19991233 Ver 1_Monitoring Report 2007_20080326

qq _ ~ z33
Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.
2009 Longwood Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-846-5634 cell or fax
919-906-1324 mobile
[e-mail]
March 25, 2008
Mr. John Dorney
401 Wetlands Unit
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear John:
Enclosed you will find the 2007 Water Quality Monitoring Report for The Preserve at
Jordan Lake Golf Club which is required under their 401 certification. If you have any
questions about the report please feel free to contact me. I will be traveling out of the
country for the next month, but will return May 4 and would be available to answer
questions at that time.
Thank you for your help with this report.
Sincerely,

Charles H. Peacock, PhD
President
Encl.
~~~ ~ !f
7.
MAR 2 6 2008
i"1E~k :VAiE:~i ~uAU1's
u~'1=" ANDS ~NL 57R!~Mti'vVAT~R BRANCH

2007 Water Quality Monitoring Report
The Preserve at Jordan Lake Golf Club
Prepared for:
B1ueGreen Golf
March 25, 2008
Prepared by:
Dr. Charles H. Peacock
Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.

•
2007 Water Quality Monitoring Report
The Preserve at Jordan Lake Golf Club
Prepared for:

B1ueGreen Golf
March 25, 2008
Prepared by:
Dr. Charles H. Peacock
Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.
•
p ~~~~
MAC 2 6 ?008
~FN~ - :~vA~~~ ~uAur~
'h`E~LANDS AND STDRMYJATER 6FtRNi:?°i

Page 1 of 2

Introduction
Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.
Golf Course Consultants
The Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued on August 9, 2000, by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to Bluegreen Corporation (Bluegreen) for the development of
The Preserve at Jordan Lake (the Project) required Bluegreen to implement an environmental
monitoring plan for the Project and to submit an annual monitoring report to DWQ. The
required environmental monitoring plan was prepared for Bluegreen by Environmental Golf
Concepts, Inc. (formerly Turf and Environmental Management Associates, Inc.) This report
summarizes the results of the environmental monitoring program for 2007.
The required environmental monitoring was performed under the direction of
Environmental 1, Inc., Greenville, NC. The macroinvertebrate sampling was outsourced to Mr.
David Lenat of Raleigh, NC. Aquatic macroinvertebrate data were evaluated for EPT taxa and
the streams categorized according to DWQ criteria for flowing streams in the Piedmont.
Data are presented in table format for specific parameters tested. Statistical analysis included
comparisons using standard water quality criteria testing which compared individual values with
the mean plus or minus two standard deviations.
i Water Quality Data
Water testing data are presented in tables for surface water and groundwater. Mr. Lenat's reports
are presented in Appendix I in their entirety.
Surface water -All surface water quality parameters complied with state water quality
guidelines except for fecal coliform during the Jan sampling at SW1 and SWS and in Sep at SW4
and SWS. These are very small subject to wide fluctuations in flow and animal droppings under
low flow conditions could have been the source of the increase for some of the sample times. In
Jan, SW1 also showed a turbidity level of 65 which is above the state water quality guideline.
However, for the remaining sample dates turbidity was reduced and in Mar was recorded at 4
NTU. No sample data showed an increasing trend.
Groundwater -Groundwater quality parameters all met state water quality guidelines.
Monitoring well MW4 was dry during every sampling. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and
conductivity were consistent in concentrations within each well location over sampling dates.
They did show natural variability from one location to another. TDS values fell below the
Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.
2009 Longwood Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
. 919.846.5634 -voice or fax • 919.906.1324 -cell
Email: [e-mail]

Page 2 of 2
Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.
Golf Course Consultants
recommended groundwater guideline of 500 mg/l. No increasing trend was noted for any of the
parameters sampled.
Pesticides - No pesticides were detected in any of the samples.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled on Dec 6, 2006 and May 22, 2007. The complete
reports are presented in Appendix I. All streams were considered to be too small to be assigned a
stream rating. However, evaluations were assigned based on the biotic index and comparisons
between streams. The Jan evaluations found the control site to have a high EPT taxa richness
with an excellent biotic index rating. Sites MB1 and MBS are at the point below the stormwater
impoundment which affects stream flow. The stream at this location is very shallow and rocky
and often experiences low stream flow. The EPT taxa richness at these locations was low with a
good-fair biotic index. The MB2 site had low taxa richness with a poor biotic index. The MB4
site had moderate taxa richness with a good biotic index. These findings are generally consistent
with those of previous years where the small stream size makes the ecosystem vulnerable to
changes in stream flow under low rainfall conditions and low dissolved oxygen content.

Environmental Golf Concepts, Inc.
2009 Longwood Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
• 919.846.5634 -voice or fax • 919.906.1324 -cell
Email: [e-mail]

• •
The PreseSWSurface Wat
---- - y-- p _ __
--
a
O
-- ~ __ ____ _ __

Fec
al
Coli
form CFU

~Turb
rtho P mg/I
/100m1~
O

idity NTU TDS mg/I
Temperature C
1
_._
- -- -
Jan-07 -_
360 _
-
0.01 I
65 ,
111 j
6.6
Mar-07
- -- - - - 4 0 04
--- ---- 1 -- 38 T 82 ~
-_ 10.5
- -
Sep-07 21 0.01 ', 4 118 19.9
Mean 128 0.02 36 104 _ 12.3
SD 2
01 __ 0.02 _
i 31 19 ~ 6.8
__
2SD _
402 0.03 61 38 13.7
Mean - 2SD i -273 -0.01 ~ -25 65 -1.3
Mean + 2SD
I - _ 530
_ 0.05
_ 97
- 142
- 26.0
- --- - -
SD =standard deviation
! --- -

SW2 'Fecal Coliform CFU
_-_-- - -_ - -- g --- y Temperature C
/100m1 ' Ortho-P m /I' Turbidit NTU TDS m /I'~
Jan-07 I 53 0.20 ~ 13 118 ', 6.6
Mar-07 34 0.27 28 __
142 11.9
- -
'
Sep-07 I _ _
-- 155 _ _ 0.1 I 10
__ 150 ~
_ --- 21.9___.._
Mean ~ 81 0.19 17.0 137 13.5
-- ~-
SD
~
65 _
-
0.09
9.6 _
--
17 j
7.8
_
2SD I 130 0.17
~ 19 3 33 15.5
Mean - 2SD ~ -49 _
T0.02 ',
-- 2.3 _ 103 ~_ 2.1
- -
Mean + 2SD r
_ - -- -
211
- ~ 0.36 _ 36.3 170 29.0
-_
SD =standard deviation
i,
----__ - - +___- --- - _ __ --r- ---- __
_
SW3 Fecal Coliform CFU/ I
I 9 ~
100m1 Ortho-P m /I Turbi Y
dit NT U ITDS mg/I+T
emperature C

---_
Jan-07

96 - __ __

0.01 -_

30
_
-
i 01 0

6
0.24 25 126 10.5

__~
P
Meea 7 -
3 ---
- - ~ 0.01
10 _ -
115
18.8
5 -
' 0.09 ~ 22 114 11.8
SD 53 0.13 10 13 6.5
2SD 105 0.27 2 - - _} 26
~ 13.0
-_
-- --
Mean - 2SD
-.

-70

-0.18
-- _

1 _
__ _
88 '~
~_- - ~

-1.2

Mean + 2SD
1 141

- __ 0.35 42 ~ 140

~__ 24.8
SD -standard deviation

• • •

--
nv

2

mhos/cm
Conductiv
t

O3+NO2 m /I
Dissolved ox en m /I Chloro h II a u /I

mmonia N m /I ota e a m Total P mg/I
- -__ _-
-
Ja
07
- ---- 7 -~ _ {
1
2 11 6 2.8 -
0.04 - - -
0.04 - - - ----
0.52 0.09

-
Mar-07 7.8 2
~
_ 11 4
- 3.7
- 0.06
- -
~ 0.04
- 0.73- --- -
-- 0.07 -
+
-
- - _
- -
Sep-07
7.1 - _ _ -.
- - -
188 -
5 7 rt
2.1 ~
0.22
0.04 -
0.91 r
0.09

Mean 7
4 144 - ~ 9.6 1 2.9 _
~ 0 11 ~ 0.04 _
~ 0.72 't 0.08
--_-_ _
__ __ _
SD
T .
0.4 - - --
38 --
3.4 - -- -
0.6 -_-
I 0.10
-- _
- -
0.00
- _
~_ -
0.20 _

- --
0.01
_
- _-
_
- --- rt
2SD __~
-- -
0.8 - -
76 ~
_ _ - - -
6 7
- -
- _ _ 1.3
II
-
t _
_ -
0 20 _
. _ - 0.00
--
-
~ 0.39 0.02
- -
1.6
I -0.09 0.04 0.33 0.06

Mean + 2SD
8.6 ~ -
220 - T
6 3 i - . -
4.1
- ----
0.30 j
-- -
0.04
-- -
i -
1.11

- -- - - --
0.11

~.
_
SD =standard deviation ~ ~ ~
- __ - - - -- - ~ _
-- --r - - ~ -- ~
- -- _ -
- ~- -- t -
SW2 - ! H Conductivit umhos/cm '~ Dissolved ox en m /I Chloro -h II a u /I ! NO3+NO2 m /I Ammonia N m /I Total K'eldahl N m /I Total P m /I
_P _ ~- -- - - y . -- - Y9 - 9 P Y 9 _ 9 - - _ -- g -- ~- - -~ - $ -
- ----
Jan-07 6.6 ~ 171 t 9.2 1.9 0.64 0.04 0.42 I 0 23
Mar-07 7.2 ~---- 251 _ ~ 9 8 -. -- -5=2 - -_ _ 1.68 _ ~ - _ 0.04 - 0.78 - - - } _ 0.3
Sep-07 6.8 222 6.8 _ 23.1 0.36 ~ 0.04 1.44 0.2
~- -
Mean 6.9 215 8.6 10.1 0.89 ~ 0.04 0.88 ~_ 0 24
SD r 0.3 _ 41 1 6 11 4 t 0.70 0 00 0.52 0.05
- - _ --- - - -- - - I - ~ - _ -
2SD I 0.6 ~ 81 ~ 3.2 22 8 ~ 1 39 _ 0.00 1.03 0 10_
Mean - 2SD 6.3 134 _ - - __
_ - 18 32.9 - 2.28 ~ 0.04 -0.15 __0.14
_ -- t - - -- - - }- -
-- -
Mean + 2SD I 7.5 296 ~ 0 04 1.91 0 35
- - -- - - - --t -- - _-
- - -
SD =standard deviation ~
~ -
-
SW3 ~ pH (!Conductivity umhos/cm Dissolved oxygen mg/IChlorophyll a ug/I 'NO3+NO2 mg/I Ammonia N mg/l Total Kjeldahi N mg/I ~otal P mg/I
~_ _.
-- --
Jan-07 6.6 i 126 11 6 _ 6.3 0.04 _ 0.04_ 0.66 0 11
-- - - --
_ ~ - - -- - _ _ - --1--- - +-- - T__ - _ - --
_ Mar-07 6.6 ~ 218 7 4 4.8 ~ 0 59 0.04 0.93 I 0 27 _
Se_p-07 6.7 208 _ 4.9 29.7 ~ 0 04 _ 0.04 0.81 0.13
_-_ -_ _- -- - - T-- - - _ - _ -- -
------- ------
Mean 6.6 184 ~ 8.0 ~ 13 6 0 22 - -~ 0.04 0.80 0.17
--- - -
SD 0.1 50 ~ 3.4 1.1 - 0.32 _ t 0.00 ~ 0.14 0 09
- -- ~ - - -
t
~-_ ~ - ~ - - -- - --- - 1 - -- - ~ - ~. - 0.27 0 17
MeanSD2SD 6 5 831 6.2 11 5 0.41 0.04 ~ _ 0.53_ 0 00
Mean + 2SD ' 6.7 ~ 285 14.7 15.7 0.86 0.04 ± 1.07 ~ 0 34
SD =standard deviation

•
•
SW4 '' Fecal Coliform CFU/100m1 ' Ortho-P mg/I 'Turbidity NTU 'TDS mg/I Temperature C
Jan-07 _
15 0.01 24 95 7
Mar-07 _ _
35 0.01 15 108 ' 1
0.5
- - _- - -
S
p
7 -_--- --- - ~- -~ 13~ .
17
-- - --

Mean

_- ~ --
_
917-
~ - ---- 0.01 -- -~ 18
- --
-
112
t

11.5
S D
- - - _ _ 1544 --- t
- _ _ 0.00
~__ _ _ _fi 5 -

~ _
_
_ 19 _
5.1
2SD 3089 0.00 10 39 10.1
M
ean - 2SD -2172 ~ .01 8
- - 73
- 1.4
-
__
-
Mean + 2SD
- --- -
- -,
4006
~ - -

- - ~ 0.01

-- -
28

- 151

- 21.6
SD =standard deviat ion
SW5
--
Jan-07 Fecal Coliform CFU/100mI 'Ortho-P mg/I
--_
600 0.01 Turbidity NTU_ TDS mg/I ;Temperature C

17 64 6.3
Mar-07 45 0.01_T 10
_ - ~ 100
- - ~ 10.5
--
_
P- -_
-
? -- - --
590
- - ---
_
0.01
27 1
143 ~I
- - 17.5

_ _
--
- I
- Mean

-
412
_ _ _-_

~--
0.01
- 18
102 3
_
T~
-
11.4

--
I

2SD
318
635
000
~ 0
00 9
_

1 39.6
_ ~ {
79
1 5.7

11
3
_ ~
-
_- .
0.01
- -
1

-
- .
-
23.2
._ ~
- .
0.1
_ _
-
Mean + 2SD 1047 I 0.01 T
35
- ~
' 181.4
- 22.7
SD =standard deviation
•
3

• • •

- --_
SW4 _ ~
--- ~

H
--

- -
Conductivity umhos/cm
~

issolved oxygen m /I
-- - - g __

-- p -y _-g 4 g - _- 9 - -
Chloro h-II a u /I ~NO3+NO2 m /I Ammorna N m /I ;Total Kjeldahl N mg/I
,- ----
--
-- -
Total P mg/I
-
Jan-07 I 7.1 113 10.7 1 ' 0.04 rt 0.04 0.25 ' 0.08
- -
Mar-07 ~
- 7.1 145

-
-- - 10.3

- 3.5 _
0.04 + 0.04 0.20 T 0.05
Sep-07
I, 7.3 194 8.53 4.7
- 0.09 ~ 0.04 0.45 0.1
- -

Mean

7.2 -

151

9 8 -
-
-
3.1

0.06 - -

0 04
-- _
0.30
-_
0.08
_
SD ~ 0.1 _
41 - - _
1 2 -- -
_
1.8 ~
0.03 ~
~ 0.00
- - -
0.13 1
_ 0.03
2SD ~ 0
2 82 -- -
2
3 3.5 -
-
0.06 -
- --
0 00 0.26 0.05
Mean 2SD .
6
9 69 .
7.5 -0.5 0 00 0.04 ~ 0.04 ~
0 03
Mean + 2SD .
7.4 232
- 12.2
- __. _ 6.6
- -
~ 0 11
- ~
~
-- -
04 I
0.
- 0.56
-- ,
0.13
-_- - -
SD -standard deviation _ - _ ~ _
4 ~
~ - _ __

SW5 p
H Condu y
ctivit umhos/cm yg g
Dissolved ox en m /I p y g~ g g Total Kjeldahl N mg/I
Chloro h II a u /I NO3+NO2 m /I Ammonia N m JI Total P mg/1

Jan-07
~ 7.0
-
109
- - ~
11.3
- ---
6.4 0.04 0.04 ~ 0.27
_ _ i - --
_~--.
.. - -
-- - - i - - -
0.04
Mar, 2006 7.5
- 150
I 9 8
-- - - 0.04
0.09
5.2
~ _ __0.20
- __ ~ --
--- -
- _0 04
-- - --- -
Sep-07
~ -
7.2
226 I
6 4
-
0.04 0.04 0.79 _
3.9
_
~
~ 0.1
-----_
-
Mean I --
7.2
-- --- - - -
162 --- - ~
- - 9.2-- -
_
_ --- -
---
- -5.2 --- -~ -_ 0.04 0.06 ~ 0.42
~ ~
0.06
SD r 0.3 ' 59 2 5 0.8 0 00 0 03 i 0.32 0 03
- --- -

SD - , - T---- - _-

5 0 +- -~ - --- --
0 00 0 06 0.64
1.7 i --
_ 0 07
Mean
2SD -
T-
6.7 43 4 1 0 00 -0 22
T 3.5 0 04 -0.01
Mean + 2SD _
7.7 ~ 280 ~ 14.2 _ _
6.9 0.04 0.11 ~ 1.06 0 13
- - --

SD =standard deviation j -
- - _ -
-
4

• •
The Preserve Groundwater Quality, Over All Sample Dates, 2007

v

I
TDS
9
Conductivit umhos/cm

ure C
Tem
I
P Y
P
NO3+NO2 m
g/I NH3 mg/I Total P mg/I
- - - -
- --_
07
Jan-
58 __
-
14 l
6 8 260 0.04
--_ - 0.04
-_ 011
-
-
-
Mar-07 154 - ~-
t
15 7
1 - - --
266 0.06 0 28
131 .
I 17
3 6
8 ' 258 04
0 04
0
~ ~ 0
28
Sep-07 j .
.
- .
_
-- .
.
- - .

ean

147.7 fi

15.5
6.9 1
~ 261.3
-- 0.05
_ _-
-- I --.0.04 __ _ 0.22
- -
-
-
SD -
2xSD _ , - _
-
-- 15
29 -
- -- -
~ 1.7 _
3.30 r i
0.17
0.35 4.16
8 0.01
0 03 0.00 _
_ 0 00 _
~ 0.10
0 20
_
Mean _2SD -
j 119 -
12.2

--
6.6
253
0 02
i 0 04
-
0 03
Mean + 2SD 177 18.8 7.2 j
270 0.07 0.04 0 42
- - - -- _
-- - -
- _
_
.
SD =standard deviation
---
--
--
-

--

---

-
MW2
- -

Jan 07 ~mg/I

77 Temperature~6 3 ?Conductivit3y0u6mhos/cm

14.9 ~

--
Total P mg/I-

--
~NO3±0 04 mg/I~_ 0.1,g/I I-
_ 0.37_
-- -- -
-
-
Mar-07 _
~ 328 _ - _
6.2 i
15.5
t 303 0.04 fi 0.14 0.53

- -
- __
p
Se -07 ~ _
137 _
_
-
17.6 ' S.9 ~ 271 _ -
r 0 05 0.04 0.29
Mean 214 16.0 6.1 '~,
-- 293
__ 0.04
-__ 0.09
_ - - - 0.40
---- --- SD 101 -- -
1.42 10.21-
19
0.01
0.05 _
0.12
2xSD _
~ 201 2.84 0.42 39 0.01
- ~ 0.10 '
- ~ - 0 24
-
_
-
Mean - 2SD __
-
13 I _- -
9 3 2 _ T 5.7 - -
255 ---
0.03 j- -0.01 0.15
Mean + 2SD 415 18.8 6.5 332 _ t 0.05 Y 0.19 0.64
SD =standard deviation _
~
--
--
MW3
~ NO3+NO2 m /I
Conductivity umhos/cm - g ~NH3 mg/I Total P mg/I
~ TDS mg/I temperature C pH ~

Jan-07
76 _
14.3 6.2
~
~
111
- -__- _ 0.04
~- -___ 0.06 0.08
__
_
_ _
Mar-07 --
63 -- -
-
- --- _
14.6 6.0 --- -
130
- - - - 0.04
- 0.06
-- --~- 0.12
-
- -
Se 07
P -- -
- ----
86
1 __- _
17 2 5.9 '
--
- _-~ 160
- 0.04
. _ _ __ 0 08 ~
- 0.14
- - -
Mean
SD I 75
12 _' 15.4 6.0
14
59 i 0
~ 1 1__34
25 ~ _ 0.04
~ 0
00 ~ 0.07
~ 0 01 0.11
0.03
- - .
- .
- - . - -
-
2xSD ~ 23 3.19 0.28 49 0.00
--- 0.02 ~- 0 06

Mean - 2SD
-
~ 52
~ 12 2 84 0.04 0.04
~ 0 05
Mean + 2SD 98 ~
6.3
18.6
I 183 0.04 9
0.0 01.7
-
SD =standard deviation _ _ _
•
5

• •

` ~' p y

ConducUvit umhos/cm
Tem erature C
TDS m /I 1
9 P NO3+NO2 mg/I NH3 mg/I Total P mg/I
MW4 dry i
n Jan 2007
~
- -
-
~ --
---
Mar 2007
MW4 d in
~
-
---- - +
_ -- - Y
~ _ _
} -
- --
_
MW4 d m Se 2007
ry P - -
~ -
~ -- - - ~ ~
- - -- - -- - ~- - ~ --
~
- _- _____
MW5 I- ~ - -
TDS mg/1 { Temperature C - t , - - --_-
pH 'Conductivity umhos/cm -
NO3+NO2 mg/I ~ - - +
_NH3 mg/I { -
Total P mg/I
-__.
Jan-07
155E _
15.6
a 6.4
235
0.09
0.08
0.39
Mar
-07 140 15.7 ~ 6.6 '- 230 ! _ 0.09 0.12
- - - - 0.25
--
_

Se -07
P

43
- _

4
222
_ __
~-- 0.04 0 22

_
- --
Mean
146
15 9
~
6.5 ',
-- 229 _ - i 1.57 _

- ~ 0.08 0 29

--

--
- -
--
SD
_
8

0.4
~
0.12
i
2.57
0.04
~
0 09
-
- -
2xSD

_
~-
16
~
~ -
0.8

1
-
_
0.23 ~
~ -13- --- fi --- -_ -
0.08 - - --
0.18
-
_ -
Mean 2SD ~
130
- --
15.1 _
-- -
6.2
216

- -- - _
_
3.57

-- - ~ -
', 0.00 ~

-- -
0.11

-__
Mean + 2SD 162 I 16.6 6.7 242 6.71 0.16 I 0.47
-- -
SD =standard deviation

- -
MW6
---

p
TDS m /I _Tem erature C H _
g p

-
y 1 g ;NH3 mg/I

N + m
Conductivit umhos/cm ~

- -_
Total P mg/I
-- -
- -
Jan-07 --
117 --
14 5 `
-
16.7
197
~1 0.07
0.04
0.17

Mar-07
T 121
_ -
15.3 _
~.7 _-
196 _
--_ -} 0.06
0.04
~
___0.11
---
Sep-07 -
-
114 _
~
~ 17.8 _
1 6.7 189 1.95 0.04 014
Mean t 117 1
5.9 ~ 6.7 t 194 0.69 0.04 ~
-- -- 0.14
- -
-

SD

4

1.7 1

0 00 4 1.09
-
- 0.00 y
- 0.03
-
2xSD _ 7 _
-- 3.4
-
1-
0 00 ~I _ - - - -
9
- 2.18
~
- - -- . -
i 0.00
~_. -- 0.06
--
-- - - - -
Mean - 2SD ~I 110 12.4 ~6.7 185_ -~ - - -1.48 ~ 0.04 0.08
----- 203 2.87 0.04 0 20
Mean + 2SD 124 19.3 i
- - - -- --
SD =standard deviation ~ 1
•
6

• • •
MW7 TDS mg/I _Temperature C ~ pH
Jan-07
- ~ 129 12.5 6.5
-- --_-
----
Mar-07
138
_
13.5
-
6.9
-r
--
Sep-07 175 17 1 6.9
-
Mean 147 _ 14 3 ~ 6.8_
- -- -
SD --
24
~ 2.4 ~
1
0.23
2xSD 49 '~ 4.7 0.46
Mean - 2SD 99 ~ 9.6 6.3
Mean + 2SD _
~ 196 19.1 7.2
SD =standard deviation
Conductivity umhos/cm NO3+NO2 mg/I NH3 mg/Ij Total P mg/I
205
- 0.04 i 0.06 ~
- - 012
--- --- - -
-- __ -
263 - - 0.04 r
0.05
~
I 0 08
291 ~ 0.04 __ __ _
0.04 0.1
--_-- -

253
-- -

_
-
~
___

0.04
-- -
0.05

-

010_

---
44 0.00 0.01 0.02
88 0.00 0.02 , 0.04
165 _ 0.04 0.03 0.06
341 0.04 0.07 , 0.14
--- -- - - -
MW8 TDS m /I • _ r_ ~_ - - -- - - - --
Tem erature C ~ H Conductivit umhos/cm NO3+NO2 m /I I _ -_
--- 9 ; - - P P_ Y -___- _- 9 NH3 mg/I Total P mg/I_
Jan-07 513_ 10.9 6.5 416 _ _ 0 04 ~ 0.04 0.07
-- -
---- -- -
-- - ---- -
Mar-07 338 'I 14.8 - 16.9 682 ~ 0.04 + 0.04 - 0.13__
Se -07 415 16.1 6.7 789 0.04 0 04 0.11
p-_ _ _ - ~ I _ _-- - -. _ ~ -
Mean 422 ~ 13.9 ~.7 629 0.04 0 04 _ _ 0.10
- - -- --
_ -- --
- _
SD _ 88 2.7 0.2 ~, _ 192 0.00 ! 0.00 0 03
- - ~ - --
2xSD 175 ~ 5.4 0 4 384 0.00 r 0.00 0 06
Mean - 2SD 247 8.5 6.3 I 245 0.04 0.04 _ _0.04
_ - - - - - _- ---- ~ - - i __ - - --_ - - --
Mean + 2SD 5_97 ~, 19.3 7.1 1013 0.04 ~ 0.04 0.16
fi-- -
SD =standard deviation
Note: duplicate Jan sample found TDS at 327.
- _ _-- T - - ~ ~ -

_H
MW9 TDS m /I Tem erature
-

8 mhos/cm
_Conductiv1
y ~ NO3+NO2
-
_
Jan-07
~ 111 15.3
p ~ 5.6 3 0.31
-
E. --
_
_ --
Mar 07 -~
80 -
14.1 _ , ~
5.6 - - --
121 _
-
0.22
-----
_ Sep-07 1_-_
--- _151 18.6
- _ 5~ _
-_ 214
- 0.84
Mean
'~ 114 16.0 5.6 ~ 158 0.46
_ _
SD 36 2.3 0.1 ~ 50 0.34

2xSD
71
4.7
10.1
99 --
0.67
Mean - 2SD 43 11.3 5.5 59 ' -0.21
Mean + 2SD 185 20.7 ~ 5.7 257 _ _
1 13

+
SD =standard deviation ~
- - --- -

_
~-- -
i

~

No esticides detected in an sam les.
,-
ig/I NH3 m~
0.05
t 0.26_
0.55
_. _.
0.29_
~__ 0.25
0.50
-0.22
0.79
0.49
0.38 _
0.10
0.20 _
0.18
7

• The Preserve Sediment Sample Data, 2007
Phosphorus mg/kg
Sample 1 605
Sample 2 370
Sample 3 471
Sample 4 627
Sample 5 368
Sample 6 633
•
•

•
Appendix I
Benthic macroinverte6rate sampling reports

•

BENTHIC MACROIPI1t1=RTEBRATE SAAA'PLES -THE PRESERVE - QS D+~cember ZOQ6
Methods
E3ertthic macroinvertebrates were collected using Qual-4 methods, as described in the Standard
operating Procedures for the Biological Assessment Group, NC Division of Water Quality (DVI/Q},
l=our samples are collected at each site: 1kick-net sample, 1 sweep-net sarrtpte, 1 leaf pack., plus
visual inspection of large rocks and logs. At same of the smaller sites, the sweep net or an
aquarium net was used in place of a kick sample.
Data analysis used both taxa richness (especially taxa richness for the intolerant EPT groups}
and a biotic index. EPT taxa richness (a simple count of the number of different kinds of
invertebrates that are in Ephemeroptera, Rlecoptera or Trichoptera groups} usually increases with
better water quality andtor habitat quality, but. this metric rraturaliy varies over a gradient of stream
size. Small streams {< 4 meters wide} have a limited fauna, especially if there is a seasonal
interruption in flow during the summer months, Taxa richness cannot be used to rate these small
piedmont streams, although we would expect reference sites to have a mean EPT taxa richness
{for Qual-4 collections} of about 14-15. This information has been used here to describe EPT
taxa richness as Low, Moderate or High,
The biotic index summarizes the tolerance data for alt macronvertebrate taxa; lower numbers
indicate be##er water andtor habitat quality. Tolerance values for individual taxa vary from Q to '! 4,
but the biotic index for a piedmont stream is usually in the range of Q,5 to 8.©. While there are no
DWQ cri#eria for streams less than 4 meters wide, preliminary data analysis suggests that biotic
index values are not related to stream size. For this reason, we use the normal bioclassificattgns
~Excetlent, Good, Good-Fair., Fair and Poor} to evaluate all streams.., but this data do not
constitute "bioctassifications".
Results and Disaussian (See Site Descriptions for more detail and pictures}
This analysis focuses on comparing winter results for the last two years: January 2~ vs.
December 24x6. Spring samples also have been conducted in 2445 and 2446, but are not
included in the tables for this report, All winter samples have very low taxa richness for the
Chironomdae. This results from both normal seasonal pares and scouring effects of higher
flaws.
Nat Sampled
MB 3. No samples were collected from this small stream (see site description} due to a lack of
flowing water during most months of the year. Flow was observed in December 2046, but this
reflects the very heavy rainfall in recent months. It is unlikely that this stream will ever support a
normal bentic macrotnvertebrate community..
Sites near the edge of the development
Contrpt Site. This new site was labeled as MS 4 on older maps of the development; it is located
at the northern edge of the development. Although this stream has been affected by past
activities {logging, agr"rculture?}, the catchment is currently forested. This extra control site was
added in January 2446 to help evaluate the effects of development upstream of MB 4. The low
Biotic Index {4.2-44} and high EPT taxa richness (13-"15} indicated excellent water quality, ir:
spite of some habitat problems. Long-lived pertid stoneflies are a good indicator of high water
quality and a species in this group (~ccoptura xanthe»es} was collected mainly at this new site.
C7ther unique characteristics of this site are the abundance of the stonefiy Alfoeaprtia, the mayfly
Parateptophlebia, and the beetle Anchyfarsus bicolor, All of these are intolerant species.
M~3 4 {.Same location as SW 5}. This small stream. {about ~l meter wide} was used as a control
situ in May and its catchment is upstream of Hole #3. Historical land use (agriculture or logging'?}
had caused some deepening of the stream channel with areas of severe bank erosion. Some
devetcspment (new houses} was active upstream of MS 4 in 2446, with inputs of sand and silt,
. Coincident with this change in land use,. EPT taxa richness declined from 16 in May to 7-8 in

winter samples, although the biotic index still suggested Good or Excellent. water quality. The
complete absence of caddisflies {Trichoptera} in December clearly indicates water quality
problems.
Sites within the gotfi course and residential. areas
Tl3e benthic macroinvertebrate community at these sites in January 24Q5 shared severa6
characteristics:
_Complete tack of any Ptecnptera {stoneflies), the mast intnterant of the EPT groups. Two
stonefly species were found at both MB 4 and at the new control site.
-Low EPT taxa richness., with only 4-9 EPT taxa present at each site.
MB 2, This unnamed tributary originates within The Preserve, draining both a part of the golf
course {Note #10) and residential areas. EPT taxa richness declined from 11 in May, to 5 in
January and 2 in December, with no abundant EPT species recorded in winter months..
Community composition at this site indicated enrichment in May {Dicrr~fenciipes abundant and
tow dissolved oxygen in winter (PhySella abundant). Low flow in the pool areas produced same
tentic {pond) species. This site had the highest proportion on tolerant species, producing a biotic
index in the Fair or Poor range. The fauna was dominated by non-insect species {an amphipad
and a snail), suggesting the effects of pesticides. With the higher flows in the fait anct winter
months, we would have expected an increase in taxa richness at MB ~. The opposite pattern
was observed,. however, indicating pollution from non-point source runoff.
MB 5fM81. MB 5 was added in January tEa help evaluate the effects of the small impoundment
near the bottom of The Preserve: MB 5 is upstream and MB 1 is downstream. Both sites were
almost 4 meters wide with rocky substrate. The benthic community indicated tow dissolved
oxygen downstream of the impoundment in May with Chiranomus and Physe##a abundant.
Similar species fists were recorded for these sites in winter months, but with significant changes
in the composition of the invertebrate community at between MB 5 and MB 9 . In particular, there
was a decline in the abundance of either Stenonema mvdesturrt nr Si'er+nnerna femoratum
{abundant at MB 5). Both sites improved between January and December, possibly dui: to higher
flaws in the lacier part of 24€t6, but tow EPT taxa richness is characteristic of MB 1 in alt
collections.
Both sites have surprisingly tow biotic index values in both January and December {5.$-6.2} due
to the abundance of either the intolerant caddisfly {Chimers} or the beetle Psephenus herricki.

Taxa Richness {by group) and summary parameters, unnamed tributaries in "The Preserve",
Chatham County,. January and E~ecember 2{}t76.
January 20fl6 December 2©06
Gr ~, C #a #~ #1 ~ ~~ #5 #1
Ephemeroptera 8 3 1 3 1 5 6 1 5 2
Plecoptera ~ 1 - - - 2 2 - - -
Trichoptera 5 3 4 3 3 6 - 1 4 3
Coleoptera 4 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 3
Megaloptera 1 1 - - - 3 1 - - 1
Odonata 3 2 3 3 1 3 4 2 1 2
diptera: Misc. 4 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 3
Diptera: Chironomidae 3 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 ~ 2
t?ligochaeta - - 1 2 1 - - 1 1 1
Crustacea 2 2 1 1 - 1 7 1 1 2
Motfusca - - 3 1 - - 1 4 1 2
Qther - - - 1 2 - - - -
Total Taxa Richness
EPl' Taxa Richness
Evaluation {relative to stream size).
EPT Abundance
Biotic index (with seasonal correction}
BI Rating (for streams > 4 m wide}
32 16 19 21 12
15 7 5 6 4
High Mod Low Low Law
63 27 9 37 26
4.2 4.7 7.3 6.1 6.2
Ex Ex Fair G-F G-F
29 19 15 21 2
13 ~ 2 9 5
Nigh Mod Low Mod Low
51 14 2 39 41
4.4 5.3 7.4 6.0 5.8
ExGoodPoar G-F G-F

Taxa list and relative abundance values, The Preserve {unnamed tributaries), Chatham County,
January and C7ecember2~Q6. Ft =Rare, C-Common, A=Abundant; TV =Tolerance value ({~-10,
higher numbers indicate greater tolerance}.
C= Control site, MB 4 a very small.{I meter wide) s ite near the edge of property, fV162 is a small
stream within the development. MB 5 and MB 1 are downstream of the development , with a
small impoundment between these sites. Taxa in i talics are found for the 1 ~ ti me in the January
samples.
Taxon TV
T C ~4 #2 #5 #1 C #4 #2 #~ #1
EPHEMEROPTERA {mayflies}
Stenonema modestum 5.5 A R A C C R A A
Stenonema femoratum 7.2 R R C A
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 C R C R
Isonychia sp 3.5 R R
Caens sp 7.4 R
Paraleptophlebia sp t7.9 A A
LeptophleEaa sp. (small) 6.2 R
Eurylophella verisimilis d.3 C C
8aetis Pluto 4.3 R R
Centroptilum trianguli#er 6,0 R R R
diphetor hageni 1,6 R C
Acerpenna pygmaea 3,9 C C R
Ameletus sp 2.4 R
PLECQt3TERA (stoneflies)
Eccoptura xanthenes 3.7 C C R
Allocapnia spp 2.5 A A A C
TRICHOP7ERA (caddisflies}
Cheumatopsyche spp 6.2 C A C C A A A A
Hydropsyche betteni 7.$ R A C C A
Qiplectrona modesty 2.2 C C C R
Chmarra sp 2.8 A R R A A C C A.
Pycnopsyche sp 2.5 R R
Lepidostoma sp (?.9 R
Psilotreta sp Q.o R
Triaenodes ignites 4.6 R
CtlLEt3PTERA (beetles)..
Psephenus herricki 2,4 C C A A R A R C A
Ectopria nervosa 4.2 R
Dubiraphia sp 5.9 C R R
Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 C
Nelichus sp 4.6 R
Anchytarsus bicolor 3:6 C A
Neoparus spp $.C R
Tropisternus sp 9.7 R R
Peltodytes sp $.7 C C
t?D©NAl'A {C}ragon and damsel flies
Argia spp 8.2 R R C R R
Ischnura spp 9.5 C R R
Calopteryx sp 7.$ C R A A R R
Srylogomphus atbistytus 4.7 R R
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 R C R C
Boyeria gra~ana 6.1 R
• Sornatochlora sp 9.2 R R A

Taxon 7V C #4 #~2 #5 #1 ~ #~4 ;r#2 ~5 #1
MEGALOPTERA
Solis sp 7.2 R
hligronia serricornis 5,f} R R
Rligronia ~sciatus 5,6 C R R R
MtSGELLANEC}US DiPTERA
Simulium spp 6.0 R G A A
Prosimulium mixtum 4.0 C R C C
PseudoGmnophila spp ~.2 R R
Tipula spp 7.8 R A R R A R C A A.
pixy sp 2.6 C
Dixella Indiana 6.5 R
Palpomyia ,group X5.9 R
DIPTIRA; CHiRaNaM113AE (midges}
Conchapelopia group 8.~i R R
Zawrelmyia sp 9.1 R
A~lat~esmyia mallochi 7.~ R
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 R
Phaenopsectra flavipes 7.9 R
F:tseotanytarsus sp 5.9 R R R
Brllia sp 5.2 R
Corynoneura sp 6:0 R
Gricotopus bicinCtus 8.5 R
Parametriocnemus lundbecki 3.7 A R R R G
F'arachaetocladius sp O.d R
Qr#hc~cladius oburnbratus 8.5 A
Urthocladius nigrtus 4.6 R
~LIG©CHAETA {worms)
Nail sp 8.9 A ~ C C
Lumbricutidae ~.fl R
Ilyadrilus templetoni 9,3 R
Gambarinicoiidae (on crayfish) 6.0 R
CRUSTACEA
Cambarus sp 7.6 C R R R R
Crangonyx sp 7.9 R R A R A R
Caecidotea sp 9.1 R
Mt3LLUSCA (snails and dams}
Pseudasuceinea cotumella 7.7 R R C R
Physella sp 8.13 A A R G
Menetus dilatatus 8.2 R R
Ferrissia sp 6.6 C
Pisidium spp 6.5 R R
QTNER
aura €oremanii 5.t7 R A R
Dugesia tgrina 7.2 C R

Site Descriptions -The Preserve - December 2QiI6
All streams were located in the Slatebelt ecoregion, producing naturally rocky streams. Erosion
in these areas (including bank erosion} produces larger ampunts of sift. but lithe sand. With
significant stream flaw, much of the eroded silt can be washed through the system with little
instream deposition. Decent months had above average rainfall, suggesting good flaw at all
sites. but with high amaunts of non-point source runoff from developed areas..
A11 streams were too small to be assigned a stream rating, a{though evaluations may be assigned
based on the biotic index and comparisons between streams. Much of the site description given
below is repeated from earlier reports.
-Mf3 3. This stream drains a small pond., but
water is not always released from the pand
into the downstream channel. Although the
stream channel was usually wet {with some
standing watery, there was no how during
most visits to this site.. With the frequent
absence of flowing water, we do not expect
a normal stream community, so no
macroinvertebrate sample have been taken
at MB 3 It would be impossible to
differentiate between any effects of golf
course runoff and the lack of flowing water.
-l;lew Conroi Site ~(~ld MB 4 at northern end
of development). bue to problems with the
prior control site (see below). a station was
added on a small stream at the northern
boundary of the Preserve. The stream
currently drains a forested area, although
prior land use {agriculture, logging} has
affected stream habitat.
Tha~se prior land uses resulted in an
entrenched channel (with areas of severe
bank erosion) and filled-in pools. Stream
width was about one meter with clear water
erosion on left.
MS 3. January 20(}5

•
•
and a rocky substrate. This site had the
lowest amount of attached algae among the
five sites sampled in December 2006.
-M6 4 (SW 5}. This small stream {7-2
meters wide) was used as a control site for
interpreting the May 2005 data, as the
upstream area was entirely forested.
Boulder/rubble habitat was abundant (50°l0),
with significant amounts of gravel (30%) and
sand (20%). The sample location is
upstream of Hole # 3. The stream channel
was incised with severe bank erosion in
some areas. This small stream splits into
two forks about 30 meters above the golf
course.
The stream substrate contained greater
amounts of silt in January 2006, and
inspection of the upstream area now
showed some development on bath the right
and left forks.
-MB 2. This site is just upstream of a small
pond. located in area including both the golf
course {Hole #10} and residences. There is
a buffer area around the stream, usually at
Feast 4-6 meters wide. The golf cart path
crpsses the stream twice within this reach.
The stream substrate is very rocky (55%
bouldeNrubble} although stream width is
only 0.5 meters. The substrate had large
amounts of filamentous green algae in
December 2006.
-MB 5 This new site was added in January
2006. It drains most of the Preserve; bU~t is
upstream of the small impoundment found
near Bear Tree Lane.
MB 4 -downstream, January

•
The width was about 4 meters with a rocky
substrate and fairly clear water. The
substrate was covered with a dense growth
of algae, both brown and green forms.
-M8 1. MB 1 is only a short distance
downstream from MB 5, but it is also
downstream of a small impoundment. The
substrate was about 60°lo boulderlrubble
In January 2006, the substrate at MB i had
the same covering of filamentous algae that
was observed ai MB 5, but these growths
were not as apparent in ©ecember. It is
likely that highflowJscour reduced the
standing crop of periphyton.
It is also possible that water quality in the
upstream pond {especially dissolved
oxygen..) has been a limiting factor for the
macroinvertebrate communih,~ in this part of
the stream This question will be ;addressed
by comparing data from MB't and MB ~.