Evaluation of Water Quality, Habitat, and Stream Biology ... Quality/Surface... · Water quality,...

Evaluation of Water Quality, Habitat, and Stream Biology in the Little Alamance, Tickle, and

Travis Creek Watersheds

FINAL REPORT

Submitted to

The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program In support of Local Watershed Plan Development

Prepared by Division of Water Quality Watershed Assessment Team

January 30, 2007

ii

Acronyms AMS: Ambient Monitoring System BAU: Biological Assessment Unit BI: Biotic Index BIMS: Basinwide Information Management System BMP: Best Management Practices BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand DA: Drainage area DEM: Division of Environmental Management (now known as DWQ) DENR: Department of the Environment and Natural Resources DMR: Discharge Monitoring Report DO: Dissolved Oxygen DWQ: Division of Water Quality EEP: (NC) Ecosystem Enhancement Program EH: East of the Haw River EPA: Environmental Protection Agency GIS: Geographic Information System HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code ISU: Intensive Survey Unit LA: Little Alamance Cr. LATT: Little Alamance, Travis, and Tickle Creeks LULC: Land Use/Land Cover LWP: Local Watershed Plan NCIBI: North Carolina Index of Biological Integrity NH3: Ammonia NLCD: National Land Cover Database NO2+NO3 (also NOx): Nitrate + nitrite NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAM: Quality Assurance Manual QAPP: Quality Assurance Project Plan RL: Reporting Limit RPD: Relative Percent Difference SOP: Standard Operating Procedures SU: Standard Units (pH) TKN: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TN: Total Nitrogen TP: Total Phosphorus TSS: Total Suspended Solids (aka total suspended residue) TT: Tickle and Travis Creeks USGS: United States Geological Survey UT: Unnamed Tributary WAT: Watershed Assessment Team WET: Whole Effluent Toxicity WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) selected a 51 square mile area located primarily in Alamance County for development of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The area includes Little Alamance Cr. and its tributaries, Travis Cr. and its tributaries, Dry Cr., and tributaries to the Haw R. on its east side, including Basin Cr. and a UT. The area is collectively referred to as the Little Alamance, Tickle and Travis Creeks (LATT) LWP area. Staff from the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) performed chemical, physical, habitat and biological assessments in the LWP area to assist EEP with identifying areas with water quality concerns that may benefit most from restoration, rehabilitation, enhancement, preservation, or other management activities in the watershed. Biological results were previously reported via memoranda (NC DENR DWQ 2006f, g; 2007). This report provides summaries of chemical, physical, and habitat assessment data and integrates this information with previously reported biological data. Low flows throughout the monitoring period have been a major concern and have had major impacts on the stream biota, particularly in the headwater regions across the monitoring area. Biological data suggest that lack of flow and low dissolved oxygen conditions had greatly reduced or entirely eliminated the populations of many benthic macroinvertebrates that normally would have colonized these waters. In some areas, nutrient enrichment or, possibly, heavy metal pollution appears to have impacted the stream biota. This also may be related to low flow conditions. Stream habitat scores varied substantially within both the urban and rural watersheds. Total scores ranged from 25 to 93 (100 total possible score). The individual habitat metric most commonly contributing to reduced total scores in both urban and rural watersheds was Riffle Habitats. Pool Variety was the second most common contributor to reduced total scores in the rural watersheds, while Riparian Vegetative Zone Width (i.e., the width of the forested riparian buffer) was the second most common factor in reduced total scores in the urban watersheds. The lack of good riparian buffer zones is a major issue in urban areas where land is at a premium as well as in some rural settings where landowners often plant field crops to the edge of the stream and leave pastures unfenced along stream banks to allow livestock access for water. The absence of riparian buffers exacerbates other stream habitat problems including bank failure, severe streambank erosion, burial of the bottom substrate, loss of riffle-pool sequences, and excessive light penetration and leads to declines in the respective metrics used to assess these habitat features. General contributors to habitat degradation include natural conditions, such as erodible soils; continuing recovery of the watersheds from historic impacts of agricultural and silvicultural uses; and altered hydrology (flashiness) due to urbanization or other land uses.

Little Alamance Cr., especially its tributary, Willowbrook Cr. (aka Brown Br.) raises the most concern. The Little Alamance watershed drains the city of Burlington and had elevated nutrient concentrations and fecal coliform bacteria counts. Ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were extremely high during baseflow in Little Alamance Cr. at the Mebane St. site and during stormflow at the Rogers Rd. site. Phosphorus also was very high in the UT to Willowbrook Cr., and fecal coliform counts were very high at that site as well as in Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. Scouring at high flows also is a major issue throughout Little Alamance Cr. and its tributaries. Other sites of concern include Tickle Cr. at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd., which appeared to have been dredged and was deeply incised and severely eroded, and Basin Cr., which was the original reference site but was discarded at the suggestion of EEP because of livestock operations and cattle in its headwater area. Basin Cr. subsequently was found to have elevated fecal coliform counts as well as elevated phosphorus and slightly elevated ammonia nitrogen concentrations compared with other rural watersheds, particularly the new reference watershed (UT to the Haw R. at Greenwood Dr.) east of the Haw R. The

iv

headwater region of Travis Cr. also is degraded primarily because of the lack of riparian vegetation along the Cr. bank. Dry Cr. is urbanizing, and water quality fell somewhere between the rural Travis/Tickle Cr. and the urban Little Alamance Cr. watersheds. Urbanization of Dry Cr. is progressing downstream toward the Haw R. Pertinent data summarized herein also are shown in Figure 32 of the main report. Little Alamance Cr., particularly its tributary Willowbrook Cr., would likely benefit from stormwater and illicit discharge controls to help moderate the flashy hydrology and to reduce sediment and chemical pollutant inputs. Enhancements are needed in the Willowbrook Cr. subwatershed to reduce downstream impacts on water quality in Little Alamance Cr. Particular attention needs to be directed to detecting and correcting the sources of high nutrients and heavy metals in Willowbrook Cr. and just downstream below its confluence with Little Alamance Cr. Installation of best management practices (BMPs) in critical areas and implementation of a watershed management plan will be important to prevent further degradation of the Dry Cr. watershed. Further investigation also is needed to delineate the source of high nutrient conditions in Basin Cr. and to develop a management plan to ameliorate the problem. This most likely would entail removing the livestock from the immediate proximity of the stream and installing enhancements to restore the riparian zone. A small-scale restoration is needed on Tickle Cr. at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd. to stabilize the stream banks, retard further degradation of this watershed, and to prevent bank erosion further downstream and the associated impacts of silt transport into Travis Cr. and, ultimately, the Haw R. The upper reaches (headwaters) of the Travis Cr. watershed in Guilford Co. would benefit from vegetation plantings to restore the riparian zone and retard bank erosion. An expanded public education/outreach effort is needed to gain local support for further remedial work to restore water quality throughout the entire LATT LWP area.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................vi

Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................vi Tables......................................................................................................................................................................vi

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................1 LWP Area Overview and Water Quality Concerns ..................................................................................................1

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................................................................................2 Monitoring Locations ...............................................................................................................................................2 Chemical and Physical Sampling and Analysis ........................................................................................................2 Biological Community Sampling..............................................................................................................................4 Habitat Assessments .................................................................................................................................................4 GIS and Other Remote Sensing Data........................................................................................................................4 NC Stream Classification, Water Quality Standards, and Action levels...................................................................5 Other Screening Values ............................................................................................................................................5 Data Management and Analysis ...............................................................................................................................5 Quality Sssurance and Quality Control (QA/QC).....................................................................................................8 Land Use/Land Cover and Drainage Area................................................................................................................8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................11 Land Use/Land cover..............................................................................................................................................11 Impacts of Drought Conditions...............................................................................................................................13 Comparison of Fecal Coliform, Water Chemistry, and Field Measurements Among Sampling Stations ..............15

Fecal coliform ....................................................................................................................................................15 Turbidity and suspended solids ..........................................................................................................................15 Water chemistry .................................................................................................................................................15

Field Measurements................................................................................................................................................19 Exceedences of Water Quality Standards and Action Levels .................................................................................20

Total Exceedences ....................................................................................................................................................22 Habitat Assessment.................................................................................................................................................23 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessments ................................................................................................................25

CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................................28 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................29 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX 1 ..............................................................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX 2 ..............................................................................................................................................................33 APPENDIX 3 ..............................................................................................................................................................34

vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures Figure 1. LATT local watershed planning area and DWQ water quality assessment locations……….….3 Figure 2. Simplified land use within the LWP area, based on National Land Cover Database 2001…....10 Figure 3. Land use categories for monitoring site watersheds……………………………………………11 Figure 4. Land use categories for monitoring site watersheds…………………………………………....12 Figure 5. Depth to groundwater at USGS gage near Mocksville, NC, 1995 through 2007……………....14 Figure 6. Daily stream flow at USGS gage at Reedy Fork, 1995-2007…………………………………..14 Figure 7. Fecal coliforms and turbidity measurements for baseflow by station………………………….17 Figure 8. Nutrients for baseflow by station……………………………………………………………….18 Figure 9. Field measurements for baseflow by station…………………………………………………...21 Figure 10. Individual metrics and total habitat scores from stream habitat assessments…….……………24 Figure 11. Tickle Cr. at Gibsonville-Ossipee Road……………………………………………………….25 Figure 12. Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St……………………………………………….………………..25 Figure 13. Summary of significant water quality, benthic macroinvertebrate, and habitat data by site…..27

Tables

Table 1. Assessments conducted and locations of assessment sites……………………………………….6 Table 2. Chemical analyses, methods, and reporting limits……………………………………………….8 Table 3. NC water quality standards and action levels…………………………………………………….9 Table 3. Number of exceedences of NC water quality standards or action levels by sampling location…22

1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Introduction The North Carolina (NC) Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) selects watersheds throughout the state for development of Local Watershed Plans (LWP). The LWP is a guide for future restoration, rehabilitation, enhancement, best management practices (BMPs), or other activities within the watershed that will provide functional uplift of the hydrology, habitat, and water quality of the LWP area. More information on EEP’s Local Watershed Planning initiative can be found at http://www.nceep.net/pages/planning.htm. EEP identified watersheds in the Burlington, NC area for development of a LWP. In this report, this area collectively is termed the Little Alamance, Tickle and Travis Cr. (LATT) LWP Area. The LATT LWP area include Little Alamance Cr. and its tributaries Brown Br. (aka Willowbrook Cr.) and Bowden Br.; Travis Cr. and its tributaries Tickle Cr., and unnamed tributaries (UTs); Dry Cr.; and tributaries to the Haw R. on its east side including Basin Cr. and a UT. Staff in the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) conducted a characterization of the surface water quality within the LATT LWP area to facilitate LWP development by EEP. Water quality, habitat, and biological data were collected by staff of the DWQ Watershed Assessment Team (WAT) and Biological Assessment Unit (BAU) between September 2006 and August 2007. Results from these data collections are summarized in this report. LWP Area Overview and Water Quality Concerns The LATT LWP area is in the upper portion of the Cape Fear R. Basin and is located primarily within Alamance County, NC, with a small portion in Guilford County (Figure 1). The LATT LWP area encompasses 51 square miles, with 35 square miles in the Tickle/Travis portion and 16 square miles in the Little Alamance portion. The area is part of the USGS

hydrologic cataloging unit 03030002 (NC subbasin CPF02 and CPF03), and includes the 14-digit Hydrological Unit Codes (HUCs) 03030002030010, and 03030002040110. The Tickle/Travis Cr., Dry Cr., Basin Cr., and the UT to the Haw R. watersheds drain separately into the Haw R. are not connected to the Little Alamance Cr. watershed. Little Alamance Cr. and its tributaries Brown Br. (Willowbrook Cr.) and Bowden Br. drain the majority of the cities of Burlington and Graham, including industrial facilities. Dry Cr. and the southern UT’s to Travis Cr. drain parts of suburban Burlington, Gibsonville and Elon. Sanitary sewer lines run parallel to Dry Cr. and Little Alamance Cr. and its tributaries for much of their lengths. Other watersheds in the LWP area drain relatively rural areas dominated by pastures and some forest. All waters in the LWP area have the NC stream classification of C (protected for aquatic life and secondary recreation) as well as the supplemental classification of NSW (nutrient sensitive water), which carries additional regulatory requirements for agricultural and stormwater management practices. The only NPDES-permitted facility in the LWP area is the Shields Mobile Home Park (permit NC0055271), which discharges a maximum of 6,000 gallons per day to Travis Cr. downstream of NC 87. This permitted treatment facility has not had significant compliance issues over the years, and its low volume of treated domestic wastewater is not considered to have a major impact on water quality in Travis Cr. or in the Haw R. The NC Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (also known as the Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (NC DENR DWQ, 2006a) classifies Little Alamance Cr. as impaired from its source to the confluence with Big Alamance Cr., based on biological data previously collected by DWQ. In the LATT LWP area, biological collections representing benthic macroinvertebrates and/or

2

fish had been completed only in Little Alamance Cr. between 1985 and 2003. (The majority of sites were sampled during 2003). By examining what species are present at a sample site, and the relative abundances of the species, biologists can provide “bioclassifications,” which indicate how well aquatic life is being supported. Bioclassifications for Little Alamance Cr. ranged from Poor to Good. The fish community was rated Good in 1993, Fair in 1998 and Good in 2003. All benthic sampling sites that have been rated have received at least one “Poor” rating. The most downstream site on Little Alamance Cr. received a “Fair” rating in 2003, which was an improvement from its 1998 rating of “Poor.” Within the LATT LWP boundaries there is one currently active water quality monitoring station along the Haw R (Haw R. and SR 1530 --Gerringer Mill Road) that is being monitored by the Upper Cape Fear R. Basin Association (UCFRBA; see http://www.cfra-nc.org/ucfrba.htm). However, results from this station strongly reflect influences on water quality that exist outside the LWP. An example of these influences includes the City of Greensboro’s wastewater treatment plant discharge into Buffalo CR. Therefore results from this station are not presented here.

Overall, little information exists on the physical and chemical properties in the LATT watersheds. Historically a few sites were monitored between 1968 through 1978. These were located primarily along Travis CR. However, since 1978 there has been no sustained monitoring program for physical and chemical parameters in the vicinity of the LATT watersheds except for the one UCFRBA station located on the Haw R., as noted above. More background information on water quality in the LATT LWP area can be found in the Summary of Existing Water Quality Data (NC DENR DWQ, 2006b), the most recent DWQ Cape Fear Basin Assessment Report (NC DENR DWQ, 2004) and Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NC DENR DWQ 2005). More information on stream classifications, use

support, and impaired waters can be found at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/pb/index.html. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Monitoring Locations Twenty sampling locations were selected on the basis of land use, point and non-point source impacts, drainage outlet locations, and accessibility (Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.). Public access, such as bridge crossings, was generally required. Basin Cr. was selected as a reference site for the study, as it was rural and not impacted by urban or suburban development, but was discarded subsequently at the suggestion of EEP because of livestock operations and cattle in its headwater areas. Another rural unnamed tributary (UT) to the Haw R. at Greenwood Dr. (SR 1597) subsequently was selected as the new reference site. Chemical, physical, habitat, and biological data were collected in this study, though not all types of sampling were performed at each location. Data collections were dictated by the objective of monitoring at the sampling site, available staff resources, and funds available for chemical analyses. For example, nutrients, metals, and fecal coliform were generally all monitored in urban areas. Biological sampling, due to its significant requirements of time and expertise of field staff, was performed in just a few areas of concern. Field measurements and habitat assessments were performed at almost all locations. Water chemistry sampling and field measurements were conducted from December 2006 through August 2007 on an approximately monthly basis. Chemical and Physical Sampling and Analysis Field measurements included temperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (mg/L and % saturation), (µS/cm at 25°C), and pH (S.U.). Temperature, oxygen, and specific conductance were measured with a YSI 85 meter, and a Fisher Accumet 61 meter was used for pH. All measurements were made in situ in a

http://www.cfra-nc.org/ucfrba.htm

http://www.cfra-nc.org/ucfrba.htm

3

Figure 4. LATT local watershed planning area and DWQ water quality assessment locations.

4

representative point of the channel that was well mixed and flowing, generally at or near the thalweg. Meter calibration and measurements were performed in accordance with the NC DWQ Intensive Survey Unit (ISU) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) (NC DENR DWQ, 2006c). The fish community was not sampled in 2006-07, but existing data are available from one location on Little Alamance Cr. Samples for chemical analysis varied between sampling locations, depending on the monitoring objective for that site and event. All samples were collected in accordance with ISU SOP and were handled, preserved, and analyzed in accordance with DWQ Laboratory Section requirements outlined in their Sample Submission Guidance (h2o.enr.state.nc.us/lab/qa/sampsubguide.htm) and Quality Assurance Manual (NC DENR DWQ, 2003). All samples were collected as grab samples by direct fill of sample bottles by immersion. Parameters measured are shown in Error! Reference source not found., along with the analytical method and reporting limit (Practical Quantitation Limit, or PQL). The current relative flow conditions were recorded for each sampling event. The majority were taken under baseflow conditions, defined as >48 hours since the last measurable rain event. On three dates, grab samples were collected under stormflow (defined as the rising limb of the hydrograph) at six selected analytical chemistry sampling locations. One other set of chemistry samples were collected under “other” flow regime, i.e., measurable rain had fallen with the previous 48 hours but rainfall was not occurring at the time of collection. Biological Community Sampling Sampling, identification, and interpretation of results for benthic macroinvertebrate communities were performed by DWQ Biological Assessment Unit (BAU) with support from WAT staff members in accordance with BAU Standard Operating Procedures For Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NC DENR DWQ 2006d). Sites were sampled by either Full Scale or Qual4 methods, depending on the size of the

watershed. Piedmont criteria were used in assigning all bioclassifications. Additional benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in Little Alamance Cr., as well as sampling in Travis and Tickle Creeks was conducted by WAT staff to augment the sampling by BAU for EEP’s Local Watershed Plan. The benthic macroinvertebrate sampling program uses a combination of EPT taxa richness and the NC Biotic value to assign bioclassifications to benthos samples. For each site a biotic index (BI) was calculated. A higher BI values indicate the presence of more tolerant species and, hence, poorer conditions. Habitat Assessments Habitat assessments were made using the standard BAU form for the piedmont/mountains included in the Benthic Macroinvertebrate SOP (NC DENR DWQ, 2006d). Assessments were made concurrently with benthos sampling by BAU staff. Trained WAT staff performed assessments at remaining monitoring locations in the LWP area. GIS and Other Remote Sensing Data GIS data were obtained from a number of sources, including:

• Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG): delineated LATT project area

• U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS): National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001)

• NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT): Roads, municipalities, digital elevation models (DEMs)

• NC Council for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA): waterbodies, county boundaries

GIS analyses were performed using ESRI ArcGIS 9.2 and the ArcHydro Tools 9 data model. Georeferencing of monitoring locations was performed by WAT field staff using recreational grade handheld GPS receivers. Latitudes and longitudes were recorded in decimal degrees using the NAD83 datum.

5

NC Stream Classification, Water Quality Standards, and Action levels North Carolina has a set of regulations that specify the minimum standards for the waters of the state (NC Environmental Management Commission 2007). These water quality standards may be narrative, but more commonly are numerical criteria (e.g., maximum allowable instream concentrations). For certain constituents (such as copper, iron, silver, and zinc), firm numerical standards are not in place as actual toxicity to aquatic organisms can vary dependent on additional factors, such as water hardness. In these cases the numerical criteria are referred to as action levels. The NC water quality standards and action levels (AL) vary in accordance with the specified use of the waterbody in question. Certain uses, such as primary recreation or water supplies, require more stringent standards than others, such as aquatic life support. The uses of a waterbody are designated by a stream classification assigned by DWQ. The state has inventoried the waters of the state, assigned a unique identifier (“index number”) to each reach, and assigned it a stream classification. In the LWP area, all waters are classified as “C”, which designates that they must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic life survival and reproduction, wildlife, secondary recreation, and be suitable for use for agriculture. In addition to these primary classifications, all waters in the LWP area have the secondary classification of NSW (nutrient sensitive waters). The designation of “NSW” does not have additional numerical criteria associated with it, but instead requires best management practices within the watershed to reduce nutrient inputs to surface waters in these particular watersheds of the Cape Fear R. basin. Applicable numerical standards and ALs for Class C waters are shown in Error! Reference source not found.. These will be used throughout the report as screening values or reference levels to identify areas that may have water quality concerns and perhaps could be considered higher priority watersheds or

subwatersheds for further study during LWP development. Other Screening Values For benthic macroinvertebrate communities, the NC DWQ has developed systems for rating streams based on the community structure found. The details of these biotic indices are described fully in the BAU SOPs (NC DENR DWQ, 2006d). The most common values for the final bioclassification of piedmont streams are Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good, and Excellent (small watersheds may be rated Not Impaired or Not Rated). The DWQ uses these bioclassifications as part of their determination of use support during basin planning activities. Generally, ratings of Poor or Fair indicate that significant stressors on the community are present, which may indicate impairment of aquatic life uses of the waterbody. This, however, is a simplification of use support methods by DWQ as presented in the North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (NC DENR DWQ, 2006a). Determination of use support is beyond the scope of this report, but this information is useful for identification of areas where benthos or fish community data indicate stressed communities. Data Management and Analysis Chemistry and field data were provided as hard copies, which were then keyed into a Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet managed by WAT staff. This warehouse was also used for managing station information, such as site descriptions and latitudes and longitudes. Data were retrieved, reviewed for completeness and possible errors or outliers, and duplicate results from QC samples were averaged before analysis. The majority of the statistical summaries and analyses were performed using SAS JMP 7.0 software. Analyses included summary statistics (means, medians, quartiles, etc.); and graphical exploration of data by site, watershed, and subwatershed as time series and/or distributions. Results reported as less than the reporting limit (considered “non-detects” [NDs] for the purpose

6

Table 4. Assessments conducted and locations of assessment sites.

Assessments Conducted

Map No. W

ater

shed

Si

ze (m

i2 )

Location Che

mis

try

Ben

thos

Hab

itat

Reasons for Monitoring Latitude Longitude Classification Stream Index

01 2.6 Basin Cr (not named on many maps) at Basin Cr. Rd (SR 1594) X X X

Rural, not impacted by urban or suburban development. Initially used as reference site

36.1752 -79.4824 C NSW not assigned

02 1.4 East Trib UT Haw R above Greenwood Dr (SR 1597) . X X 36.1438 -79.4567 C NSW not assigned

03 0.8 West Trib UT Haw R at Mansfield Rd (SR 1596) . X X 36.1449 -79.4606 C NSW not assigned

04 2.3 UT Haw R at Greenwood Dr (SR 1597) X X X

Sites were in minimally impacted watersheds.

36.1427 -79.4564 C NSW not assigned

05 1.7 Travis Cr at County Farm Rd (SR 2741) X . X Rural and upstream from

prison farm. 36.1297 -79.5523 C NSW 16-12

06 4.2 Travis Cr at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (SR 1500) X . X Downstream from prison farm. 36.1292 -79.5275 C NSW 16-12

07 8.8 Travis Cr at Elon-Ossipee Rd (SR 1504) X X X

Downstream from prison farm and suburban development in both Gibsonville and Elon.

36.1276 -79.5131 C NSW 16-12

08 15.3 Travis Cr at NC 87 . X X Same as above, plus includes Tickle Cr. 36.1426 -79.4970 C NSW 16-12

09 1.8 West UT Travis Cr at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (SR 1500) . X X Downstream from Gibsonville

suburban development 36.1245 -79.5270 C NSW not assigned

10 2.0 East UT Travis Cr at Elon-Ossipee Rd (SR 1504) . X X Downstream from Elon

suburban development 36.1272 -79.5127 C NSW not assigned

11 2.8 Tickle Cr at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (SR 1500) . . X Rural, and downstream from

part of prison farm. 36.1449 -79.5286 C NSW 16-12-1

12 4.0 Tickle Cr at Elon-Ossipee Rd (SR 1504) X X X Rural, and downstream from

part of prison farm. 36.1383 -79.5122 C NSW 16-12-1

13 3.3 Dry Cr at Durham St (SR 1529) X X X Downstream from Elon suburban development 36.1307 -79.4760 C NSW 16-13

14 0.4 UT to Willowbrook (aka "Brown X . X Urban stream, highly impacted 36.0872 -79.4429 C NSW not assigned

7

Table 4. Assessments conducted and locations of assessment sites.

Assessments Conducted

Map No. W

ater

shed

Si

ze (m

i2 )

Location Che

mis

try

Ben

thos

Hab

itat

Reasons for Monitoring Latitude Longitude Classification Stream Index

Br") Cr at Kime St; downtown Burlington.

15 1.3 Willowbrook Cr (aka "Brown Br") at Mebane St (SR 1363) X . X Ditto above plus urban

residential and parks. 36.0839 -79.4433 C NSW 16-19-11-1

16 4.4 L Alamance Cr at Mebane St (SR 1363) X . X Urban residential and parks. 36.0801 -79.4479 C NSW 16-19-11

17 6.4 L Alamance Cr at NC 54 (Tucker St.) X X X

Urban residential and commercial. Includes both L. Alamance and Willowbrook Cr.

36.0750 -79.4447 C NSW 16-19-11

18 7.7 L Alamance Cr at I-85 Frontage Rd (SR 1398) . X X

Urban stream, highly impacted downtown Burlington and outlet malls.

36.0650 -79.4376 C NSW 16-19-11

19 14.1 L Alamance Cr at Rogers Rd. (SR 2309) X X X

Furthest downstream L. Alamance Cr before confluence with Haw R; includes Bowden Br.

36.0359 -79.4092 C NSW 16-19-11

20 2.5 Bowden Br at Hanford Rd (SR 2304) X . X

Tributary to L. Alamance upstream from 19; urban Graham and suburban watershed.

36.0509 -79.4160 C NSW 16-19-11-2

8

Table 5. Chemical analyses, methods, and reporting limits.

Parameter EPA method Reporting limit

Fecal coliform 600/8-78-017 1 cfu/ 100mL

Turbidity 180.1 1 NTU Susp. residues 160.2, 160.4 2.5-12 mg/L Nutrients NH3 as N 350.1, 350.2 0.02 mg/L NO2+NO3 as N 353.2 0.02 mg/L

TKN as N 350.1, 351.2 0.20 mg/L Total P 365.1 0.02 mg/L Metals Aluminum (Al) 200.7/200.8 50 µg/L

Arsenic (As) 200.8 /200.9 5 µg/L Cadmium (Cd) 200.8 /200.9 1.0-2.0 µg/L

Calcium (Ca) 200.7 0.10 mg/L Chromium (Cr) 200.8 /200.7 10-25 µg/L

Copper (Cu) 200.8 /200.9 2.0 µg/L Iron (Fe) 200.7 50 µg/L Lead (Pb) 200.8 /200.9 10 µg/L Magnesium (Mg) 200.7 0.10 mg/L

Manganese (Mn) 200.8/200.7 10 µg/L

Mercury (Hg) 245.1 0.2 µg/L Nickel (Ni) 200.8 /200.9 10 µg/L Potassium (K) 200.7 0.10 mg/L

Silver (Ag) 200.8/200.9 5.0 µg/L Sodium (Na) 200.7 0.10 mg/L Zinc (Zn) 200.8 /200.7 10 µg/L Field Measurements

Dissolved oxygen -- 0.1 mg/L

pH -- 0.1 S.U. Spec. conductance -- 1 µS/cm at 25°C

Water -- 0.1°C

Table 5. Chemical analyses, methods, and reporting limits.

Parameter EPA method Reporting limit

temperature of this report) were analyzed using the value of the reporting limit, i.e., a “worst-case” scenario. Biological data were warehoused in a 4D database housed and managed by BAU. Results were calculated as per the appropriate BAU SOP and were reported via memorandum (NC DENR DWQ, 2006f,g; 2007) to WAT and EEP staff. Habitat assessment data were stored in an Excel spreadsheet and were imported into JMP for analyses. Quality Sssurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) QA/QC requirements of this project included:

• Equipment blanks: This only applies to dissolved fractions, since no additional sample collection equipment were used for total fractions (i.e., sample bottles are direct dipped). Equipment blanks consist of processing analyte-free distilled water as if it were environmental (surface water) sample.

• Habitat assessments were made by BAU and WAT staff on different dates but at the same sites in several instances. This overlap was meant to provide some sense of the variability between the two programs’ assessments as well as differences due to temporal/seasonal issues.

• Biological sample QC methods: These are described in the appropriate BAU SOPs. Samples collected as part of this project are part of the larger annual QA program maintained by each program.

Land Use/Land Cover and Drainage Area Land use can play a critical role in water quality, and can certainly affect instream habitat. Drainage areas for each sampling point were

9

delineated using the ArcHydro data model for ArcGIS 9.2. Input data used were the digital elevation models (DEMs) from recent LIDAR data, which were obtained from the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) GIS web site (http://www.ncdot.org/it/gis), and the sampling station sites (lat/longs collected in the field) were used as the drainage points. Land use data were obtained from the National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001) data set via the USGS website (http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/MRLC/). Two-way cluster analysis (Ward method) was performed on the land use data using SAS JMP 7.0. Categories that did not have >5% in at least one watershed were omitted from the analysis.

Table 6. NC water quality standards and action levels. All units are µg/L unless shown otherwise.

Parameter Class C Fecal coliform (GM = geometric mean)

GM<200a cfu/100 ml, <20% samples >400

Turbidity 50 NTU Dissolved oxygen 4.0 c, 5.0 d mg/L Dissolved gas saturation 110%e

Table 6. NC water quality standards and action levels. All units are µg/L unless shown otherwise.

Parameter Class C pH <6.0 and >9.0 s.u. Water temperature 32 oC Metals Arsenic (As) 50 Cadmium (Cd) 2.0 Chromium (Cr) 50 Copper (Cu) 7 b Iron (Fe) 1000 b Lead (Pb) 25 Manganese (Mn) -- Mercury (Hg) 0.012 Nickel (Ni) 88 Silver (Ag) 0.06 b Zinc (Zn) 50 b aGeometric mean is based on five consecutive samples taken during a 30-day period bAction level cThis is the standard for instantaneous readings. dDaily mean eTotal dissolved gas percent saturation

10

Figure 5. Simplified land use within the LWP area, based on National Land Cover Database 2001.

11

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Land Use/Land cover Land use data (percent area of each land use class for each monitoring site) from the National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001) data set are included in Appendix 1. A simplified version of land used data by subwatershed or monitoring location is shown in Figure 3. Due to the large number of original land use classes and minimal amount of acreage of certain classes, they were grouped into the six categories shown in the figure:

• Agriculture: Crops, Pasture/Hay • Developed, High Intensity: Developed

High Intensity, Developed Medium Intensity

• Developed, Low Intensity: Developed Low Intensity, Developed Open Space

• Forest: Evergreen Forest, Deciduous Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

• Herbaceous: Grassland/Herbaceous, Shrub/Scrub, Barren Land

• Water: Water

Cluster analysis delineated three major land use groupings (Figure 4). This emphasizes the stark differences in land uses within the LWP area. Group A was characterized by high percentages of Herbaceous and Water land use, and very low percentages of Developed (High and Low); Group B showed variable values for most categories, with generally moderate values for Agriculture and Herbaceous and moderate-high percentage of Forest; Group C had high percentages of Developed High and Developed Low, and low percentages for all other categories. The cluster analysis dendrogram is shown in Appendix 2. The Little Alamance watershed is almost entirely Developed (High Intensity, Medium Intensity, Low Intensity, and Open Space), whereas the Tickle, Travis, and East of Haw watersheds are largely Pasture and Forested (Deciduous and Evergreen). The Dry Cr. watershed is intermediate between these two extremes.

Proportion (%) of watershed/subwatershed

0 20 40 60 80 100

20 Bowden Br at Hanford Rd (SR 2304)19 L Alamance Cr at Rogers Rd. (SR 2309)

18 L Alamance Cr at I-85 Frontage Rd (SR 1398)17 L Alamance Cr at NC 54 (Tucker St.)

16 L Alamance Cr at Mebane St (SR 1363)15 Willowbrook Cr (aka "Brown Br") at Mebane St (SR 1363)

14 UT to Willowbrook (aka "Brown Br") Cr at Kime St;13 Dry Cr at Durham St (SR 1529)

12 Tickle Cr at Elon-Ossipee Rd (SR 1504)11 Tickle Cr at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (SR 1500)

10 East UT Travis Cr at Elon-Ossipee Rd (SR 1504)09 West UT Travis Cr at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (SR 1500)

08 Travis Cr at NC 8707 Travis Cr at Elon-Ossipee Rd (SR 1504)

06 Travis Cr at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (SR 1500)05 Travis Cr at County Farm Rd (SR 2741)04 UT Haw R at Greenwood Dr (SR 1597)

03 West Trib UT Haw R at Mansfield Rd (SR 1596)02 East Trib UT Haw R above Greenwood Dr (SR 1597)

01 Basin Cr at Basin Creek Rd (SR 1594)

Total Developed High Total Developed Low Total Forest Total Agriculture Total Herbaceous Water

LanduseLocation

East of Haw R.

Trav

is/T

ickl

e

Dry

LittleAlamance

Figure 6. Land use categories for monitoring site watersheds.

12

Figure 4. Land use categories for monitoring site watersheds. Areas in white were not part of the LWP area.

Impacts of Drought Conditions During the 2006-2007 LATT sampling period, drought across the state may have seriously impacted conditions in the LATT LWP area watersheds through its effects on both surface and subsurface water flow. Figure 5 shows that stream flow at the nearest USGS gage (Reedy Fork) was substantially reduced during 2007. WAT personnel also noted this in the field at LATT sites during the course of this project. A major issue with drought impacts on stream flow is the fact that headwater streams are fed largely by subsurface flow (i.e., groundwater). The depth to groundwater is depressed during periods of extended drought, as shown in Figure 6 for the USGS groundwater monitoring station near Mocksville. During extended periods of severe drought, springs feeding headwater streams may stop flowing entirely. In this case, flow occurs only as the result of runoff following substantial precipitation, and flow ceases between rainfall events. Depths to groundwater at the Mocksville monitoring station were > 1 ft. lower than “normal” on several occasions during this study. This would have reduced or even eliminated flow from springs in headwater reaches of LATT streams. Severe drought occurring during the spring and early summer of 2006 and summer of 2007 resulted in repeated periods of low flow and/or no flow in LATT streams. Normally perennial tributaries and headwater areas either were totally dry or had no flow on multiple occasions. The early onset of the 2006 drought may have had significant impact on the development of the benthic organisms that normally live in the LATT streams. Low flow during the summer and fall of 2007 also may have impacted water quality at LATT sites. The specific impacts of low flow on the biota and water chemistry in LATT cannot be ascertained without additional studies under more normal rainfall conditions. However, there are a number of impacts that must be considered as having possibly influenced the outcome of the LATT water quality evaluations. Consequently,

any conclusions regarding LATT water quality during the 2006-2007 sampling period must be accepted with caution. Possible influential impacts of extended drought on LATT water quality and biota include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

• Low flow causes pooling/stagnation conditions in stream reaches that normally would be flowing

• Low flow may result in low DO and higher than normal water temperatures

• Reduced flow can facilitate development of filamentous algal growths in pooled areas where flow normally would create sufficient streambed scouring that such growths could not establish

• Abnormal growths and oscillations of filamentous algal populations may cause unusual fluctuations in dissolved oxygen (abnormally low dissolved oxygen as well as supersaturated conditions) and pH

• Low flow/no flow conditions may favor benthic macroinvertebrate populations that are 1) multivoltine (have multiple generations each year); 2) species which are very tolerant of environmental extremes; and 3) those species that burrow into the streambed sufficiently deep that they are able to survive

• Some benthic macroinvertebrates may be eliminated totally from a stream, particularly when the drought and lack of flow occurred at critical points in their life cycles; recovery of these lost populations may take an entire season of normal precipitation and flow or longer

• Stresses from naturally-occurring environmental extremes also may predispose some benthic macroinvertebrate species to be more susceptible to pollutants

• In terms of water chemistry, drought sometimes can lead to increased conductivity or concentrating of pollutants

14

Year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Dai

ly d

isch

arge

(cfs

)

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Daily mean dischargeDate vs Daily Mean (10/1/1998 to 9/30/2006)

2002 Drought 2007 Drought

Figure 6. Daily stream flow at USGS gage at Reedy Fork, 1995-2007.

Figure 5. Depth to groundwater at USGS gage near Mocksville, NC, 1995 through 2007.

15

Comparison of Fecal Coliform, Water Chemistry, and Field Measurements Among Sampling Stations This section summarizes water quality on a site-by-site basis. Supporting figures show data only for baseflow. Additional data (including stormflow data) and summary statistics for each site are presented in Appendix 3. Fecal coliform Fecal coliform counts during base flow varied widely from site to site (Figure 7A). The lowest counts occurred consistently at site 12 (Tickle Cr. at SR 1504). Highest counts (exceeding the 400 cfu/100 ml reference level) occurred in site 1 (Basin Cr.), sites 15 and 14 (Willowbrook Cr. and a UT to Willowbrook Cr.), which are tributaries to Little Alamance Cr. (LA), and at site 16 (LA at Mebane St.). The single storm sample in which fecal coliforms were measured (site 19, LA at Rogers Rd.) also exceeded the reference level. All of these sites are urban, except for Basin Cr. High fecal coliforms in the three LA watershed sites most likely indicate either sewer line leakage and/or the presence of considerable numbers of domestic pets and/or wildlife (raccoons, etc.). Coliform counts in Basin Cr. also were somewhat higher on the average than those in the other rural watersheds, which suggest the possibility of livestock in the Cr. and/or septic system failures. Turbidity and suspended solids Turbidity. Turbidity measures the scattering of light and is a good surrogate indicator of the relative load of suspended particulates in the water column. Turbidity varied substantially among watersheds and was generally somewhat higher in the rural Creeks than in LA and its tributaries (Figure 7B). Basin Cr. had the highest turbidity recorded during baseflow and also the widest range of turbidities of the rural sites. Lowest turbidities occurred in the Little Alamance Cr. system, particularly in the headwater locations (Willowbrook Cr. and its UT), which had the lowest readings recorded. The highest turbidity occurred in a single

stormflow sample collected at site 19 (LA at Rogers Rd). None of the turbidity measurements exceeded the 50 NTU standard. Suspended Solids. Suspended solids in the water column are composed of two fractions: fixed and volatile. Fixed solids represent suspended inorganic materials (e.g., soil particles), and the volatile fraction represents organic materials. There was no discernible pattern for TSS-fixed during baseflow, although highest concentrations occurred in a rural watershed (Basin Cr.) and the lowest occurred in Bowden Br., which originates in an urban area and then becomes rural. Stormflow measurements were elevated in all cases over baseflow at the same sites and reflect the higher soil particulate loading during storm events. There was no pattern for TSS-volatile concentrations during baseflow, and about half of the samples collected were below the detection limit. Basin Cr. and the UT to Willowbrook Cr. had the highest baseflow concentrations. Stormflow concentrations were elevated somewhat on three occasions, but were only slightly higher than baseflow concentrations. Water chemistry Toxic Metals. Analytical results for several toxic metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, and silver) all were below the PQL and will not be discussed further. Three other toxic metals (copper, lead, and zinc) were found on one or more occasions in urban and/or rural watersheds (see Appendix 3). Copper concentrations generally were below the PQL (detection limit). All sites in which copper was measurable during baseflow occurred within Little Alamance Cr. No copper concentrations exceeded the 7µg/L AL during baseflow, but one measurement (LA at Rogers Rd. -site 19) was at the reference level. Copper was detected in all but two stormflow samples. All three total copper readings and the single dissolved copper

16

reading during stormflow at Little Alamance Cr. exceeded the 7 µg/L AL. Lead occurred above the detection limit in only one instance, a stormflow sample at Willowbrook Cr. (data not shown). This may have originated from runoff from an old city vehicle maintenance facility or possibly from a landfill in the subwatershed. Zinc was detected in only four baseflow samples but was found in all but two stormflow samples. A single sample (site 15 – Willowbrook Cr.) exceeded the 50µg/L AL, and may also have originated from the same source as the lead at that site (see above). Other metals. Aluminum, iron, and manganese are common components of the soil in the piedmont and usually occur in baseflow and stormflow samples associated with suspended soil particles. In the LATT watersheds, concentrations of all three of these metals were higher in the rural watersheds than in urban watersheds. Aluminum and especially iron are indicators of soil erosion in the NC piedmont. Concentrations of aluminum and iron were higher during stormflow than during baseflow in the rural watersheds. In most cases, none of these metals is of toxicological importance. All data for these metals can be found in Appendix 3. Calcium and magnesium concentrations during baseflow both were higher in the urban watersheds than in rural ones. Neither of these metals is of toxicological importance, but both may be indicators either of geological conditions differences or the high level of pavement in the urban areas. Substantial reduction of both metals in the urban areas during stormflow suggests dilution during rapid runoff from pavement. There was no pattern for potassium either during baseflow or stormflow. All data for these metals can be found in Appendix 3. Sodium is abundant in human urine and is of particular interest as an indicator of raw sewage contamination. Sodium concentrations during baseflow were lowest in the rural watersheds, but were elevated in the urban areas. The

highest sodium concentration (22.5 mg/L) occurred in the UT to Willowbrook Cr, and the second highest concentrations (16 mg/L) occurred just downstream in Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. These elevated sodium concentrations suggest raw sewage contamination, very likely resulting from a leaking sewer line. This is a concern that warrants further investigation. Details of the data for sodium are shown in Appendix 3. Nutrients. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are of particular concern in the LATT watersheds as the entire LWP area is designated as NSW (nutrient sensitive waters). Elevated nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations can indicate pollution from both nonpoint (e.g., agricultural runoff) and point (sewage effluents or leaking sewers) sources in the watershed. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations varied widely among watersheds, and only a few trends were apparent. Details for nutrients in the LATT watersheds during baseflow are shown in Figure 8. Additional details, including data for stormflow, are shown in Appendix 3. Ammonia nitrogen, NH3, (Figure 8A) was below PQL for nearly half of the samples collected, including two stormflow samples (Appendix 3). Basin Cr. had ammonia nitrogen concentrations that were much higher than in the other EH watershed (site 4 – UT to the Haw R.) as well as the other rural watersheds, except Travis Cr. at SR 1500. The highest baseflow ammonia nitrogen concentrations occurred consistently at site 16 (LA at Mebane St.) and, on one occasion, exceeded 1 mg/L. Elevated ammonia nitrogen at site 16 raises concern about sewage leakage somewhere upstream from this location. There was no distinct pattern for ammonia nitrogen during stormflow except that two samples for site 19 (LA at Rogers Rd.) were much higher than during baseflow (details in Appendix 3). There was no noticeable trend for NO2 + NO3 nitrogen during either baseflow or stormflow at any locations (Figure 8B). Most NO2 + NO3 nitrogen concentrations fell within the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L across all sampling sites, including stormflow.

17

Figure 7. A. Fecal coliforms and B. turbidity measurements for baseflow by station. The dashed red line represents the NC water quality standard for fecal coliforms. The solid orange line is the grand median baseflow value for turbidity over all sites. Box plots show the median, upper 75th percentile, and lower 25th percentiles for each station. Stations with fewer than three measurements were excluded from this plot.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is a measure of the combined organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen fractions. The comparison of TKN (Figure 8C) with total ammonia nitrogen concentrations (Figure 8A) reveals an identical pattern, except that TKN is approximately 10-fold higher on a site-by-site basis as ammonia nitrogen. Site 16 (LA at Mebane St.) had the highest TKN observed during this project. Elevated phosphorus concentrations are indicators primarily of fertilizer runoff, runoff from livestock operations, or sewage contamination. There was no clear pattern of phosphorus during baseflow (Figure 8D). Among the rural watersheds, Basin Cr. (site 1)

consistently had the highest phosphorus concentrations. This probably is the result of the livestock operations in the headwater area of the creek. The widest variation as well as the highest single phosphorus measurement (0.66 mg/L) occurred in Willowbrook Cr. Phosphorus also was elevated in the UT to Willowbrook Cr. (see Appendix 3). Stormflow values, with one exception, were higher than baseflow (Appendix 3). The highest stormflow phosphorus concentration also occurred in Willowbrook Cr. Elevated phosphorus in the rural watersheds during stormflow may be due to agricultural runoff or suspended soil particulates. The

Feca

l Col

iform

(cfu

/100

ml)

10

100

1000

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

10

20

30

NC standard = 400 cfu/100 m l

Grand Median = 8.2 NTU

1-B

asin

Cr

at S

R 1

594

4-U

T H

aw R

at S

R 1

597

5-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R 2

741

6-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R15

00

15-W

illow

broo

k C

rat

Meb

ane

St.

16-L

Ala

man

ce

Cr a

t Meb

ane

sT

19-L

Ala

man

ceC

r at R

oger

s R

d

20-B

owde

n B

rat

SR

230

4

7-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R 1

504

12-T

iclk

e C

rat

SR

150

4

13-D

ry C

rat

SR

152

9

A

B

18

Figure 8. Nutrients for baseflow by station. A. Ammonia nitrogen; B. Nitrite + Nitrate nitrogen; C. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen; D. Phosphorus. There currently are no NC standards for nutrients. Solid orange lines are the grand median values over all sites. Box plots show the median, upper 75th percentile, and lower 25th percentiles for each station. Stations with fewer than three measurements were excluded from this plot.

NH

3 (m

g/L)

0.1

1

NO

2 +

NO

3 (m

g/L)

0.1

1

TKN

(mg/

L)

0.5

1.0

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

0.05

0.10

0.15

Grand Median = 0.05 mg/L

Grand Median = 0.35 mg/L

Grand Median =0.36 mg/L

GrandMedian =0.02 mg/L

1-B

asin

Cr

at S

R 1

594

4-U

T H

aw R

at S

R 1

597

5-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R 2

741

6-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R15

00

15-W

illow

broo

k C

rat

Meb

ane

St.

16-L

Ala

man

ce

Cr a

t Meb

ane

sT

19-L

Ala

man

ceC

r at R

oger

s R

d

20-B

owde

n B

rat

SR

230

4

7-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R 1

504

12-T

iclk

e C

rat

SR

150

4

13-D

ry C

rat

SR

152

9

A

D

C

B

19

combination of high concentrations of ammonia nitrogen, phosphorus, and sodium (see previous discussion) further supports the hypothesis of possible sewage leakage as a problem in Willowbrook Cr. and its UT. This needs to be investigated further. Field Measurements Field measurements include specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentration, percent oxygen saturation, and pH. Data for baseflow conditions are shown in Figure 9. Additional details, including data for stormflow, are shown in Appendix 3. Specific conductance. Specific conductance is a quick, easy, and inexpensive measurement that reflects the total amount of dissolved ionic compounds in the water column. It is useful to help locate potential problems areas without conducting expensive chemical analyses. Lowest specific conductance readings occurred consistently within the rural sites (Figure 9A). The average specific conductance was slightly higher in Dry Cr. than in the rural watersheds. Dry Cr. originates in an urban area and then flows through a rural area to its confluence with the Haw R. Specific conductance in urban locations was substantially higher than the grand median for all LATT watersheds. The highest specific conductance readings occurred in the headwater tributaries of LA Cr. (Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. and its UT) and then decreased downstream. This would indicate that substantial dissolved pollutants were coming from the heavily urban area of downtown Burlington and then were being diluted further downstream. Conductivities during stormflow were consistently lower due to dilution (Appendix 3). The differences between stormflow and baseflow were most dramatic in the urban areas, due to the flashiness of water flow and much greater dilution. Dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured in two ways in the LATT watersheds: DO concentration and percent DO saturation. The DO concentration measures the absolute

amount of oxygen present in the water column that is available for use in respiration by aquatic organisms. Percent DO saturation indicates the relative amount of DO present in the water compared with the amount that normally can remain dissolved in the water at a given temperature. Low percent oxygen saturation may indicate lack of photosynthesis due either to the absence of algae or insufficient sunlight penetration into the stream. Lack of flow also is a major cause of low dissolved oxygen in streams. Very high sunlight and excessively dense algal blooms may result in production of more oxygen than the water normally can hold in solution at a given temperature, a condition known as “supersaturation”. This excess oxygen will bubble off into the atmosphere and not be available for respiration at night. Supersaturated conditions often accompany nutrient enrichment and are indicators of poor stream water quality. The standard for total dissolved gas percent saturation is 110%. Extremes of dissolved gas saturation are detrimental to fishes (Crunkilton et al. 1980, Lutz 1995, Ryan et al. 2000) and some aquatic invertebrates (Supplee and Lightner 1976, Montgomery and Fickeisen 1979, Brisson 1985). Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the LATT watersheds showed no specific pattern and varied widely both within and among individual watersheds (Figure 9B). The highest DO concentrations occurred in Willowbrook Cr. and were the result of dense algal blooms noted during sampling at that time. The DO saturation (Figure 9C) at this site exceeded the 110 % standard for dissolved gases on four occasions, and was well above 105 % in three other cases. The lowest individual DO measurement, the lowest average DO concentrations for all sites sampled, and the lowest DO % saturations all occurred at Little Alamance Cr. at Mebane St. Dissolved oxygen concentrations fell below the 4.0 mg/L minimum standard for instantaneous measurement on three occasions at this same site and also once each in LA Cr. at Rogers Rd. and one rural site, Tickle Cr. at SR 1504 (site 12). These exceptionally low DO concentrations may

20

be partly artifacts of high air temperatures, extreme drought, and, especially, very low flow. Dissolved oxygen at the other sites consistently remained above the established criteria, in spite of low flows and high temperatures and is not a concern for maintenance of aquatic life. Additional details including data for stormflow conditions are in Appendix 3. pH. All pH measurements for baseflow (Figure 9D) and stormflow (Appendix 3) fell within the acceptable ranges, with the exception of a single stormflow measurement in Travis Cr. at SR 1504. The two highest readings occurred in Dry Cr. and Willowbrook Cr. and probably reflect the influence of dense algal blooms, which increase the pH rapidly during daylight hours by removal of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Stormflow pH readings (Appendix 3) were fairly low, particularly in the urban areas. This reflects the impact of dilution by rainfall and greater runoff in the urban areas due to a much higher percentage of imperviousness surfaces. Water temperature. There was no discernible pattern for water temperatures across all watersheds (data not shown). Water temperature did not exceed the 32o C standard on any occasion at any site.

Exceedences of Water Quality Standards and Action Levels Water quality standards and action levels were exceeded during this study a total of 59 occasions, 45 times during baseflow and 14 times during stormflow (Table4). Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. had the greatest number of exceedences: a total of 13, including one each for copper, iron, lead, and zinc, all during stormflow. The most commonly occurring exceedences were the AL for iron (24) and the standards for fecal coliform (12) and dissolved gas (oxygen) saturation (11). Notably, the fecal coliform standard was exceeded 11 times during baseflow, but only once during stormflow. On all but two instances, both during baseflow at Basin Cr., exceedences of the fecal coliform standard occurred in urban watersheds. About 75% of the exceedences of the AL for iron occurred in rural watersheds. Four of five exceedences of dissolved oxygen concentration occurred in urban watersheds, including 3 occurrences in Little Alamance Cr. at Mebane St. Five of 11 exceedences of the dissolved gas saturation standard (>110%) occurred in Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. All exceedences of the AL for copper occurred in urban watersheds during stormflow.

21

Figure 9. Field measurements for baseflow by station. A. Specific conductance; B. Dissolved oxygen concentration; C. Percent oxygen saturation; D. pH. The solid orange line for specific conductance is the grand median value over all sites. Dashed red lines represent NC water quality standards. Box plots show the median, upper 75th percentile, and lower 25th percentiles for each station. Stations having fewer than two measurements were excluded from this plot.

Spec

ific

Con

duct

ance

(uS/

cm)

100

150

200

250O

xyge

n Sa

tura

tion

(%)

50

100

150

200

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n (m

g/L)

5

10

15

pH

6

7

8

9

NC standard instantaneous DO = 4.0 mg/L

Grand Median = 162 uS/cm

NC standard for maximum dissolved gases saturation = 110%

NC standard upper limit for pH = 9.0

NC standard lower limit for pH = 6.0

1-B

asin

Cr

at S

R 1

594

4-U

T H

aw R

at S

R 1

597

5-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R 2

741

6-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R15

00

15-W

illow

broo

k C

rat

Meb

ane

St.

16-L

Ala

man

ce

Cr a

t Meb

ane

sT

19-L

Ala

man

ceC

r at R

oger

s R

d

20-B

owde

n B

rat

SR

230

4

7-Tr

avis

Cr

at S

R 1

504

12-T

iclk

e C

rat

SR

150

4

13-D

ry C

rat

SR

152

9

A

B

C

D

Table 7. Number of exceedences of NC water quality standards or action levels (AL) by sampling location.

Analysis1 01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

T

otal

Exc

eede

nces

Copper - 7 ug/L, AL . . . . . . . . 1 (4) 1 (4) . 2 (7) .

4

Dissolved oxygen concentration - 4 mg/L2 . . . . . 1 (7) . . . 3 (8) . 1 (10) .

5

Dissolved oxygen saturation - 110%3 1 (6) . . . 1 (8) 1 (7) 2 (6) . 5 (8) . . . 1 (5)

11

Fecal coliform - 400 cfu/100 ml 2 (7) . . . . . . 2 (2) 4 (8) 1 (8) 1 (1) 1 (10) 1 (6)

12

Iron - 1000 mg/L, AL 2 (3) 1, 1 (5) 2 (2) 2 (2) 3, 2 (8) 4, 1 (5) 1 (2) . 1 (4) 2 (4) 1 (1) 1 (7) .

24

Lead - 25 ug/L . . . . . . . . 1 (4) . . . .

1

pH - < 6.0 or > 9.0 . . . . 1 (9) . . . . . . . .

1

Zinc - 50 ug/L, AL . . . . . . . . 1 (4) . . . .

1

Total Exceedences by Site 5 2 2 2 7 7 3 2 13 7 2 5 2

59 1Numbers beside each specific analysis are the NC water quality standards, except that those designated “AL” represent action levels. The number of exceedences for each site is shown in black for baseflow and in underlined bold red for stormflow. The total number of analyses for each site is shown in parentheses if that site had one or more exceedences. 2Standard for instantaneous dissolved oxygen measurement. 3This standard is for percent saturation of all dissolved gases, including dissolved oxygen saturation.

Habitat Assessment Habitat assessments are conducted to evaluate the suitability of conditions within a stream to support aquatic life. The assessment (for the piedmont and mountain regions) consists of eight individual metrics which collectively evaluate the stream channel and its stability, the relative abundance of habitat (riffles, pools, root mats, etc.) that is colonizable by aquatic invertebrates and fish, and characteristics of the riparian zone (terrestrial area adjacent to the stream) that influence physical and chemical conditions within the stream. A reach of 100 to 200 m is evaluated visually during the habitat assessment process. An individual score is assigned to each metric, and a total score (maximum of 100 points) is calculated. Habitat assessments can help explain changes over time within the stream community and provide insight on the causes of biological impairment, including presence or absence of indicator species. Habitat assessments also may suggest the presence of larger-scale, long-term problems occurring within a watershed upstream of the reach assessed. Stream habitat scores varied substantially within both the urban and rural watersheds. Total scores (Figure 10) ranged from 25 to 93 of a possible 100 points. The individual habitat metric most commonly contributing to reduced total scores in both urban and rural watersheds was Riffle Habitats. Pool Variety was the second most common contributor to reduced total scores in the rural watersheds (EH and TT), while Riparian Vegetative Zone Width (i.e., the width and continuity of the riparian buffer) was the second most common factor in reduced total scores in the urban watersheds (LA and Dry Cr.). The lack of good riparian buffer zones is a major issue in urban areas where land is at a premium as well as in some rural settings where landowners often plant field crops to the edge of the stream and leave pastures unfenced along stream banks to allow livestock access for water. The absence of riparian buffers exacerbates other habitat problems including bank failure, severe erosion, burial of the bottom substrate, loss of riffle-pool sequences, and excessive light penetration and leads to declines in the

respective metrics used to assess these habitat features. The highest total score (93) occurred at site 20 Bowden Br. at SR 2304 (Hanford Rd.). Bowden Br. originates in the urban area of southeastern Burlington and northwestern Graham and then flows through a more rural area in which the evaluated reach was located. Another high total score (92) occurred at site 3 West Trib. UT Haw R. at Mansfield Rd., which is entirely rural and heavily forested. Only five other sites scored 70 or higher, including one urban site (UT to Willowbrook Cr. at Kime St.) and four rural sites. Factors in common for all high-scoring sites were high individual metric scores for “In-Stream Habitat”, “Bottom Substrate”, “Bank Stability and Vegetation”, and “Light Penetration”. Most of the high-scoring sites also had fairly high scores for most other metrics. The lowest total scores occurred in two reaches in rural watersheds, site 11 Tickle Cr. at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd. (Figure 11) and site 4 UT to the Haw R. at SR 1597 (Greenwood Dr.). Site 11 was the worst of all, with a total score of only 25. This site scored low for all of the individual metrics. Pools and riffles were entirely absent, and the site appeared to have been recently dredged with a backhoe (marks on the bank), although there was no spoil pile at the site. Site 4 was evaluated on two occasions by WAT and received scores of 47 and 49; these low scores were largely the result of low individual metric scores for Pool Variety and Riffle Habitats because of impounding of the reach by two beaver dams. One of the poorest sites for water quality, Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. (site 15) had an intermediate score of 56 because of channelization and the total lack of a riparian vegetative buffer and the concomitant lack of any shading of the stream (Figure 12). This site would have scored substantially lower if the bank erosion had been active, rather than partially stabilized by herbaceous vegetation and rip rap along the bank slopes. From the photograph (Figure 12), it is apparent that herbicide treatments had been used recently on the banks. Consequently, it is quite likely

TotalScore

(0 to 100)

50 100

East

of H

aw R

.Tr

avis

Tick

le

Dry Cr

Littl

e Al

aman

ce

Cha

nnel

Mod

ifica

tion

(0 to

5)

5

Location

20 Bowden Br at SR 2304 (WAT)19 Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 (BAU)

18 Little Alamance Cr I-85 Frontage Rd (BAU)17 Little Alamance Creek at NC 54 (BAU)

16 L Alamance Cr at Mebane St (WAT)15 Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St (WAT)

14 UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St (WAT)13 Dry Creek at SR 1529 (BAU)

12 Tickle Creek at Elon-Ossipee Rd (WAT)12 Tickle Creek at Elon-Ossipee Rd (BAU)

11 Tickle Creek at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd (WAT)10 East UT Travis Creek at SR 1504 (WAT)

09 West UT Travis Creek at SR 1500 (WAT)08 Travis Creek at NC 87 (BAU)

07 Travis Creek at SR 1504 (BAU)06 Travis Cr at SR 1500 (WAT)05 Travis Cr at SR 2741 (WAT)

04b UT Haw River at SR 1597 (WAT)04a UT Haw River at SR 1597 (WAT)

03 West Trib UT Haw River at Mansfield Rd (WAT)02 East Trib UT Haw River above SR 1597 (WAT)

01 Basin Creek at SR 1594 (BAU)

Inst

ream

H

abita

t (0

to 2

0)

10 20

Botto

mSu

bstra

te (0

to 1

5)5 1015

Pool

Var

iety

(0 to

10)

5 10

Riff

leH

abita

ts(0

to 1

4)

5 1015

Bank

Sta

bililt

yan

d ve

geta

tion

(0 to

15)

5 1015

Ligh

t Pe

netra

tion

(0 to

10)

5 10

Rip

aria

n ve

geta

tive

zone

wid

th(0

to 1

0)

5 10

936763

555356

786262

8225

83696874

5859

4749

9282

60

Figure 10. Individual metrics and total habitat scores from stream habitat assessments. Numbers at the far left of each location name indicate the site number. Sites 1-12 are rural. Sites 13 and 20 originate in an urban area and then flow through a rural area. Sites 14-19 are entirely or largely urban. Numbers at the bottom of each graph indicate the total possible scores for each of the individual metrics. Total score is the sum of all eight individual metric scores. (Data were collected by BAU and WAT personnel during 2006-2007.)

Figure 11. Tickle Cr. at Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (site 11). Note the extreme sedimentation, erosion, and herbicide-treated vegetation on the bank.

Figure 12. Willowbrook Cr. at Mebane St. (site 15). Note the channelization and the lack of a vegetative riparian buffer.

that bank erosion will become active again and that the habitat total score at this location will decline. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessments Living organisms are exposed constantly to ambient environmental conditions in streams. The integrated influences of changing physical and chemical conditions in the stream are reflected more consistently by the composition of the aquatic community and the presence and relative abundances of indicator species than by

the results of chemical analyses and physical habitat evaluations within a stream segment. Some chemical analyses are not conducted for all sites or are not done regularly. The impacts of short-term events may be missed entirely. This results in poor correlations between biological indicators and physicochemical indicators of stream water quality. The lack of any clear relationships between biological indicators and physicochemical indicators in the LATT study is quite obvious (Figure 13). The following discussion evaluates water quality throughout the LATT watersheds on the basis of the relative abundances of specific indicator species. The most impacted stream of those sampled for benthos in the LATT watershed is Little Alamance Cr. as it drains southern Burlington. Poor bioclassifications were assigned to all three sites where collections were made (site 17 - LA at NC 54; site 18 - LA at I-85 Frontage Rd.; and site 19 - LA at Rogers Rd., SR 2309). Water quality was worst at the upstream sites in Burlington. However some recovery can be seen downstream at site 19 (LA at Rogers Rd.) with the presence of two normally abundant, moderately intolerant taxa (the caddisfly Chimarra, and the mayfly Stenonema modestum) that were absent or rare at the upstream sites. All of these sites seemed to have low flow and low dissolved oxygen as major components of their stress, evidenced by the abundance of the damselfly Argia, the isopod Asellus (Caecidotea) and the midge Chironomus. The presence of mosquito larvae (Anopheles) and the snail Physella at SR 2309 suggests that lack of flow is still a problem here, even though other water quality impacts have ameliorated a bit. The high number of common or abundant scrapers (8 of 36 total taxa) present at NC 54 is a reflection of the low canopy cover (10%) and, possibly, nutrient sources that stimulate the growth of periphyton (attached algae) that is supporting the scrapers. The total lack of mayflies at I-85 suggests that at least part of the problems in the LA watershed could be heavy metals, to which mayflies are particularly susceptible. Low flow is a major issue throughout the watershed, however, and

26

potentially toxic heavy metals were elevated only on a few occasions at a very few locations. The best water quality of the sites sampled in the LATT LWP area appears to be in a small, unnamed tributary to the Haw R. (site 4, UT to Haw R.). Even though the watershed was small (2.3 square miles mainstem, 1.35 square miles E. tributary, and 0.66 square miles W. tributary), a relatively large number of intolerant taxa were collected. The biotic indices (BI) for these sites were 5.82, 5.25 and 4.97 respectively. While both tributaries had good habitat and the West tributary had good flow, the mainstem had very little flow and had a substrate that was mostly sand. The presence of freshwater sponge (Spongilla) at the mainstem site indicated problems with low oxygen as well. The presence of empty cases of the intolerant caddisflies Neophylax and Triaenodes suggested that water quality here was usually better than what it was when sampled; this appears to be the result of the low flow at the end of the summer when benthic macroinvertebrates were collected here. Both of these species were later found to be common or abundant upstream in both tributaries. Tickle and Travis Creeks are the largest watersheds in the study area after Little Alamance Cr. All sites were rated Fair, indicating stressed conditions, but not as severely stressed as those in Little Alamance CR. Low flow/low oxygen tolerant species (Argia, Ischnura, Caenis, Chironomus etc) were Common or Abundant here as they were at all sites in this study. Taxa that can be indicators of nutrient enrichment (Limnodrilus, Simulium, Chironomus, Tanaytarsus sp2, Polypedilum convictum and Conchapelopia grp.) were also found at these sites. It may be inferred that the Travis Cr. watershed is the greater source for nutrients than Tickle Cr., since these species

were present in higher densities in Travis Cr. than in Tickle CR. Total nitrogen also was somewhat higher in Travis than in Tickle Cr. Four other small watersheds and subwatersheds < 3.3 square miles each also were sampled as part of this project: Dry Cr. (3.3 square miles), Basin Cr. (2.6 square miles), East UT Travis Cr (2 square miles) and West UT Travis Cr (1.8 square miles). The macroinvertebrate communities of all of these small watersheds suffered to some extent from low flow and the associated low oxygen. This was reflected in the abundance of low flow/low oxygen tolerant species (Argia, Physella, Asellus). The Biotic Indices (BI) of all sites (6.87, 7.26, 6.16 and 6.19, respectively) suggested the communities were impacted. The BI at Basin Cr. was the highest of these small streams (7.26), which suggested possible impacts beyond the stress of low flows. The low DO (1.6 mg/l) suggests severe nighttime oxygen consumption, possibly from algal growth due to elevated nutrients. This may have been the result of cattle usage upstream in this watershed. The midge Chironomus and the snail Physella, both indicators of chronically low oxygen levels, were Abundant and Common, respectively, at Basin Cr. and occurred in the highest densities of these species in the study. This site also had the highest diversity of predators that were either Common or Abundant in this study (7 species), which suggested that excess nutrients may be supporting a high level of primary productivity that, in turn, supports the consumers (mostly filter feeders and shredders/herbivores) that make up the predator’s food. Stream walks in this watershed may discover cows with access to the stream, since land use in the watershed is primarily agriculture (pasture).

27

Habitat

25 50 75100

BioticIndex1

6 8

East of Haw R.

Travis

Tickle

Dry

Little Alamance

SpecificConductance

(us/cm)

100 200

FecalBacteria

(GeoMean)

101 102 103

20 Bowden Br at SR 230419 Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309

18 Little Alamance Cr at I-85 Frontage Rd 17 Little Alamance Cr at NC 54

16 L Alamance Cr at Mebane St 15 W illowbrook Cr at Mebane St

14 UT to W illowbrook Cr at Kime St 13 Dry Creek at SR 1529

12 Tickle Creek at Elon-Ossipee Rd 11 Tickle Creek at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd

10 East UT Travis Creek at SR 1504 09 West UT Travis Creek at SR 1500

08 Travis Creek at NC 87 07 Travis Creek at SR 1504

06 Travis Cr at SR 150005 Travis Cr at SR 2741

04 UT Haw River at SR 1597 03 West Trib UT Haw River at Mansfield Rd

02 East Trib UT Haw River above SR 159701 Basin Creek at SR 1594

refe

renc

e le

vel

(200

col

s/10

0ml)

Total TaxaRichness

25 50 75

Total Nitrogen

(mg/L)

0.5 1.0

NOX

TKN

NH3 as N(mg/L)

0.0 0.2

TP(mg/L)

0.0 0.2

Median of all baseflow results

1BI Range 0 to 10

(lower scores =better water quality)

Benthos

Figure 13. Summary of significant water quality, benthic macroinvertebrate, and habitat data by site. The absence of a data bar opposite the name of a site within a column indicates this type of data was not collected at that site. Individual bars that are in the reddish zones for fecal bacteria and specific conductance are considered high (see text for details). Hatched bars for specific conductance represent one measurement taken during macrobenthos sampling; all others represent the median value. Hatched bars for benthos represent results from full-scale sampling method; all others represent results from Qual4 sampling method. Black portions of the bars for taxa richness represent EPT taxa richness.

28

CONCLUSIONS

• The Little Alamance-Travis-Tickle Cr. LWP area is degraded largely due to the effects of urbanization.

• Low flow due to the extreme drought has had a major impact on the biota of the entire area. • The primary watershed of concern is Little Alamance Cr., particularly its headwater tributaries.

This watershed will require considerable attention in the near future to prevent further degradation and to restore water quality and improve conditions for aquatic organisms.

• The Travis-Tickle Cr. watershed currently is less problematic than the Little Alamance Cr. watershed., but shows signs of degradation. Development in this area very likely will lead to further stream degradation and more water quality issues unless some effort is made to ameliorate current problem areas and to prevent degradation at other sites. Most of the attention in this watershed needs to be directed toward issues of bank stability and maintaining the intactness of the riparian zone.

• Three small UTs east of the Haw R. currently are in fairly good condition but could change rapidly if these watersheds are developed. One watershed east of the Haw R., Basin Cr., has a nutrient problem due most likely to cattle access in its headwaters.

• The headwaters of Dry Cr. are urban, and development is progressing downstream toward the Haw R. Further degradation of this stream is expected unless an effort is made to preserve the riparian zone.

• Nutrients and fecal coliforms were an issue in Basin Cr. and were most likely the result of livestock operations in the headwaters.

29

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Little Alamance Cr., particularly its tributary Willowbrook Cr., would likely benefit from stormwater controls to help moderate the flashy hydrology and to reduce sediment and chemical pollutant inputs.

• Restoration is needed in the Willowbrook Cr. subwatershed to reduce downstream impacts on Little Alamance Cr.

• Particular attention needs to be directed to detecting and correcting the sources of high nutrients , heavy metals, and other pollutants in Willowbrook Cr. and just downstream below its confluence with Little Alamance Cr.

• Urbanization of Dry Cr. is moving downstream toward the Haw R. Installation of BMPs in critical areas and implementation of a watershed management plan will be important to prevent further degradation of this watershed.

• Further investigation also is needed to delineate the source of high nutrient conditions in Basin Cr. and to develop a management plan to ameliorate the problem. This very likely would be removal of cattle from the immediate proximity of the stream and some enhancements in the riparian zone.

• A small-scale restoration is needed on Tickle Cr. at Gibsonville-Ossipee Rd. to stabilize the stream banks, retard further degradation of this watershed, and to prevent bank erosion further downstream and the associated impacts of silt transport into Travis Cr. and, ultimately, the Haw R.

• The upper reaches (headwaters) of the Travis Cr. watershed in Guilford Co. would benefit from vegetation plantings to restore the riparian zone and retard bank erosion.

• An expanded public education/outreach effort is needed to gain local support for further remedial work to restore water quality throughout the entire LATT watershed.

30

LITERATURE CITED Boulanger, B. and N. P. Nikolaidis. 2003. Mobility and aquatic toxicity of copper in an urban watershed.

J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 39:325-336 Brisson, S. 1985. Gas-bubble disease observed in pink shrimps, Penaeus brasiliensis and Penaeus

paulensis. Aquaculture 47:97-99. Crunkilton, R.L., J.M. Czarnezki, and L. Trial. 1980. Severe gas bubble disease in a warmwater fishery

in the Midwestern United States. Trans. Amer. Fisheries Soc. 109:725-733. Lutz, D.S. 1995. Gas supersaturation and gas bubble trauma in fish downstream from a Midwestern

reservoir. Trans. Amer. Fisheries Soc. 124:423-436. Montgomery, J.C. and D.H. Fickeisen. 1979. Tolerance and buoyancy of aquatic insect larvae exposed

to gas supersaturated water. Environ. Entomol. 8: 655-658. NC DENR DWQ. 2003. Quality Assurance Manual for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality

Laboratory Section. Laboratory Section. Raleigh, NC. NC DENR DWQ. 2004. Basinwide Assessment Report Cape Fear R. Basin. Environmental Sciences

Section. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/CPF%202004%20Report%20Final.pdf

NC DENR DWQ. 2005. Cape Fear R. Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Planning Section. Raleigh, NC.

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm NC DENR DWQ. 2006a. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Planning Section. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006IR_FINAL_000.pdf http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm

NC DENR DWQ. 2006b. DRAFT Summary of Existing Water Quality Data for Little Alamance Cr.,

Travis Cr., Tickle CR. Guilford and Alamance Counties, North Carolina. NC Division of Water Quality. Watershed Assessment Team. September. Raleigh, NC. http://www.ptcog.org/eep/LATT%20Existing%20Data_09_19_2006.pdf

NC DENR DWQ. 2006c. Intensive Survey Unit Standard Operating Procedures Manual: Physical and

Chemical Monitoring. Version 1.3. Environmental Sciences Section, Intensive Survey Unit. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/documents/PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL%20SOP.pdf

NC DENR DWQ. 2006d. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

Environmental Sciences Section, BAU. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/BAUwww/benthossop.pdf

NC DENR DWQ. 2006f. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report

for Little Alamance, Tickle, Travis, Basin and Dry Creeks, Cape Fear R. Basin, Subbasins 2 and 3, Alamance County (memorandum). Environmental Sciences Section, Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). Raleigh, NC.

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/CPF 2004 Report Final.pdf

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006IR_FINAL_000.pdf

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm

http://www.ptcog.org/eep/LATT Existing Data_09_19_2006.pdf

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/documents/PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL SOP.pdf

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/BAUwww/benthossop.pdf

31

NC DENR DWQ. 2006g. Biological Sampling in Tickle/Travis Cr. watersheds, September 25, 2006.

WAT special study (memorandum). Wetlands and Stormwater Branch, Program Development Unit, Watershed Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.

NC DENR DWQ. 2007. Biological Sampling in Tickle/Travis Cr. watersheds, June 28, 2007. WAT

special study (memorandum). Wetlands and Stormwater Branch, Program Development Unit, Watershed Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.

NC Environmental Management Commission. 2007. Classifications and Water Quality Standards

Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of NC. 15A NC Administrative Code Section 2B .0200. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/documents/Redbook2007.pdf

Ryan, B.A., E.M. Dawley, and R.A. Nelson. 2000. Modeling the effects of supersaturated dissolved gas

on resident aquatic biota in the main-stem Snake and Columbia Rivers. N. Amer. J. Fisheries Manage. 20:192-204.

SAS Institute, Inc. 2007. JMP Statistical Discovery Software, Release 7. Cary, NC. http://www.jmp.com/ Supplee, V.C. and D.V. Lightner. 1976. Gas bubble disease due to oxygen supersaturation in raceway-

reared California brown shrimp. Prog. Fish-Cult. 38:158-159.

(All hyperlinks accessed November 30, 2007)

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/documents/Redbook2007.pdf

http://www.jmp.com/

32

APPENDIX 1 Land Use Within Delineated Watersheds and Subwatersheds

The table below shows the contribution of each category of land use (LU) within the drainages of each of the monitoring locations based on the National Land Use Database 2001 (NLCD 2001) data set. The top row shows the aggregated categories used to describe land use within the main text of the report. The second row shows the original categories as included in the original data source. Descriptions of the original LU categories are available at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.asp. Values shown are the percent of total area of the subwatershed; “-“ indicates the category was not present in that subwatershed.

Developed

High Developed

Low Forest Agriculture Herbaceous Water

Subw

ater

shed

Dev

elop

ed, H

igh

Inte

nsity

Dev

elop

ed, M

ed.

Inte

nsity

Dev

elop

ed, L

ow

Inte

nsity

Dev

elop

ed, O

pen

Spac

e

Dec

iduo

us F

ores

t

Ever

gree

n Fo

rest

Mix

ed F

ores

t

Emer

gent

Her

bace

ous

Wet

land

s

Woo

dy W

etla

nds

Cul

tivat

ed C

rops

Past

ure/

Hay

Gra

ssla

nd/ H

erba

ceou

s

Shru

b/ S

crub

Bar

ren

Land

Ope

n W

ater

1 - 0.1 3.6 3.6 23.6 6.7 1.1 0.1 0.2 2.3 47.0 7.7 2.6 0.2 1.2 2 - - 2.6 7.8 32.1 13.3 2.1 - - 2.1 35.5 2.6 1.7 - 0.2 3 - - 2.9 3.4 29.6 8.0 1.7 0.2 - 1.0 46.8 3.7 2.4 - 0.4 4 - - 11.2 11.3 33.4 7.7 - - - 2.0 31.6 2.9 - - - 5 - 0.6 2.4 4.5 41.0 5.5 2.0 - - 2.9 37.7 2.1 1.3 - 0.1 6 - 0.2 0.6 3.5 30.5 6.8 1.2 - 1.1 1.1 52.1 1.7 0.4 - 0.8 7 - - 1.9 4.9 28.9 8.8 1.1 - 0.8 1.3 39.6 8.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 8 - 0.5 5.6 9.8 31.6 4.6 1.0 - - 1.1 38.7 5.3 1.1 0.1 0.6 9 0.6 2.4 10.7 18.8 30.3 13 1.5 - 0.1 1.1 17.7 1.9 1.2 - 0.6

10 0.9 5.3 17.8 25.7 22.9 5.4 1.2 - - 1.1 16.9 1.7 0.9 - 0.1 11 - - 1.0 3.5 27.7 4.7 2.2 - 0.2 2.6 51.5 4.3 1.5 0.5 0.4 12 - 1.0 1.7 5.5 29.8 5.1 1.4 0.2 - 2.7 44.1 4.8 2.7 - 1.0 13 1.6 6.0 17.6 31.8 22.2 8.3 0.6 - 0.1 0.3 9.5 1.4 0.5 - 0.2 14 31.1 30.5 30.1 8.4 - - - - - - - - - - - 15 4.5 16.8 48.6 30.1 - - - - - - - - - - - 16 4.5 8.2 42.0 43.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 - <0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 17 10.9 26.2 35.3 17.8 7.6 - 0.6 - 0.2 - 1.0 - 0.5 - - 18 12.4 17.2 36.6 25.0 6.2 1.5 0.5 - 0.2 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 19 5.4 7.8 17.2 23.1 20.2 4.6 1.3 - - 0.3 13.0 6.3 0.5 <0.1 0.2 20 6.7 12.6 37.2 28.0 8.5 2.1 0.6 - - - 2.1 1.9 0.1 - -

http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.asp

33

APPENDIX 2

Dendrogram of Land Use Groupings from Cluster Analysis

1

2

345

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

1415161718

19

20

Tota

l Dev

elop

ed H

igh

Tota

l Dev

elop

ed L

ow

Tota

l For

est

Tota

l Agr

icul

ture

Tota

l Her

bace

ous

Wat

er

34

APPENDIX 3

Water Quality Summary Graphs and Tables

Dissolved Oxygen concentration (mg/L)

0

5

10

15

20

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name

35

Dissolved Oxygen concentration (mg/L; Water Quality Standard = 4.0 mg/L1) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Dissolved oxygen concentration . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 6 . . 9.5 5.0 5.0 10.6 12.3 12.3 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 5 . . 11.0 7.2 7.2 11.6 13.2 13.2 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 6 . . 10.8 6.5 6.5 11.3 14.1 14.1 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 7 . 3 6.4 0.9 0.9 5.6 12.1 12.1 . 6.1 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 8 . 1 8.6 3.1 3.1 8.3 13.8 13.8 9.8 . 6.3 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 6 . 1 9.6 3.8 3.8 10.3 13.4 13.4 . 6.9 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 4 . . 9.4 7.7 7.7 9.1 11.8 11.8 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 6 . . 9.9 6.6 6.6 10.3 13.0 13.0 9.8 7.5 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 4 . . 10.4 8.9 8.9 10.4 11.8 11.8 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 7.3 5.0 5.0 7.3 10.3 10.3 . 6.6 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 6.2 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.5 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 7 . 14.0 11.6 11.6 12.7 17.9 17.9 . 7.5 .

1 Water quality standard for minimum instantaneous values of not less than 4.0 mg/L. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (3) (b)

36

Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%)

0

50

100

150

200

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_S

R27

41

06_T

ravi

s_S

R15

00

07_T

ravi

s_S

R15

04

12_T

ickl

e_S

R15

04

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_S

R23

04

Location_Short_Name

37

Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Dissolved oxygen saturation . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 6 . 1 93 58 58 97 117 117 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 5 . 1 99 76 76 96 122 122 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 6 . 2 103 75 75 103 142 142 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 7 . . 60 11 11 58 100 100 . 68 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 58 58 58 58 58 58 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 8 . . 81 37 37 81 110 110 93 . 71 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 6 . 1 92 45 45 98 114 114 . 74 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 4 . . 88 73 73 89 99 99 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 6 . 1 93 66 66 94 111 111 90 80 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 4 . . 95 86 86 94 105 105 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 78 58 58 78 103 103 . 70 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 72 70 70 72 74 74 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 7 . 5 148 104 104 135 199 199 . 82 .

38

pH (s.u.; Water Quality Standard(s) 6.0 s.u. and 9.0 s.u.1)

5

6

7

8

9

10

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name

39

pH (s.u.; Water Quality Standard(s) 6.0 s.u. and 9.0 s.u.1) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10

Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

pH . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 7.2 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.5 7.5 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 7.3 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.7 7.7 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 7.5 7.2 7.2 7.4 8.5 8.5 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 7.1 6.7 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.5 . 6.1 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 . . 6.9 6.4 6.4 6.8 7.7 7.7 6.5 . 6.4 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 7.1 6.3 6.3 7.2 7.6 7.6 . 7.0 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 7.2 6.7 6.7 7.2 7.4 7.4 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 7.2 6.6 6.6 7.3 7.6 7.6 5.4a 7.1 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 7.2 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.4 7.4 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 7.0 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.5 7.5 . 7.0 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.4 8.5 8.5 . 6.5 .

a Storm flow result is less than 6.0 s.u.

1 pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 90 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions. See 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (3) (g)

40

Specific Conductance (µs/cm)

50

100

150

200

250

300

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name

41

Specific Conductance (µs/cm) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Specific conductance . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 130 106 106 124 180 180 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 206 195 195 207 217 217 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 160 124 124 162 186 186 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 203 183 183 200 245 245 . 144 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 221 221 221 221 221 221 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 . . 185 145 145 185 212 212 77 . 120 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 137 120 120 132 168 168 . 135 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 138 121 121 136 154 154 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 138 123 123 140 156 156 74 130 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 127 118 118 127 137 137 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 140 116 116 138 158 158 . 123 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 280 274 274 280 286 286 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 242 231 231 244 256 256 . 100 .

Nutrients (NH3, NOx, TKN, TN, TP)

42

Ammonia (NH3 as N; mg/L)

0.01

0.10.07

0.050.04

0.03

0.02

10.7

0.50.4

0.3

0.2

2

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


43

Ammonia (NH3 as N; mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Ammonia as N 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.11 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 4 . 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 7 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.34 1.50 1.50 . 0.1 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 8 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.2 . 0.37 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 2 . 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.07 . 0.05 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 1 . 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.16 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 3 . 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.04 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 4 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 2 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 . 0.02U . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 2 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 6 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 . 0.02U .


44

Nitrite+Nitrate Nitrogen as N (mg/L)

0.01

0.10.07

0.050.04

0.03

0.02

10.7

0.50.4

0.3

0.2

2

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


45

Nitrite+Nitrate Nitrogen as N (mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Nitrite + nitrate as N . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.42 0.42 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 0.43 0.09 0.09 0.46 0.63 0.63 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.48 0.48 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 1 . 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.48 0.48 . 0.36 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 1 . 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.62 0.62 0.34 . 0.76 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 1 . 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.58 0.58 . 0.13 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 0.58 0.33 0.33 0.57 0.76 0.76 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 1 . 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.19 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 0.39 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.51 0.51 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 0.44 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.75 0.75 . 0.25 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 0.47 0.33 0.33 0.47 0.61 0.61 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 0.42 0.07 0.07 0.37 0.85 0.85 . 0.52 .


46

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN; mg/L)

0.1

10.8

0.60.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

2

3

4

5

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


47

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN; mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen as N . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 0.60 0.49 0.49 0.61 0.68 0.68 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 1 . 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.33 0.33 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 1 . 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.38 0.38 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 4 . 0.97 0.20 0.20 0.78 2.40 2.40 . 1.3 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 1 . 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.47 0.47 1.2 . 1.1 J3 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.50 0.50 . 0.43 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 0.51 0.41 0.41 0.46 0.72 0.72 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 0.35 0.28 0.28 0.36 0.42 0.42 1.4 0.38 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.44 0.44 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.38 . 0.6 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 0.36 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.50 0.50 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 0.28 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.50 0.50 . 1.9 .


48

Total Nitrogen (calculated; mg/L)

0.1

10.8

0.60.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

2

3

4

5

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


49

Total Nitrogen (calculated; mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Total Nitrogen as N . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 0.87 0.70 0.70 0.81 1.03 1.03 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 0.68 0.29 0.29 0.72 0.83 0.83 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 0.57 0.22 0.22 0.65 0.76 0.76 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 1.25 0.54 0.54 1.23 2.42 2.42 . 1.66 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 . . 0.65 0.22 0.22 0.73 0.90 0.90 1.54 . 1.86 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 0.64 0.37 0.37 0.63 0.98 0.98 . 0.56 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 1.09 0.98 0.98 1.05 1.19 1.19 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 0.68 0.38 0.38 0.73 0.97 0.97 1.95 0.57 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 0.68 0.59 0.59 0.65 0.80 0.80 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 0.75 0.39 0.39 0.88 1.00 1.00 . 0.85 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 0.83 0.55 0.55 0.83 1.11 1.11 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 0.70 0.30 0.30 0.73 1.07 1.07 . 2.42 .


50

Phosphorus, Total (mg/L)

0.01

0.10.08

0.06

0.04

0.03

0.02

10.8

0.60.50.4

0.3

0.2R

esul

t

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


51

Phosphorus, Total (mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Phosphorus total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.18 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.17 . 0.21 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 . . 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.3 . 0.13 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 . 0.08 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.3 0.07 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 . 0.06 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.31 0.38 0.38 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.66 0.66 . 0.47 .

Bacteria (Fecal Coliform)

52

Fecal Coliform Bacteria (cols/100mL)

1

1064

2

1006040

20

1000600400

200

20003000

5000

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name

Bacteria (Fecal Coliform)

53

Fecal Coliform Bacteria (cols/100mL) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>400

Geo

met

ric

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Fecal coliform . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 186 76 76 120 700 700 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 88 20 20 77 430 430 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 153 87 87 180 270 270 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . 1 146 36 36 120 930 930 . . . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . 1 470 470 470 470 470 470 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 . 1 99 50 50 87 300 300 . . 2000 Q1B5 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 19 9 9 21 34 34 . . . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 112 88 88 110 150 150 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 67 28 28 67 110 110 . . . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 107 67 67 83 220 220 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 68 49 49 73 80 80 . . . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . 2 1673 1400 1400 1700 2000 2000 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . 4 216 21 21 355 1300 1300 . . .

Residues and Turbidity (Suspended, Fixed, Volatile; Turbidity)

54

Residue, Suspended (mg/L)

1

107

54

3

2

10070

5040

30

20

200

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


55

Residue, Suspended (mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Residue suspended . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 1 . 8.9 6.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 2 . 3.6 2.5 2.5 3.7 5.2 5.2 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 3 . 4.8 2.5 2.5 4.0 10.0 10.0 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 2 . 5.9 4.0 4.0 6.2 9.0 9.0 . 13 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 6 . 4.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 64 . 24 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 3 . 4.1 2.5 2.5 4.0 6.2 6.2 . 18 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 7.1 4.8 4.8 6.5 11.0 11.0 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 1 . 5.6 3.2 3.2 4.5 12.0 12.0 94 27 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 4.1 3.2 3.2 4.2 5.8 5.8 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 3 . 4.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 6.2 6.2 . 11 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 2 . 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 12.0 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 7 . 3.9 2.5 2.5 3.2 6.2 6.2 . 52 .


56

Residue, Suspended-Fixed (mg/L)

1

107

54

3

2

10070

5040

30

20

200

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


57

Residue, Suspended-Fixed (mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Residue suspended, fixed . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 1 . 6.7 4.2 4.2 6.2 10.0 12.0 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 5 . 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.8 3.8 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 4 . 4.2 2.5 2.5 3.0 8.0 8.0 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 3 . 4.6 2.5 2.5 4.8 6.5 6.5 . 7.2 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 1 . 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 8 . 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 52 . 18 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 4 . 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 6.2 6.2 . 14 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 5.3 3.2 3.2 4.5 8.8 8.8 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 2 . 4.5 2.5 2.5 3.2 8.8 8.8 80 22 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 3 . 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.8 4.8 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 4 . 4.1 2.5 2.5 3.2 6.2 6.2 . 8.2 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 2 . 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 12.0 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 8 . 3.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 . 36 .


58

Residue, Suspended-Volatile (mg/L)

1

10

87

6

5

4

3

2

20

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


59

Residue, Suspended-Volatile (mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Residue suspended, volatile . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 5 . 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 12.0 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 6 . 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 7 . 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 7 . 3.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 . 5.8 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 1 . 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 9 . 3.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 12 . 12 U 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 7 . 3.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 . 3.2 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 4 . 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 6 . 3.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 14 5.2 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 5 . 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 5 . 4.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 . 3 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 2 . 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 12.0 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 7 . 3.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 . 15 .


60

Turbidity (NTU)

0

10

20

30

40

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


61

Turbidity (NTU) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Turbidity (lab) . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 7 . . 19.4 4.5 4.5 20.0 28.0 28.0 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 6 . . 7.1 4.4 4.4 7.3 9.2 9.2 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 7 . . 8.9 2.7 2.7 5.7 25.0 25.0 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 7.2 3.5 3.5 6.3 12.0 12.0 . . . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 9 . . 4.1 1.5 1.5 4.0 8.2 8.2 . . 30 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 10.2 8.2 8.2 11.0 12.0 12.0 . . . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 5 . . 14.0 9.9 9.9 11.0 21.0 21.0 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 7 . . 9.9 6.4 6.4 9.5 14.0 14.0 . . . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 5 . . 9.2 8.1 8.1 9.1 11.0 11.0 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 5 . . 6.8 4.1 4.1 5.3 11.0 11.0 . . . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 2 . . 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 8 . . 2.3 1.6 1.6 2.3 3.2 3.2 . . .


62

Aluminum (µg/L)

10

1007050

30

20

1000700

500

300

200

1000070005000

3000

2000

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


63

Aluminum (µg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Aluminum total 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . 703 160 160 850 1100 1100 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . 140 130 130 140 150 150 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . 205 190 190 205 220 220 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 3 . 104 73 73 110 130 130 . 370 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . 120 120 120 120 120 120 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 5 1 97 50 50 97 130 130 3400 760 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 4 . 165 110 110 140 270 270 . 1200 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . 385 290 290 385 480 480 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 4 . 310 140 140 330 440 440 4600 650 630 54 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . 270 200 200 270 340 340 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 3 . 235 96 96 120 490 490 . 430 50 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . 50 50 50 50 50 50 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 3 . 60 51 51 58 72 72 . 2600 .


64

Calcium (mg/L)

5

10

15

20

25

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


65

Calcium (mg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Calcium total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . . 9.3 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.4 9.4 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . . 18.5 18.0 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.0 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . . 14.5 14.0 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.0 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 18.5 18.0 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.0 . 13 . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 3 . . 17.7 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 7.5 7.1 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 2 . . 11.5 11.0 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.0 . 12 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . . 12.5 12.0 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.0 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 2 . . 12.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 6.5 6.3 12 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . . 11.5 11.0 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.0 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 1 . . 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 . 10 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . . 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 . 10 .


66

Copper (µg/L) ; Action Level = 7.0µg/L)

0

5

10

15

20

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


67

Copper (µg/L) ; Action Level = 7.0µg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Copper total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 2 . 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 2 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 2 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 3 . . 4.4 3.2 3.2 4.4 5.6 5.6 . 8.4 a . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 5 2 . 4.1 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.7 6.7 14.0 a 7.6 a . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 4 4 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . 2 U . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 2 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 4 4 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.6 3.7 2.7 2 U . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 2 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 3 3 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . 2 U 2 U . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 1 . 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 3 2 . 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 . 20.0 a .

a Storm flow results > action level of 7 µg/L)


68

Iron (µg/L; Action Level = 1000 µg/L)

100

1000800

600

400

300

200

100008000

600050004000

3000

2000

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


69

Iron (µg/L; Action Level = 1000 µg/L) Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Iron total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . 2 1607 520 520 1900 2400 2400 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . . 600 600 600 600 600 600 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . 1 1010 820 820 1010 1200 1200 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 3 . 2 1233 1000 1000 1300 1400 1400 . 980 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . 1 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 5 . . 616 180 180 620 990 990 3600 a 790 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 4 . 4 1675 1200 1200 1650 2200 2200 . 2900 a . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . 2 1400 1300 1300 1400 1500 1500 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 4 . 3 1150 1000 1000 1100 1400 1400 4900 a 760 2100 a 410 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . 2 1150 1100 1100 1150 1200 1200 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 3 . 1 900 640 640 960 1100 1100 . 1200 a 270 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . . 270 270 270 270 270 270 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 3 . . 473 440 440 490 490 490 . 2900 a .

a Storm flow results > action level of 50 µg/L)


70

Magnesium

2

4

6

8

10

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


71

Magnesium Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Magnesium total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . . 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.0 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . . 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.8 8.9 8.9 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . . 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.8 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 7.0 6.6 6.6 7.0 7.4 7.4 . 5 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 4 . . 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.8 7.8 3 2.7 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 3 . . 6.8 6.1 6.1 6.8 7.6 7.6 . 6.6 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . . 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.7 7.1 7.1 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 3 . . 6.0 5.5 5.5 6.2 6.4 6.4 3.4 3 5.3 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . . 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.0 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 2 . . 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.0 . 5.4 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . . 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 . 3.2 .


72

Manganese

10

10070

5040

30

20

1000700

500400

300

200

2000

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


73

Manganese Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Manganese total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . . 223 170 170 190 310 310 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . . 125 120 120 125 130 130 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . . 87 53 53 87 120 120 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 3 . . 130 110 110 120 160 160 . 150 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 . . 120 120 120 120 120 120 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 5 . . 53 31 31 53 81 81 92 37 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 4 . . 455 150 150 235 1200 1200 . 290 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . . 535 410 410 535 660 660 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 4 . . 253 160 160 230 390 390 270 120 310 140 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . . 116 82 82 116 150 150 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 3 . . 130 73 73 87 230 230 . 160 150 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . . 26 26 26 26 26 26 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 3 . . 69 47 47 61 100 100 . 150 .


74

Potassium

1

2

3

4

5

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


75

Potassium Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Potassium total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . . 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.8 3.8 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . . 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . . 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.1 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.3 . 3.2 . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 3 . . 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 2 . . 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.4 . 2 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . . 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.8 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 2 . . 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.3 3.1 3.1 1.9 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . . 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 1 . . 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 . 2.5 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . . 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.7 . 4.6 .


76

Sodium

5

10

15

20

25

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


77

Sodium Baseflow Summary of Results Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

Sodium total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 . . 7.2 6.8 6.8 7.3 7.5 7.5 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 . . 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 . . 10.5 10.0 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.0 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 11.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 . 8.6 . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 3 . . 11.3 10.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 3.7 3.9 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 2 . . 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.1 . 7 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 . . 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.2 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 2 . . 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.7 3 3.2 7.5 . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 . . 7.7 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.9 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 1 . . 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 . 7.1 . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 . . 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 2 . . 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 . 4.7 .


78

Zinc (µg/L; Action Level = 50 µg/L)

0

25

50

75

100

Res

ult

01_B

asin

04_U

T_H

aw_S

R15

97

05_T

ravi

s_SR

2741

06_T

ravi

s_SR

1500

07_T

ravi

s_SR

1504

12_T

ickl

e_SR

1504

13_D

ry_S

R15

29

14_U

T_W

illow

br_K

ime

15_W

illow

br_M

eban

e

16_L

A_M

eban

e

17_L

A_N

C54

19_L

A_R

oger

s

20_B

owde

n_SR

2304

Location_Short_Name


79

Zinc (µg/L; Action Level = 50 µg/L) Percentiles Stormflow Results (*=Dissolved)

Location Num

ber

Sum

(<D

L)

Sum

>RL

Mea

n

Min 10 Med

ian

90 Max 3/2/

2007

3/2/

2007

*

4/27

/200

7

4/27

/200

7*

7/25

/200

7

. . . Zinc total . . . 01 - Basin Cr at SR 1594 3 2 . na 10 10 10 44 44 . . . 20 - Bowden Br at SR 2304 2 2 . na 10 10 10 10 10 . . . 13 - Dry Cr at SR 1529 2 2 . na 10 10 10 10 10 . . . 16 - Little Alamance Cr at Mebane St 3 3 . na 10 10 10 10 10 . 32 . 17 - Little Alamance Cr at NC 54 1 1 . na 10 10 10 10 10 . . . 19 - Little Alamance Cr at SR 2309 5 4 . na 10 10 10 44 44 28 13 . . 12 - Tickle Cr at SR 1504 4 3 . na 10 10 10 13 13 . 13 . 06 - Travis Cr at SR 1500 2 1 . na 10 10 11 11 11 . . . 07 - Travis Cr at SR 1504 4 3 . na 10 10 10 24 24 14 10 U 10 U 10 U . 05 - Travis Cr at SR 2741 2 1 . na 10 10 14 17 17 . . . 04 - UT at Greenwood Dr 3 2 . na 10 10 10 11 11 . 10 10 U . 14 - UT to Willowbrook Cr at Kime St 1 1 . na 10 10 10 10 10 . . . 15 - Willowbrook Cr at Mebane St 3 2 . na 10 10 10 17 17 . 70a .

a Storm flow result > action level of 50 µg/L)

Evaluation of Water Quality, Habitat, and Stream Biology ... Quality/Surface... · Water quality,...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Water Quality, Habitat, and Stream Biology ... Quality/Surface... · Water quality,...