. The potential runoff impact from these areas is unknown, but should be minimal if
applied appropriately.
In 2005, the Upper Coastal Plain Council of Government and the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
received a 205j grant to identify non-point source pollution through a land use assessment of
property within 100-300 feet from the stream. Their land use assessment identified potential
problem areas including: tilled cropland or pastures draining to the stream or ditch networks,
CAFO’s, spray fields, and one lagoon located within the 100-yr floodplain. Junk and abandoned
cars were found within the riparian areas within Cokey Swamp headwaters.
Upper Town Creek Subwatershed (HUC 030201030102)
Excess runoff from Elm City’s WWTP spray fields prompted DWQ’s Raleigh Regional Office to
request samples be taken in Town Creek in 2007. This spray system consistently exceeded its
limits on a weekly basis (calculated ~1.1 million gallons of runoff occurred during 2006) and was
under a Special Order by Consent. Sampling results in 2007 resulted in a Severe bioclassification
rating indicating degraded water quality in an unnamed tributary (UT) to Town Creek at SR 1400.
This UT to Town Creek (AU# 28-83ut8 2.6 mi) is Impaired on the 2010 303(d) list.
3.14
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
The special sample results noted that UT to Town Creek appeared to be in the process of
transforming into a wetland from the documented increased volume of water from the upstream
spray field. Furthermore, the riparian habitat along this reach of stream and within the channel
was degraded. Water chemistry parameters such as pH and temperature indicated warmer
waters and higher pH levels characteristic of upstream point sources. The special study results
concluded this waterbody did not support a diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates. The benthic
community that persisted here was made up of a smaller number of highly tolerant organisms.
The Deformity Analysis revealed a slightly higher rate of deformities than the natural background
rate, but that those deformities did not appear to be caused by highly toxic conditions. DWQ
inspections in 2008 indicate improved management of the wastewater collection system, with
reduced inflow and infiltration (I&I) maintenance of adequate lagoon freeboard and the possibility
of acquiring new lagoons and spray fields locations. Additional benthic surveys will be required
to indicate if the WWTP’s improved management has allowed stream conditions to restore to full
use.
Bynums Mill Creek (HUC 030201030106), AU# 28-83-4-1, is no longer Impaired. The 2007
sample resulted in an improved conditions of Moderate Stress swamp bioclassification, although
water quality issues seem to be the main concern versus habitat conditions. Macclesfield WWTP
discharges into Bynums Mill Creek; the NPDES permitted flow is 0.175 million gallons/day (MGD)
and the median annual daily flow is 0.064 MGD. Parameters that have exceeded the permit limits
include: pH, fecal coliform bacteria, chlorine, total suspended solids, ammonia, and BOD. The
facility is receiving technical assistance from DWQ’s Raleigh Regional Office to better address
ammonia.
o T T e r cr e e K - Ta r ri v e r wa T e r S h e d
(0302010302)
Restoration Opportunities
Hendricks Creek (HUC 030201030202), AU# 28-81, from source to Tar
River 3.9 miles is Impaired based on a Severe bioclassification in 2004.
Hendricks Creek runs through the middle of Tarboro and habitat conditions represent typical
conditions in highly urbanized watersheds with very severe bank erosion and scour. The creek’s
flashiness is apparent (e.g., high wrack lines, scour, severe bank erosion) and is indicative of
highly impervious watersheds. Restoration efforts for Hendricks Creek need to focus on both
habitat and water quality improvements to significantly improve benthic bioclassifications.
This stream is part of an EEP local watershed plan; more information can be found at: http://
www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Tar-Pamlico/Middle_Tar_LWP_Files/Middle_Tar_Rehabilitation_Plans_
Appendices/Hendricks_Creek_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf.
Protection Priorities
Tar River Watershed (HUC 030201030202 & HUC 030201030204)
In 2005, two sites (OB89 & OB90) were sampled along the Tar River, (AU# 28-(80)) from Tarboro
Raw Water Supply Intake to Suggs Creek, in Edgecombe County between Tarboro and Greenville.
Both sites received Excellent bioclassifications. However in 2007, a drought year, the OB90 site
at US Bus.64 received a Good bioclassification rating. The site needs to be sampled again during
a normal rainfall year to determine if it would receive an Excellent rating again. Between 2000
and 2005, Wildlife Resources Commission biologists collected mussel taxa from the Tar River
between the two sites and at NC 42. These taxa consisted of Lampsilis radiata, Alasmidonta
undulata, and Elliptio roanokensis, which are listed as Threatened by NC and Lampsilis cariosa,
which is listed as Endangered by NC, and as a Species of Special Concern in the United States.
Due to the presence of listed aquatic species and potential water quality from US Bus. 64 to NC
3.15

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
42, this section of the Tar River might qualify for ORW.The presence of these rare, threatened and
endangered species dependent on excellent water quality makes this portion of the Tar River and
contributing tributaries priorities for restoration and protection activities.
co n e T o e cr e e K wa T e r S h e d (0302010303)
Conetoe Creek Watershed, (HUCs 030201030301, 030201030303,
030201030305)
Previously half of this creek was impaired based on a Severe Stress
bioclassification; however, 2007 benthic samples resulted in a
Moderate bioclassification indicating improved conditions. This
improvement results in 9.8 miles being removed from the 2010 303(d)
Impaired waters list (AU# 28-87-(0.5)a & 28-87-(0.5)b). The lower
6.7 miles of Conetoe Creek remain Impaired (AU# 28-87-(0.5)d) based on a Poor rating from
a special study conducted in 2000. It is recommended this site be sampled during the next
basinwide biological sampling period.

Land use is primarily agricultural in this watershed. Water is controlled through a series of
canals that are managed by a drainage district board (consisting of local landowners and a
technical advisor). Over 95 miles of stream in the watershed were channelized in the 1960s
with intermittent de-snagging and dredging since then. The drainage district levies a tax on
landowners to maintain the canals for proper drainage including canal access, mowing, de-
snagging, and pipe and crossing repairs. Woody debris were noted as sparse and the habitat is
generally poor throughout the watershed. Agricultural chemicals are thought to be the cause
of toxicity and channelization the cause of the habitat degradation. Reestablishment of buffers
along the intermittent and perennial streams should be encouraged to reduce nutrient inputs and
provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
There is one swine animal operation (AWS740120) in this watershed that has been in violation
with their DWQ permit. The facility has a history of minimal emergency storage volume capacity
and the sprayfields are in poor condition and not managed well. DWQ will continue to closely
monitor this operation.
Ballahack Canal (HUC 030201030305), AU# 28-87-1.2, from source to Conetoe Creek, 8.4 miles
had a Severe benthos bioclassification in 2007. Ballahack Canal is a highly channelized tributary
of Conetoe Creek. The benthic station is located in the town of Conetoe and it has been rated
Severe since 2002. This site had a very low habitat score due to the straight channel, lack of
instream habitat, homogenous substrate (sand/silt), lack of pools, eroding banks, open canopy
and little riparian buffer zone. In addition to the low habitat score, algal mats were abundant
and the conductivity was elevated (179 umhos/cm). Ambient data indicates high turbidity levels,
high fecal coliform bacteria levels, and low pH. Water flow has recently been managed by the
drainage district through the use of an inflatable fabric dam. Ballahack Canal is listed on the
2010 303(d) list for Aquatic Life because of turbidity exceedances and poor biological integrity.
Crisp Creek (HUC 030201030302), AU# 28-87-1, is a tributary to Conetoe Creek. This
channelized creek, has stabilized banks with a mature hardwood riparian zone. Benthic samples
have shown improvements from a Severe Stress bioclassification to the recent Moderate
bioclassification. This stream is part of an EEP local watershed plan; more information can
be found at: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Tar-Pamlico/Middle_Tar_LWP_Files/Middle_Tar_
Rehabilitation_Plans_Appendices/Crisp_Creek_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf.
3.16
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Gr e e n v i L L e -Ta r ri v e r wa T e r S h e d (0302010304)
Greens Mill Run (HUC 030201030403), AU# 28-96, from source to Tar
River, 7.3 miles is Impaired due to a Severe benthos bioclassification
in 2004. Stream habitat conditions represent typical conditions in
highly urbanized watersheds with very severe bank erosion and
scour. Stream flow flashiness is apparent (e.g., high wrack lines,
scour, severe bank erosion) and is indicative of highly impervious
watersheds. Restoration efforts for Green Mill Run need to focus on
both habitat and water quality improvements to significantly improve benthic bioclassifications.
This stream is part of an EEP local watershed plan; more information can be found at: http://
www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Tar-Pamlico/Middle_Tar_LWP_Files/Middle_Tar_Rehabilitation_Plans_
Appendices/Green_Mill_Run_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf.
Parkers Creek (HUC 030201030404), AU# 28-95, from source to Tar River, 7.3 miles are Not
Rated based on a 2007 fish community sample (OF31). This site is Not Rated because criteria are
still being developed to rate coastal plain streams; when these criteria are finalized this stream
can then be back-rated based on the 2007 sample. The sample indicated an improvement
in riparian vegetation and bank stability since the 2002 sample; a diverse and abundant fish
community was seen for such a small channelized stream.
In the summer of 2009, two benthic samples were taken upstream of OF31 to determine if
stormwater from a specific property was contributing to water quality degradation. The samples
indicated Poor ratings both upstream (SR 1579) and downstream (SR 1591) of the facility with
impacted habitat in-stream and riparian limitations likely caused by historic channelization and
extreme fluctuations in hydrology (flashiness). The poor aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat
conditions could not be directly linked to the property of interest. Stormwater runoff and altered
hydrology are likely the main reason for degraded water quality in this subwatershed. This
subwatershed drains the Pitt-Greenville Airport and Greenville’s industrial areas. Parkers Creek
will likely be listed as impaired on the 2012 303(d) list.
T r a n T e r S cr e e e K wa T e r S h e d (0302010305)
Old Ford Swamp, (030201030506), AU# 28-103-14-1, had the only
benthic sample site to decline in bioclassification rating, going from
a natural rating in 2002 to a moderate rating in 2007. The site also
had the lowest pH (4.9) recorded at a benthic site in the basin. It is
hypothesized that the lack of high pH agricultural runoff during the
2007 drought was supplanted by low pH swamp waters.
Tranters Creek Watershed, AU# 28-103a, runs ~38 miles from its source in Martin County to
the Tar River in Beaufort county. Tranters Creek watershed (HUC 0302010305) drains ~243 sq.
miles and includes the towns of Parmele, Robersonville, Everetts, and the northwestern parts
of Washington. Land use data from 2001 indicates 37% of the watershed is forested, 35%
agriculture, 14% wetlands, 8% grasslands, and 6% developed. There are also several waste
residual application fields in the upper watershed. Over the past 10 years one swine animal
operation facility has had numerous violations, resulting in minimal emergency volume storage
capacity and poor spray field conditions.
Tranters Creek and its tributaries are nutrient sensitive swamp freshwater systems that are
currently supporting their designated uses. However, the TN concentration at the ambient station
O7300000 is increasing and the majority of the TP concentrations remain above 0.05 mg/L as
shown in Figures 3-11 & 3-12.
3.17

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Over 12 years 142 samples were collected, of
which 116 samples (82%) had TP levels above
0.05 mg/L.
fi G u r e 3-12. To T a L ph o S p h o r u S co n c e n T r a T i o n
@ amS o7300000
Tranters Creek
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
TP

m
g
/
L
MedianMean
Over 12 years 142 samples were collected, of which
57 (40%) of them had TN levels above 0.8 mg/L.
fi G u r e 3-11. To T a L ni T r o G e n co n c e n T r a T i o n @
amS o7300000
Tranters Creek
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
TN

m
g
/
L
MedianMean
Chlorophyll a, a constituent of most algae,
is a widely used indicator of algal biomass.
The chlorophyll a standard is 40 μg/L
(micrograms per liter) for lakes, reservoirs,
and slow moving waters in North Carolina.
The chlorophyll a standard is used to
detect an algal response to accumulated
nutrients to a waterbody. Figure 3-13 shows
chlorophyll a data collected at the mouth of
Tranters Creek.
T a r ri v e r ch i c o d waT e r S h e d (0302010306)
Chicod Creek Watershed (HUCs 030201030603, 030201030604,
030201030605), AU# 28-101, from source to Tar River, has a
history of Poor, Fair, and Severe swamp bioclassification ratings that
lead to the Impairment of 14.1 miles of the watershed. However,
the 2007 benthic macroinvertebrate sample resulted in a Natural
bioclassification. The creek has been removed from the 2010 303(d)
list for Aquatic Life use support category. During the early 1990’s,
the Chicod Creek watershed received federal funds to support
agricultural BMP implementation. A trend analysis was conducted in 1998 to determine if
statistically significant changes in nutrient loads and concentrations occurred pre and post BMP
implementation. The trend results indicated a significant decrease in TN concentration and load
and no statistically significant change in TP. Nutrient data from 1997-2008 indicate that for both
total nitrogen and total phosphorus the mean and medians numbers for each year were above
the normal levels of 0.8 mg/L for TN and 0.05 mg/L for TP, as seen in Figures 14 & 15.
Tranters Creek
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ch
l
o
r
o
p
h
y
l
l

a

Median
Mean
fi G u r e 3-13.ch L o r o p h y L L a co n c e n T r a T i o n da T a @
amS o7300000
Over 8 years 87 samples were collected, of which 4
samples (4%) had chlorophyll a levels above 40 μg/L.
3.18
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Chicod Creek Total Nitrogen
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
TN

m
g
/
l
Median
Mean
Chicod Creek Total Phosphorus
00.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10.12
0.140.16
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
TP

m
g
/
l
Median
Mean
fi G u r e 14 & 15.To T a L ni T r o G e n a n d To T a L ph o S p h o r u S co n c e n T r a T i o n d a T a f o r ch i c o d cr e e K
am b i e n T ST a T i o n o6500000
Chicod Creek has numerous hog farms within its drainage area that could be contributing to non-
point source pollution if inadequate BMPs are used or if nutrients are traveling via groundwater
to the creek. There are five swine animal operations within this subbasin that have been issued
NOVs or have come close to being in violation of their permits. These facilities have had various
problems including lagoon pump leaking, high freeboard levels, erosion and woody vegetation
on lagoon banks, irrigation outside acceptable crop window, poor spray field conditions, and poor
record keeping issues. DWQ will continue to closely monitor these facilities.
Chicod Creek was also Impaired because of high levels of fecal coliform bacteria concentrations
related to agricultural activities. A TMDL was completed in 2004 addressing the fecal coliform
bacteria. As of 2010 303(d) list of Impaired waters, the creek is no longer Impaired.
Additional Studies
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Middle Tar-Pamlico Local Watershed Plan
Assessment of the middle Tar-Pamlico region by EEP began in 2004 with a focus on four
waterbodies including: Cow Swamp, Crisp Creek, Green Mills Run, and Hendricks Creek.
All of these subwatersheds have been significantly impacted by development and agricultural
practices, resulting in a loss of wetlands and buffers, increased runoff, and a general degradation
in water quality. The goal of the EEP plan is to provide a framework for watershed functional
rehabilitation and to provide primary supporting information for implementation of the
rehabilitation system while taking into consideration development and agriculture. To achieve
this, efforts were focused on three investigative methods: 1) land use/land cover trending
analysis; 2) watershed system modeling; and 3) riparian reach field investigation. The findings
and results from these tasks were tabulated and compared with the concerns of the stakeholder
groups. The end result being the location of potential restoration, enhancement, preservation
and BMP sites that are best suited to meet the goals of the study. More information about these
ongoing restoration opportunities can be found on the EEP website at: http://www.nceep.net/
services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/TarPamlico_RB.html or in Appendix 3E.
Lower Tar River (B-071206)
Special study sampling in the lower Tar River indicated dramatic changes (ranging from Excellent
to Fair) in the benthic community between Tarboro and downstream of Greenville. Several
factors influenced the benthic community in the lower Tar River including saline waters moving
upstream towards Greenville during lower flows and wind tides from Pamlico River/Sound.
Periodic saltwater events can stress the predominately freshwater aquatic benthic community in
the lower Tar River. These short-term oligosaline conditions also masked the stresses associated
3.19

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
with urban runoff from the City of Greenville and the effects of a 17.5 MGD major discharger,
the Greenville Utility Commission’s WWTP (NC0023931), downstream of the City. Furthermore,
the physical character of the Tar River changes in the vicinity of Greenville, from a shallow water
body, with moderate current (Coastal A) to a deeper river with little or no current (Coastal B).
This study investigated possible water quality influences (e.g. urban areas of Greenville, WWTP)
one potential source at a time, by sampling upstream and downstream of both the City and the
WWTP. Tar River sites sampled in 2007 for this study were: NC 42, US 264, US 264A, SR 1565.
The habitat scores were similar among all four of the sites suggesting that the differences in the
biological communities were related to water quality at each site, or natural, physical changes in
the lower Tar River. Especially in larger rivers, in-channel snags provide an important colonization
habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Both downstream sites (US 264A and SR 1565) had
abundant snags, in addition to other habitats.
Aquatic macroinvertebrate data do not suggest any water quality problems in the Tar River below
the City of Tarboro downstream to Greenville. Sampled aquatic communities were diverse and
many were pollution sensitive. From US 264 to US 264A, there was a 35% decrease in the total
number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from the Tar River. Only half the numbers of EPT
taxa found at the two sites upstream of Greenville were collected downstream at US 264A. The
actual physical change in the Tar River (from Coastal A to Coastal B), as opposed to water quality
changes, could account for these decreases.
Water quality degrades from US 264A to SR 1565, below the Greenville WWTP, as indicated by
the increase in the Biotic Index and EPT Biotic Index, and the decreases in EPT taxa. Many of
the taxa collected below the Greenville WWTP (SR 1565) are pollution tolerant species (but also
species tolerant of naturally low levels of dissolved oxygen, oligosaline, and lentic conditions).
The combination of the natural, physical changes in the lower Tar River, a moderate urban
influence from the City of Greenville and the impacts of the Greenville WWTP, resulted in a
decline of over 70% of the EPT fauna at the point where the Tar River flows under SR 1565, when
compared with upstream sites. In addition to the Greenville urbanization and the WWTP effects,
estuarine and lentic influences, as documented by both water chemistry and the biological
community, affected the predominately freshwater benthos in the lower part of the Tar River
between Greenville and SR 1565.
Volunteer Water Information Network
The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) is a partnership of groups and individuals
dedicated to preserving water quality in North Carolina. In August 2005, the Pamlico-Tar River
Foundation initiated a monitoring program in tributaries to the Tar River. The UNC-Asheville
Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) provided technical assistance through laboratory analyses
of water samples, statistical analyses of water quality results, and written interpretation of the
data. Volunteers collected water samples once a month from selected streams in Edgecombe,
Nash and Pitt counties. The results of this data collection are similar to DWQ’s sampling results,
but VWIN also collected data on streams that DWQ does not monitor. Statistical analyses and
interpretation of data from samples gathered from Briery Swamp, Chicod Creek, Cokey Swamp,
Conetoe Creek, Green Mill Run, Grindle Creek, Hardee Creek, Hendricks Creek, Meeting House
Branch, Moye’s Run, Parker Creek, and Town Creek are found in the VWIN report located in
Appendix 3E.
3.20
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Permit Programs
Wastewater Dischargers
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water
pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States,
as authorized by the Clean Water Act. Non-compliance with permit limits on wastewater flow and
constituents can lead to discharge of pollutants that degrade surface waters making them unsafe
for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. The NPDES Permitting and Compliance
Programs of DWQ are responsible for administering the program for the state. These permits are
reviewed and are potentially renewed every 5 years, a list of NPDES permits is found in Table 3-4.
The Federal and State Pretreatment Program gives regulatory authority for EPA, States, and
Municipal Governments to control the discharge of industrial wastewater into municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). The
objectives of the Pretreatment Program are to prevent pass-through, interference, or other
adverse impacts to the POTW, its workers, or the environment; to promote the beneficial reuse
of biosolids; and to assure all categorical pretreatment standards are met. There are currently
around 700 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) who discharge industrial wastewater to over 120
POTWs throughout the state of North Carolina. The WWTPs covered by POTW Pretreatment
Programs in this subbasin are Tarboro, Greenville Utiities and Robersonville.
All NPDES permitted facilities use 7Q10s (the lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that
would be expected to occur once in ten years) as critical flow in determining permit limits for non-
carcinogen toxicants. If a toxicant is a known carcinogen then the QA (the mean annual stream
flow) is used in determining permit limits. In cases where an aesthetic standard is applicable to a
pollutant then the permit limit is based on 30Q2 (the minimum average flow for 30 consecutive days
that would be expected to occur once in 2 years). These critical flow values used to determine permit
limits for all NPDES facilities may need to be reviewed as the permits come up for renewal.
Currently, a 7Q10 is only evaluated in the initial application of the permit and upon expansion.
Low flow conditions impact a stream’s ability to assimilate both point and nonpoint source
pollutants. Droughts, as well as the demand on water resources, are very likely to increase;
therefore, the reevaluation of stream flow will become more critical to water quality within the
next decade or so. DWQ will work with Division of Water Resources and other agencies to discuss
the need and resource availability to update 7Q10 values.
Ta b L e 3-4. npdeS di S c h a r G e pe r m i T S in huc 03020103
pe r M i t #OW n e r na M e Fa c i l i t y na M e OW n e r ty p e pe r M i t ty p e cl a s s
re c e i v i n G
st r e a M
pe r M i t
Fl O W
MGD
NC0001058 DSM Pharmaceuticals DSM Pharm.Non-
Government
Industrial Process
& Commercial
Wastewater
Minor Parker
Creek 0
NC0020435*Town of Pinetops Pinetops WWTP Government
- Municipal MWD < 1MGD Minor Town Creek 0.3
NC0020605*Town of Tarboro Tarboro WWTP Government
- Municipal MWD, Large Major Tar River 5.0
NC0023931*Greenville Utilities
Commission GUC WWTP Government
- Municipal MWD, Large Major Tar River 17.5
NC0026042*Town of Robersonville Robersonville
WWTP
Government
- Municipal MWD, Large Major Flat Swamp 1.8
NC0037231 Martin County
Schools
Bear Grass
Elementary
School WWTP
Government
- County
Discharging 100%
Domestic < 1MGD Minor Turkey
Swamp 0.005
3.21

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
pe r M i t #OW n e r na M e Fa c i l i t y na M e OW n e r ty p e pe r M i t ty p e cl a s s
re c e i v i n G
st r e a M
pe r M i t
Fl O W
MGD
NC0050661 Town of Macclesfield Macclesfield
WWTP
Government
- Municipal MWD < 1MGD Minor Bynums
Mill Creek 0.175
NC0082139 Greenville Utilities
Commission Greenville WTP Government
- Municipal
Water Plants
and Water
Conditioning
Minor Tar River 0
* Indicates Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Permittee Member
MWD = Municipal Wastewater Discharge
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (Septic Systems)
Wastewater from many households is treated on-site through the use of permitted septic systems
instead of being sent to a wastewater treatment facility. Poorly planned and/or maintained
systems can fail and contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Wastewater from failing septic
systems can contaminate groundwater and surface water. Failing septic systems are health
hazards and are considered illegal discharges of wastewater if surface waters are impacted.
Information about the proper installation and maintenance of septic tanks can be obtained by
contacting the Department of Environmental Health and local county health departments. Local
health departments are responsible for ensuring that new systems are sited and constructed
properly and an adequate repair area is available. County, town and city planners need to
understand the economic and human health ramifications caused by failing septic systems and
plan for long-term septic system sustainability.
In 2007, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service completed a report concerning nitrogen
contributions from on-site wastewater systems for each river basin. The results for this subbasin
based on 1990 census data indicate a population of 49,784 people using 19,583 septic systems
resulting in a nitrogen loading of 497,841 lbs/yr and nitrogen loading rate of 519 lbs/mi2/yr. These
numbers reflect the TN discharged to the soil from the septic system and does not account for
nitrogen used because of soil processes and plant uptake. (Pradhan et al. 2007).
Wastewater Residuals (Biosolids)
Residuals, biosolids or treated sludge, are by-products of the wastewater treatment process.
After pathogen reduction, vector attraction reductions, and metal limits are met, these residuals
are disposed in a manner to protect public health and the environment. Disposal sites include
land fills, dedicated and non-dedicated residual disposal sites, agricultural land for crops not for
human consumption, and distribution to the public for home use. When applied to the land, steps
must be taken to assure that residuals are applied at or below agronomic rates based on the soil
and crop types present at the disposal site. If these criteria cannot be met, permitted disposal
must take place at a dedicated residual disposal site or landfill.
In this subbasin, five facilities that produce wastewater residuals (Class B) apply their treated
sludge on an available 86 fields covering 1,431 acres (not all fields are used every year). A rough
estimate of 100,170 lbs/yr of nitrogen and 128,790 lbs/yr of phosphorus are applied to these
fields. This estimate does not include Class A residuals which are not monitored by DWQ. Of
these permitted facilities, two are located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, the other three permit
holders are facilities outside the basin but apply their residuals within the basin. Additional
research would be necessary to determine if organic nitrogen from biosolids are contributing
to the basinwide increase in organic nitrogen. For more information about residuals please visit
DWQ’s Aquifer Protection Section website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/aps/lau.
Non-Discharge
Non-discharge systems have been the preferred alternative to discharge to surface waters for
3.22
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
some NSW waterbodies and DWQ requires all new and expanding NPDES permit applicants to
provide documentation that considers alternatives to surface waters. Non-discharge wastewater
options include spray irrigation, rapid infiltration basins, and drip irrigation systems. Although
these systems are operated without a discharge to surface waters, they still require a DWQ
permit. The permit insures that treated wastewater is applied to the land at a rate that is
protective of groundwater and does not produce ponding or runoff into a waterbody. More
information about land application and non-discharge requirements can be found on the DWQ
Aquifer Protection Section Land Application Unit website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/aps/lau.
Non-discharge permits in this subbasin are listed in Table 3-5.
Run-off and spills are not common at non-discharge facilities. In general, maintaining compliance
with permit conditions largely falls back to having a properly managed facility. Aging sewer
systems may lead to increased flows from inflow and infiltration or a facility may not be properly
prepared to expand as flows increase and the upper limits of a plant’s capacity are reached. Non-
discharge facilities, just like any other, must properly plan for any elevated flows and take action
to ensure that the facility is capable of managing the wastewater.
Groundwater moving into surface water is a mechanism to introduce nutrients into the surface
water system in the absence of direct discharges and in NSW systems it is important to be
able to better quantify these potential nutrient loads. Some facilities have a groundwater
monitoring program to measure compliance with groundwater quality standards. However, it
should be noted that a facility can be compliant with groundwater quality requirements while still
contributing to the overall nutrient loading of a surface water system. A better understanding of
the groundwater/surface water interaction process at non-discharge facilities may help to identify
and quantify nutrient loading from these locations .
Ta b L e 3-5. no n -di S c h a r G e pe r m i T S in huc 03020103
Fa c i l i t y na M e pe r M i t ty p e pe r M i t #si z e
Elm City Spray Irrigation WWTP Surface Irrigation WQ0003405 Major
General Foam Plastics Groundwater Remediation, Non-discharge WQ0005620 Minor
Comer Oil Co-Williams & Lamm Groundwater Remediation, Non-discharge WQ0014508 Minor
GUC Residuals Land Application Program (D)Land Application of Residual Solids (503)WQ0003781 Minor
Macclesfield Reclaimed Water Field Reuse WQ0018857 Minor
Wetland Or Surface Water Disturbance (401 Certification)
The “401” refers to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The North Carolina DWQ is the state agency
responsible for issuing 401 water quality certifications (WQC). When the state issues a 401 certification this
certifies that a given project will not degrade waters of the state or violate state water quality standards.
A 401 WQC is required for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
waters of the U.S. Typically, if the United States Army Corps of Engineers determines that a 404 Permit or
Section 10 Permit is required because a proposed project involves impacts to wetlands or surface waters,
then a 401 WQC is also required. Locations of 401 WQCs are included on each watershed map. Examples
of activities that may require permits include:
• Any disturbance to the stream bed or banks,
• Any disturbance to a wetland,
• The damming of a stream channel to create a pond or lake,
• Placement of any material within a stream, wetland, or open water, including material that is
necessary for construction, culvert installation, causeways, road fills, dams, dikes, or artificial
islands, property protection, reclamation devices and fill for pipes or utility lines, and
• Temporary impacts including dewatering of dredged material prior to final disposal and temporary
fill for access roads, cofferdams, storage, and work areas.
Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers in the basin are to be protected and maintained on both sides of intermittent
and perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuarine waters. Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer
3.23

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0259) do not establish new buffers unless the existing use in the buffer area
changes. The footprints of existing uses such as agriculture, buildings, commercial and other
facilities, maintained lawns, utility lines, and on-site wastewater systems are exempt. A total of
50 feet of riparian area is required on each side of waterbodies; within this 50 feet, the first 30
feet is to remain undisturbed and the outer 20 feet must be vegetated. Activities that disturb this
buffer require a buffer authorization from DWQ or may require a major variance approval from
the Environmental Management Commission. Pitt County is the only county that is delegated the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin buffer rules. Therefore buffer authorizations and minor variances would
be reviewed by Pitt County in non-incorporated areas in that County. More information about the
buffer rules are available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ws/401/riparianbuffers.
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
In 2001, the North Carolina EMC enacted the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA)
rules. These regulations were developed to control groundwater use in the Cretaceous Aquifers in
response to decreasing groundwater levels and increasing saltwater intrusion. The CCPCUA rules
require groundwater users in the impacted areas to reduce their consumption in three phases
between 2008 and 2018. In this subbasin Beaufort, Edgecombe, Martin, Pitt and Wilson counties
are within the CCPCUA. More information about the CCPUA is available from Divsion of Water
Resources website: http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Capacity_Use/Central_Coastal_
Plain/.
To meet the requirements of the CCPCUA, Greenville Utilities Commission is proactively planning
for its future water supply needs. Greenville has initiated a flow study to estimate the amount of
surface water that will be available for withdrawal from the Tar River in the future, and to assist in
developing a long-term plan for providing a reliable and sustainable water supply. The goal of the
Tar River Flow Study is to identify the environmental issues and potential constraints associated
with water withdrawals in the Tar River and provide the basis for evaluating the potential effects
of increased withdrawals on instream habitat, water quality, and aquatic resources and values.
The study results will also help identify saltwater encroachment upriver during periods of low
inflow or drought.
Interbasin Transfers
In 1993, the North Carolina Legislature adopted the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers
Act (G.S. §143-215.22L) and was subsequently modified in 2007. This law regulates large
surface water transfers between river basins by requiring a certificate from the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC). A transfer certificate is required for a new transfer of 2 MGD
or more and for an increase in an existing transfer by 25 percent or more (if the total including
the increase is more than 2 MGD). Certificates are not required for facilities that existed or were
under construction prior to July 1, 1993 up to the full capacity of that facility to transfer water,
regardless of the transfer amount.
Greenville Utilities Commission, in 2008, requested the transfer of surface water from the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin to the Neuse Basin. The request was in the amount of 8.3 MGD to meet
Farmville and Greene County’s maximum day demands through 2030, with the ability to transfer
9.3 MGD under emergency conditions to the Contentnea Creek subbasin. Transfer to the Neuse
River is for 4.0 MGD to meet Winterville’s maximum day demands through 2030, with the ability
to transfer 4.2 MGD under emergency conditions. More information about this project is available
from the Division of Water Resources website: http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/
Interbasin_Transfer/.
Stormwater
DWQ administers several different stormwater programs. One or more of these programs affects
many communities in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The goal of the DWQ stormwater discharge
3.24
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering the waters of the
state through the use of stormwater runoff controls. These stormwater control programs include
Phase II NPDES and State post-construction, coastal stormwater, HQW/ORW stormwater, Tar-
Pamlico River Basin NSW stormwater, and associated with the Water Supply Watershed Program
requirements. Figure 3-16 indicates the different stormwater programs in this subbasin.
Greenville, Tarboro, and Washington and Nash, Edgecombe, and Pitt counties are required to
implement actions to prevent and treat stormwater runoff required by the Tar-Pamlico NSW
stormwater rules. These local programs are to include new development controls to reduce
nitrogen runoff by 30 percent compared to pre-development levels and to keep phosphorus
inputs from increasing over those pre-development levels. Local programs must also identify and
remove illicit discharges; educate developers, businesses, and homeowners; and make efforts
toward treating runoff from existing developed areas. As of July 2009, there are 34 general
stormwater permits and one individual stormwater permit issued in this subbasin.
fi G u r e 3-16. ST o r m w a T e r pr o G r a m co v e r a G e in huc 03020103
Agriculture
Agriculture is NC’s leading industry and is especially strong in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Nonpoint source pollution from agriculture is an identified significant source of stream
degradation in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The approach taken in North Carolina for addressing
agriculture’s contribution to the nonpoint source water pollution problem is to primarily
encourage voluntary participation by the agricultural community and is supported by financial
incentives, technical and educational assistance, research, and regulatory programs.
The conversion of agricultural lands to developed lands with impervious surfaces is another
potential nonpoint source of pollution. A report by the American Farmland Trust organization
identifies this subbasin as having high quality farmland with large areas threatened by
3.25

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
development. A map of these areas is available at: http://www.farmland.org/. Some farmers are
protecting their land from development through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP). CREP is a voluntary program utilizing federal and state resources to achieve long-term
protection of environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pastureland. These voluntary
protection measures are accomplished through 10-, 15-, 30-year and permanent conservation
easements. In this subbasin there are approximately 5,215 acres in easements, of which 48% are
in 30 year or permanent easements.
North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program
Financial incentives are provided through North Carolina’s Agriculture Cost Share Program,
administered by DENR’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation to protect water quality
by installing BMPs on agricultural lands. In the Lower Tar River Subbasin, $1,461,965 was
spent, between 2003-2008, on BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollution from agriculture.
Approximately, 20,166 acres were affected by BMPs that prevented an estimated 107,515 tons
of soil, 304,016 lbs of nitrogen and 154,858 lbs of phosphorous from runoff into surface waters.
Animal waste BMPs also accounted for better management of an estimated 105,398 lbs of
nitrogen and 143,376 lbs of phosphorous.
DWQ’s Animal Feeding Operations Unit
The Animal Feeding Operations Unit is responsible for the permitting and compliance activities of
animal feeding operations across the state. Poultry farms with dry litter waste are not regulated
or monitored by DWQ. Table 3-6 summarizes the number of registered livestock operations,
total number of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight (SSLW) in this
subbasin. These numbers reflect only
operations required by law to be registered,
and, therefore, do not represent the total
number of animals in the subbasin.
Animal waste is often stored in lagoons
before it is applied to fields. It is a concern
that several animal operations in the basin
will be abandoned without proper closeout
of the lagoons. Numerous environmental
hazards exist from these lagoons including:
ammonia emissions, overflows into surface
waters, and groundwater contamination.
A better understanding of groundwater quality in relation to animal feeding operation locations
is needed. Most animal operations are located immediately adjacent to surface water bodies.
Groundwater that is moving from beneath a facility into the surface water system may transport
significant levels of nutrients. However, lack of groundwater quality data at animal operations
hampers quantifying their impacts.
ty p e
# O F
Facilities
# O F
an i M a l s
sslW
Animal
Individual 2 --
Swine 42 161,485 30,399,055
*Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion
factor has been applied to the number of swine, cattle or poultry
on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog
size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.
Ta b L e 3-6. an i m a L op e r a T i o n S in huc 03020103
3.26
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
Restoration, Protection & Conservation Planning
Population
The 2000 census estimated population for this subbasin is 141,646 and this is expected to
increase with the results of the 2010 census (Table 3-7). As population increases, so does our
demand for clean water from aquifer and surface water sources and for the land and water to
assimilate wastes.
Ta b L e 3-7. wa T e r S h e d po p u L a T i o n eS T i m a T e S * f o r huc 03020103
10-DiGit huc 2000
pO p u l a t i O n
2000 pO p u l a t i O n
De n s i t y (p e r s Q M i )
2010 es t i M at e D
pO p u l a t i O n
2020 es t i M at e D
pO p u l a t i O n
2030 es t i M at e D
pO p u l a t i O n
0302010301 25,355 128 25,036 24,750 24,423
0302010302 15,709 126 14,526 13,402 12,284
0302010303 4,043 41 4,201 4,364 4,529
0302010304 50,117 501 60,017 69,813 79,587
0302010305 13,729 57 13,732 13,700 13,614
0302010306 32,692 169 38,859 44,940 50,984
03020103 141,646 148 156,371 170,969 185,420
*NC Office of State Budget and Management: http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/
Land Use
Land use in this subbasin shows increasing urbanizing
areas and a strong agriculture use, both of which continue
to place increasing demands on water quality and quantity.
Table 3-8 lists the percentage of predominant land cover
types within this subbasin (based on 2001 land cover
data). A map showing these land types can be found in
Appendix 3D.
Local Initiatives & Conservation Planning
Resources & Guides
NCDENR’s One North Carolina Naturally initiative promotes
and coordinates the long-term conservation of North
Carolina’s threatened land and water resources. Each
DENR division specializes in management of a specific
natural resource, while the collaborative coordination and
planning process results in cost-effective implementation
and management of multiple resources. Natural resource
planning and conservation provides the science and
incentives to inform and support conservation actions of
North Carolina’s conservation agencies and organizations.
The Conservation Planning Tool was developed to
assist in building partnerships through the exchange
of conservation information and opportunities, support
stewardship of working farms and forests, inform
conservation actions of agencies and organizations, and guide compatible land use planning. A
link to the interactive map view is found at: http://www.conservision-nc.net/
Conservation planning is important on a local level to protect natural resources that provide
recreational, aesthetic, and economic assets important to community sustainability and
la n D cO v e r ty p e pe r c e n t
Developed Open Space 5.50
Developed Low Intensity 1.82
Developed Medium Intensity 0.67
Developed High Intensity 0.21
Total Developed 8.19
Bare Earth Transition 0.04
Deciduous Forest 7.82
Evergreen Forest 16.43
Mixed Forest 2.69
Total non-Wetland Forest 26.94
Scrub Shrub 3.10
Grassland Herbaceous 9.91
Pasture Hay 2.76
Cultivated Crops 34.90
Total Agriculture 37.66
Woody Wetlands 13.59
Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0.57
Total Wetlands 14.16
Ta b L e 3-8. La n d co v e r pe r c e n T a G e S
in huc 03020103
3.27

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
growth. The NC Wildlife Resource Commission developed a Green Growth Toolbox to assist
towns and cities to grow in nature-friendly ways: http://www.ncwildlife.org/greengrowth/. The
tools provide assistance with using conservation data, green planning, green ordinances and
green development and site design. Also, a guide to help local governments protect aquatic
ecosystems while streamlining environmental review is available at: http://www.ncwildlife.org/
planningforgrowth/swimming_with_the_current.pdf.
Land conservation, accompanied with stream restoration projects, can be very successful at
protecting water quality. Prevention and protection activities are known to be more cost effective
than retrofits and restoration. DWQ strongly encourages conservation in this watershed. Local
land trusts can help landowners explore conservation options and identify potential funding
sources. For more information about land trusts in North Carolina see the Conservation Trust for
North Carolina at: http://www.ctnc.org/site/PageServer. With the assistance of land conservancies,
and several state and federal agencies ~6,784 acres are protected within this subbasin, much of
which are riparian buffers.
Local Initiatives
DWQ has regulatory authority over permitted activities to enforce the Clean Water Act and
corresponding state regulations to protect water quality. However, local governments can also
regulate and promote activities that protect water quality. Several local governments provided
information on local activities, ordinances, and concerns about protecting their natural resources
and water quality. The following information reflects projects and practices on a local level that
protect water quality.
Pitt County
Pitt County complies with Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rules established to help reduce nutrient
runoff from new developments and limit post construction impacts. County staff are responsible
for illicit discharge detection and elimination, while also educating citizens on reducing nitrogen
pollution from their lawns and septic systems. Through their efforts of implementing the
stormwater rules in the urbanizing areas, they acknowledge a need for a more comprehensive
basinwide stormwater approach to help capture new developments rapidly occurring in areas
that are exempt from current stormwater regulations. They note developments that occur in the
smaller towns are much more intensively developed and have a higher percentage of impervious
surface than those managed under the stormwater rules.
City of Greenville
The City of Greenville recently awarded a contract to Pamlico-Tar River Foundation and East
Carolina University to complete a Watershed Master Plan. This project will include mapping of
the current municipal stormwater system, hydrology and hydraulic modeling, identification and
prioritization of CIP projects, potential funding sources, and to establish a water quality baseline.
This Plan will be utilized to assess the 3 square mile watershed of Meetinghouse Branch and Bell
Branch. After successful completion of the pilot study, all watersheds within the City of Greenville
will be assessed using the same criteria.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The Sedimentation Control Commission was created to administer the Sedimentation Control
Program pursuant to the N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. It is charged with
adopting rules, setting standards, and providing guidance for implementation of the Act. The
Division of Land Resources (DLR) is the primary agency responsible for managing land disturbing
activities that have the potential to violate the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. For those
land disturbing activities, an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be approved by
DLR prior to land disturbing activities. Due to the large number of land disturbing activities
and the limited number of DLR staff available to do inspections, cities and counties have been
encouraged to adopt a local erosion and sediment control ordinance in compliance with state
3.28
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
requirements. The Sedimentation Control Commission can then delegate the local government
authority to administer the erosion and sedimentation control program within its jurisdiction. The
local programs’ staff then performs plan reviews and enforces compliance with plans within their
jurisdictions. Within this subbasin the City of Greenville and Pitt County have local erosion and
sediment control ordinances.
Construction Grants and Loans
The Construction Grants and Loans (CG&L) Section of DWQ provides grants and loans to local
government agencies for the construction, upgrades, and expansion of wastewater collection
and treatment systems. As a financial resource, the Section administers five major programs
that assist local governments. Of these, two are federally funded programs administered by the
state, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and the State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG). The STAG is a direct congressional appropriation for a specific “special needs”
projects within NC. The High Unit Cost Grant Program, the State Emergency Loan (SEL) Program
and the State Revolving Loan (SRL) Program are state funded programs, with the later two
being below market revolving loan money. The Section also received an additional Capitalization
Grant authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the amount of
$70,729,100. These funds are administered according to existing SRF procedures. All projects
must be eligible under Title VI of the Clean Water Act. For more information please see the CG&L
webpage at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/cgls. Projects currently underway in this subbasin are
listed in Table 3-8.
Ta b L e 3-8. cG&L pr o j e c T S
lO c a t i O n pr O j e c t De s c r i p t i O n Da t e ~aM O u n t
Pinetops Rehab & connection to Macclesfield 3/6/2002 $2,983,500
Macclesfield Rehab and Spray Irrigation Not yet made $2,907,940
Everetts New Collection Lines 9/12/2001 $1,870,141
Bethel Rahab as part of larger project connecting to Greenville 8/22/2001 $3,000,000
Parmele New Collection System 4/24/2001 $2,201,625
Bethel $621,285 Loan for Pretreatment PS & FM along with EPA Grant 1/12/2002 $621,285
Bethel Pump Station & Force Main 4/23/2002 $1,954,715
Elm City Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation-Phase 1 6/28/2006 $425,000
Greenville Greenville Utilities WWTP & Remote Pumping Stations Electrical &
SCADA System Upgrades 11/7/2008 $13,356,080
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Created in 1996, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) makes grants to local
governments, state agencies, and conservation non-profits to help finance projects that
specifically address water pollution problems. The fund has made several investments in the
Lower Tar River Subbasin. Table 3-9. includes a list of recent projects and their cost.
Ta b L e 3-9. cwmT pr o j e c T S
ap p l i c at i O n iD pr O p O s e D pr O j e c t De s c r i p t i O n aM O u n t
Fu n D e D cO u n t y
2004A-012 NC Coastal Land
Trust - Acq./ Fletcher Tract,
Tranter's Creek
Acquire a permanent conservation easement on 204
riparian acres along the Tar River and Tranters Creek.
$241,000 Pitt
2005B-505 Elm City, Town of
- WW/ Sewer Rehabilitation,
Town Creek
Rehabilitate or replace approximately 21,600 linear
feet of sewer collection line serving 668 residential
and 57 commercial customers. Would reduce fecal
coliform and nutrient delivery to Town Creek.
$1,000,000 Wilson
3.29

20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3

Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
ap p l i c at i O n iD pr O p O s e D pr O j e c t De s c r i p t i O n aM O u n t
Fu n D e D cO u n t y
2006D-003 Tar River Land
Conservancy- Donated Mini/
Goodfred Tract, Tar River
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a donated
easement on 147 acres along the Tar River.
$25,000 Edgecombe
2006S-011 Tarboro, Town of-
Storm Mini/ Hendricks Creek
$50,000 Edgecombe
2007D-009 NC Coastal Land
trust - Donated/Mini/ Riggs
tract, Tar River
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a donated
easement on a 49-acre tract on the Tar River.
$25,000 Pitt
2008-531 Princeville, Town
of - WW/ Pump Station
Rehabilitation, Tar River
Design, permit and rehabilitate 4 pump stations to
improve reliability and improve water quality in Tar
R, which is a Nat. Significant Aquatic Habitat and
contains rare aquatic species
$80,000 Edgecombe
2008-804 Tarboro, Town of -
Plan/Acq/ Tar River Greenway
Plan
$56,000 Edgecombe
This list does not include regional or statewide projects that were in multiple river basins, or projects that were funded and subsequently
withdrawn.
Section 319-Grant Program
The Section 319 Grant Program was established to provide funding for efforts to reduce nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution, including that which occurs though stormwater runoff. The EPA provides
funds to state and tribal agencies, which are then allocated via a competitive grant process to
organizations to address current or potential NPS concerns. Each fiscal year, North Carolina is
awarded nearly 3 million dollars to address NPS pollution through its 319 Grant Program. Thirty
percent of the funding supports ongoing state nonpoint source programs. The remaining 70%
is made available through a competitive grant process. More information can be found about
these contracts and the 319 Grant Program at their website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/
nps/319program. In 2010, a 319 grant was awarded to East Carolina University to evaluate septic
systems and nutrient transport in Pitt County.
Recommendations
- Explore development of a more comprehensive basinwide stormwater management to prevent
uncontrolled development in areas currently exempt from stormwater regulations and to
protect watersheds with threatened and endangered species.
- Identify sources of organic nitrogen that could be contributing to the increase in basinwide TKN
concentrations. Basinwide, the ammonia component of TKN shows a decrease in concentration
since 1991. Specifically in this subbasin ammonia concentrations have decreased with peaks
during dryer years, while TKN concentrations have increased over 1997-2008 period.
- Total phosphorus concentrations decreased and have remained steady over the past several
years over an 11 year time period from 1997-2008. However, the TP loads measured at
Grimesland have not been below the 1991 baseline except for 2007 & 2008. The Tar-Pamlico
NSW strategy requires no increase in phosphorus loading from the 1991 conditions, to achieve
this it may be necessary to revisit older laws to identify where new technology alternatives
may be able to assist in meeting nutrient goals (e.g., G.S 143-214.4. prohibits certain cleaning
agents from containing phosphorus, household dishwashing machine detergent is exempt.)
Several states have recently banned phosphorous in dishwasher detergent and lawn fertilizers.
- More research is needed to understand the amount nutrients entering the Tar River and its
tributaries through baseflow and how this contribution can be managed. The NSW strategy
3.30
20
1
0

N
C

D
W
Q

T
A
R
-
P
A
M
L
I
C
O

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N

L
o
w
e
r

T
a
r

R
i
v
e
r

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

H
U
C

0
3
0
2
0
1
0
3
Working Draft, last updated 10/1/2010
targets point and some nonpoint source nutrient contributions to surface waters. However,
some nonpoint sources are not specifically addressed in the strategy. Nutrients from non-
discharge spray field systems, wastewater residual applications, septic systems and tiled
agriculture may all be contributing to nutrient loads in surface waters via groundwater. DWQ
Aquifer Protection Planning Unit is currently compiling a few select watershed-scale estimates
of total nutrient loads from permitted land application facilities which will help determine the
potential nutrient loading magnitude.
- Identify where local Drainage Districts are active and if their activities impact water quality.
References
American Farmland Trust. Farming on the Edge: North Carolina State Map.
http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/states/map_northcarolina.asp.
Pradhan, S.S., Hoover, M.T., Austin, R.E. and H. A. Devine. 2007. Potential Nitrogen Contributions from On-
site Wastewater Treatment Systems to North Carolina’s River Basins and Sub-basins Technical Bulletin
324. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC.
!(
!(
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
XY !!!!
!!
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
E
E
E
E
E
EEE
E
E
PITT
MARTIN
BEAUFORT
EDGECOMBE
Greenville
Bethel
Chocowinity
Grimesland
Simpson
Winterville
Washington
Parmele
OB120
OB159
OB119
OB112
OB111
OB108
OB107
OF9
OF56
OF55
OF20
OF21
TAR RIVER
Grindle Creek
Hunti
n
g

Run
J u n i p e r B r a n c h
Cow Sw.
Cannon Swamp
M
ill Br.
B e ar Creek
H
ar
d
e
e

C
r
ee
k
Suggs Branch
W h i c h ard Branch
Island Sw.
Cabin Br.
Moyes Run
Barber Cr.
Grindle
C
reek
TAR RIVERMill Br.
Chic od Cre e k
O6798000
O6700000
O6500000
O6450000
¬«30
¬«43
11
1
7UV903
£¤264
¬«11
¬«33
¬«33
£¤17
9 03
¬«11 ¬«33
£¤264
£¤264
Chicod Creek - Tar River Watershed0302010306
0 2 4 6 81
Miles Ü
¡¤Swine Operation Permits
XY NPDES WW Discharge
!Biosolids Field
Major Roads
Conservation Land
Use Support Rating
Supporting
Impaired
Not Rated
No Data
Monitoring Site
¢¡Ambient
[¡Fish Community
"à)Benthos
!(USGS Gages
Watershed Boundary
County Boundaries
Municipalities
E Stormwater Permit
Prepared by DWQBasinwide Planning Unit
October 2010
XW 401 WQ Certification
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
#*
XY
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
XWXW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
EEEE
E
E E EE EEE
E
E
EE
E
E
E
PITT
MARTIN
BEAUFORT
BERTIE
Washington
Parmele Robersonville
Everetts
Hassell
BearGrass
Grimesland
Chocowinity
Williamston
Greenville
OB126
OB124
OB123OB122
OB121
Flat Swamp
C h e r r y R u nTranters C
ree
k
Collie Swamp
Huskanaw Swamp
Turkey S w a m p
A ggie Run
H o r sepen Swamp
R o s s Swa
m
p
Gum S w amp
Great Branch
Pea Br.
Mill S
wa
m
p
Snoad Br.
Poley Br.
Haw B r.
Bear Gras Swamp
Bi
g

S
wamp
Old Ford Swamp
O7100000
O7000000
O7300000
£¤17
£¤13
¬«33
£¤64
UV903 UV171
¬«11
4
3
UV125
£¤264
UV142
¬«30
13
£¤264
£¤17
Tranters Creek Watershed0302010305
0 2 4 6 81
Miles
Ü
Major Roads
Conservation Land
¡¤Swine Operation Permits
Watershed Boundary
Municipalities
County Boundaries
Use Support Ratings
Supporting
No Data
Impaired
Not Rated
Monitoring Sites
"à)
¢¡Ambient
Benthos
NPDES WW Discharge
XY Major
#*Minor
!Biosolids Field
E Stormwater Permit
Prepared by DWQBasinwide Planning Unit
October 2010
XW 410 WQ Certification
!(
!(
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¡¤
#*
#*
#*
#*
XW
XWXW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
E
EE
E
EE
EE
E EE
E
EE
E
PITT
EDGECOMBE
GREENE
MARTIN
Greenville
Falkland
Winterville
TAR RIVER
G r e e ns Mill Run
Parker Creek
Johnson
s Mill RunLawrence Run
Harr i s Mill R u n
Fornes Br.
T
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
TAR R
I
V
E
R
S a m s Bra
n
ch
Tyson Creek
OF57
OF31
OB163
OB110
O6240000
¬«43
¬«33
1 3
£¤264
1 2 1
64
UV222
¬«11
UV903
12 4
264
UV121
UV222
¬«33
¬«33
UV903
¬«43
£¤264
¬«11
City of Greenville-Tar River Watershed0302010304
0 2 4 6 81
Miles
Ü
Prepared by DWQBasinwide Planning Unit
October 2010
#*Minor WW Discharge
Major Roads
Water Supply IV
Conservation Land
!(USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)
¢¡Ambient
[¡Fish Community
Benthos
¡¤Swine Operation Permits
County Boundaries
Watershed Boundary
Municipalities
E Stormwater Permit
Use Support Ratings
Supporting
Impaired
No Data
Not RatedXW401 WQ Certification
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤¡¤
¡¤
XW
E
PITT
EDGECOMBE
MARTIN
Bethel
Conetoe
Tarboro
Princeville
Parmele
Hassell
OakCity
OB78
OB75
OB73
OB68
OB74
OB76
OB77
OF54
OF53
OF52
Co netoe Creek
Crisp Creek
Ballahack Canal
M
i
t
c
hell Swamp Canal
Knight Canal
Fountain Fork Creek
O6201000
O6205000
¬«42
¬«33
¬«11
£¤64
UV111
30
£¤13
¬«43
122
UV142
UV222
£¤64
£¤64
¬«11
Conetoe Creek Watershed0302010303
0 2 4 6 81
Miles
Ü
Prepared by DWQBasinwide Planning Unit
October 2010
E Stormwater Permit
Water Supply IV
¡¤Swine Operation Permits
County Boundaries
Watershed Boundary
MunicipalitiesConservation Land
Use Support Ratings
Supporting
Impaired
No Data
Monitoring Sites
"à)
¢¡Ambient
[¡Fish Community
Benthos
XW 401 WQ Certification
!(
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
[¡[¡[¡[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡¢¡
¢¡
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
XY
#0
!!!!!
!
!!!
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
E
E
E
E
E
EEE EE
PITT
EDGECOMBE
WILSON
GREENE
Tarboro
Princeville
Fountain
Falkland
Pinetops
Conetoe
Speed
T A R R IVER
Otter Creek
Jerrys Creek
Kitten Creek
H endricks
C
re
e
k
Holly Creek
TAR RIVER
S
u
g
g
s Creek
Cromwell Canal a n d C onnec t ing CanalsOB90
OB89
OB86
OB80 OB79
OF30
O6000000
O6200000
O5250000
O5270000
¬«42
¬«33
¬«43
UV111
6
4
UV222
£¤64
124
£¤258 UV122
UV121
¬«33
122
43
UV111
£¤258 UV222
£¤64
£¤64
Ü024681
Miles
Otter Creek-Tar River Watershed0302010302
Watershed Boundary
County BoundariesMunicipalities
¡¤Animal Operation Permits
Not Rated
Use Support Ratings
SupportingNo Data
Impaired
Primary Roads
Water Supply IV
Conservation Land
Monitoring Sites
¢¡Ambient
[¡Fish Community
"à)Benthos
!(USGS Gage
XY NPDES WW Discharge
#0 Minor Non-Discharge
!Biosolid FieldXW401 WQ Certification
E Stormwater Permit
Prepared by DWQBasinwide Planning Unit
October 2010
!(
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
¡¤
#*
#*
%2
#0
#0
!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
E
EEEE
E
E
E
EDGECOMBE
WILSON
NASH
PITT
Rocky
Mount
Wilson
Pinetops
Sharpsburg
Elm City
Macclesfield
WilsonWilson
Tarboro
Town Creek
Cokey Swamp
Cattail Swamp
Corn Creek
White Swamp B y n u m s Mill Creek
W
illia
m
son Branch
Parker Br.
D
ic
k
s
o
n
B
r.
S a s nett Mill Br.
Cattail Br.
Little Cokey Swamp
Beaverdam Br.
Cabin Br.Millpond Br.
B
riery B r.
Del
o
ach Br.
Town Creek
Cokey Sw.
O5990000
O5600000
OF10
OB91
OB71
OB70
OB161
OB87
£¤64
¬«42
97
UV111
¬«33
95
UV124
258
UV122
£¤301
111
£¤258
¬«43
1 22
3
3
95
¬«43
¬«97
Ü
0 2 4 6 81
Miles
Town Creek Watershed0302010301
Prepared by DWQBasinwide Planning Unit
October 2010
Watershed Boundary
County Boundaries
Municipalities
Conservation Land
Primary Roads
¡¤Swine Operation Permit
!Biosolid Fields
#*Minor WW Discharge
Use Support Rating
Supporting
No Data
Impaired
Non-Discharge Facility
%2 Major
#0 Minor
¢¡Ambient
[¡Fish Community
"à)Benthos
!(USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
E Stormwater Permit
XW 401 WQ Certification