2015-2016 Final ReportNEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
2015-2016
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Marine Scientist: Brad Rosov, M.Sc.
Prepared For:
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Recommended Citation: Rosov, B., 2016. New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program: 2015-2016 Final Report. New Hanover County, North Carolina: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 67p.
October 2016
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report represents the results of the New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program
between July 2015 and June 2016. Nineteen (19) monitoring stations within seven (7) tidal creeks
in New Hanover County were monitored on a monthly basis for physical, chemical, and biological
parameters of water quality. The results presented in this report are described from a watershed perspective.
In order to provide a quick-glance assessment of the water quality within a particular sampling
station and watershed, a rating system has been established for a number of parameters. This
quantitative system assigns a rating of “GOOD”, “FAIR”, or “POOR” to a sampling station depending on the percentage of samples exceeding the State standard for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, chlorophyll-a, Enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria. If the recorded value of a
parameter exceeds the State standard less than 10% of the times sampled, the station will receive
a “GOOD” rating for the parameter. A “FAIR” rating is assigned when a parameter exceeds the
State standard 11-25% of the times sampled. Parameters measured that exceed the State standard more than 25% of the sampling times are given a “POOR” rating.
As displayed in the table below, turbidity and chlorophyll-a were determined to be “good” within
all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be “good” in Motts
Creek, Pages Creek, and Smith Creek while Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, and Lords Creek were all deemed to be “fair”. Prince Georges Creek demonstrated “poor” levels of dissolved oxygen during the study period. Enterococci was problematic within three of these watersheds- Motts
Creek, Pages Creek, and Prince Georges Creek. On the other hand, Futch Creek, Barnards Creek,
and Lords Creek were deemed “good” for enterococci.
Ratings by Watershed
Parameter Barnards
Creek
Futch
Creek
Lords
Creek
Motts
Creek
Pages
Creek
Prince
Georges Creek
Smith
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR FAIR GOOD FAIR GOOD POOR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR FAIR FAIR POOR POOR POOR FAIR
Long Term Trends
Using data collected on a monthly basis since at least November 2007, the long term trends of select water quality monitoring parameters were assessed in this report as well. In general,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and chlorophyll-a levels oscillate on a seasonal basis. Water quality,
as it relates to these parameters, generally decreases during the warmer months when the water
temperatures increase. However, during the cooler months, when the water temperature drops,
these parameters improve.
Generally speaking, the dissolved oxygen levels within each creek have not changed drastically
from year to year. Since 2008, dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the State standard within surface
i
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
samples 38%, 24%, 20%, and 10% of the time within Prince Georges Creek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Motts Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better within Barnards, Smith, and Lords Creek where samples exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard 9%, 7%, and 5%
of the time, respectively.
Enterococci bacteria has been a chronic problem within several of the creeks monitored in this study. Motts Creek, Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek have all maintained a relatively high level of bacteria over time. Lords Creek and Futch Creek which,
on average, have contained relatively lower bacteria levels compared to the other creeks included
within this study. Since June 2008, samples collected within Motts Creek exceeded the State
standard for Enterococci 56% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek exceeded standard 38%, 37%, 36%, and 31% of the time, respectively. Lords Creek and Futch Creek contained the least amount of bacteria with exceedances only 9%
and 4% of the time, respectively.
Turbidity and chlorophyll-a were not problematic in any creeks. Since July 2008, only 20 exceedances of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 1,775 samples collected. During the same time period, the turbidity standard was only breached eight times in total; four from
within Pages Creek, twice in Smith Creek, and once in Prince Georges Creek.
Airlie Gardens
In addition to the monthly monitoring from within the network of seven tidal creeks, three monitoring sites were established within Airlie Gardens. The results of the monitoring efforts
within these locations suggested that dissolved oxygen varied significantly over the 12-month
study within the lake with several instances of extremely low oxygen levels observed at all three
sites. The nutrient levels were relatively higher at the sampling location closest to the main
storm water runoff input in proximity to the entrance of the gardens at Airlie Road. These levels were consistently lower at the two other sites indicating that the aquatic vegetation in the lake
was utilizing the available nutrients in the water column. This was indicated by high rates of
vegetative growth during the summer months.
ii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 5
Standards .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................... 9
Physical Parameters........................................................................................................ 10
Chemical and Biological Parameters ............................................................................. 10
3.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 10
Rating System ................................................................................................................ 11
Barnards Creek ............................................................................................................... 11
Futch Creek .................................................................................................................... 13
Lords Creek .................................................................................................................... 18
Motts Creek .................................................................................................................... 21
Pages Creek .................................................................................................................... 24
Prince Georges ............................................................................................................... 28
Smith Creek .................................................................................................................... 32
Comprehensive Rating by Watershed ............................................................................ 37
Long Term Trends ...................................................................................................... 38
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................... 38
3.10.2 Turbidity ................................................................................................................. 42
3.10.3 Chlorophyll-a .......................................................................................................... 45
3.10.4 Enterococci ............................................................................................................. 49
Airlie Gardens............................................................................................................. 52
iii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 54
5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 59
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study ........................... 3
Figure 2. Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 3. Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed ......................................... 12
Figure 4. Dissolved Oxygen at BC-CBR ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Enterococci at BC-CBR ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Water Quality Sites within the Futch Creek Watershed ............................................... 15
Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4 ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6 ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13 ......................................................................................... 16
Figure 10. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY ................................................................................... 17
Figure 11. Enterococci at FC-4 .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 12. Enterococci at FC-6 .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 13. Enterococci at FC-13 .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 14. Enterococci at FC-FOY .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 15. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed .............................................. 19
Figure 16. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 17. Enterococci Levels at LC-RR ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 18. Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed ............................................ 22
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR ............................................................................... 23
Figure 20. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND.................................................................................. 23
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-CBR .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 22. Enterococci at MOT-ND ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 23. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed ............................................ 25
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS ................................................................................. 26
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS ................................................................................. 26
Figure 26. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M ........................................................................................ 27
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDDS ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-BDUS ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 29. Enterococci at PC-M .................................................................................................. 28
Figure 30. Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed ............................. 29
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH...................................................................................... 30
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML ..................................................................................... 30
iv
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Figure 33. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC...................................................................................... 31
Figure 34. Enterococci at PG-CH ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-ML ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 36. Enterococci at PG-NC ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 37. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed ............................................ 33
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23 ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK...................................................................................... 35
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-23 .................................................................................................. 36
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CD ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-CH ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 46. Enterococci at SC-GR ................................................................................................ 37
Figure 47. Enterococci at SC-NK ................................................................................................ 37
Figure 48. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek ............................. 39
Figure 49. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek .................................. 39
Figure 50. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek .................................. 40
Figure 51. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek .................................. 40
Figure 52. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek .................................. 41
Figure 53. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek ................... 41
Figure 54. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek .................................. 42
Figure 55. Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek ........................................... 42
Figure 56. Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek ................................................ 43
Figure 57. Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek ................................................ 43
Figure 58. Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek ................................................ 44
Figure 59. Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek ................................................ 44
Figure 60. Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek ................................. 45
Figure 61. Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek ................................................ 45
Figure 62. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Barnards Creek ................................................ 46
Figure 63. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Futch Creek ..................................................... 46
Figure 64. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Lords Creek ..................................................... 47
Figure 65. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Motts Creek ..................................................... 47
Figure 66. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Pages Creek ..................................................... 48
Figure 67. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Prince Georges Creek ...................................... 48
Figure 68. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Smith Creek ..................................................... 49
Figure 69. Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek .................................................. 49
Figure 70. Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek ....................................................... 50
Figure 71. Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek ....................................................... 50
Figure 72. Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek ....................................................... 51
v
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Figure 73. Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek ....................................................... 51
Figure 74. Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek ........................................ 52
Figure 75. Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek ....................................................... 52
Figure 76. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-IN ...................................................................................... 53
Figure 77. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-FD ..................................................................................... 53
Figure 78. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-OUT .................................................................................. 54
Figure 79. Long-term dissolved oxygen ratings .......................................................................... 56
Figure 80. Long-term Enterococci ratings ................................................................................... 57
Figure 81. Potential algal bloom at AG-IN. ................................................................................. 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. List of Tidal Creek Sampling Sites ................................................................................... 2
Table 2. List of Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites ............................................................................. 2
Table 3. North Carolina Water Quality Standards ......................................................................... 8
Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA ........................ 8
Table 5. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR Recreational
Water Quality Program ................................................................................................................... 9
Table 6. Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Sites .............. 9
Table 7. Mean values of select parameters from Barnards Creek. Range in parentheses. ......... 12
Table 8. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek ....................... 13
Table 9. Mean values of select parameters from Futch Creek. Range in parentheses. ............... 15
Table 10. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Futch Creek .......................... 18
Table 11. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 20
Table 12. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek .......................... 21
Table 13. Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 22
Table 14. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek .......................... 24
Table 15. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 26
Table 16. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek .......................... 28
Table 17. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range in parentheses.
....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 18. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek ........... 32
Table 19. Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 34
Table 20. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek .......................... 37
Table 21. Ratings of parameters within each watershed ............................................................. 38
Table 22. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range provided in
parentheses. ................................................................................................................................... 54
vi
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix No.
A Photographs of Sampling Sites
B Raw Data C Airlie Gardens Data
vii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
New Hanover County is the second smallest county and the second most densely populated county in N.C. The county is an urban, coastal county containing many watersheds. The creeks in New Hanover
County, North Carolina provide a wide range of recreational activities for thousands of local
citizens and visiting tourists each year. Tidal creeks are rich areas in terms of aquatic, terrestrial and avian wildlife and can support complex food webs (Odum et al, 1984; Kwak and Zedle, 1997).
Protection of the water quality within these creeks is a high priority for New Hanover County. As
growth and development continue within the City of Wilmington and the County, water quality
has been increasingly threatened due to many factors including aging infrastructure, increased
impervious surface area and subsequent stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the County’s population as of July 2014 was 216,995 and is expected to grow at a rate of 1.3% through 2019 (NC Division
of Commerce, Labor, and Economic Data and Site Information, 2016). To address these issues
that impact water quality, the County, since 1993, has administered a long-standing water quality
monitoring program designed to assess the water quality within the creeks located within the
County.
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE) began monitoring seven (7) tidal
creeks within New Hanover County on a monthly basis in November 2007. The information
presented in this report focuses on the results of this monitoring between the months of July 2015
and June 2016. The creeks included in this study are Pages and Futch Creek, which drain into the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and Lords, Motts, Barnards, Smith, and Prince Georges
Creek, which drain into the Cape Fear River (Figure 1, Table 1). Along with examining the data
collected from the past 12 months, long term trends have been assessed using data obtained by
CPE since 2007.
In addition to the continued sampling from the seven tidal creeks, three sampling sites from within
Airlie Gardens were included in 2015-2016 sampling efforts. Airlie Gardens is a 67-acre public
garden owned and operated by New Hanover County since 1999. The property, located within the
Bradley Creek watershed, includes a 10-acre freshwater lake. The lake receives input from several
stormwater culverts which serves to manage runoff from nearby development. Water quality monitoring was conducted at three locations within the lake. These locations include AG-IN which
is located on the northern portion of the lake where stormwater enters the lake. AG-FD is located
in a central portion of the lake. AG-OUT is located at the southern portion in proximity to the
drainage outfall (Figure 2, Table 2).
Photographs of each sampling site are found in Appendix A. Raw data from the tidal creeks
sampling sites and the Airlie Garden sampling sites are found in Appendix B and Appendix C,
respectively.
1
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 1. List of Tidal Creek Sampling Sites
Creek Name Site Name Site Code Latitude Longitude
Motts Creek Carolina Beach Road MOT-CBR 34° 08.610 77° 53.830
Motts Creek Normandy Drive MOT-ND 34° 08.373 77° 54.580
Lords Creek River Road LC-RR 34° 05.185 77° 55.275
Barnards Creek Carolina Beach Road BC-CBR 34° 09.522 77° 54.712
Smith Creek Castle Hayne Road SC-CH 34° 15.541 77° 56.325
Smith Creek 23rd Street SC-23 34° 15.472 77° 55.178
Smith Creek Candlewood Drive SC-CD 34° 17.438 77° 51.332
Smith Creek North Kerr SC-NK 34° 15.744 77° 53.256
Smith Creek Gordon Road SC-GR 34° 16.639 77° 52.037
Prince Georges Creek Marathon Landing PG-ML 34° 21.088 77° 55.349
Prince Georges Creek Castle Hayne Road PG-CH 34° 20.675 77° 54.217
Prince Georges Creek North College PG-NC 34° 20.331 77° 53.607
Futch Creek 4 FC-4 34° 18.068 77° 44.760
Futch Creek 6 FC-6 34° 18.178 77° 45.038
Futch Creek 13 FC-13 34° 18.214 77° 45.451
Futch Creek Foy Branch FC-FOY 34° 18.405 77° 45.358
Pages Creek Mouth PC-M 34° 16.209 77° 46.270
Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Down Stream PC-BDDS 34° 16.685 77° 47.673
Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Up Stream PC-BDUS 34° 16.623 77° 48.104
Table 2. List of Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites
Site Name Site Code Latitude Longitude
Airlie Gardens In AG-IN 34° 21749 77° 82873
Airlie Gardens Floating Dock AG-FD 34° 21549 77° 82796
Airlie Gardens Out AG-OUT 34° 21336 77° 82713
2
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 1. Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study
3
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 2. Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites
4
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
The State of North Carolina has employed a series of classifications that apply to all waters in the
State including streams, rivers, and lakes (NC Administrative Code, section 15A NCAC 2B .0200).
These classifications are meant to protect the specified uses within waterbodies. These include
aquatic life survival and reproduction, secondary recreation, primary recreation, shellfishing, and water supply. The classifications that apply to the creeks examined in this study are:
C Sw: Freshwater that is protected for aquatic life and secondary recreation uses. The
“Sw” supplemental classification indicates that these are swamp waters, and so are likely
to have lower dissolved oxygen and pH than non-swamp streams due to natural conditions. However, a majority of the sites, including Lords Creek, Motts Creek, Barnards Creek,
Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek, designated as C Sw by the State, are tidally
influenced and have a brackish salinity range.
SA: Saline water bodies that are protected for shellfishing uses. This use requires a more stringent standard for fecal coliform. Areas protected for shellfishing are also subject to
the protection requirements for the less stringent classifications of SC and SB, which
include aquatic life, secondary recreation, and primary recreation. This designation applies
to Futch Creek and Pages Creek.
The classification of the freshwater lake at Airlie Gardens is designated as Class C waters.
PARAMETERS
Physical, chemical, and biological water quality monitoring data have been collected at each of
the tidal creek sampling locations. Physical parameters include temperature, salinity, conductivity, pH, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. Chemical parameters monitored in this study include orthophosphate and nitrate/nitrite. Biological parameters include Chlorophyll-a and Enterococci,
a fecal indicator bacteria. At the Airlie Gardens sampling locations, the same physical parameters
were collected. Due to funding limitations and the determination that bacterial contamination was
not determined to be a potential threat, Enterococcus samples were not collected. Rather, due to the fact that the lake has historically undergone periods if high macroalgae growth, two indicators of nutrients were collected; orthophosphate and nitrate/nitrite,
Temperature:
Thermal pollution can result in significant changes to the aquatic environment. Most aquatic organisms are adapted to survive within a specific temperature range. Thermal pollution may also increase the extent to which fish are vulnerable to toxic compounds, parasites, and disease. If
temperatures reach extremes of heat or cold, few organisms will survive.
Thermal pollution may be caused by stormwater runoff from warm surfaces such as streets and parking lots. Soil erosion is another cause, since it can cause cloudy conditions in a water body. Cloudy water absorbs the sun's rays, resulting in a rise in water temperature. Thermal pollution
may even be caused by the removal of trees and vegetation which normally shade the water body.
In addition to the direct effects of thermal pollution on aquatic life, there are numerous indirect
effects. Thermal pollution results in lowered levels of dissolved oxygen, since cooler water can hold more oxygen than warmer water.
5
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Salinity:
Salinity is a measure of the amount of sodium chloride ions dissolved in water. This is important
to monitor since changes in the levels of salt concentration can impact the ability of salt sensitive
species to survive. An estuary, such as the lower Cape Fear River, usually exhibits a gradual change in salinity throughout its length, as freshwater entering the estuary from tributaries mixes
with seawater moving in from the ocean. Salinity levels control, to a large degree, the types of
plants and animals that can live in different zones of the estuary. Freshwater species may be
restricted to the upper reaches of the estuary, while marine species inhabit the estuarine mouth.
Some species tolerate only intermediate levels of salinity while broadly adapted species can acclimate to any salinity ranging from freshwater to seawater.
Conductivity:
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. Similar
to salinity, it measures the amount of dissolved ions (including sodium chloride) in the water. pH:
The pH of water is a measurement of the concentration of H+ ions, using a scale that ranges from
0 to 14. Natural water usually has a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. While there are natural variations in
pH, many pH variations are due to human influences. Unanticipated decreases in pH could be indications of acid rain, runoff from acidic soils, or contamination by agricultural chemicals.
Turbidity:
Turbidity is the amount of particulate matter that is suspended in water. Turbidity measures the
scattering effect that suspended solids have on light: the higher the intensity of scattered light, the higher the turbidity. During a rainstorm, particles from the surrounding land are washed into the
river making the water a muddy brown color, indicating higher turbidity.
Dissolved Oxygen:
Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the volume of oxygen that is contained in water. Oxygen enters the water as rooted aquatic plants and algae undergo photosynthesis and as oxygen is transferred across the air-water interface. The amount of oxygen that can be held by the water depends on the
water temperature, salinity, and pressure.
Rapidly moving water, such as in a flowing stream, tends to contain a lot of dissolved oxygen, while stagnant water contains little. Oxygen levels are also affected by the diurnal (daily) cycle. Plants, such as rooted aquatic plants and algae produce excess oxygen during the daylight hours
when they are photosynthesizing. During the dark hours they must use oxygen for life processes.
Bacteria in water can consume oxygen as organic matter decays. Thus, excess organic material in
waterbodies can cause oxygen deficits. Aquatic life can become stressed or die in stagnant water containing high levels of rotting, organic material in it, especially in summer, when dissolved-oxygen levels are at a seasonal low.
Chlorophyll-a:
Chlorophyll-a is a green pigment found in plants. It absorbs sunlight and converts it to sugar during photosynthesis. Chlorophyll-a concentrations are an indicator of phytoplankton abundance
and biomass in coastal and estuarine waters. High levels often indicate an algal bloom which can
6
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
induce the depletion of oxygen in the water column due to the microbial degradation of plant cells.
Chlorophyll-a concentrations are often higher after rainfall, particularly if the rain has flushed
nutrients into the water. Higher chlorophyll-a levels are also common during the summer months
when water temperatures and light levels are high because these conditions lead to greater phytoplankton numbers.
Enterococci:
Enterococci are distinguished from fecal coliform bacteria by their ability to survive in saltwater,
and in this respect they more closely mimic many pathogens than do the other indicators. Enterococci are typically more human-specific than the larger fecal streptococcus group. EPA recommends Enterococci as the best indicator of health risk in saltwater used for recreation and as
a useful indicator in freshwater as well. In 2004, Enterococci took the place of fecal coliform as
the new federal standard for water quality at public beaches. It is believed to provide a higher
correlation than fecal coliform with many of the human pathogens often found in sewage (Jeng, et al., 2004). Results indicated that Enterococci might be a more stable indicator than fecal coliform and, consequently, a more conservative indicator under brackish water conditions.
Orthophosphate:
Phosphorus is a nutrient required by all organisms for the basic processes of life. Phosphorus is a natural element found in rocks, soils and organic material. Phosphorus clings tightly to soil particles and is used by plants, so its concentration in clean waters is generally very low.
However, phosphorus is used extensively in fertilizer and other chemicals, so it can be found in
higher concentrations in areas of human activity. High levels in the water column can be
detrimental to water quality as phosphates can cause algal blooms resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen levels.
Orthophosphate is sometimes referred to as "reactive phosphorus." Orthophosphate is the most
stable kind of phosphate, and is the form used by plants. Orthophosphate is produced by natural
processes and is found in sewage. Nitrate/Nitrite:
Nitrate is highly soluble (dissolves easily) in water and is stable over a wide range of
environmental conditions. It is easily transported in streams and groundwater. Nitrates feed
plankton (microscopic plants and animals that live in water), aquatic plants, and algae, which are then eaten by fish. Nitrite is relatively short-lived in water because it is quickly converted to
nitrate by bacteria.
Excessive concentrations of nitrate and/or nitrite can be harmful to humans and wildlife. If
excessive amounts of nitrates are added to the water, algae and aquatic plants can be produced in large quantities. When these algae die, bacteria decompose them, and use up oxygen.
STANDARDS
Water quality standards have been established legislatively for a number of these parameters
(Table 3). Many of the water quality standards are described in the NC Administrative Code, section 15A NCAC 2H .0100. The water quality standards for Enterococci bacteria are described
7
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
by the US EPA (US EPA, 1986) and in the NC Administrative Code, section 15A NCAC 18A
.3402. The US EPA standards for Enterococci bacteria are based on incidents of gastrointestinal
illness following contact with bathing waters. Bacterial contamination is quantified by “colony
forming units” or CFU. Single sample maximum allowable Enterococci density is 104 CFU/100ml, 158 CFU/100ml, 276 CFU/100ml, and 501 CFU/100ml for designated beach areas,
swimming areas with moderate to full body contact, lightly used full body contact swimming areas,
and infrequently used full body contact swimming areas, respectively (Table 4). When at least
five samples are collected within a 30 day period, the US EPA recommends utilizing a geometric
mean standard of 35 CFU/100ml. Geometric means are often useful summaries for highly skewed data, as are often found with bacteriological datasets. The North Carolina Recreational Water
Quality Program (RWQ) adopted similar standards for Enterococci bacteria, also determined by
the frequency of swimming activity. As defined by RWQ, Tier I swimming areas are used daily
during the swimming season, Tier II swimming areas are used three days a week during the
swimming season, and Tier III swimming areas are used on average four days a month during the swimming season. Single sample standards for Tiers I, II, and III are 104 CFU/100ml, 276
CFU/100ml, and 500 CFU/100ml, respectively (Table 5). A geometric mean of 35 CFU/100ml
within Tier I swimming areas may also be utilized if at least five samples are collected within 30
days. The creeks and the lake in Airlie Gardens included in this study have not been classified
within the RWQ tier system; however an analysis of accessibility as an indicator of swimming and boating usage has been performed (Table 6). Based on this analysis, of the nineteen (19) tidal
creek sampling sites, two (2) could be considered Tier II and seventeen (17) could be considered
Tier III. All three (3) of the Airlie Garden sites are considered Tier III
Table 3. North Carolina Water Quality Standards
Parameter Standard for C Waters Standard for C Sw Waters Standard for SA Waters
Dissolved Oxygen 4.0 mg/la 4.0 mg/la 5.0 mg/l
Turbidity 50 NTU 50 NTU 25 NTU
pH 6.0-9.0b 6.0-9.0b 6.8-8.5
Chlorophyll-a 40.0 ug/l 40.0 ug/l 40.0 ug/l
Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean (5 samples
within 30 days) <200 CFU/100ml; or single sample
<400 CFU/100ml
Geometric Mean (5 samples
within 30 days) <200 CFU/100ml; or single sample
<400 CFU/100ml
Geometric Mean (5 samples
within 30 days) <14 CFU/100ml; or 10% of samples
<43 CFU/100ml
Enterococci c Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <35
CFU/100ml
Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <35 CFU/100ml Geometric Mean (5 samples within 30 days) <35 CFU/100ml
(a) Swamp waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions (b) For swamp streams, pH may be as low as 4.3 if caused by natural conditions
(c) See Table 4 for single sample standards based off the tiered system employed by NC DENR Recreational Water Quality Program
Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA
Single sample maximum
Designated beach areas < 104 CFU/100ml
Swimming areas with moderate full body contact < 158 CFU/100ml
Lightly used full body contact swimming areas < 276 CFU/100ml
Infrequently used full body contact swimming areas < 501 CFU/100ml
8
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 5. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR Recreational Water Quality Program
Description Single sample maximum
Tier I, swimming areas used daily during the swimming
season <104 CFU/100ml
Tier II, swimming areas used three days a week during the swimming season <276 CFU/100ml
Tier III, swimming areas used on average four days a month during the swimming season <500 CFU/100ml
Table 6. Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Site Name Proposed Tier Classification
Accessible for Boating or Swimming
Comments
MOT-CBR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
MOT-ND Tier III No Adjacent to small bridge on Normandy Drive
LC-RR Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on River Road
BC-CBR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
SC-CH Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on Castle Hayne Road
SC-23 Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on 23rd Street
SC-CD Tier III No Narrow, shallow. Adjacent to Candlewood Drive
SC-NK Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on North Kerr
SC-GR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on Gordon Road
PG-ML Tier III No Small boat launch site on private property
PG-CH Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on Castle Hayne Road
PG-NC Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on North College Road
FC-4 Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC-6 Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC-13 Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC-FOY Tier III No No clear access points (no docks on Foy branch)
PC-M Tier II Yes Direct access via docks and boat ramp at Pages Creek
Marina
PC-BDDS Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
PC-BDUS Tier II Yes Public boat ramp off Bayshore Drive
AG-IN Tier III No Northern portion of Airlie Gardens Lake
AG-FD Tier III No Central portion of Airlie Gardens Lake
AG-OUT Tier III No Southen portion of Airlie Gardens Lake
2.0 METHODS
These seven tidal creeks included within this study and the lake in Airlie Gardens are primarily
located in the unincorporated portion of New Hanover County. Sampling sites were accessed from
land, generally near a bridge or culvert crossing, or by boat. Each tidal creek site was sampled one time per month during a high ebb tide. Tides were determined utilizing the National Oceanic and
9
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Tides and Currents website
(http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/). The sites sampled within Airlie Gardens are not influenced
by the tide and therefore no efforts were made to associate the timing of sampling with the tidal
stage in the surrounding waters.
Due to time constraints, monthly sampling events were conducted on three subsequent days each
month. Sites within Airlie Gardens, Lords Creek, Motts Creek, and Barnards Creek were visited
on the first sampling day while Smith Creek and Prince Georges Creek were visited the second
day. Futch Creek and Pages Creek were visited on the third day. Rainfall totals for the 24 hours prior to each sampling event were obtained from observations recorded at Wilmington
International Airport as reported by NOAA’s National Weather Service web site
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/RAH/RTPRAH).
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
All physical measurements (temperature, salinity, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and pH) were taken in situ utilizing a 6820 YSI Multiparameter Water Quality Probe linked to a YSI
650 MDS display unit. The YSI Probe was calibrated each day prior to use. Physical
measurements were taken from the surface at all sites (depth = 0.1m) and near the creek bottom at
sites with depths greater than 0.5m. Following each sampling trip, the YSI Probe was post-calibrated following each sampling date to ensure that the physical parameters measured were within an acceptable range.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Water samples were obtained for the laboratory analysis of chemical (nitrate/nitrite and orthophosphate) and biological (Enterococci and Chlorophyll-a) parameters. These grab samples were collected in sterile bottles during a high ebb tide from the surface at each site (depth =
0.1m). Water samples were placed on ice immediately following collection and were delivered in
coolers to Environmental Chemists, Inc. of Wilmington, North Carolina for analysis. All
analyses performed by Environmental Chemists, Inc. were conducted utilizing the following standard EPA approved methods:
Orthophosphate: SM 4500E
Nitrate/Nitrite: EPA 353.2
Chlorophyll-a: SM 10200H Enterococci: EnterolertE 3.0 RESULTS
The results described in this report represent the physical, biological, and chemical data collected
from all sampling sites on a monthly basis between July 2014 and June 2015. These results are primarily organized by watershed with the results of the 7 tidal creeks presented first followed by the results from Airlie Gardens. All raw data, including parameters not summarized in this section,
are included in Appendix B.
10
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
RATING SYSTEM
In order to provide a quick-glance assessment of the water quality within a particular sampling
station or watershed, a rating system for a number of parameters has been employed. This
quantitative system assigns a rating of “GOOD”, “FAIR”, or “POOR” to a sampling station depending on the percentage of samples exceeding the State standard for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, Chlorophyll-a, Enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria. If the recorded value of a
parameter exceeds the State standard less than 10% of the times sampled, the station will receive
a “good” rating for the parameter. A “fair” rating is assigned when a parameter exceeds the State
standard 11-25% of the times sampled. Parameters measured that exceed the State standard more than 25% of the sampling times are given a “poor” rating.
BARNARDS CREEK
The Barnards Creek watershed includes 4,953 acres and is located in the southwestern portion of
the County, just along the City line. The watershed drains portions of Carolina Beach Road at its headwaters and flows towards River Road before entering into the Cape Fear River. Zoning within the watershed is comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses. The land is classified as
a mix of transition, urban, and conservation according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed
contains approximately 16.9% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was
conducted at one site (BC-CBR) within the Barnards Creek watershed (Figure 3). Dissolved oxygen within BC-CBR ranged between 1.2 mg/l and 9.4 mg/l with a mean value of 5.3
mg/l (Table 7). Samples collected during June, July, August and September 2 contained dissolved
oxygen levels below the State standard of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw waters at both the surface and near
the bottom of the water column (Figure 4). Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 4.0 ug/l with a mean value of 2.0 ug/l at BC-CBR
(Table 7). These values did not approach the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 20 CFU/100ml and 3,873 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 246 CFU/100ml, which is below the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters (Figure 5, Table 7). Four (4) of the twelve (12) samples collected during this period exceeded this
standard.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 22 NTU with a mean value of 7 NTU (Table 7). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C SW waters.
Table 8 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
11
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 3. Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed
Table 7. Mean values of select parameters from Barnards Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter BC-CBR
Turbidity (NTU) 7 (1-22)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 5.3 (1.2-9.4)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 2.0 (1.0-4.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 246 (20-3873)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
12
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 4. Dissolved Oxygen at BC-CBR
Figure 5. Enterococci at BC-CBR
Table 8. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek
Parameter BC-CBR
Turbidity GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci POOR
FUTCH CREEK
Futch Creek is located on the New Hanover-Pender County line and drains into the Intracoastal
Waterway. The Futch Creek watershed encompasses approximately 3,136 acres extending from
Scotts Hill Loop Road and Highway 17 on the north and east, to Porters Neck Road on the south.
Zoning within the Futch Creek watershed is predominately residential with a small business district
along Highway 17. The land within the Futch Creek watershed is classified as watershed resource protection or transition in the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains approximately 11.0%
13
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at four (4) sites (FC-4, FC-
6, FC-13, and FC-FOY) within the Futch Creek watershed (Figure 6) on eleven (11) occasions
over the twelve (12) month study. No samples were collected during March, 2014 due to
mechanical issues with the boat.
Dissolved oxygen within Futch Creek ranged between 3.0 mg/l and 9.4 mg/l with a mean value of
6.3 mg/l (Figure 7 - Figure 10, Table 9). Some samples collected during the warmer months
contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard of 5.0 mg/l for SA waters at both the
surface and near the bottom of the water within the creek. In addition, the standard was breached at three of the four sampling sites in February 2016.
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 18.0 ug/l with a mean value of 4.0 ug/l (Table 8). None
of these values approached the 40ug/l Chlorophyll-a standard.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 933 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of
44 CFU/100ml. All of the samples collected within Futch Creek during the month of May, 2016
exceeded the NCDENR Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters. In addition,
two sites exceed this standard in March, 2016. (Figure 11 - Figure 14, Table 8)
Turbidity values were generally low ranging between 0 and 33 NTU with a mean value of 7 NTU
(Table 10). Three observations exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU for SA waters.
Table 10 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
14
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 6. Water Quality Sites within the Futch Creek Watershed
Table 9. Mean values of select parameters from Futch Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter FC-4 FC-6 FC-13 FC-FOY
Turbidity
(NTU) 5 (0-33) 3 (0-7) 6 (0-20) 6 (0-26)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/l) 6.5 (4.7-8.7) 6.4 (4.2-8.8) 6.2 (3.0-9.4) 6.1 (3.1-9.2)
Chlorophyll-a
(ug/l) 4.0 (1.0-9.0) 3.0 (1.0-6.0) 5.0 (1.0-18.0) 4.0 (2.0-7.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml) 31 (5-910)1 33 (5-829)1 53 (5-933)1 73 (5-932)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
15
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4
Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6
Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13
16
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 10. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY
Figure 11. Enterococci at FC-4
Figure 12. Enterococci at FC-6
17
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 13. Enterococci at FC-13
Figure 14. Enterococci at FC-FOY
Table 10. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Futch Creek
Parameter FC-4 FC-6 FC-13 FC-FOY
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
LORDS CREEK
The Lords Creek Watershed is located in the southwestern portion of the County and encompasses
approximately 3,047 acres. Zoning within the watershed is completely residential. This watershed
contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). According to the CAMA land use plan, the land in the watershed is classified as a mix of conservation, transition,
18
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
watershed resource protection and a small natural heritage resource protection designation.
Sampling was conducted at one (1) site (LC-RR) within the Lords Creek watershed (Figure 15).
Dissolved oxygen LC-RR ranged between 4.8 mg/l and 9.7 mg/l with a mean value of 7.1 mg/l (Table 11). All surface samples were within an acceptable level above the State standard of 4.0
mg/l for C Sw waters during the sampling period (Figure 16).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 2.0 ug/l and 29.0 ug/l with a mean value of 7.0 ug/l (Table 10). No
samples exceeded the State standard of 40ug/l for Chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 31 CFU/100ml and 1,455 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 230 CFU/100ml (Table 11). Three (3) samples contained high levels of Enterococci beyond
the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters.
Turbidity values were generally moderate ranging between 4 and 33 NTU with a mean value of
14 NTU (Table 11). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters in
Lords Creek during the study period.
Table 12 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 15. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed
19
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 11. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity (NTU) 14 (4-33)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 7.1 (4.8-9.7)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 7 (2.0-29.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 230 (31-1455)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 16. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR
Figure 17. Enterococci Levels at LC-RR
20
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 12. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci FAIR
MOTTS CREEK
Motts Creek watershed encompasses approximately 2,389 acres and is located in the southwestern portion of the County, just below Sanders Road. The Creek drains portions of Carolina Beach Road at its headwaters and then drains toward River Road before entering into the Cape Fear River.
Zoning in the watershed is predominately residential with commercial business districts along
Carolina Beach Road. Land in the watershed is classified as transition, conservation or wetland
resource protection according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at two (2) sites (MOT-CBR, MOT-ND) within the Motts Creek watershed (Figure 18).
Dissolved oxygen within Motts Creek ranged between 3.0 mg/l and 8.8 mg/l with a mean value of
6.4 mg/l (Figure 19 and Figure 20, Table 13). Two samples from each site contained dissolved oxygen levels below the standard (May and June 2015) (Figure 19 and Figure 20).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 140.0 ug/l with a mean value of 10.0 ug/l (Table 13).
One sample at MOT-CBR exceeded the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 52 CFU/100ml and 24,196 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 612 CFU/100ml (Table 12). MOT-CBR exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml
for Tier III waters during six (6) of the twelve (12) times it was sampled. MOT-ND exceeded this
standard seven (7) of the twelve (12) sample events (Figure 20 and Figure 21).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 2 and 43 NTU with a mean value of 12 NTU (Table 12). No turbidity observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw
waters.
Table 13 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
21
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 18. Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed
Table 13. Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter MOT-CBR MOT-ND
Turbidity (NTU) 8 (2-21) 15 (6-43)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.5 (3.7-8.8) 6.3 (3.0-8.8)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 18.0 (1.0-140.0) 3.0 (1.0-5.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 445 (52-24196)1 842 (250-6867)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
22
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR
Figure 20. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-CBR
23
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 22. Enterococci at MOT-ND
Table 14. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek
Parameter MOT-CBR MOT-ND
Turbidity GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen FAIR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR
PAGES CREEK
Located in northeastern New Hanover County and encompassing 2,044 acres, Pages Creek
watershed drains into the Intracoastal Waterway, north of Middle Sound Loop Road. Zoning
within the Pages Creek watershed is predominately residential, with commercial zoning along Highway 17. The land within the Pages Creek watershed is predominately classified as watershed resource protection and conservation, with a small portion classified as transitional according to
the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains approximately 23.2% impervious surface
coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at three (3) sites (PC-BDDS, PC-BDUS, and
PC-M) within the Pages Creek watershed (Figure 23). Dissolved oxygen within Pages Creek ranged between 3.0 mg/l and 10.2 mg/l with a mean value
of 6.6 mg/ (Table 15) (Figure 24 through Figure 26). Of the three (3) sites monitored over the
twelve (12) month study, the dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the standard only three times
(Figure 24 and Figure 25). Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 23.0 ug/l with a mean value of 7.0 ug/l (Table 15). No
samples exceeded the State standard of 40 ug/l for chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 1,5531 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 199 CFU/100ml (Figure 27 through Figure 29, Table 15). While samples collected from PC-M only contain high levels of Enterococci during two (2) sampling events, five (5) and ten (10)
24
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
samples from PC-BDDS and PC-BDUS, respectively, contained levels higher than the NCDENR
standards.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 18 NTU with a mean value of 6 NTU (Table 14). None of the observed turbidity values exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU for class
SA waters.
Table 16 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 23. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed
25
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 15. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PC-BDUS PC-BDDS PC-M
Turbidity (NTU) 9 (3-17) 5 (0-17) 5 (0-18)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.4 (3.0-10.2) 5.9 (3.6-8.9) 6.6 (4.6-8.9)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 10 (1.0-23.0) 7 (1.0-18.0) 3.0 (1.0-7.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 629 (31-4611)1 410 (10-15531)1 30 (5-772)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS
26
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 26. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDDS
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-BDUS
27
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 29. Enterococci at PC-M
Table 16. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek
Parameter PC-BDDS PC-BDUS PC-M
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen FAIR GOOD GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR FAIR
PRINCE GEORGES
Prince Georges Creek drains into the Cape Fear River. The Prince Georges Creek watershed is approximately 14,589 acres and drains most of Castle Hayne, extending eastward across I-40 into the Blue Clay Road area. Zoning within the Prince Georges Creek watershed is predominately
residential with some business and light industrial districts within Castle Hayne. Most of the land
within the Prince Georges Creek watershed is classified as aquifer resource protection,
conservation or transition according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains approximately 10.1% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at three (3) sites (PG-CH, PG-ML, and PG-NC) within the Prince Georges Creek watershed (Figure
30).
Dissolved oxygen within Prince Georges Creek ranged between 0.0 mg/l and 9.5 mg/l with a mean value of 4.4 mg/l (Table 16). Surface dissolved oxygen values at all three sampling sites were below the State standard of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw between July and October, 2015. (Figure 31 through
Figure 33).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 19.0 ug/l with a mean value of 3.0 ug/l (Table 17). No samples from Prince Georges Creek exceeded the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 10 CFU/100ml and 6,867 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 196 CFU/100ml (Table 16). During this study, five (5) samples from PG-CH and PG-ML,
28
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
respectively, contained Enterococci levels above the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for
Tier III waters. Two (2) samples from PG-NC exceeded this value during the same time period
(Figure 34 through Figure 36).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 150 NTU with a mean value of 10
NTU (Table 17). Two (2) samples exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters.
Table 18 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 30. Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed
29
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 17. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity (NTU) 22 (5-150) 5 (0-12) 10 (1-33)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 4.9 (0.0-9.5) 4.7 (0.0-8.8) 3.6 (0.0-9.4)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 4.0 (1.0-19.0) 3.0 (0.0-7.0) 3.0 (1.0-8.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 239 (10-6867)1 263 (10-1624)1 120 (10-1467)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML
30
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 33. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC
Figure 34. Enterococci at PG-CH
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-ML
31
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 36. Enterococci at PG-NC
Table 18. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR POOR POOR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR FAIR
SMITH CREEK
Located in north-central New Hanover County and containing approximately 14,665 acres, the
Smith Creek watershed drains into the lower northeast Cape Fear River, just north of the Isabelle
Holmes Bridge. The watershed drains land within the City limits and the unincorporated County, including the Wilmington International Airport. Zoning within the Smith Creek watershed is a
mix of industrial, residential, and commercial. The land within the watershed is predominately
classified as urban and transition, with a small portion classified as conservation. This watershed
contains approximately 21.9% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Along with increased
development and impervious surfaces, water quality in Smith Creek has declined in recent years. High bacteria levels have been reported, as well as low dissolved oxygen levels. As a result, Smith
Creek has been listed on the 303(d) list for impaired waters due to impaired biological integrity.
Sampling was conducted at five (5) sites (SC-CH, SC-23, SC-NK, SC-GR, SC-CD) within the
Smith Creek watershed (Figure 37).
Dissolved oxygen within the creek ranged between 0.5 mg/l and 10.2 mg/l with a mean value of
6.4 mg/l (Table 19; Figure 38 through Figure 40).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 37.0 ug/l with a mean value of 5.0 ug/l (Table 19). No
samples exceeded the State Standard for chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 24,196 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 197 CFU/100ml (Table 19). A number of samples exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500
32
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
CFU/100ml for Tier III waters including five (5) in SC-CD, four (4) from SC-GR, two (2) in SC-
NK and SC-23, and one (1) in SC-CH (Figure 43 through Figure 47).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 55 NTU with a mean value of 10 NTU (Table 19). One (1) observation exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for SW class C
waters.
Table 20 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 37. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed
33
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 19. Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter SC-23 SC-CD SC-CH SC-GR SC-NK
Turbidity (NTU) 10 (3-19) 9 (0-25) 12 (1-36) 14 (0-55) 7 (2-17)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/l) 5.9 (1.5-9.8) 7.5 (4.2-10.2) 5.8 (2.9-8.9) 6.9 (4.4-9.3) 5.7 (0.5-9.7)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 10.0 (1.0-33.0) 3.0 (1.0-8.0) 5.0 (1.0-37.0) 2.0 (1.0-6.0) 7.0 (1.0-23.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml) 128 (5-2415)1 458 (20-17329)1 73 (5-862)1 413 (31-24196)1 167 (20-3873)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD
34
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK
35
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-23
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CD
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-CH
36
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 46. Enterococci at SC-GR
Figure 47. Enterococci at SC-NK
Table 20. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek
Parameter SC-23 SC-CD SC-CH SC-GR SC-NK
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen FAIR GOOD FAIR GOOD FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR POOR GOOD POOR FAIR
COMPREHENSIVE RATING BY WATERSHED
When combining all results from each site within individual watersheds, it is possible to obtain a
“snapshot” of water quality within each watershed (Table 21). As displayed in the table below,
turbidity and chlorophyll-a were determined to be “good” within all watersheds throughout the
study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be “good” in Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Smith Creek while Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, and Lords Creek were all deemed to be “fair”. Prince
37
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Georges Creek demonstrated “poor” levels of dissolved oxygen during the study period.
Enterococci was problematic within three of these watersheds- Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and
Prince Georges Creek. On the other hand, Futch Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords Creek were
deemed “good” for enterococci.
Table 21. Ratings of parameters within each watershed
Parameter Barnards Creek Futch Creek Lords Creek Motts Creek Pages Creek
Prince
Georges Creek
Smith Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR FAIR GOOD FAIR GOOD POOR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR FAIR FAIR POOR POOR POOR FAIR
LONG TERM TRENDS
Water quality data has been collected within New Hanover County since the mid 1990’s. Several
of the historical monitoring sites continue to be utilized for the ongoing monitoring effort. In order to assess the long term trends in water quality, a database has been created to include the data collected within the seven (7) tidal creeks under current investigation. The long term trends from
these creeks have been derived from data obtained between July 2008 and June 2016.
For each parameter examined, data was plotted on a line graph over time and a trend line was created. Trend lines, also known as regression lines, can be used as a way of visually depicting the relationship between the independent (x) and dependent (y) variables in the graph. In this case
the independent variable is time and the dependent variable is the water quality parameter. A
trend in water quality is defined as an increase or decrease in a particular constituent concentration
over time. Statistical analysis was not performed; therefore the significance of these long term trends should be interpreted with caution.
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 48 through 54 depicts the long term trends in dissolved oxygen within the seven (7) creeks
examined within this study. The figures illustrate a distinct seasonal pattern including higher
dissolved oxygen during the cooler winter months and lower dissolved oxygen during the warmer summer months. Generally speaking, the dissolved oxygen levels within each creek have not
changed drastically from year to year. Since 2008, dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the State
standard within surface samples 38%, 24%, 20%, and 10% of the time within Prince Georges
Creek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Motts Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were
better within Barnards, Smith, and Lords Creek where samples exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard 9%, 7%, and 5% of the time, respectively.
38
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 48. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek
Figure 49. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek
39
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 50. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek
Figure 51. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek
40
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 52. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek
Figure 53. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek
41
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 54. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek
3.10.2 Turbidity
Figures 55 through 61 depict the long term trends in turbidity within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. In general, the long term trend of turbidity has remained fairly constant within
each creek on an annual basis, however seasonal patterns emerge. This includes higher turbidity observations during the warmer months and lower turbidity during the cooler months. Since 2008, the turbidity standard was only breached eight times in total; four from within Pages Creek, twice
in Smith Creek, and once in Prince Georges Creek.
Figure 55. Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek
42
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 56. Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek
Figure 57. Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek
43
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 58. Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek
Figure 59. Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
(
N
T
U
)
Pages Creek Turbidity
44
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 60. Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek
Figure 61. Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek
3.10.3 Chlorophyll-a
Figures 62 through 68 depict the long term trends in chlorophyll-a within the seven (7) creeks examined within this study. In general, the long term trend of turbidity has remained fairly
constant within each creek. Contrary to the trend observed with dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a
levels appear to increase during the warmer months and decrease during the cooler months. Since
sampling began, only 20 exceedances of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 1,775
samples collected since July 2008.
45
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 62. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Barnards Creek
Figure 63. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Futch Creek
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Ch
l
o
r
o
p
h
y
l
l
-a
(
u
g
/
L
)
Futch Creek Chlorophyll-a
46
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 64. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Lords Creek
Figure 65. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Motts Creek
47
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 66. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Pages Creek
Figure 67. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Prince Georges Creek
48
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 68. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Smith Creek
3.10.4 Enterococci
Figure 69through Figure 74 depict the long term trends in Enterococci within the seven (7) creeks
examined within this study. Motts Creek, Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince
Georges Creek have all maintained a relatively high level of bacteria over time. Lords Creek and Futch Creek which, on average, have contained relatively lower bacteria levels compared to the other creeks included within this study. Since June 2008, samples collected within Motts Creek
exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 56% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek,
Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek exceeded standard 38%, 37%, 36%, and 31% of the time,
respectively. Lords Creek and Futch Creek contained the least amount of bacteria with exceedances only 9% and 4% of the time, respectively.
Figure 69. Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek
49
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 70. Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek
Figure 71. Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Futch Creek Enterococci
50
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 72. Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek
Figure 73. Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Motts Creek Enterococci
51
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 74. Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek
Figure 75. Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek
AIRLIE GARDENS
Located east-centrally within New Hanover County and encompassing approximately 10 acres, the lake in Airlie Gardens is situated within the 4,583 acre Bradley Creek watershed. The lake
drains directly into Bradley Creek only several hundred yards from the Intracoastal Waterway.
The Bradley Creek watershed is characterized as highly developed with 27.8% of its land is
covered by impervious surface (Mallin et al., 2014). As stated above, monitoring was conducted at three locations within the lake: AG-IN, which is located on the northern portion of the lake
52
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
where stormwater enters the lake, AG-FD located in a central portion of the lake, and AG-OUT
located at the southern portion in proximity to the drainage outfall (Figure 2).
Dissolved oxygen within the lake ranged between 0.0 mg/l and 11.5 mg/l with a mean value of 5.6 mg/l (Table 22; Figure 76 through Figure 78). It should be noted that the dissolved oxygen at AG-
OUT was 0.0 during June, July, and August 2015.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 18 NTU with a mean value of 3 NTU
(Table 22). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for Class C waters.
Figure 76. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-IN
Figure 77. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-FD
53
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 78. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-OUT
Table 22. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range provided in parentheses.
Parameter AG-IN AG-FD AG-OUT
Turbidity (NTU) 8 (0-18) 4 (0-12) 2 (0-5)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 4.4 (1.1-7.6) 6.4 (2.1-11.2) 6.1 (0-11.5)
Orthophosphate 0.04 (0.01-0.11) 0.01 (0.01-0.02) 0.01 (0.01-0.01)
Nitrate/Nitrite 0.06 (0.01-0.24) 0.02 (0.01-0.08) 0.01 (0.01-0.05)
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Water quality is an important issue in the region due to the fact that there are many economic and recreational opportunities that are supported by the aquatic resources in and around these
waterways. One of the greatest threats to water quality in this area is stormwater runoff created
by increased impervious surface coverage (Mallin et al., 2000). Due to many of the contaminants
found in stormwater runoff, adverse effects can be imposed upon plants, fish, animals and people. Excess nutrients can cause algal blooms while bacteria and other pathogens can wash into swimming areas and create health hazards. New Hanover County has experienced rapid growth
and development over the past several decades. In 1990, the population within the County was
120,284. By 2006, the population grew over 50% to 182,591 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
Furthermore, the County’s population as of July 2014 was 216,995 and is expected to grow at a rate of 1.3% through 2019 (NC Division of Commerce, Labor, and Economic Data and Site Information, 2016). Along with this population growth came increased stormwater runoff,
increase in septic tanks, aging wastewater infrastructure, and other issues that potentially impacted
the water quality within the County’s creeks. Since this time, New Hanover County’s water quality
within its tidal creeks has become altered. This has led to a strong community desire for greater protection and enhancement of surface and ground water resources. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority is finalizing its work to provide the Marquis Hill subdivision within the Motts Creek
watershed with sewer service which will replace a number of failing septic systems within the
54
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
neighborhood. Furthermore, the County continues to work toward preventing further deterioration
and loss of public uses in surface water through initiatives such as riparian buffer land acquisition
projects and promoting low impact development. With this in mind, it is important to monitor the
water quality of these local systems to determine potential impacts to both human health and ecosystem function.
Typically, water quality degrades as the water temperature increases and oxygen is not as readily
dissolved in the water column. This was observed while investigating the long term trends of
water quality in this study. The dissolved oxygen along with chlorophyll-a and turbidity levels increased during the warmer summer months. Furthermore, longer days allow for increased
photosynthetic activity allowing for an increase in phytoplankton blooms. While often more
problematic in the summer months, algal blooms are less common in the fall and winter when
water temperature decreases. High levels of chlorophyll-a and nutrients along with increases in
pH and turbidity may indicate the presence of an algal bloom. Throughout the course of this study, pH values were generally found to be within acceptable ranges as were turbidity values. However,
one site, MOT-CBR contained one occurrence of high levels of chlorophyll-a above the State
standard. It is possible that an algal bloom was occurring within the creek during that sampling
period. This would mark only the third algal bloom identified within the network of creeks
included within this monitoring program since 2007.
Fourteen percent (14%) of all surface samples collected during the 12 month study contained
dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard. Of the 42 samples that fell below this standard,
more than half (57%) were observed during June, July, and August when water temperatures were
the highest. The lowest dissolved oxygen, on average, was observed at PG-NC and PG-ML where the standard was breached seven (7) of twelve (12) sampling events at each location. This creek
is characterized by a broad shallow bank in a swamp-like setting. It is typical of swamps to contain
low levels of dissolved oxygen and higher levels of pH, as observed. Therefore, the low dissolved
oxygen observed in Prince Georges Creek, particularly at PG-NC and PG-ML, could be regarded
as a natural phenomenon. Compared to last year, the DO levels declined from a “Good” rating to a “Fair” rating at Motts Creek and Pages Creek while Barnards Creek declined from “Fair” to “Poor”. Lords Creek, on the other hand, improved it’s DO as the ratings went from “Fair” to
“Good”. Futch Creek, Prince George Creek, and Smith Creek all remained the same in terms of
ratings for DO.
High levels of Enterococci bacteria persisted within a number of sites throughout the study period.
Enterococci levels exceeded the State standard in individual sampling sites within Futch Creek,
Smith Creek, and Lords Creek 13%, 23%, and 25% of the time, respectively. Other creeks,
namely Prince Georges Creek, Barnards Creek, Pages Creek, and Motts Creek demonstrated
higher levels of Enterococci with 31%, 33%, 47%, and 54% of the samples exceeding the limit, respectively. The sites with the most frequent high concentrations of Enterococci
bacteria were located within Pages Creek at BDUS where nine (9) of the twelve (12) samples
obtained at each sample exceeded the State standard. The other site located within the
Bayshore community at pages Creek is at the neighborhood boat ramp (PC-BDUS). Five (5)
of the twelve (12) samples collected at this site exceeded the State standard. Collectively, these two sampling sites in the Bayshore neighborhood exceeded the standard 63% of the time.
Samples collected at MOT-ND and MOT-CBR also contained high levels of Enterococci on a
consistent basis as seven (7) and six (6) of the twelve (12) sampling events exceeded the standard
55
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
at each site, respectively. Over the past several years, two sites have continued to improve their
water quality in terms of bacterial contamination: Samples collected from Futch Creek, Smith
Creek, and Lords Creek demonstrated the best water quality in terms of bacteria.
An assessment of the past seven years of water quality monitoring has revealed some long term
trends regarding the ratings for dissolved oxygen and Enterococci bacteria within each creek. In
general, the dissolved oxygen within Barnards Creek, Lords Creek, and Smith Creek has been
rated “Good” over time, with few exceptions (Figure 79). Barnards Creek, however has declined in dissolved oxygen in recent years with a “Poor” rating during this most recent sampling period.
Recent increases in residential development within the Barnards Creek watershed could be a
contributing factor to this decline in water quality. Futch Creek has maintained a “Fair” rating for
six (6) of the eight (8) years with one year rated as “Poor” and one as “Good”. Motts Creek has
demonstrated a “Good” rating during five (5) of the eight (8) years with the most recent year declining to “Fair”. Pages Creek had improved to “Good” after several years of “Poor” dissolved
oxygen, however this past year moderated to a “Fair” rating. Prince Georges Creek has maintained
"Poor" dissolved oxygen for this long term period with the exception of one “Fair” rating in 2007-
2008 (Figure 79).
Figure 79. Long-term dissolved oxygen ratings
The long term trends for enterococci ratings over the past seven years have shown that a number
of creeks have basically maintained “Poor” ratings. These include Motts Creek, Pages Creek,
Prince Georges Creek, and Smith Creek. Smith Creek, however, has improved over the past two
(2) years with a “Fair” rating. Barnards Creek and Lords Creek have demonstrated various conditions over the past seven years while Futch Creek has maintained a “Good” rating
consistently with the exception of this past year (Figure 80).
Good
Fair
Poor
56
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 80. Long-term Enterococci ratings
Sampling from within the lake at Airlie Gardens began this past year, and, therefore, no long term
trends can be discerned at this time. However, the results from monthly sampling over the past 12
months have provided some insight into the water quality within the lake. Similar to observations from within the tidal creeks, the dissolved oxygen levels observed at the three sampling sites positively correlate with the water temperature. The water from AG-OUT were completely anoxic
(0.0 mg/L of Oxygen) during July, August, and September 2015; the months with the warmest
water temperature. The other two sites, AG-FD and AG-OUT displayed relatively higher
dissolved oxygen, yet they were below the standard of 4.0mg/l during two of those three months. There are no state or federal standards for nutrients including the two monitored within Airlie
Gardens (orthophosphate and nitrate/nitrite). That said, the levels of orthophosphate and
nitrate/nitrite observed within the three sites in Airlie Gardens were generally low, however, the
nutrients within AG-IN were relatively higher than the other two sites further south and closer to the outfall. This suggests that the stormwater runoff delivered to the lake at AG-IN contain nutrients that are ultimately taken up by aquatic plants and macroaglae within the lake. The
nutrients promote the growth of the vegetation. This is called eutrophication and can lead to algae
blooms (Figure 81). As the vegetation dies off and the plant matter decomposes, bacteria take up
the oxygen in the water column which can be harmful to fish and other aquatic life.
Good
Fair
Poor
57
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 81. Potential algal bloom at AG-IN.
58
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Grizzard, T.J., Randall, C.W., Helsel, D.R., and Hartigan, J.P. 1980. Analysis of non-point
pollution export from small catchments. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 52: 780-790.
Howarth, R.W. and Marino, R. 2006. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in
coastal marine ecosystems: Evolving views over three decades. Limnology and Oceanography,
51: 364-376.
Hume, A. 2008. Determination of Impervious Surface in New Hanover County, North
Carolina. Report submitted to New Hanover County. Wilmington, North Carolina.
Jeng, J.G., Bradford, H, and Englande, A.J. 2004. "Comparison of E. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform as indicators for brackish water quality assessment". Water Environmental Research. 76: 245–55.
Kelsey, H., Porter, D.E, Scott, G., Neet, M., and White, D. 2004. Using geographic information
systems and regression analysis to evaluate relationships between land use and fecal coliform
bacterial pollution. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 298:197-209.
Kwak, T.J. and Zedler, J.B. 1997. Food web analysis of southern California coastal wetlands using
multiple stable isotopes. Oecologia 110: 262–277.
Mallin, M.A.; Williams, K.E.; Esham, C.E.; and Lowe, P.R., 2000. Effect of human development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10:1047-1056.
Mallin, M.A., Ensign, S.H., McIver, M.R., Shank, G.C., and Fowler, P.K. 2001. Demographic,
landscape, and meteorological factors controlling the microbial pollution of coastal waters.
Hydrobiologia. 460: 185-193.
Mallin, M.A., 2010. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Aquatic Ecologist. Personal
communication regarding findings of water samples obtained within PG-NC.
Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver, Anna R. Robuck and John D. Barker. 2014.
Environmental Quality of Wilmington And New Hanover County Watersheds. CMS Report 15-
01. Center for Marine Science University of North Carolina Wilmington. 92pp.
NC Division of Commerce, Labor, Economic Data and Site Information. 2015. Thrive in North
Carolina, County Demographics Report.
http://accessnc.commerce.state.nc.us/docs/countyProfile/NC/37129.pdf. Last visited July 8, 2015.
Odum, W.E., Smith, T.J., Hoover, J.K., and McIvor, C.C. 1984. The Ecology of Tidal Freshwater
Marshes of the United States East Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-83/17, 177 pp.
59
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Ricks, C., 2011. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Personal communication regarding sewage
spills in New Hanover County.
Schueler, T., 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Water Protection Technology. 1: 100-111.
Spivey, 2008. The use of PCR and T-RFLP as a means of identifying sources of fecal bacteria
pollution in the tidal creeks of New Hanover County, North Carolina. Masters Thesis. University
of North Carolina at Wilmington. 54pp.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates, Census 2000, 1990 Census.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health effects criteria for fresh recreational waters.
EPA-600/1-84-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria- 1986. EPA-440/5/84-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Wade, T. J., Sams, E., Brenner, K. P., Haugland, R., Chern, E. Beach, M., Wymer, L., Rankin, C.
C., Love, D., Li, Q., Noble, R., and A.P. Dufour. 2010. Rapidly measured indicators of
recreational water quality and swimming-associated illness at marine beaches. Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. 9:66-80.
60
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
APPENDIX A
Photographs of Sampling Sites
Barnards Creek at Carolina Beach Road (BC-CBR)
Futch Creek 4 (FC-4)
Futch Creek 6 (FC-6)
Futch Creek 13 (FC-13)
Futch Creek at Foy Branch (FC-FOY)
Lords Creek at River Road (LC-RR)
Motts Creek at Carolina Beach Road (MOTT-CBR)
Motts Creek at Normandy Drive (MOT-ND)
Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive Upstream (PC-BDUS)
Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive (PC-BDDS)
Pages Creek Mouth (PC-M)
Prince Georges Creek at Castle Hayne Road (PG-CH)
Prince Georges Creek at Marathon Landing (PG-ML)
Prince Georges Creek at North College Road (PG-NC)
Smith Creek at Candlewood Drive (SC-CD)
Smith Creek at Castle Hayne Road (SC-CH)
Smith Creek at 23rd Street (SC-23)
Smith Creek at North Kerr Ave. (SC-NK)
Smith Creek at Gordon Road (SC-GR)
Airlie Gardens Lake at Input (AG-IN)
Airlie Gardens Lake at Floating Dock (AG-FD)
Airlie Gardens Lake at Output (AG-OUT)
Appendix B
2015-2016 Tidal Creek Raw Data
Date Site Depth Temp. Cond. Salinity DO mg/L DO% pH Turb. Entero. Chl-a
7/14/15 BC-CBR 0.1 26.3 155 0.1 3.8 46% 7.6 3 1439 2
7/14/15 BC-CBR 1.6 25.2 160 0.1 3.7 44% 7.3 16 N/A N/A
7/14/15 LC-RR 0.1 28.0 30601 17.8 5.4 77% 7.2 7 41 8
7/14/15 LC-RR 1.8 28.0 30578 17.8 5.4 76% 7.4 7 N/A N/A
7/14/15 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.8 153 0.1 4.1 51% 7.1 8 2495 24
7/14/15 MOT-ND 0.1 25.0 196 0.1 4.1 50% 7.0 9 6131 5
7/15/15 PG-CH 0.1 25.1 153 0.1 0.0 0.0% 6.9 3 259 19
7/15/15 PG-CH 1.6 25.1 153 0.1 0.0 0.0% 6.8 11 N/A N/A
7/15/15 PG-ML 0.1 26.5 240 0.1 1.0 12% 8.0 5 216 4
7/15/15 PG-NC 0.1 25.5 126 0.1 0.0 0.0% 6.9 2 146 8
7/15/15 PG-NC 3.2 25.0 142 0.1 0.0 0.0% 6.7 22 N/A N/A
7/15/15 SC-23 0.1 28.4 2582 1.2 3.4 44% 7.8 6 62 33
7/15/15 SC-23 1.7 28.4 2680 1.3 2.0 26% 7.5 7 N/A N/A
7/15/15 SC-CD 0.1 25.4 135 0.1 4.2 51% 6.9 6 526 8
7/15/15 SC-CH 0.1 29.1 17236 9.3 4.4 61% 7.2 5 31 37
7/15/15 SC-CH 2.0 29.0 17378 9.4 3.4 45% 7.2 11 N/A N/A
7/15/15 SC-GR 0.1 24.7 124 0.1 5.0 60% 6.9 4 238 4
7/15/15 SC-NK 0.1 26.2 193 0.1 0.7 9% 7.0 7 181 10
7/15/15 SC-NK 1.3 26.2 192 0.1 0.5 6% 7.0 6 N/A N/A
7/16/15 FC-13 0.1 27.7 54304 33.8 3.6 55% 7.9 7 5 6
7/16/15 FC-13 1.0 27.7 54426 34.0 3.5 54% 7.9 18 N/A N/A
7/16/15 FC-4 0.1 27.4 57122 36.0 5.3 82% 8.1 4 5 6
7/16/15 FC-4 1.7 27.4 57101 36.0 5.2 80% 8.1 4 N/A N/A
7/16/15 FC-6 0.1 27.5 57110 36.0 4.7 72% 8.0 4 5 6
7/16/15 FC-6 1.3 27.5 57102 36.0 4.6 71% 8.0 4 N/A N/A
7/16/15 FC-FOY 0.1 27.7 55388 34.5 3.7 57% 7.9 6 201 7
7/16/15 FC-FOY 1.0 27.6 56039 35.1 3.5 54% 7.9 6 N/A N/A
7/16/15 PC-BDDS 0.1 28.7 48990 29.8 3.6 56% 7.6 4 11199 14
7/16/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 27.0 32540 19.4 4.5 64% 7.8 11 158 13.0
7/16/15 PC-M 0.1 26.9 56026 35.6 5.3 81% 8.0 4 62 6
7/16/15 PC-M 1.6 27.0 55880 35.5 5.3 81% 8.0 18 N/A N/A
8/12/15 BC-CBR 0.1 24.2 181 0.1 1.3 15% 8.0 8 3654 2.0
8/12/15 BC-CBR 1.5 24.2 185 0.1 1.2 14% 7.8 9 N/A N/A
8/12/15 LC-RR 0.1 27.3 3422 20.4 4.8 67% 7.5 9 169 10.0
8/12/15 LC-RR 1.9 27.3 34020 20.3 4.8 67% 7.5 10 N/A N/A
8/12/15 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.4 153 0.1 3.7 46% 7.5 11 9804 28.0
8/12/15 MOT-ND 0.1 24.7 235 0.1 3.0 36% 7.3 10 6867 4.0
8/13/15 PG-CH 0.1 23.7 149 0.1 2.3 27% 7.4 3 173 3.0
8/13/15 PG-CH 1.3 23.7 149 0.1 2.3 27% 7.3 21 N/A N/A
8/13/15 PG-NC 0.1 23.8 120 0.1 1.3 15% 7.1 0 158 5.0
8/13/15 PG-NC 3.3 23.6 119 0.1 0.2 2% 6.9 3 N/A N/A
8/13/15 SC-23 0.1 27.5 3582 1.8 2.6 35% 7.8 3 41 11.0
8/13/15 SC-23 1.8 27.5 3735 1.9 2.6 35% 7.7 3 N/A N/A
8/13/15 SC-CD 0.1 24.8 149 0.1 5.9 69% 7.1 0 1835 4.0
8/13/15 SC-CH 0.1 28.1 11685 6.2 3.0 40% 7.2 1 63 3.0
8/13/15 SC-CH 2.1 28.2 12104 6.5 2.9 39% 7.2 10 N/A N/A
8/13/15 SC-GR 0.1 24.0 141 0.1 5.8 69% 7.2 2 243 3.0
8/13/15 SC-NK 0.1 25.5 235 0.1 3.2 40% 7.3 3 307 23.0
8/13/15 SC-NK 2.1 25.3 231 0.1 2.4 30% 7.2 3 N/A N/A
8/14/15 FC-13 0.1 27.5 51338 32.0 3.0 46% 7.6 4 230 18.0
8/14/15 FC-13 1.0 27.5 52610 32.7 3.0 46% 7.7 14 N/A N/A
8/14/15 FC-4 0.1 27.9 55827 34.8 4.7 73% 8.1 4 63 6.0
8/14/15 FC-4 1.3 27.9 55823 34.8 4.7 73% 8.1 3 N/A N/A
8/14/15 FC-6 0.1 27.9 55486 34.6 4.2 67% 8.0 2 20 4.0
8/14/15 FC-6 1.1 27.8 55464 34.6 4.2 67% 8.1 3 N/A N/A
8/14/15 FC-FOY 0.1 27.5 51598 32.1 3.1 48% 7.9 5 74 5.0
8/14/15 FC-FOY 0.8 27.7 53187 33.2 3.3 51% 7.9 18 N/A N/A
8/14/15 PC-BDDS 0.1 28.3 49723 30.3 3.6 55% 7.7 17 15531 5.0
8/14/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 27.3 45769 28.3 3.0 40% 7.9 13 1187 23.0
8/14/15 PC-M 0.1 27.9 56601 35.3 5.5 86% 8.1 2 121 7.0
8/14/15 PC-M 1.8 28.0 56548 35.3 5.5 85% 8.1 3 N/A N/A
8/14/15 PG-ML 0.1 25.2 269 0.1 1.7 20% 7.7 12 1624 4.0
9/10/15 BC-CBR 0.1 25.3 209 0.1 1.9 23% 7.9 1 633 3.0
9/10/15 BC-CBR 1.3 25.2 208 0.1 1.7 21% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
9/10/15 LC-RR 0.1 27.7 31815 18.7 5.0 70% 6.9 15 1455 29.0
9/10/15 LC-RR 1.7 27.7 21827 18.7 5.1 71% 7.1 16 N/A N/A
9/10/15 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.8 231 0.1 3.8 48% 7.3 2 759 140
9/10/15 MOT-ND 0.1 26.1 251 0.1 3.6 44% 7.1 9 788 3.0
9/11/15 PG-CH 0.1 24.7 135 0.1 2.3 28% 7.0 3 608 2.0
9/11/15 PG-CH 1.5 24.7 134 0.1 2.3 28% 7.0 11 N/A N/A
9/11/15 PG-ML 0.1 25.4 213 0.1 1.6 20% 7.5 5 1254 7.0
9/11/15 PG-NC 0.1 24.7 116 0.1 0.8 10% 6.7 3 420 4.0
9/11/15 PG-NC 3.3 24.7 124 0.1 0.5 7% 6.7 14 N/A N/A
9/11/15 SC-23 0.1 26.7 378 0.2 1.6 20% 8.0 13 364 15.0
9/11/15 SC-23 1.6 26.7 386 0.2 1.5 19% 7.9 12 N/A N/A
9/11/15 SC-CD 0.1 24.6 1131 0.1 6.0 72% 6.9 12 569 5.0
9/11/15 SC-CH 0.1 27.4 6533 3.4 3.1 40% 7.1 7 862 4.0
9/11/15 SC-CH 2.2 27.4 7009 3.7 3.0 39% 7.0 17 N/A N/A
9/11/15 SC-GR 0.1 24.2 132 0.1 6.1 72% 6.8 16 1370 3.0
9/11/15 SC-NK 0.1 25.7 139 0.1 3.1 38% 6.9 7 958 6.0
9/11/15 SC-NK 2.6 25.7 139 0.1 2.9 36% 6.9 14 N/A N/A
9/14/15 FC-13 0.1 24.2 522011 34.9 4.9 72% 7.8 8 5 11.0
9/14/15 FC-13 0.8 24.4 52485 35.0 5.0 73% 8.1 11 N/A N/A
9/14/15 FC-4 0.1 24.9 55431 36.8 5.3 78% 8.1 4 5 5.0
9/14/15 FC-4 1.6 25.1 55823 36.9 5.2 77% 8.2 5 N/A N/A
9/14/15 FC-6 0.1 25.0 55148 36.6 4.8 73% 8.1 4 10 5.0
9/14/15 FC-6 1.4 25.0 55098 36.6 4.8 72% 8.1 4 N/A N/A
9/14/15 FC-FOY 0.1 24.4 52550 35.1 4.1 62% 8.1 6 5 4.0
9/14/15 FC-FOY 1.0 24.5 52310 35.2 4.1 62% 8.1 9 N/A N/A
9/14/15 PC-BDDS 0.1 24.0 47386 31.9 4.8 67% 7.8 5 1529 5.0
9/14/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 24.5 33983 20.9 8.0 100% 8.2 9 465 4.0
9/14/15 PC-M 0.1 25.3 55184 36.3 6.0 91% 8.1 3 5 6.0
9/14/15 PC-M 1.7 25.4 55286 36.4 5.9 89% 8.2 6 N/A N/A
10/27/15 BC-CBR 0.1 17.6 207 0.1 5.1 54% 8.4 3 52 1.0
10/27/15 BC-CBR 1.5 17.6 200 0.1 4.8 50% 8.3 11 N/A N/A
10/27/15 LC-RR 0.1 19.5 28888 20.0 6.8 83% 7.1 9 324 2.0
10/27/15 LC-RR 1.7 19.5 28401 79.8 6.7 82% 7.3 9 N/A N/A
10/27/15 MOT-CBR 0.1 18.5 318 0.2 6.2 66% 7.6 21 857 1.0
10/27/15 MOT-ND 0.1 17.5 299 0.2 6.0 63% 7.5 14 845 3.0
10/28/15 PG-CH 0.1 17.8 240 0.1 2.8 30% 7.6 6 759 12.0
10/28/15 PG-CH 2.0 17.6 242 0.1 2.2 24% 7.3 18 N/A N/A
10/28/15 PG-ML 0.1 18.2 288 0.2 3.0 32% 8.2 3 132 0.0
10/28/15 PG-NC 0.1 17.4 134 0.1 0.7 8% 7.3 8 63 5.0
10/28/15 PG-NC 3.2 15.4 443 0.3 0.0 0% 6.7 17 N/A N/A
10/28/15 SC-23 0.1 18.7 36 0.0 6.1 69% 8.0 14 908 2.0
10/28/15 SC-23 1.9 18.7 5374 3.4 5.9 65% 7.8 14 N/A N/A
10/28/15 SC-CD 0.1 19.8 174 0.1 8.0 88% 7.3 7 216 2.0
10/28/15 SC-CH 0.1 19.1 11460 7.5 6.1 69% 7.3 23 74 3.0
10/28/15 SC-CH 2.2 19.7 11746 7.7 6.0 69% 7.2 36 N/A N/A
10/28/15 SC-GR 0.1 19.6 147 0.1 7.4 82% 7.5 4 259 2.0
10/28/15 SC-NK 0.1 18.4 574 0.3 5.2 57% 7.2 3 121 2.0
10/28/15 SC-NK 2.0 18.4 576 0.3 5.1 55% 7.1 4 N/A N/A
10/29/15 FC-13 0.1 20.6 42181 30.0 6.5 86% 7.8 4 211 9.0
10/29/15 FC-13 1.2 20.6 43343 30.9 6.2 83% 7.9 20 N/A N/A
10/29/15 FC-4 0.1 20.7 44117 31.5 6.4 86% 8.1 4 73 2.0
10/29/15 FC-4 1.3 20.6 44441 31.7 6.2 84% 8.1 4 N/A N/A
10/29/15 FC-6 0.1 20.6 43187 30.8 6.1 82% 8.0 3 52 3.0
10/29/15 FC-6 1.8 20.6 44401 31.7 6.1 82% 8.1 3 N/A N/A
10/29/15 FC-FOY 0.1 20.6 43204 30.6 6.3 84% 8.0 4 379 3.0
10/29/15 FC-FOY 1.4 20.6 43590 31.6 6.3 84% 8.0 0 N/A N/A
10/29/15 PC-BDDS 0.1 20.5 41015 29.1 5.6 74% 7.8 4 609 3.0
10/29/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 21.0 32911 22.5 5.4 70% 8.0 6 4611 1.0
10/29/15 PC-M 0.1 20.7 45977 33.0 6.2 84% 8.2 5 41 4.0
10/29/15 PC-M 1.5 20.7 45967 33.0 6.1 82% 8.3 5 N/A N/A
11/17/15 BC-CBR 0.1 15.9 176 0.1 6.2 63% 7.8 4 75 1.0
11/17/15 BC-CBR 1.8 15.5 176 0.1 6.2 62% 7.7 7 N/A N/A
11/17/15 LC-RR 0.1 15.5 1448 0.9 6.5 66% 7.5 12 131 2.0
11/17/15 LC-RR 1.7 15.5 1430 0.9 6.4 65% 7.5 13 N/A N/A
11/17/15 MOT-CBR 0.1 15.9 250 0.2 6.8 69% 7.3 15 52 2.0
11/17/15 MOT-ND 0.1 15.8 249 0.2 7.8 78% 7.2 8 250 1.0
11/18/15 FC-13 0.1 17.2 39631 30.3 7.2 90 8.3 3 10 4.0
11/18/15 FC-13 1.0 17.2 40398 31.0 7.1 88 8.3 10 N/A N/A
11/18/15 FC-4 0.1 17.6 42870 32.7 6.4 81% 8.3 2 20 4.0
11/18/15 FC-4 1.5 17.8 43573 33.1 6.2 80% 8.4 2 N/A N/A
11/18/15 FC-6 0.1 17.3 41884 32.2 6.6 84 8.3 2 10 4.0
11/18/15 FC-6 1.4 17.3 41952 32.2 6.6 83 8.3 2 N/A N/A
11/18/15 FC-FOY 0.1 17.3 40411 31.0 6.9 87 8.3 4 5 3.0
11/18/15 FC-FOY 1.1 17.2 41184 31.6 6.8 86 8.3 4 N/A N/A
11/18/15 PC-BDDS 0.1 17.2 9864 6.0 7.1 77% 8.4 5 307 18
11/18/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 17.6 22263 16.2 6.0 70% 8.3 5 285 22.0
11/18/15 PC-M 0.1 18.2 43486 32.9 6.9 88% 7.9 1 5 3.0
11/18/15 PC-M 2.0 18.1 43632 33.0 6.9 89% 8.1 2 N/A N/A
11/19/15 PG-CH 0.1 18.8 144 0.1 6.8 72% 7.4 149 6867 1.0
11/19/15 PG-CH 1.8 18.8 144 0.1 6.7 71% 7.4 150 N/A N/A
11/19/15 PG-ML 0.1 16.2 206 0.1 4.9 50% 7.3 6 1470 1.0
11/19/15 PG-NC 0.1 17.9 114 0.1 5.5 58% 7.3 7 1467 1.0
11/19/15 PG-NC 3.6 13.8 217 0.1 1.2 13% 7.1 10 N/A N/A
11/19/15 SC-23 0.1 16.4 202 0.1 6.5 67% 7.9 8 121 1.0
11/19/15 SC-23 1.9 16.4 205 0.1 6.5 66% 7.8 8 N/A N/A
11/19/15 SC-CD 0.1 19.4 69 0.0 7.7 83% 7.3 17 17329 3.0
11/19/15 SC-CH 0.1 15.6 112 0.1 5.8 89% 7.0 6 41 1.0
11/19/15 SC-CH 2.3 15.6 112 0.1 5.8 58% 6.9 7 N/A N/A
11/19/15 SC-GR 0.1 19.8 67 0.0 7.5 82% 7.0 55 24196 3.0
11/19/15 SC-NK 0.1 17.6 163 0.1 6.3 66% 7.3 6 315 1.0
11/19/15 SC-NK 1.2 17.5 160 0.1 5.8 60% 7.2 8 N/A N/A
12/14/15 BC-CBR 0.1 17.7 193 0.1 6.7 71% 7.9 3 213 2.0
12/14/15 BC-CBR 1.7 17.2 185 0.1 6.3 66% 7.8 6 N/A N/A
12/14/15 LC-RR 0.1 15.3 12214 8.8 8.1 81% 6.4 4 31 2.0
12/14/15 LC-RR 1.8 15.2 12310 8.9 8.1 82% 6.5 5 N/A N/A
12/14/15 MOT-CBR 0.1 17.7 270 0.2 8.4 80% 7.3 6 676 2.0
12/14/15 MOT-ND 0.1 17.5 268 0.2 8.8 84% 7.5 24 253 2.0
12/15/15 PG-CH 0.1 16.9 180 0.1 4.7 47% 7.2 8 226 1.0
12/15/15 PG-CH 1.8 16.9 180 0.1 4.3 43% 7.2 8 N/A N/A
12/15/15 PG-ML 0.1 16.2 173 0.1 5.9 60% 7.5 4 359 2.0
12/15/15 PG-NC 0.1 17.2 153 0.1 3.1 32% 7.1 6 63 1.0
12/15/15 PG-NC 3.1 13.4 177 0.1 1.1 12% 6.9 5 N/A N/A
12/15/15 SC-23 0.1 15.9 250 0.2 7.1 72% 8.2 6 173 2.0
12/15/15 SC-23 1.7 15.9 307 0.2 7.0 70% 8.1 6 N/A N/A
12/15/15 SC-CD 0.1 18.2 159 0.1 7.6 80% 7.0 5 464 1.0
12/15/15 SC-CH 0.1 14.6 195 0.1 7.5 75% 7.8 7 199 1.0
12/15/15 SC-CH 2.1 14.6 202 0.1 7.3 72% 7.3 7 N/A N/A
12/15/15 SC-GR 0.1 17.9 267 0.2 4.4 46% 7.1 10 495 1.0
12/15/15 SC-NK 0.1 17.6 197 0.1 6.1 63% 7.1 2 193 2.0
12/15/15 SC-NK 1.3 17.5 194 0.1 6.1 63% 7.0 3 N/A N/A
12/16/15 FC-13 0.1 17.4 42509 32.5 7.8 98% 8.2 2 272 2.0
12/16/15 FC-13 1.1 17.4 42473 32.5 7.6 96% 8.2 4 N/A N/A
12/16/15 FC-4 0.1 17.5 44396 34.1 7.7 99% 8.2 3 10 2.0
12/16/15 FC-4 2.1 17.6 44618 34.2 7.8 99% 8.2 33 N/A N/A
12/16/15 FC-6 0.1 17.6 44026 33.8 7.6 98% 8.2 3 30 3.0
12/16/15 FC-6 1.4 17.6 44032 33.8 7.6 98% 8.2 3 N/A N/A
12/16/15 FC-FOY 0.1 17.3 49989 32.1 7.5 95% 8.2 2 230 2.0
12/16/15 FC-FOY 1.2 17.5 43412 33.2 7.6 95% 8.2 26 N/A N/A
12/16/15 PC-BDDS 0.1 16.7 39981 30.1 7.1 88% 7.8 3 96 10.0
12/16/15 PC-BDUS 0.1 17.8 31350 23.1 6.6 80% 8.0 14 2755 16.0
12/16/15 PC-M 0.1 17.8 45318 34.7 7.5 97% 8.0 1 5 2.0
12/16/15 PC-M 2.1 17.8 45328 34.8 7.6 98% 8.1 15 N/A N/A
1/12/16 BC-CBR 0.1 9.0 154 0.1 8.2 71 7.8 2 119 1.0
1/12/16 BC-CBR 1.5 8.5 151 0.1 7.8 67 7.6 7 N/A N/A
1/12/16 LC-RR 0.1 9.9 1535 1.1 9.6 85 7.1 28 262 2.0
1/12/16 LC-RR 1.6 10.0 1551 1.1 9.3 83 7.2 28 N/A N/A
1/12/16 MOT-CBR 0.1 10.2 218 0.2 8.8 79 7.2 12 85 2.0
1/12/16 MOT-ND 0.1 8.9 208 0.1 8.8 77 7.1 17 612 1.0
1/13/16 PG-CH 0.1 7.8 146 0.1 8.0 68% 6.9 4 86 2.0
1/13/16 PG-CH 1.7 7.7 146 0.1 7.7 65% 6.9 8 N/A N/A
1/13/16 PG-ML 0.1 8.0 129 0.1 7.5 63% 7.21 5 171 2.0
1/13/16 PG-NC 0.1 7.1 109 0.1 7.1 58% 6.8 6 72 1.0
1/13/16 PG-NC 3.3 6.8 121 0.1 6.0 49% 6.6 11 N/A N/A
1/13/16 SC-23 0.1 9.9 138 0.1 9.0 79% 8.1 6 135 2.0
1/13/16 SC-23 1.8 9.9 138 0.1 8.9 78% 7.9 6 N/A N/A
1/13/16 SC-CD 0.1 10.6 131 0.1 10.2 92% 6.7 6 52 1.0
1/13/16 SC-CH 0.1 9.4 74 0.1 8.9 77% 7.1 7 135 1.0
1/13/16 SC-CH 2.3 9.4 74 0.1 8.7 76% 7.0 7 N/A N/A
1/13/16 SC-GR 0.1 10.8 127 0.1 9.3 94 6.7 7 31 1.0
1/13/16 SC-NK 0.1 9.0 139 0.1 9.7 84% 6.7 4 84 2.0
1/13/16 SC-NK 1.3 8.9 140 0.1 9.6 83 6.7 6 N/A N/A
1/14/16 FC-13 0.1 9.8 34726 31.7 9.4 101 7.5 0 30 1.0
1/14/16 FC-13 0.8 9.9 35197 32.2 9.2 100 7.7 0 N/A N/A
1/14/16 FC-4 0.1 11.5 38574 33.4 8.7 98 8.0 0 10 1.0
1/14/16 FC-4 1.3 11.7 38765 34.0 8.6 98 8.0 0 N/A N/A
1/14/16 FC-6 0.1 10.5 36742 33.3 8.8 97 7.9 0 5 1.0
1/14/16 FC-6 1.7 10.4 36785 33.3 8.8 97 7.9 0 N/A N/A
1/14/16 FC-FOY 0.1 9.8 34301 31.5 9.2 99 7.8 0 52 4.0
1/14/16 FC-FOY 1.0 9.9 35447 32.3 9.1 99 7.8 0 N/A N/A
1/14/16 PC-BDDS 0.1 9.0 33268 30.9 8.9 94 7.8 0 226 1.0
1/14/16 PC-BDUS 0.1 9.9 27428 24.1 8.0 84 8.0 17 480 1.0
1/14/16 PC-M 0.1 11.1 37637 33.5 8.9 100 7.8 0 5 1.0
1/14/16 PC-M 1.7 11.1 37636 33.5 8.9 100 7.9 0 N/A N/A
2/9/16 BC-CBR 0.1 10.1 124 0.1 8.8 79% 7.6 8 305 1.0
2/9/16 BC-CBR 1.5 10.1 123 0.1 8.6 77% 7.5 9 N/A N/A
2/9/16 LC-RR 0.1 9.2 1240 0.9 9.7 85% 6.7 33 934 3.0
2/9/16 LC-RR 2.4 9.2 1239 0.9 9.6 84% 6.8 33 N/A N/A
2/9/16 MOT-CBR 0.1 10.0 142 0.1 8.6 77% 7.0 5 52 2.0
2/9/16 MOT-ND 0.1 9.2 134 0.1 8.8 78% 6.9 6 420 2.0
2/10/16 PG-CH 0.1 7.4 75 0.1 9.5 80% 6.6 10 31 1.0
2/10/16 PG-CH 1.9 7.4 75 0.1 9.4 79% 6.5 9 N/A N/A
2/10/16 PG-ML 0.1 8.6 79 0.1 8.8 77% 6.9 9 298 2.0
2/10/16 PG-NC 0.1 7.0 58 0.1 9.4 78% 6.2 9 41 1.0
2/10/16 PG-NC 3.3 7.0 58 0.1 8.6 71% 6.0 9 N/A N/A
2/10/16 SC-23 0.1 8.2 69 0.1 9.8 84% 7.1 18 2415 1.0
2/10/16 SC-23 1.8 8.2 68 0.1 9.8 84% 8.0 18 N/A N/A
2/10/16 SC-CD 0.1 9.6 80 0.1 9.0 79% 6.3 15 20 1.0
2/10/16 SC-CH 0.1 8.7 47 0.0 8.4 72% 7.1 13 315 1.0
2/10/16 SC-CH 1.9 8.7 47 0.0 8.3 71% 6.9 13 N/A N/A
2/10/16 SC-GR 0.1 9.7 96 0.1 8.6 76% 6.2 12 41 1.0
2/10/16 SC-NK 0.1 8.5 80 0.1 9.1 79% 6.3 14 96 1.0
2/10/16 SC-NK 1.2 8.4 79 0.1 9.2 79% 6.3 16 N/A N/A
2/11/16 FC-13 0.1 6.9 29928 29.2 8.6 86% 7.0 2 10 1.0
2/11/16 FC-13 1.1 6.9 30382 29.7 8.5 85% 7.0 2 N/A N/A
2/11/16 FC-4 0.1 8.2 35181 33.6 7.6 80% 7.7 2 5 2.0
2/11/16 FC-4 1.5 8.6 36975 34.9 7.4 80% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
2/11/16 FC-6 0.1 7.3 32778 32.1 8.0 81% 7.5 2 5 2.0
2/11/16 FC-6 1.9 7.5 33032 32.2 7.9 80% 7.6 2 N/A N/A
2/11/16 FC-FOY 0.1 7.0 30311 29.9 8.2 82% 7.3 2 31 5.0
2/11/16 FC-FOY 1.3 7.0 30997 30.3 8.3 83% 7.4 2 N/A N/A
2/11/16 PC-BDDS 0.1 6.8 29879 29.4 8.1 80% 7.6 2 146 1.0
2/11/16 PC-BDUS 0.1 9.1 20843 18.3 10.2 98% 7.6 6 31 1.0
2/11/16 PC-M 0.1 8.4 35412 33.8 7.5 80% 7.7 1 5 1.0
2/11/16 PC-M 2.1 8.6 35964 34.1 7.7 82% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
3/9/16 BC-CBR 0.1 16.6 191 0.1 9.4 96% 8.2 4 63 1.0
3/9/16 BC-CBR 1.5 16.1 171 0.1 9.1 91% 8.1 10 N/A N/A
3/9/16 LC-RR 0.1 16.0 6365 4.3 8.2 86% 7.0 14 605 4.0
3/9/16 LC-RR 1.7 16.1 6349 4.3 8.4 88% 7.0 14 N/A N/A
3/9/16 MOT-CBR 0.1 16.0 229 0.1 8.3 85% 7.6 6 52 3.0
3/9/16 MOT-ND 0.1 16.9 238 0.1 8.0 83% 7.5 8 990 2.0
3/22/16 PG-CH 0.1 11.5 183 0.1 7.0 64% 7.8 2 10 3.0
3/22/16 PG-CH 1.5 11.3 180 0.1 6.7 61% 7.6 8 N/A N/A
3/22/16 PG-ML 0.1 13.7 213 0.1 7.1 68% 8.3 0 10 3.0
3/22/16 PG-NC 0.1 10.9 128 0.1 7.8 70% 7.4 3 20 2.0
3/22/16 PG-NC 3.2 10.6 126 0.1 6.1 55% 7.3 6 N/A N/A
3/22/16 SC-23 0.1 16.2 548 0.3 7.4 75% 7.9 5 20 21.0
3/22/16 SC-23 2.0 16.2 549 0.3 7.1 82% 7.8 5 N/A N/A
3/22/16 SC-CD 0.1 13.7 150 0.1 9.6 93% 7.6 0 426 2.0
3/22/16 SC-CH 2.3 16.8 5070 3.3 6.6 69% 6.7 9 N/A N/A
3/22/16 SC-GR 0.1 12.7 128 0.1 9.0 83% 7.3 0 145 2.0
3/22/16 SC-NK 0.1 13.5 165 0.1 8.7 82% 7.3 2 31 8.0
3/22/16 SC-NK 1.4 13.5 168 0.1 8.5 71% 7.2 2 N/A N/A
3/23/16 FC-13 0.1 14.2 37205 30.2 4.9 58% 8.2 0 393 2.0
3/23/16 FC-13 0.8 14.3 37478 30.7 4.6 54% 8.2 2 N/A N/A
3/23/16 FC-4 0.1 14.5 42446 35.0 4.9 60% 8.3 0 910 1.0
3/23/16 FC-4 1.4 14.6 42830 35.3 4.8 59% 8.3 2 N/A N/A
3/23/16 FC-6 0.1 14.4 41853 34.6 4.9 59% 8.2 0 829 1.0
3/23/16 FC-6 1.6 14.4 42309 34.8 4.9 59% 8.3 7 N/A N/A
3/23/16 FC-FOY 0.1 14.3 37247 30.5 5.2 62% 8.2 0 52 2.0
3/23/16 FC-FOY 0.8 14.4 39374 32.2 5.1 61% 8.2 4 N/A N/A
3/23/16 PC-BDDS 0.1 14.9 40013 32.5 5.2 63% 8.1 5 669 3.0
3/23/16 PC-BDUS 0.1 16.1 34641 26.8 5.6 67% 8.2 3 1232 7.0
3/23/16 PC-M 0.1 15.0 43157 35.3 4.8 59% 8.2 0 772 1.0
3/23/16 PC-M 1.5 14.9 43192 35.3 4.6 59% 8.2 0 N/A N/A
3/23/16 SC-CH 0.1 16.8 4772 3.1 6.8 71% 6.8 3 5 1.0
4/5/16 BC-CBR 0.1 16.2 194 0.1 5.2 53% 8.8 3 20 1.0
4/5/16 BC-CBR 1.4 16.2 189 0.1 5.2 53% 8.8 9 N/A N/A
4/5/16 LC-RR 0.1 16.2 9298 6.4 9.2 98% 6.7 30 275 4.0
4/5/16 LC-RR 1.5 16.3 9461 6.5 9.0 95% 6.9 16 N/A N/A
4/5/16 MOT-CBR 0.1 16.6 260 0.2 7.7 79% 8.2 6 63 2.0
4/5/16 MOT-ND 0.1 15.8 256 0.2 6.8 70% 8.0 43 256 4.0
4/6/16 PG-CH 0.1 12.0 180 0.1 7.8 72% 8.4 6 31 2.0
4/6/16 PG-CH 1.7 12.0 180 0.1 7.1 66% 8.4 21 N/A N/A
4/6/16 PG-ML 0.1 14.7 232 0.1 5.9 58% 9.0 4 41 3.0
4/6/16 PG-NC 0.1 11.7 130 0.1 6.0 56% 8.1 5 10 2.0
4/6/16 PG-NC 3.3 11.3 129 0.1 5.4 49% 8.0 33 N/A N/A
4/6/16 SC-23 0.1 17.5 534 0.3 6.8 71% 8.7 19 5 10
4/6/16 SC-23 2.5 17.5 528 0.3 7.3 76% 8.7 16 N/A N/A
4/6/16 SC-CD 0.1 12.8 159 0.1 8.6 82% 8.0 4 359 1.0
4/6/16 SC-CH 0.1 17.6 4048 2.5 7.0 75% 7.7 12 10 2.0
4/6/16 SC-CH 2.4 17.6 4530 2.9 6.9 74% 7.6 33 N/A N/A
4/6/16 SC-GR 0.1 12.4 149 0.1 8.1 76% 7.8 20 226 1.0
4/6/16 SC-NK 0.1 15.5 200 0.1 6.6 67% 7.7 5 20 13.0
4/6/16 SC-NK 1.4 15.5 202 1.1 6.6 67% 7.7 6 N/A N/A
4/7/16 FC-13 0.1 16.5 43313 34.1 6.6 84% 8.5 3 5 2.0
4/7/16 FC-13 0.8 16.5 43445 34.2 6.5 82% 8.5 9 N/A N/A
4/7/16 FC-4 0.1 15.9 44244 35.3 7.4 93% 8.5 7 10 9.0
4/7/16 FC-4 2.0 15.9 44369 35.6 7.5 94% 8.5 11 74 2.0
4/7/16 FC-4 2.0 15.9 44369 35.6 7.5 94% 8.5 11 N/A N/A
4/7/16 FC-6 0.1 16.1 44300 34.5 7.0 88% 8.5 6 N/A N/A
4/7/16 FC-6 1.4 16.2 44373 35.2 7.0 88% 8.5 6 N/A N/A
4/7/16 FC-FOY 0.1 16.5 43606 34.1 6.5 83% 8.5 2 20 4.0
4/7/16 FC-FOY 1.0 16.5 43918 34.5 6.3 80% 8.5 13 N/A N/A
4/7/16 PC-BDDS 0.1 16.8 43768 31.8 6.4 80% 8.4 4 10 7.0
4/7/16 PC-BDUS 0.1 17.7 37356 28.1 6.4 80% 8.6 5 468 5.0
4/7/16 PC-M 0.1 16.2 44406 35.3 7.2 90% 8.5 7 417 4.0
4/7/16 PC-M 1.6 16.2 44450 35.3 7.2 90% 8.5 9 N/A N/A
5/4/16 BC-CBR 0.1 21.3 156 0.1 5.3 60% 7.0 3 3873 4.0
5/4/16 BC-CBR 1.6 21.3 154 0.1 5.2 58% 8.7 20 N/A N/A
5/4/16 LC-RR 0.1 22.0 18732 11.9 6.4 78% 6.5 13 168 7.0
5/4/16 LC-RR 2.0 22.0 18711 11.9 6.3 77% 6.7 13 N/A N/A
5/4/16 MOT-CBR 0.1 21.5 160 0.1 6.3 72% 8.0 6 24196 7.0
5/4/16 MOT-ND 0.1 21.3 126 0.1 5.4 62% 7.8 18 3448 4.0
5/5/16 PG-CH 0.1 19.6 176 0.1 4.0 44% 8.1 9 504 2.0
5/5/16 PG-CH 1.5 19.6 176 0.1 4.0 43% 8.0 19 N/A N/A
5/5/16 PG-ML 0.1 21.1 202 0.1 3.0 33% 8.5 4 275 2.0
5/5/16 PG-NC 0.1 19.9 159 0.1 5.6 61% 7.4 17 279 6.0
5/5/16 PG-NC 3.2 19.7 159 0.1 2.3 26% 7.2 15 N/A N/A
5/5/16 SC-23 0.1 23.0 3860 2.1 5.3 63% 7.9 10 144 6.0
5/5/16 SC-23 1.8 23.0 3975 2.2 5.3 63% 7.8 11 N/A N/A
5/5/16 SC-CD 0.1 20.7 158 0.1 7.3 85% 7.5 5 1529 2.0
5/5/16 SC-CH 0.1 22.7 6852 4.0 5.5 67% 7.5 10 173 4.0
5/5/16 SC-CH 2.2 22.7 6998 4.1 5.5 67% 7.5 19 N/A N/A
5/5/16 SC-GR 0.1 19.8 227 0.1 5.8 64% 7.6 21 1291 2.0
5/5/16 SC-NK 0.1 22.1 483 0.3 4.8 56% 7.1 6 63 6.0
5/5/16 SC-NK 1.3 22.1 505 0.3 4.3 50% 7.2 6 N/A N/A
5/6/16 FC-13 0.1 18.7 43009 31.9 6.7 86% 8.3 3 933 2.0
5/6/16 FC-13 1.0 18.9 46423 34.4 6.3 83% 8.3 6 N/A N/A
5/6/16 FC-4 0.1 19.2 47566 35.4 7.0 92% 8.4 4 529 1.0
5/6/16 FC-4 1.5 19.2 47745 35.5 6.8 92 8.4 3 N/A N/A
5/6/16 FC-6 0.1 19.2 46908 35.0 6.9 91% 8.3 2 548 1.0
5/6/16 FC-6 1.6 19.2 47171 35.1 6.6 87% 8.4 3 N/A N/A
5/6/16 FC-FOY 0.1 18.8 44680 33.4 7.0 92% 8.3 3 932 2.0
5/6/16 FC-FOY 1.0 19.3 46533 34.5 6.4 85% 8.3 4 N/A N/A
5/6/16 PC-BDDS 0.1 18.3 37603 27.7 6.0 77% 8.3 4 287 7.0
5/6/16 PC-BDUS 0.1 19.2 35390 25.5 5.8 74% 8.4 7 386 4.0
5/6/16 PC-M 0.1 19.2 48128 36.0 6.8 91% 8.3 3 10 1.0
5/6/16 PC-M 1.7 19.2 48170 36.0 6.6 88% 8.3 11 N/A N/A
6/6/16 BC-CBR 0.1 24.6 231 0.1 3.6 43% 9.4 3 98 1.0
6/6/16 BC-CBR 1.3 24.2 231 0.1 3.0 35% 9.0 22 N/A N/A
6/6/16 LC-RR 0.1 27.2 21099 12.1 5.5 74% 7.2 4 246 10.0
6/6/16 LC-RR 1.8 27.2 21186 12.1 5.5 75% 7.3 5 N/A N/A
6/6/16 MOT-CBR 0.1 25.2 258 0.1 5.5 67% 8.1 3 307 2.0
6/6/16 MOT-ND 0.1 25.7 317 0.2 4.2 50% 8.0 17 318 1.0
6/7/16 PG-CH 0.1 23.7 151 0.1 4.8 57% 7.8 18 2603 5.0
6/7/16 PG-CH 1.4 23.7 151 0.1 4.1 49% 7.7 27 N/A N/A
6/7/16 PG-ML 0.1 25.1 296 0.1 5.5 67% 8.3 3 609 2.0
6/7/16 PG-NC 0.1 23.6 135 0.1 4.4 51% 7.4 9 985 3.0
6/7/16 PG-NC 3.3 23.6 135 0.1 3.7 43% 7.3 10 N/A N/A
6/7/16 SC-23 0.1 26.9 1050 0.5 5.6 70% 8.2 11 231 11.0
6/7/16 SC-23 1.7 26.9 1066 0.5 6.3 79% 8.0 13 N/A N/A
6/7/16 SC-CD 0.1 25.7 132 0.1 5.7 72% 7.4 25 368 5.0
6/7/16 SC-CH 0.1 26.6 2518 1.3 4.3 57% 8.2 13 62 3.0
6/7/16 SC-CH 2.1 26.6 2585 1.3 4.7 59% 8.0 20 N/A N/A
6/7/16 SC-GR 0.1 25.9 124 0.1 6.2 75% 7.3 19 1850 6.0
6/7/16 SC-NK 0.1 24.9 188 0.1 5.9 70% 7.3 13 3873 6.0
6/7/16 SC-NK 1.1 24.5 183 0.1 5.7 68% 7.4 17 N/A N/A
6/8/16 FC-13 0.1 26.3 47243 29.9 5.8 85% 7.6 5 256 4.0
6/8/16 FC-13 1.1 26.1 48258 30.8 5.8 85% 7.8 11 N/A N/A
6/8/16 FC-4 0.1 25.4 51680 33.7 6.4 95% 8.5 3 135 4.0
6/8/16 FC-4 2.0 25.7 52551 34.9 6.8 98% 8.4 4 N/A N/A
6/8/16 FC-6 0.1 25.6 51319 33.1 6.5 96% 8.4 3 121 4.0
6/8/16 FC-6 1.6 25.6 51152 33.0 6.5 96% 8.4 4 N/A N/A
6/8/16 FC-FOY 0.1 30.0 49321 31.5 6.0 89% 8.3 3 464 5.0
6/8/16 FC-FOY 1.3 25.9 49955 32.2 6.0 89% 8.3 12 N/A N/A
6/8/16 PC-BDDS 0.1 25.8 47055 30.0 4.9 71% 8.3 4 74 11
6/8/16 PC-BDUS 0.1 27.5 37581 22.6 7.0 98% 8.5 12 3654 20.0
6/8/16 PC-M 0.1 25.3 53052 34.8 6.7 99% 8.3 3 199 2.0
6/8/16 PC-M 1.9 24.9 52961 34.9 6.8 100% 8.5 5 N/A N/A
Appendix C
2015-2016 Airlie Gardens Lake Raw Data
Site Date Rain Temp. Cond. Salinity DO mg/L DO% pH Turb. Ortho. Nitrate + Nitrite
AG-FD 7/14/15 0.5 27.8 243 0.1 3.0 39 8.1 0 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 8/12/15 0.1 27.5 185 0.1 3.9 49 8.0 3 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 9/10/15 0.2 27.7 210 0.1 4.6 59 8.0 0 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 10/27/15 0.1 17.5 244 0.1 5.4 57 7.7 3 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 11/17/15 0.0 14 264 0.2 9.5 91 7.8 0 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 12/14/15 0.0 17.2 286 0.2 8.0 83 7.4 8 0.02 0.01
AG-FD 1/14/16 0.0 9 255 0.2 11.2 97 8.0 0 0.01 0.03
AG-FD 2/9/16 0.0 9.5 240 0.2 6.6 59 7.8 12 0.02 0.08
AG-FD 3/9/16 0.0 18.5 365 0.2 9.7 98 7.2 5 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 4/5/16 0.0 17.6 264 0.2 9.5 99 8.7 3 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 5/4/16 0.5 22.9 341 0.2 2.1 25 8.3 11 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 6/6/16 0.0 28.3 266 0.1 3.3 43 8.7 1 0.01 0.01
AG-FD 7/7/16 0.0 31 234 0.1 4.1 56 8.2 1 0.02 0.02
AG-IN 7/14/15 0.5 25.1 287 0.1 4.5 55 7.4 1 0.07 0.01
AG-IN 8/12/15 0.1 24.2 262 0.1 3.0 36 7.6 3 0.11 0.01
AG-IN 9/10/15 0.2 25.4 361 0.2 1.1 13 7.3 0 0.01 0.04
AG-IN 10/27/15 0.1 17.6 435 0.3 2.5 27 7.8 1 0.10 0.01
AG-IN 11/17/15 0.0 14.3 375 0.2 4.5 44 7.3 0 0.01 0.10
AG-IN 12/14/15 0.0 17.2 373 0.2 6.1 64 7.6 2 0.03 0.06
AG-IN 1/14/16 0.0 8.7 300 0.2 7.5 65 7.6 0 0.01 0.17
AG-IN 2/9/16 0.0 10.1 265 0.2 7.6 68 7.1 2 <0.01 0.24
AG-IN 3/9/16 0.0 15.6 314 0.2 7.0 70 7.8 1 0.01 0.01
AG-IN 4/5/16 0.0 15.7 359 0.2 3.4 34 8.5 18 0.10 0.01
AG-IN 5/4/16 0.5 20.3 284 0.2 2.6 29 7.4 12 0.01 0.05
AG-IN 6/6/16 0.0 26.2 377 0.2 2.9 36 8.3 13 0.02 0.05
AG-IN 7/7/16 0.0 27.2 348 0.2 5.1 63 7.7 0 0.10 0.04
AG-OUT 7/14/15 0.5 27.8 245 0.1 0.0 0 7.7 5 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 8/12/15 0.1 26.4 224 0.1 0.0 0 7.9 2 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 9/10/15 0.2 25.3 284 0.1 0.0 0 7.3 4 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 10/27/15 0.1 17.2 207 0.1 8.9 82.0 8.7 0.0 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 11/17/15 0.0 13.6 204 0.1 5.6 54 7.7 0 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 12/14/15 0.1 13.9 210 0.1 11.1 108 8.1 0 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 1/14/16 0.0 8.7 175 0.1 11.5 99 8.0 0 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 2/9/16 0.0 7.6 130 0.1 9.6 80 7.5 2 0.01 0.05
AG-OUT 3/9/16 0.0 14.5 222 0.1 10.8 107 8.0 0 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 4/5/16 0.0 17.3 225 0.1 9.5 99 8.9 1 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 5/4/16 0.5 23.2 192 0.1 5.3 62 8.4 1 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 6/6/16 0.0 27.9 245 0.1 1.1 14 8.5 5 0.01 0.01
AG-OUT 7/7/16 0.0 28.9 259 0.1 2.3 30 8.1 6 0.02 0.02