2017-2018 Final ReportAPTIM
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
2017-2018
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by: Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
Marine Scientist: Brad Rosov, M.Sc. Prepared For: New Hanover County, North Carolina
Recommended Citation: Rosov, B., 2018. New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Program: 2017-2018 Final Report. New Hanover County, North Carolina: Aptim Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. 51p.
August 2018
i
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the results of the New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program between July 2017 and June 2018. 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 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR POOR POOR POOR
In general, the ratings for Entertococci bacteria decreased between the 2016-2017 and the 2017-
2018 reporting periods with the exception of Pages Creek and Motts Creek which retained their
ratings of “Poor” and “Fair”, respectively. In fact, this past year’s Enteroccoci ratings reverted back to similar ratings observed during the 2015-2016 reporting period. Rain events can facilitate higher concentrations of bacteria concentration within the watersheds (through surface runoff and/or flushing of groundwater contaminants). However, rain does not appear to be the driving
cause for the reduction in Enterococci over the past year due to the fact that sampling occurred
during rain events 33% of the time during 2016-2017 season and 22% of the time during the 2017-2018 season.
ii
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Enterococci Ratings for each watershed during the 2016-2017 and the 2017-2018 reporting periods.
Barnards Creek Futch Creek Lords Creek Motts Creek Pages Creek
Prince Georges Creek
Smith Creek
Enterococci 2016-2017 GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD FAIR
Enterococci 2017-2018 FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR POOR POOR POOR
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 samples 36%, 22%, 19%, 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%, 6%, and 4% 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 despite recent increased levels over this past reporting period. Since June 2008, samples collected within Motts Creek exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 48% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek exceeded standard
38%, 32%, 32%, and 29% of the time, respectively. Lords Creek and Futch Creek contained the least amount of bacteria with exceedances only 11% and 5% of the time, respectively. Turbidity and chlorophyll-a were not problematic in any creeks. Since June 2008, only 25 exceedances of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 2,285 samples collected. During
the same time period, the turbidity standard was only breached 11 times in total; six from within Pages Creek, twice in Smith Creek, and once in both Prince Georges Creek and Lords Creek.
Airlie Gardens Three sampling sites within the lake at Airlie Gardens were included in the 2017-2018
monitoring effort. The results of the monitoring efforts within these locations suggested that dissolved oxygen varied significantly over the 12-month study within the lake. Similar to previous year’s results, 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.
iii
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
These levels were generally 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 algal growth during the summer months.
iv
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring 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 .................................................................................................................... 22
Pages Creek .................................................................................................................... 25
Prince Georges ............................................................................................................... 29
Smith Creek .................................................................................................................... 33
Comprehensive Rating by Watershed ............................................................................ 38
Long-Term Trends ...................................................................................................... 39
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................... 39
3.10.2 Turbidity ................................................................................................................. 40
3.10.3 Chlorophyll-a .......................................................................................................... 42
3.10.4 Enterococci ............................................................................................................. 43
Airlie Gardens............................................................................................................. 44
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 46
5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 50
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
v
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 .................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13. Enterococci at FC-13 .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 14. Enterococci at FC-FOY .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 15. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed .............................................. 20
Figure 16. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 17. Enterococci Levels at LC-RR ..................................................................................... 21
Figure 18. Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed ............................................ 23
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR ............................................................................... 24
Figure 20. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND.................................................................................. 24
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-CBR .......................................................................................... 24
Figure 22. Enterococci at MOT-ND ............................................................................................ 25
Figure 23. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed ............................................ 26
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS ................................................................................. 27
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS ................................................................................. 27
Figure 26. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDDS ........................................................................................... 28
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-BDUS ........................................................................................... 28
Figure 29. Enterococci at PC-M .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 30. Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed ............................. 30
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH...................................................................................... 31
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML ..................................................................................... 31
Figure 33. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC...................................................................................... 32
Figure 34. Enterococci at PG-CH ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-ML ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 36. Enterococci at PG-NC ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 37. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed ............................................ 34
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23 ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK...................................................................................... 36
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-23 .................................................................................................. 37
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CD ................................................................................................ 37
vi
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-CH ................................................................................................ 38
Figure 46. Enterococci at SC-GR ................................................................................................ 38
Figure 47. Enterococci at SC-NK ................................................................................................ 38
Figure 48. Long-term Surface Dissolved Oxygen data Within Tidal Creeks .............................. 42
Figure 49. Long-term Surface Dissolved Oxygen data Within Tidal Creeks .............................. 42
Figure 50. Long-term Surface Turbidity data Within Tidal Creeks ............................................ 42
Figure 51. Long-term Surface Turbidity data Within Tidal Creeks ............................................ 42
Figure 52. Long-term Chlorophyll-a data Within Tidal Creeks .................................................. 42
Figure 53. Long-term Chlorophyll-a data Within Tidal Creeks .................................................. 42
Figure 54. Long-term Enterococci data Within Tidal Creeks ..................................................... 42
Figure 55. Long-term Enterococci data Within Tidal Creeks ..................................................... 42
Figure 56. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-IN ...................................................................................... 45
Figure 57. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-FD ..................................................................................... 45
Figure 58. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-OUT .................................................................................. 45
Figure 59. Macroalgae mats observed at AG-IN………...……………………………………...49
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. ............ 23
Table 14. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek .......................... 25
Table 15. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 27
Table 16. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek .......................... 29
Table 17. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range in parentheses.
....................................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 18. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek ........... 33
Table 19. Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 35
Table 20. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek .......................... 38
vii
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 21. Ratings of parameters within each watershed.............................................................. 39
Table 22. Mean values of select parameters from Airlie Gardens. Range provided in
parentheses. ................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 23. Enterococci ratings for each watershed during recent reporting periods………….....48
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix No. A Photographs of Sampling Sites B Raw Data C Airlie Gardens Data
1
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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. The population within the County continues to grow, with an increase of approximately 25,000 people since the 2010 US Census. The July 2017 estimates the County contains a population of 227,198 (US Census Bureau, 2018). 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. Aptim Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. (APTIM) 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 2017 and June
2018. 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 APTIM since
2007. In addition to the continued sampling from the seven tidal creeks, three sampling sites from within Airlie Gardens were added to the program during the 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.
2
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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
3
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 1. Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study
4
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 2. Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites
5
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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.
6
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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
7
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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
8
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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
9
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 Southern 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
10
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 2017 and June 2018. 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.
11
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 (R-15, R-10, and R-7), industrial (I-2), and commercial uses (B-2). Sampling was conducted at one site (BC-CBR) within the Barnards Creek
watershed (Figure 3).
Dissolved oxygen within BC-CBR ranged between 5.1 mg/l and 10.0 mg/l with a mean value of 7.1 mg/l (Table 7). No samples 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 0.0 ug/l and 8.0 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 10 CFU/100ml and 2,420 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 79 CFU/100ml, which is below the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters
(Figure 5, Table 7). Two (2) of the twelve (12) samples collected during this period exceeded this standard. Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0and 32 NTU with a mean value of 11
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.
12
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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) 11 (0-32)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 7.1 (5.1-10.0)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 2.0 (0.0-8.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 79 (10-2420)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
13
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci GOOD
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 (R-15 and R-20) with a small business district (B-1 and O&I) along Highway 17. Sampling was conducted at four (4)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
DO
(
m
g
/
l
)
BC-CBR Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at BC-CBR
Entero.
14
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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.
Dissolved oxygen within Futch Creek ranged between 4.0 mg/l and 11.3 mg/l with a mean value of 7.1 mg/l (Figure 7 - Figure 10, Table 9). One sample collected from FC-13 contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard of 5.0 mg/l for SA while two samples from both FC-6 and FC-FOY exceeded the standard. The rest of the samples were compliant.
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 19.0 ug/l with a mean value of 3.0 ug/l (Table 8). None of these values approached the 40ug/l Chlorophyll-a standard. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 2,240 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of
39 CFU/100ml. Seven samples collected within Futch Creek during exceeded the NCDENR
Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters (Figure 11 - Figure 14, Table 8). Turbidity values were generally low ranging between 0 and 23 NTU with a mean value of 6 NTU (Table 10). No observations exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU for SA waters.
Table 10 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
15
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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) 4 (0-18) 4 (0-8) 8 (1-23) 8 (0-22
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/l) 7.2 (5.1-11.1) 7.2 (4.5-11.1) 7.0 (4.4-11.3) 6.8 (4.0-10.2)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 3.0 (0.0-7.0) 3.0 (0.0-7.0) 5.0 (0.0-19.0) 3.0 (0.0-6.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 39 (5-727)1 32 (5-1120)1 65 (5-2420)1 29 (5-1730)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
16
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4
Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6
Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
FC-4 Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
FC-6 Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
FC-13 Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
17
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 10. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY
Figure 11. Enterococci at FC-4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
FOY Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
1
10
100
1000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at FC-4
Entero.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
Y
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at FC-6
Entero.
18
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 12. Enterococci at FC-6
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 GOOD FAIR GOOD FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR
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 vastly residential (R-15) but also contains
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at FC-13
Entero.
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at FC-FOY
Entero.
19
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
and industrial parcel (I-2) and an office and institutional parcel (O&I). Sampling was conducted at one (1) site (LC-RR) within the Lords Creek watershed (Figure 15). During the 2017-2018 study
period, the sampling site was inaccessible during 6 of the 12 sampling events due to the closure of
the bridge crossing Lords Creek on River Road. Dissolved oxygen LC-RR ranged between 4.5 mg/l and 7.8 mg/l with a mean value of 64 mg/l (Table 11). All 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 3.0 ug/l and 16.0 ug/l with a mean value of 8.0 ug/l (Table 10). No samples exceeded the State standard of 40ug/l for Chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 10 CFU/100ml and 2,420 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 298 CFU/100ml (Table 11). Three (3) of the six (6) samples collected over this reporting period 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 420 NTU with a mean value of
85 NTU (Table 11). One (1) observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters in Lords Creek during the reporting period. Table 12 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
20
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 15. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed
Table 11. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity (NTU) 85 (4-420)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.4 (4.5-7.8)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 8 (3.0-16.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 298 (10-2420)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
21
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 16. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR
Figure 17. Enterococci Levels at LC-RR
Table 12. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci POOR
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
DO
m
g
/
L
LC-RR Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at LC-RR
Entero.
22
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 (R-10 and R-15)with commercial business (B-2) along Carolina Beach Road. 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 4.5 mg/l and 10.4 mg/l with a mean value of 7.5 mg/l (Figure 19 and Figure 20, Table 13). No samples collected during the reporting period contained dissolved oxygen levels below the standard (Figure 19 and Figure 20).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 13.0 ug/l with a mean value of 4.0 ug/l (Table 13). No
samples from within Motts Creek exceeded the 40ug/l standard. Enterococci ranged between 18 CFU/100ml and 2,420 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 218 CFU/100ml (Table 12). Samples exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for
Tier III waters during six (6) sampling events during the reporting period (Figure 20 and Figure
21). Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 47 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.
23
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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) 9 (1-47) 15 (4-38)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 7.6 (4.6-10.1) 7.4 (4.5-10.4)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 3.0 (0.0-10.0) 5.0 (0.0-13.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 196 (18-2420)1 243 74-2420)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
24
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR
Figure 20. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-CBR
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
MOT-CBR Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
MOT-ND Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at MOT-CBR
Entero.
25
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 GOOD GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR FAIR
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 (R-15 and R-20), with commercial (B-1 and B-2) zoning along Highway 17. 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 3.3 mg/l and 10.8 mg/l with a mean value of 6.9 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 four (4) times (Figure 24 and Figure 25).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 79.0 ug/l with a mean value of 8.0 ug/l (Table 15). Two samples exceeded the State standard of 40 ug/l for chlorophyll-a. Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 2,420 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of
461 CFU/100ml (Figure 27 through Figure 29, Table 15). While samples collected from PC-M
contain high levels of Enterococci during four (4) sampling event, samples from PC-BDDS and PC-BDUS contained levels higher than the NCDENR standards on ten (10) of the twelve (12) sampling occasions each.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at MOT-ND
Entero.
26
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 36 NTU with a mean value of 9 NTU
(Table 14). Two (2) 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
27
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 15. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PC-BDUS PC-BDDS PC-M
Turbidity (NTU) 11 (2-36) 9 (2-30) 7 (1-21)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.6 (4.5-10.8) 7.0 (3.3-10.1) 7.1 (5.1-10.2)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 6.0 (0.0-21.0) 15.0(1.0-79.0) 3.0 (1.0-9.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 720 (5-6870)1 1960 (74-2420)1 69 (5-17300)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
PC-BDDS Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
PC-BDUS Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
28
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 26. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDDS
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-BDUS
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
DO
m
g
/
L
PC-M Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at PC-BDDS
Entero.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at PC-BDUS
Entero.
29
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 FAIR GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR POOR
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 (RA, R-15, and R-20) with some business (B-1 and B-2) and industrial parcels (I-1 and
O&I) within Castle Hayne. 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 0.8 mg/l and 10.4 mg/l with a mean value of 5.3 mg/l (Table 16). Surface dissolved oxygen values were below the State standard
of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw on five (5) occasions during the reporting period at PG-NC, two (2) times at
PG-ML, and once at PG-CH (Figure 31 through Figure 33). Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 10.0 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 5 CFU/100ml and 7,700 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 156 CFU/100ml (Table 17). During this study, four (4) samples collected from within PG-CH contained Enterococci levels above the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters while three (3) samples from both PG-ML and PG-NC exceeded the standard (Figure 34 through
Figure 36).
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at PC-M
Entero.
30
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 2 and 19 NTU with a mean value of 7 NTU
(Table 17). No 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
31
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 17. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity (NTU) 7 (4-14) 6 (2-14) 10 (3-19)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 5.9 (3.3-10.4) 5.7 (0.8-10.2) 4.2 (0.8-10.3)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 4.0 (1.0-7.0) 2.0 (0.0-4.0) 4.0 (0.0-10.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 189 (10-7270)1 195 (28-2420)1 102 (5-7700)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
PG-CH Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
7/23/17 9/8/17 11/8/17 1/19/18 3/21/18 5/17/18
DO
m
g
/
l
PG-ML Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
32
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 33. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC
Figure 34. Enterococci at PG-CH
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-ML
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
PG-NC Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at PG-CH
Entero.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at PG-ML
Entero.
33
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 GOOD FAIR POOR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR FAIR POOR
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 (AI, I-1, and I-2), residential (R-10 R-15, R-20, and AR), and commercial (B-1
and B-2). 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 3.3 mg/l and 10.6 mg/l with a mean value of 7.0 mg/l (Table 19; Figure 38 through Figure 40). Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 28.0 ug/l with a mean value of 5.0 ug/l (Table 19). No
samples exceeded the State Standard for Chlorophyll-a from within Smith Creek.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 2420 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 162 CFU/100ml (Table 19). A number of samples exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
Y
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at PG-NC
Entero.
34
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
CFU/100ml for Tier III waters including five (5) in SC-NK, four (4) at SC-GR and SC-CD, two (2) at SC-CH, and one (1) at SC-23 (Figure 43 through Figure 47).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 36 NTU with a mean value of 10 NTU (Table 19). No observations 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
35
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 (0-18) 6 (1-13) 15 (1-36) 8 (2-24) 9 (1-27)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.6 (3.8-9.5) 8.0 (6.3-10.4) 6.5 (3.6-9.5) 7.3 (3.3-10.4) 6.9 (4.5-10.6)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 8.0 (1.0-28.0) 3.0 (0.0-8.0) 2.0 (0.0-7.0) 2.0 (1.0-6.0) 7.0 (0.0-27.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 72(5-2420)1 230 (62-2420)1 119 (20-2420)1 234 (70-1620)1 243 (20-2420)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
DO
m
g
/
L
SC-23 Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
SC-CD Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
36
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
DO
m
g
/
L
SC-CH Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
SC-GR Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
DO
m
g
/
L
SC-NK Dissolved Oxygen
DO-S
DO-B
37
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-23
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CD
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at SC-23
Entero.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at SC-CD
Entero.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at SC-CH
Entero.
38
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-CH
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 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD POOR FAIR POOR POOR
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,
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at SC-GR
Entero.
1
10
100
1000
10000
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
#
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels at SC-NK
Entero.
39
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
turbidity and chlorophyll-a were determined to be “good” within all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be “good” in Lords Creek and Smith Creek while
Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, Motts Creek, and Pages were all deemed to be “fair”. Prince
Georges Creek demonstrated “poor” levels of dissolved oxygen during the study period.
Enterococci was high in Pages Creek while Motts Creek was determined to be “fair”. The rest of the creeks all proved to be “good” for enterococcus bacterial.
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 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR POOR POOR POOR
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 2018.
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 48 and 49 depict the long-term trends in dissolved oxygen within the seven (7) creeks examined within this study. The data shows 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 36%, 22%, 18%, 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%,
6%, and 4% of the time, respectively.
40
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 48. Long-term surface dissolved oxygen data within tidal creeks
Figure 49. Long-term surface dissolved oxygen data within tidal creeks
3.10.2 Turbidity
Figures 50 through 51 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
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts PrinceGeorge
DO
(
m
g
/
L
)
Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Creeks Over Time
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
DO
(
m
g
/
L
)
Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Creeks Over Time
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince George
41
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
months. Since 2008, the turbidity standard was only breached eleven (14) times in total; five (5) from within Smith Creek, four (4) from Pages Creek, and two (2) in Prince Georges Creek.
Figure 50. Long-term surface turbidity data within tidal creeks
Figure 51. Long-term surface turbidity data within tidal creeks
0
4
8
12
16
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince
George
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
(
N
T
U
)
Turbidity (NTU) Levels In Tidal Creeks Over Time
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
(
N
T
U
)
Turbidity Levels in Tidal Creeks Over Time
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince George
42
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
3.10.3 Chlorophyll-a
Figures 52 and 53 depicts the long-term trends in chlorophyll-a within the seven (7) creeks examined within this study. In general, the long term trend of chlorophyll-a 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 25 exceedances of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 2,285 samples collected since July 2008.
Figure 48. Long-term chlorophyll-a data within tidal creeks
Figure 49. Long-term chlorophyll-a data within tidal creeks
0
4
8
12
16
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince
George
Ch
l
-a
(
u
g
/
l
)
Chl-a Levels in Tidal Creeks Over Time
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince
George
Ch
l
-a
(
u
g
/
l
)
Chl-a Levels in Tidal Creeks Over Time
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
43
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
3.10.4 Enterococci
Figure 54 and Figure 55 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 48% of the time while Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek exceeded standard 38%, 32%, 32%, and 29% of the time,
respectively. Lords Creek and Futch Creek contained the least amount of bacteria with exceedances only 11% and 5% of the time, respectively.
Figure 54. Long-term Enterococci data within tidal creeks
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince
Georges
Bayshore
Sites
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels in Tidal Creeks Over Time
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
44
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 55. Long-term Enterococci data within tidal creeks
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, during the study period, monitoring was conducted at three locations within the lake: AG-IN, which is located on the northern portion of the lake 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 1.3 mg/l and 13.3 mg/l with a mean value of 7.0 mg/l (Table 22; Figure 56 through Figure 58). Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 127 NTU with a mean value of 8.3
NTU (Table 22). One observation exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for Class C waters. Chlorophyll-a ranged from 0 mg/l to 161 mg/l with a mean value of 17 mg/l. The standard of 40 mg/l was exceeded four time overall; three of which occurred within AG-FD.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
En
t
e
r
o
c
o
c
c
i
(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Enterococci Levels in Tidal Creeks Over Time
Pages Futch Smith Barnards Lords Motts Prince Georges
45
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 56. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-IN
Figure 550. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-FD
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
DO
m
g
/
L
AG-IN Dissolved Oxygen
Series1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
DO
m
g
/
L
AG-FD Dissolved Oxygen
Series1
46
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 58. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-OUT
Table 22. Mean values of select parameters from Airlie Gardens. Range provided in parentheses.
Parameter AG-IN AG-FD AG-OUT
Turbidity (NTU) 9 (3-20) 4 (0-15) 12 (0-127)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.3 (3.6-10.3) 7.3 (1.5-12.9) 7.2(1.3-13.3)
Chlorophyll-a
(mg/l) 22 (0-161) 19 (3-55) 8 (2-21)
Orthophosphate 0.04 (0.02-0.11) 0.04 (0.01-0.13) 0.03 (0.01-0.09)
Nitrate/Nitrite 0.03 (0.01-0.13) 0.01 (0.01-0.01) 0.02 (0.01-0.10)
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 was determined to be 227,198 as of July 2017 (US Census Bureau, 2018) which reflects a growth rate of 4.7% over that
four year time period. 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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
DO
m
g
/
L
AG-OUT Dissolved Oxygen
Series1
47
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 (CFPUA) has finalized its work to provide the Marquis Hills subdivision within the
Motts Creek watershed with sewer service. With this new wastewater infrastructure in place, aging septic tanks have been removed resulting in the potential for improved water quality. Furthermore, the County continues to work toward preventing further deterioration and loss of public uses in surface water through initiatives such as the implementation of best management practices (BMPs)
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 within Pages Creek (PC-BDDS) contained two occurrences of high levels of chlorophyll-a above the State standard during the study period. It is possible that algal blooms were occurring
within the creek during those times.
Seven (7%) of all surface samples collected during the 12 month reporting period contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard. Of the 16 samples that fell below this standard, more than a third (37%) were observed during June, July, and August when water temperatures
were the highest. The lowest dissolved oxygen, on average, was observed at PG-NC, located
within Prince Georges Creek, where the standard was breached seven (5) of twelve (12) sampling events. 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 could be regarded as a
natural phenomenon. Compared to last year, the DO levels improved from “Fair” to “Good” at
Barnards Creek, Motts Creek, and Futch Creek and from “Poor” to “Fair” at Prince Georges Creek. Lords Creek, Futch Creek, and Pages Creek all remained the same in terms of ratings for DO over the past two reporting periods.
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, 16% of the time while Lords Creek exceeded the standard 17% of the time. Motts Creek and Smith Creek demonstrated high levels of Enterococci bacteria 25% and 27% of the time, respectively. Lords Creek was only sampled six (6) times during the study period, however three, or 50% of the
samples exceeded the standard. Pages Creek contained the highest levels of bacteria with
exceedences occurring 67% of the time sampled this past year. Two sampling sites in the Bayshore neighborhood within the Pages Creek watershed exceeded the standard 83% of the time, which marks a marked decrease in water quality compared to last year when they exceeded the standard
48
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
46% of the time. Meanwhile, PC-M, located near the mouth of the creek in proximity of the Intracoastal Waterway, exceeded the Enterococci standard four (4) times throughout the 12 month
study period. Since sampling began in 2008, this site has only exceeded the standard on seven (7)
occasions in total. Therefore, over the course of this study period, the bacteria levels in Pages Creek has not only persisted at the Bayshore Drive sites, but have worsened at PC-M. At Motts Creek, the bacteria levels remained similar to what was observed last year with exceedences of the Enterococci standard three (3) times from within both sites. In years past, these two sites
demonstrated poor water quality in terms of bacterial contamination. As mentioned above, the
CFPUA recently installed a centralized sewer system in the Marquis Hills community (located within the Motts Creek watershed) and septic tanks have been removed. This improvement in wastewater infrastructure may be a cause for the improved water quality within the creek. Lords Creek, which was only sampled on six (6) occasions due to repairs on the bridge where our
sampling takes place along River Road. Half of those samples, however, exceeded the standard
for Enterococci resulting in a “Poor” rating. Despite the fact that three (3) of the six (6) samples collected this past year exceeded the standard, the site has historically demonstrated high water quality in terms of bacteria with only ten (10) previous exceedences since 2008.
Between the 2015-2016 and the 2016-2017 reporting periods, Enterococci levels had generally
improved. However, during the most recent reporting period (2017-2018) these levels have reverted to similar conditions during the 2015-2016 study period (Table 23). In general, with the exception of the improved 2016-2017 bacterial levels, these conditions are more or less similar to what had been observed since sampling began in 2008. Rain events can facilitate higher
concentrations of bacteria concentration within the watersheds (through surface runoff and/or
flushing of groundwater contaminants). However, rain does not appear to be the driving cause for the reduction in Enterococci over the past year due to the fact that sampling occurred during rain events 33% of the time during the 2016-2017 season and only 22% of the time during the 2017-2018 study period.
Table 23. Enterococci ratings for each watershed during recent reporting periods.
Barnards Creek Futch Creek Lords Creek Motts Creek Pages Creek
Prince Georges Creek
Smith Creek
Enterococci
2015-2016 POOR FAIR FAIR POOR POOR POOR FAIR
Enterococci
2016-2017 GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD FAIR
Enterococci
2017-2018 FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR POOR POOR POOR
An assessment of the past eleven (11) 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. Barnards Creek had declined in dissolved oxygen
in recent years, however it improved to “Good” again this year. Recent increases in residential
development within the Barnards Creek watershed could have been a contributing factor to this temporary decline in water quality. Futch Creek has maintained a “Fair” rating for eight(8) of the
49
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
eleven (11) years, however, like Barnards Creek, dissolved oxygen this past year improved to“Good”. Motts Creek and Pages Creek have demonstrated varying dissolved oxygen levels over
time and has ranged from “Poor” to “Fair” over the years. Prince Georges Creek has demonstrated
relatively lower long term dissolved oxygen levels compared to the other creeks in the study as it has been designated as “Poor” nine (9) of the eleven (11) years. It should be noted, however, that this year Prince Georges contained “Fair” dissolved oxygen levels.
The long-term trends for Enterococci ratings over the past eleven (11) years have shown that a
number of creeks had maintained “Poor” ratings during much of the time. These include Motts Creek, Pages Creek, Prince Georges Creek, and Smith Creek. Motts Creek, however, has improved to “Fair” over the past two study periods. Barnards Creek and Lords Creek have demonstrated various conditions over the past seven years. Futch Creek, meanwhile, has
maintained a “Good” rating consistently with the exception of just twice where it was deemed
“Fair” including this past year. Sampling from within the lake at Airlie Gardens has only been performed for three (3) years, and, therefore, no significant long-term trends can be discerned at this time. However, the results from
monthly sampling over the past 36 months have provided some insight into the water quality within
the lake. 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 have been relatively higher on average compared to the other two sites
further south and closer to the outfall. This suggests that the nutrient-rich stormwater runoff
delivered to the lake at AG-IN are ultimately taken up by aquatic plants and macroaglae within the lake. Following a heavy rain event this past June, stormwater runoff originating from a nearby development on Airlie road flowed into the tributary at AG-IN delivering highly turbid waters that may have also contained elevated nutrient levels along with other contaminants. Excess nutrients
often promotes the growth of the vegetation. This is called eutrophication and can lead to algae
blooms. 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. Airlie Gardens has recently installed several aerators in the lake in an attempt to increase the dissolved oxygen levels.
Figure 59. Microalgae mats observed at AG-IN
50
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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. 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.
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.
51
APTIM
New Hanover County
2017-2018 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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, 2018. Quick facts: New Hanover County, NC. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newhanovercountynorthcarolina/PST045217
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.
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
2017-2018 Tidal Creek Raw Data
Date Site Depth Temp. Cond. Salinity DO
mg/L DO% pH Turb Entero. Chl-A
7/21/17 BC-CBR 0.1 26.1 214 0.1 5.3 66 8.3 3 120 1
7/21/17 BC-CBR 1.4 26.0 218 0.1 5.1 63 8.0 20 N/A N/A
7/21/17 LC-RR 0.1 29.3 23135 12.8 6.5 92 7.7 7 10 8
7/21/17 LC-RR 2.1 29.2 23108 12.8 6.4 90 7.8 8 N/A N/A
7/21/17 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.6 315 0.1 4.6 57 8.1 6 259 4
7/21/17 MOT-NB 0.1 26.6 325 0.2 4.5 56 7.9 28 195 2
7/21/17 PG-CH 0.1 25.8 242 0.1 4.5 55 7.3 4 121 6
7/21/17 PG-CH 2.1 25.7 242 0.1 4.2 52 7.2 7 N/A N/A
7/21/17 PG-ML 0.1 28.5 194 0.1 4.2 54 7.5 3 132 2
7/21/17 PG-NC 3.2 25.3 227 0.1 0.8 9 6.4 6 N/A N/A
7/21/17 PG-NC 0.1 26.4 161 0.1 2.2 28 6.7 8 20 2
7/21/17 SC-23 0.1 29.5 851 0.4 4.5 60 7.6 17 5 16
7/21/17 SC-23 1.8 29.5 848 0.4 4.5 59 7.4 16 N/A N/A
7/21/17 SC-CD 0.1 26.6 206 0.1 6.6 82 7.2 3 73 1
7/21/17 SC-CH 2.4 29.5 4861 2.4 4.4 58 7.1 36 N/A N/A
7/21/17 SC-CH 0.1 29.6 4713 2.3 4.4 59 7.2 14 72 1
7/21/17 SC-GR 0.1 25.5 181 0.1 6.7 82 7.3 5 122 1
7/21/17 SC-NK 0.1 28.8 215 0.1 4.5 59 7.3 6 163 10
7/21/17 SC-NK 1.3 28.8 234 0.1 4.6 60 7.2 8 N/A N/A
7/23/17 FC-13 0.1 28.2 52982 32.6 5.2 80 8.2 8 5 9
7/23/17 FC-13 1.0 28.2 53021 32.7 5.0 76 8.3 21 N/A N/A
7/23/17 FC-4 0.1 27.6 53444 33.4 5.5 84 8.6 4 5 3
7/23/17 FC-4 2.4 27.4 53287 33.4 5.7 87 8.6 18 N/A N/A
7/23/17 FC-6 0.1 27.7 53587 33.4 5.6 85 8.5 8 5 6
7/23/17 FC-6 1.4 27.7 53536 33.4 5.6 84 8.5 5 N/A N/A
7/23/17 FC-FOY 0.1 28.2 52907 32.6 5.1 78 8.3 7 5 5
7/23/17 FC-FOY 1.1 28.1 53592 33.1 4.9 76 8.4 11 N/A N/A
7/23/17 PC-BDDS 0.1 27.6 50514 30.1 3.3 50 8.0 8 1374 79
7/23/17 PC-BDUS 0.1 29.7 31920 18.0 5.1 73 8.5 11 52 21
7/23/17 PC-M 0.1 28.1 53946 33.3 5.1 79 8.5 4 10 4
7/23/17 PC-M 1.9 28.0 53834 33.3 5.2 80 8.6 7 N/A N/A
8/8/17 BC-CBR 0.1 25.3 114 0.1 6.6 80 7.5 29 2420 8
8/8/17 BC-CBR 2.3 25.3 113 0.1 6.5 79 7.3 32 N/A N/A
8/8/17 LC-RR 0.1 23.9 1619 0.8 7.3 87 7.2 420 2420 16
8/8/17 LC-RR 1.4 23.7 1620 0.8 7.1 85 7.3 451 N/A N/A
8/8/17 MOT-CBR 0.1 25.2 102 0.1 7.4 90 7.3 47 2420 9
8/8/17 MOT-NB 0.1 25.1 125 0.1 7.0 8.4 7.2 16 2420 10
8/9/17 PG-CH 0.1 23.9 131 0.1 4.8 58 6.8 9 2420 5
8/9/17 PG-CH 2.1 23.9 132 0.1 4.8 57 6.8 10 N/A N/A
8/9/17 PG-ML 0.1 24.2 136 0.1 5.4 65 7.5 14 1990 1
8/9/17 PG-NC 0.1 23.8 106 0.1 5.0 59 6.7 8 2420 5
8/9/17 PG-NC 3.3 23.8 107 0.1 4.4 52 6.6 9 N/A N/A
8/9/17 SC-23 0.1 24.5 173 0.1 5.3 64 8.0 18 2420 5
8/9/17 SC-23 1.7 24.5 172 0.1 5.7 63 7.9 18 N/A N/A
8/9/17 SC-CD 0.1 24.5 149 0.1 6.3 75 6.7 13 2420 8
8/9/17 SC-CH 0.1 27.1 10984 6.0 4.8 63 7.3 8 2420 7
8/9/17 SC-CH 2.2 27.2 11948 6.5 4.8 62 7.2 29 N/A N/A
8/9/17 SC-GR 0.1 24.2 139 0.1 6.7 80 6.5 4 1410 4
8/9/17 SC-NK 0.1 24.4 143 0.1 6.8 79 7.0 11 2420 4
8/9/17 SC-NK 1.3 24.3 144 0.1 6.8 79 7.0 14 N/A N/A
8/10/17 FC-13 0.1 25.6 48942 31.6 4.5 67 7.7 7 2420 19
8/10/17 FC-13 1.0 25.6 49885 32.2 4.4 64 8.0 13 N/A N/A
8/10/17 FC-4 0.1 26.0 54172 35.1 5.1 76 8.6 5 727 7
8/10/17 FC-4 1.5 26.1 54928 35.3 5.1 76 8.7 6 N/A N/A
8/10/17 FC-6 0.1 25.7 53216 34.6 4.6 69 8.5 6 1120 7
8/10/17 FC-6 1.7 25.7 53200 34.5 4.5 67 8.5 6 N/A N/A
8/10/17 FC-FOY 0.1 25.5 49103 31.6 4.0 60 8.2 8 817 3
8/10/17 FC-FOY 0.9 25.7 51400 32.0 4.1 61 8.3 8 N/A N/A
8/10/17 PC-BDDS 0.1 25.2 44101 28.5 4.4 63 8.2 4 2420 9
8/10/17 PC-BDUS 0.1 25.1 25439 15.6 6.2 82 8.6 13 2420 6
8/10/17 PC-M 0.1 26.6 54720 35.0 5.1 87 8.5 4 1200 8
8/10/17 PC-M 2.0 26.5 54998 35.3 5.1 87 8.6 9 N/A N/A
9/6/17 BC-CBR 0.1 24.6 182 0.1 6.0 73 8.4 7 2420 8
9/6/17 BC-CBR 1.4 24.6 182 0.1 5.9 72 8.3 25 N/A N/A
9/6/17 LC-RR 0.1 26.5 21326 12.4 6.0 80 7.2 33 1550 11
9/6/17 LC-RR 1.6 26.5 21382 12.4 6.1 81 7.2 33 N/A N/A
9/6/17 MOT-CBR 0.1 25.0 172 0.1 6.4 77 7.8 10 2420 5
9/6/17 MOT-NB 0.1 24.5 220 0.1 6.1 74 7.8 23 2420 6
9/7/17 PG-CH 0.1 23.3 153 0.1 5.3 60 7.5 6 1410 6
9/7/17 PG-CH 1.6 22.3 154 0.1 5.0 58 7.4 6 N/A N/A
9/7/17 PG-ML 0.1 23.5 185 0.1 5.4 63 7.9 8 2420 4
9/7/17 PG-NC 0.1 22.1 140 0.1 4.5 51 7.6 6 1120 6
9/7/17 PG-NC 3.4 22.1 139 0.1 4.1 47 7.4 9 N/A N/A
9/7/17 SC-23 0.1 25.5 541 0.3 4.4 54 7.3 9 286 8
9/7/17 SC-23 2.0 25.5 542 0.3 4.3 53 7.3 8 N/A N/A
9/7/17 SC-CD 0.1 22.7 194 0.1 6.9 80 7.5 8 580 7
9/7/17 SC-CH 2.4 25.5 625 0.3 4.3 52 6.9 36 N/A N/A
9/7/17 SC-CH 0.1 25.5 534 0.3 4.4 53 7.0 20 99 2
9/7/17 SC-GR 0.1 22.5 168 0.1 7.0 81 7.8 5 1410 6
9/7/17 SC-NK 0.1 23.6 186 0.1 5.5 65 7.3 13 2420 9
9/7/17 SC-NK 1.4 24.3 191 0.1 6.9 82 8.5 17 N/A N/A
9/8/17 FC-13 0.1 24.5 51448 34.2 6.8 99 8.5 6 1730 7
9/8/17 FC-13 1.1 24.5 51621 34.3 6.7 97 8.5 11 N/A N/A
9/8/17 FC-4 0.1 26.8 54917 35.6 6.7 99 8.7 4 219 5
9/8/17 FC-4 1.6 26.6 54947 35.6 6.7 99 8.8 4 N/A N/A
9/8/17 FC-6 0.1 25.7 54382 35.5 7.6 113 8.7 5 436 6
9/8/17 FC-6 1.5 25.6 54210 35.5 7.4 110 8.6 5 N/A N/A
9/8/17 FC-FOY 0.1 24.5 51340 34.1 6.2 91 8.5 5 727 5
9/8/17 FC-FOY 1.1 24.5 52078 34.6 6.1 89 8.5 17 N/A N/A
9/8/17 PC-BDDS 0.1 23.6 47960 32.2 5.8 82 8.3 4 2420 8
9/8/17 PC-BDUS 0.1 23.9 26210 16.4 5.0 66 8.4 14 2420 5
9/8/17 PC-M 0.1 24.1 48987 34.2 6.4 92 8.4 5 1120 9
9/8/17 PC-M 0.8 24.2 49801 34.4 6.4 92 8.4 6 N/A N/A
10/4/17 BC-CBR 1.6 20.2 249 0.1 6.4 71 8.8 21 N/A N/A
10/4/17 BC-CBR 0.1 20.3 261 0.1 6.6 74 8.9 12 210 1
10/4/17 LC-RR 0.1 22.6 33115 21.8 7.5 98 7.9 15 1010 5
10/4/17 LC-RR 2.0 22.6 33132 21.8 7.8 100 8.0 15 N/A N/A
10/4/17 MOT-CBR 0.1 23.5 320 0.2 7.2 86 8.5 15 67 1
10/4/17 MOT-NB 0.1 20.3 362 0.2 6.5 72 8.4 17 129 8
10/5/17 PG-CH 0.1 20.0 417 0.2 4.6 51 8.5 4 2420 2
10/5/17 PG-CH 1.7 19.9 423 0.2 3.3 36 8.4 8 N/A N/A
10/5/17 PG-ML 0.1 20.9 326 0.2 4.6 52 8.7 3 179 2
10/5/17 PG-NC 0.1 18.8 207 0.1 1.4 15 8.3 16 2420 9
10/5/17 PG-NC 3.1 18.9 487 0.3 0.8 9 8.1 21 N/A N/A
10/5/17 SC-23 0.1 22.9 8162 4.7 5.5 67 8.5 0 140 5
10/5/17 SC-23 2.1 22.9 8176 4.7 5.5 66 8.4 0 NA N/A
10/5/17 SC-CD 0.1 20.2 258 0.1 8.3 92 8.3 1 62 1
10/5/17 SC-CH 0.1 23.6 22141 13.7 5.2 66 8.1 1 771 5
10/5/17 SC-CH 2.3 23.6 22175 13.8 5.2 67 8.1 2 N/A N/A
10/5/17 SC-GR 0.1 19.9 295 0.2 5.4 60 8.4 8 130 1
10/5/17 SC-NK 0.1 21.3 932 0.5 6.0 68 8.2 7 580 8
10/5/17 SC-NK 1.4 21.0 942 0.5 6.1 69 8.2 6 N/A N/A
10/6/17 FC-13 0.1 23.2 50123 34.2 5.5 79 8.4 7 388 3
10/6/17 FC-13 1.3 23.2 50452 34.4 5.5 79 8.5 8 N/A N/A
10/6/17 FC-4 0.1 23.7 50768 34.3 6.1 88 8.8 3 153 2
10/6/17 FC-4 2.1 23.6 50832 34.4 6.0 86 8.8 2 N/A N/A
10/6/17 FC-6 0.1 23.6 50792 34.4 6.5 93 8.7 5 202 2
10/6/17 FC-6 1.9 23.6 50805 34.4 6.5 93 8.8 5 N/A N/A
10/6/17 FC-FOY 0.1 23.3 50555 34.6 5.9 84 8.6 8 1730 3
10/6/17 FC-FOY 1.6 23.3 50691 34.6 5.9 84 8.6 8 N/A N/A
10/6/17 PC-BDDS 0.1 22.9 50059 34.4 4.4 62 8.5 11 2420 4
10/6/17 PC-BDUS 0.1 22.9 35125 35.3 4.5 62 8.5 12 580 4
10/6/17 PC-M 0.1 23.7 51088 34.5 5.4 78 8.7 17 817 2
10/6/17 PC-M 2.1 23.7 51138 34.5 5.4 77 8.8 14 N/A N/A
11/6/17 BC-CBR 1.6 19.6 271 0.1 6.2 68 8.0 4 N/A N/A
11/6/17 BC-CBR 0.1 19.8 273 0.1 6.3 69 8.2 2 43 1
11/6/17 LC-RR 0.1 20.6 35916 39.2 6.7 87 7.1 4 144 4
11/6/17 LC-RR 1.9 20.6 35914 39.2 6.7 87 7.2 8 N/A N/A
11/6/17 MOT-CBR 0.1 21.2 347 0.2 7.3 87 7.7 1 56 1
11/6/17 MOT-NB 0.1 19.8 431 0.2 5.9 65 7.5 5 240 1
11/7/17 PG-CH 0.1 8.7 321 0.2 4.7 50 7.4 9 139 2
11/7/17 PG-CH 1.6 18.6 329 0.2 4.5 48 7.3 11 N/A N/A
11/7/17 PG-ML 0.1 19.0 285 0.2 3.4 37 7.6 2 116 1
11/7/17 PG-NC 0.1 18.1 236 0.1 1.2 12 7.4 8 179 3
11/7/17 PG-NC 3.3 16.4 508 0.3 0.8 8 7.1 12 N/A N/A
11/7/17 SC-23 0.1 20.1 5915 3.6 5.7 65 7.7 7 276 4
11/7/17 SC-23 1.8 20.1 6108 3.7 5.7 65 7.6 8 N/A N/A
11/7/17 SC-CD 0.1 20.2 259.0 0.1 7.5 83.0 7.1 2.0 361 1
11/7/17 SC-CH 1.7 20.1 7182 4.3 5.6 66 7.7 11 N/A N/A
11/7/17 SC-CH 0.1 20.2 7151 4.3 5.8 66 7.6 7 146 1
11/7/17 SC-GR 0.1 19.8 243 0.1 7.7 85 7.3 2 70 1
11/7/17 SC-NK 0.1 20.2 559 0.3 5.6 62 7.1 1 249 2
11/7/17 SC-NK 1.3 19.9 583 0.3 5.6 62 7.1 1 N/A N/A
11/9/17 FC-13 0.1 17.5 46705 36.1 6.7 88 6.8 1 329 2
11/9/17 FC-13 1.3 17.8 36.4 47246.0 6.7 87 6.9 4 N/A N/A
11/9/17 FC-4 0.1 19.4 49749 37.0 6.7 91 7.5 1 51 2
11/9/17 FC-4 2.1 19.4 49751 37.0 6.7 90 7.5 1 N/A N/A
11/9/17 FC-6 0.1 18.9 48713 36.6 6.8 91 7.4 1 223 2
11/9/17 FC-6 1.6 19.2 49513 36.9 6.6 89 7.4 4 N/A N/A
11/9/17 FC-FOY 0.1 17.9 47326 36.3 7.0 91 7.3 0 11 2
11/9/17 FC-FOY 1.3 17.2 47989 36.6 6.7 88 7.3 0 N/A N/A
11/9/17 PC-BDDS 0.1 16.2 17611 12.7 7.6 83 7.4 4 2420 2
11/9/17 PC-BDUS 0.1 17.3 37675 28.6 6.4 79 7.5 2 2420 2
11/9/17 PC-M 0.1 19.0 49251 37.0 6.7 90 7.5 3 149 2
11/9/17 PC-M 1.8 19.0 49222 37.0 6.6 89 7.6 2 N/A N/A
12/19/17 BC-CBR 1.4 13.6 268 0.2 7.4 70 8.6 1 N/A N/A
12/19/17 BC-CBR 0.1 13.7 260 0.2 7.6 74 8.6 1 28 1
12/19/17 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/19/17 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/19/17 MOT-CBR 0.1 14.3 158 0.1 8.5 84 8.3 4 262 1
12/19/17 MOT-NB 0.1 13.2 168 0.1 7.6 73 8.4 6 74 2
12/20/17 PG-CH 1.3 11.6 273 0.2 6.2 57 8.5 6 N/A N/A
12/20/17 PG-CH 0.1 11.6 277 0.2 6.4 59 8.6 9 210 1
12/20/17 PG-ML 0.1 11.0 277 0.2 6.8 61 8.7 3 28 1
12/20/17 PG-NC 3.4 7.3 192 0.1 2.9 21 8.3 14 N/A N/A
12/20/17 PG-NC 0.1 11.4 140 0.1 3.1 29 8.4 12 11 1
12/20/17 SC-23 0.1 10.6 914 0.6 9.0 81 8.8 6 28 5
12/20/17 SC-23 1.6 10.6 837 0.6 8.8 79 8.7 5 N/A N/A
12/20/17 SC-CD 0.1 14.8 146 0.1 8.4 83 8.2 2 118 1
12/20/17 SC-CH 2.5 10.0 1628 1.2 8.9 80 8.4 5 N/A N/A
12/20/17 SC-CH 0.1 10.0 1451 1.0 9.0 80 8.4 4 26 1
12/20/17 SC-GR 0.1 14.7 152 0.1 6.3 62 8.1 3 81 5
12/20/17 SC-NK 0.1 13.1 148 0.1 7.8 75 8.2 3 24 2
12/20/17 SC-NK 1.3 12.9 171 0.1 7.8 75 8.2 4 N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-13 0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-FOY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 FC-FOY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12/21/17 PC-BDDS 0.1 12.5 33658 28.4 7.4 87 8.1 2 2420 2
12/21/17 PC-BDUS 0.1 13.7 27989 22.4 6.3 70 8.1 3 1990 1
12/21/17 PC-M 2.0 12.8 17835 14.4 9.3 98 8.4 1 N/A N/A
12/21/17 PC-M 0.1 12.7 21790 18.2 9.1 97 8.4 1 136 1
1/17/18 BC-CBR 1.6 9.3 245 0.2 9.8 86 8.1 3 N/A N/A
1/17/18 BC-CBR 0.1 9.3 243 0.2 10.0 88 8.2 2 19 1
1/17/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1/17/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1/17/18 MOT-CBR 0.1 8.4 279 0.1 10.1 89 8.0 6 19 1
1/17/18 MOT-NB 0.1 8.3 302 0.2 10.4 90 8.1 4 94 2
1/18/18 PG-CH 1.6 4.4 269 0.2 10.0 77 8.3 4 N/A N/A
1/18/18 PG-CH 0.1 4.4 277 0.2 10.4 80 8.3 4 10 1
1/18/18 PG-ML 0.1 5.2 304 0.2 10.2 81 8.4 2 84 0
1/18/18 PG-NC 3.1 4.1 260 0.2 9.6 73 8.0 4 N/A N/A
1/18/18 PG-NC 0.1 4.0 261 0.2 10.3 79 8.0 5 5 0
1/18/18 SC-23 2.0 8.2 337 0.2 9.1 78 8.0 6 N/A N/A
1/18/18 SC-23 0.1 8.2 330 0.2 9.5 81 8.1 4 238 1
1/18/18 SC-CD 0.1 7.4 309 0.2 10.4 87 8.0 2 63 1
1/18/18 SC-CH 2.2 7.9 442 0.3 9.4 79 8.2 5 N/A N/A
1/18/18 SC-CH 0.1 7.9 413 0.3 9.5 81 8.2 3 121 1
1/18/18 SC-GR 0.1 7.4 297.0 0.2 10.4 87.0 7.9 4.0 85 1
1/18/18 SC-NK 1.1 6.6 330 0.3 10.5 86 7.9 7 N/A N/A
1/18/18 SC-NK 0.1 6.6 337 0.3 10.6 87 7.9 8 20 0
1/19/18 FC-13 0.7 5.1 312747 33.9 11.1 105 8.0 1 N/A N/A
1/19/18 FC-13 0.1 5.0 27646 28.4 11.3 107 8.2 2 201 0
1/19/18 FC-4 1.1 5.7 34066 35.0 11.0 103 8.1 0 N/A N/A
1/19/18 FC-4 0.1 5.7 34122 35.0 11.1 104 8.2 1 20 1
1/19/18 FC-6 1.2 5.3 32747 33.9 11.1 105 8.0 1 N/A N/A
1/19/18 FC-6 0.1 5.4 32827 33.9 11.1 105 8.0 1 5 1
1/19/18 FC-FOY 1.1 5.2 32387 33.6 10.1 99 8.1 1 N/A N/A
1/19/18 FC-FOY 0.1 5.4 31458 32.3 10.2 100 8.1 1 20 1
1/19/18 PC-BDDS 0.1 8.0 321460 22.0 10.1 91 8.0 5 2850 2
1/19/18 PC-BDUS 0.1 8.1 31628 30.1 10.8 101 8.2 4 2850 0
1/19/18 PC-M 1.5 6.5 35030 35.2 10.0 87 8.1 8 N/A N/A
1/19/18 PC-M 0.1 6.5 35034 35.2 10.2 104 8.2 6 5 1
2/19/18 BC-CBR 1.4 15.2 268 0.2 8.2 83 7.0 24 N/A N/A
2/19/18 BC-CBR 0.1 16.0 271 0.2 8.3 84 7.1 0 75 0
2/19/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2/19/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2/19/18 MOT-CBR 0.1 14.9 343 0.2 7.2 84 7.1 1 173 1
2/19/18 MOT-NB 0.1 15.9 339 0.2 7.4 85 7.1 6 199 0
2/20/18 PG-CH 0.1 16.9 275 0.2 6.3 66 6.8 5 10 2
2/20/18 PG-CH 1.5 16.4 276 0.2 6.3 66 6.8 6 N/A N/A
2/20/18 PG-ML 0.1 17.1 282 0.2 6.0 63 6.9 6 169 0
2/20/18 PG-NC 3.3 13.4 241 0.2 4.1 40 6.6 20 N/A N/A
2/20/18 PG-NC 0.1 17.1 229 0.1 5.8 61 6.5 7 31 1
2/20/18 SC-23 2.0 16.6 365 0.2 7.1 74 7.2 10 N/A N/A
2/20/18 SC-23 0.1 16.7 353 0.2 7.3 75 7.2 9 30 1
2/20/18 SC-CD 0.1 19.8 264 0.1 8.1 88 6.9 10 72 0
2/20/18 SC-CH 2.3 15.5 469 0.3 8.0 81 6.7 22 N/A N/A
2/20/18 SC-CH 0.1 15.7 430 0.3 8.0 81 6.7 9 120 0
2/20/18 SC-GR 0.1 18.2 241 0.1 7.8 83 6.7 24 98 1
2/20/18 SC-NK 1.1 17.0 288 0.2 7.5 78 7.0 5 N/A N/A
2/20/18 SC-NK 0.1 17.1 287 0.2 7.6 79 7.0 5 243 1
2/22/18 FC-13 0.8 19.7 41088 29.8 9.1 110 8.2 10 N/A N/A
2/22/18 FC-13 0.1 19.7 40703 29.4 9.1 111 8.2 2 5 0
2/22/18 FC-4 1.5 16.7 44652 35.0 8.6 96 8.2 4 N/A N/A
2/22/18 FC-4 0.1 17.2 44982 34.9 8.4 93 8.2 2 10 0
2/22/18 FC-6 1.2 17.8 45040 34.5 8.7 99 8.2 0 N/A N/A
2/22/18 FC-6 0.1 18.3 45280 34.3 8.6 97 8.2 1 5 0
2/22/18 FC-FOY 0.8 19.2 42882 31.5 9.3 121 8.2 10 N/A N/A
2/22/18 FC-FOY 0.1 19.4 42070 30.8 9.2 118 8.3 2 5 1
2/22/18 PC-BDDS 0.1 18.7 42265 31.6 8.4 108 8.0 8 185 2
2/22/18 PC-BDUS 0.1 22.0 17081 10.8 5.2 63 7.1 36 867 4
2/22/18 PC-M 1.6 17.0 45029 35.0 8.6 110 8.2 7 N/A N/A
2/22/18 PC-M 0.1 17.3 45253 35.1 8.6 110 8.2 2 5 1
3/19/18 BC-CBR 1.6 14.1 248 0.2 8.4 82 7.7 21 N/A N/A
3/19/18 BC-CBR 0.1 14.1 239 0.2 8.9 87 8.0 4 10 1
3/19/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3/19/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3/19/18 MOT-CBR 0.1 14.7 280 0.2 9.8 96 7.5 5 1780 1
3/19/18 MOT-NB 0.1 13.7 309 0.2 10.0 97 7.6 38 85 2
3/20/18 PG-CH 1.4 13.5 197 0.1 7.7 74 7.3 14 N/A N/A
3/20/18 PG-CH 0.1 13.5 197 0.1 7.8 75 7.4 14 7270 1
3/20/18 PG-ML 0.1 14.6 306 0.2 7.4 73 7.9 8 1780 4
3/20/18 PG-NC 3.2 13.2 186 0.1 7.0 67 6.9 12 N/A N/A
3/20/18 PG-NC 0.1 13.2 186 0.1 7.5 71 7.1 12 7700 1
3/20/18 SC-23 0.1 15.2 1638 1.0 9.2 92 7.9 13 185 13
3/20/18 SC-23 1.6 15.2 1673 1.0 9.1 92 7.9 14 N/A N/A
3/20/18 SC-CD 0.1 14.1 205 1.0 8.9 87 7.1 6 1300 2
3/20/18 SC-CH 2.3 13.6 3822 2.6 9.0 89 7.5 23 N/A N/A
3/20/18 SC-CH 0.1 13.6 3790 2.6 9.2 90 7.5 18 146 1
3/20/18 SC-GR 0.1 13.7 184 0.1 8.6 83 7.2 9 1620 2
3/20/18 SC-NK 0.1 15.1 345 0.2 8.1 81 7.4 11 910 10
3/20/18 SC-NK 1.0 15.0 340 0.2 8.0 80 7.4 13 N/A N/A
3/21/18 FC-13 0.8 14.9 41873 34.2 8.6 104 8.9 13 N/A N/A
3/21/18 FC-13 0.1 15.1 41714 33.8 8.5 103 8.9 2 122 0
3/21/18 FC-4 1.1 13.4 41779 35.5 9.4 111 9.1 2 N/A N/A
3/21/18 FC-4 0.1 13.9 42209 35.3 9.1 110 9.0 2 364 0
3/21/18 FC-6 1.0 14.0 42130 35.1 9.2 112 9.1 2 N/A N/A
3/21/18 FC-6 0.1 14.1 42351 35.5 9.0 108 9.0 2 31 0
3/21/18 FC-FOY 0.9 14.7 42200 34.6 9.2 112 9.1 22 N/A N/A
3/21/18 FC-FOY 0.1 14.9 42039 34.2 8.7 106 9.0 2 10 0
3/21/18 PC-BDDS 0.1 16.5 15259 10.5 8.9 95 8.5 13 5790 1
3/21/18 PC-BDUS 0.1 17.5 34120 24.5 6.5 79 7.9 6 5 6
3/21/18 PC-M 1.7 14.4 42680 35.3 8.5 104 9.1 21 N/A N/A
3/21/18 PC-M 0.1 14.4 42721 35.3 8.3 101 9.1 3 17300 1
4/17/18 BC-CBR 0.1 14.5 223 0.1 8.3 81 7.3 4 27 2
4/17/18 BC-CBR 1.3 14.5 224 0.1 8.0 79 7.3 14 N/A N/A
4/17/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4/17/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4/17/18 MOT-CBR 0.1 14.9 248 0.2 8.4 83 7.1 6 178 10
4/17/18 MOT-NB 0.1 14.8 266.0 0.2 9.0 89.0 7.2 9.0 105 8
4/18/18 PG-CH 0.1 15.7 218 0.1 8.2 82 7.1 5 31 6
4/18/18 PG-CH 1.5 15.7 218 0.1 7.8 79 7.1 6 N/A N/A
4/18/18 PG-ML 0.1 17.5 237 0.1 6.5 68 7.1 6 63 3
4/18/18 PG-NC 0.1 15.5 190 0.1 7.5 76 7.0 5 5 2
4/18/18 PG-NC 3.2 14.6 196 0.1 5.5 56 6.8 14 N/A N/A
4/18/18 SC-23 0.1 18.3 381 0.2 8.6 86 7.3 14 20 28
4/18/18 SC-23 1.7 18.3 382 0.2 7.9 85 7.3 18 N/A N/A
4/18/18 SC-CD 0.1 18.6 224 0.1 8.4 90 7.0 6 199 2
4/18/18 SC-CH 0.1 17.7 1099 0.6 8.1 85 7.2 15 20 3
4/18/18 SC-CH 2.5 17.7 1177 0.7 7.8 83 7.1 31 N/A N/A
4/18/18 SC-GR 0.1 15.9 276 0.2 3.3 34 6.6 15 146 2
4/18/18 SC-NK 0.1 18.0 234 0.1 7.7 82 7.1 9 52 11
4/18/18 SC-NK 1.3 17.7 230 0.1 7.2 76 7.1 9 N/A N/A
4/20/18 FC-13 0.1 17.2 43973 34.0 7.3 78 8.0 3 5 2
4/20/18 FC-13 1.0 17.1 44127 34.2 7.4 79 8.0 10 N/A N/A
4/20/18 FC-4 1.8 16.0 45210 36.2 7.9 80 8.1 5 N/A N/A
4/20/18 FC-4 0.1 16.3 45286 36.0 8.0 80 8.1 4 5 1
4/20/18 FC-6 1.1 16.5 45362 35.8 8.0 81 8.0 3 N/A N/A
4/20/18 FC-6 0.1 16.6 45456 35.9 8.0 81 8.1 2 5 1
4/20/18 FC-FOY 1.0 17.1 44995 35.2 7.0 73 8.1 11 N/A N/A
4/20/18 FC-FOY 0.1 17.2 44104 34.2 7.0 73 8.0 3 5 1
4/20/18 PC-BDDS 0.1 17.6 4792 3.0 9.2 98 8.1 30 74 54
4/20/18 PC-BDUS 0.1 22.4 33751 22.4 9.5 126 7.9 8 504 2
4/20/18 PC-M 1.3 16.6 45381 35.8 7.1 90 8.1 6 N/A N/A
4/20/18 PC-M 0.1 16.7 45421 35.8 7.1 91 8.0 4 5 1
5/15/18 BC-CBR 1.5 21.3 388 0.2 5.7 65 7.0 11 N/A N/A
5/15/18 BC-CBR 0.1 22.7 323 0.2 7.4 85 7.5 4 10 1
5/15/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5/15/18 LC-RR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5/15/18 MOT-CBR 0.1 23.6 405 0.2 7.0 81 7.0 7 18 4
5/15/18 MOT-NB 0.1 23.3 447 0.2 8.4 89 7.4 15 134 13
5/16/18 PG-CH 0.1 23.0 415 0.2 3.8 45 7.1 5 108 4
5/16/18 PG-CH 1.5 22.3 386 0.2 3.4 40 7.0 19 N/A N/A
5/16/18 PG-ML 0.1 25.6 305 0.1 3.7 46 7.1 4 63 3
5/16/18 PG-NC 0.1 22.9 281 0.1 2.4 28 6.8 8 41 2
5/16/18 PG-NC 3.2 15.9 610 0.4 1.0 12 6.8 3 N/A N/A
5/16/18 SC-23 0.1 26.2 4113 2.1 6.5 81 7.2 8 10 13
5/16/18 SC-23 1.7 26.2 4245 2.2 6.5 81 7.2 10 N/A N/A
5/16/18 SC-CD 0.1 23.7 297 0.1 8.1 95 7.3 4 512 6
5/16/18 SC-CH 0.1 25.0 11468 6.5 6.5 81 7.1 9 75 6
5/16/18 SC-CH 2.1 24.7 11641 6.7 6.1 76 7.0 21 N/A N/A
5/16/18 SC-GR 0.1 23.6 269 0.1 9.8 92 7.3 6 627 1
5/16/18 SC-NK 0.1 25.6 559 0.3 7.0 85 7.2 27 565 27
5/16/18 SC-NK 1.3 25.6 575 0.3 6.2 75 7.2 11 N/A N/A
5/17/18 FC-13 0.1 23.8 51005 34.4 5.7 82 7.8 7 10 4
5/17/18 FC-13 0.8 23.9 51125 34.5 6.3 89 7.8 23 N/A N/A
5/17/18 FC-4 0.1 22.7 52544 36.4 5.1 73 8.0 5 5 1
5/17/18 FC-4 1.8 21.7 51622 36.6 6.0 85 8.1 7 N/A N/A
5/17/18 FC-6 0.1 23.4 52904 36.1 4.8 73 8.0 6 20 2
5/17/18 FC-6 1.5 23.3 52943 36.2 4.8 73 8.0 6 N/A N/A
5/17/18 FC-FOY 0.1 23.7 50552 34.7 4.9 71 7.8 7 10 2
5/17/18 FC-FOY 1.1 23.6 52300 35.5 4.9 71 7.9 18 N/A N/A
5/17/18 PC-BDDS 0.1 24.1 49719 33.3 9.0 112 7.6 8 5170 5
5/17/18 PC-BDUS 0.1 23.9 33921 21.8 8.0 112 7.4 14 6870 6
5/17/18 PC-M 0.1 21.6 51375 36.5 6.5 92 8.1 6 5 1
5/17/18 PC-M 1.8 21.4 51132 36.5 6.0 84 8.1 13 N/A N/A
6/13/18 BC-CBR 0.1 23.9 321 0.2 5.8 69 7.3 5 87 1
6/13/18 BC-CBR 1.6 23.8 325 0.2 5.5 64 7.0 11 N/A N/A
6/13/18 LC-RR 0.1 26.2 16190 9.2 4.7 70 7.0 14 128 3
6/13/18 LC-RR 1.6 26.2 16176 9.2 4.5 58 7.0 16 N/A N/A
6/13/18 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.1 382 0.2 7.7 96 7.3 4 112 0
6/13/18 MOT-NB 0.1 24.2 388 0.2 6.3 76 7.2 15 727 1
6/14/18 PG-CH 0.1 23.6 212 0.1 5.4 64 6.3 7 30 7
6/14/18 PG-CH 1.5 23.6 211 0.1 5.2 62 6.3 7 N/A N/A
6/14/18 PG-ML 0.1 24.0 237 0.1 5.2 61 6.7 7 83 4
6/14/18 PG-NC 0.1 23.5 185 0.1 4.5 54 6.0 19 20 10
6/14/18 PG-NC 3.2 23.4 185 1.1 4.4 53 5.8 9 N/A N/A
6/14/18 SC-23 0.1 25.7 299 0.1 3.9 48 6.7 13 20 1
6/14/18 SC-23 1.8 25.7 298 0.1 3.8 46 6.7 13 N/A N/A
6/14/18 SC-CD 0.1 23.9 237 0.1 7.6 90 6.4 10 132 3
6/14/18 SC-CH 0.1 25.5 262 0.1 3.8 47 6.4 15 52 1
6/14/18 SC-CH 2.2 25.5 261 0.1 3.6 43 6.2 20 N/A N/A
6/14/18 SC-GR 0.1 23.8 220 0.1 7.6 90 6.4 9 120 2
6/14/18 SC-NK 0.1 24.4 257 0.1 5.6 67 6.7 9 97 3
6/14/18 SC-NK 1.2 27.3 250 0.1 5.5 66 6.7 8 N/A N/A
6/15/18 FC-13 0.1 30.1 55107 32.7 5.5 88 7.9 10 5 11
6/15/18 FC-13 0.6 30.0 56064 33.7 6.8 107 7.9 15 N/A N/A
6/15/18 FC-4 0.1 29.3 58804 35.9 6.0 95 8.1 7 30 6
6/15/18 FC-4 1.4 29.0 58927 36.5 6.7 110 8.1 9 N/A N/A
6/15/18 FC-6 0.1 29.8 58460 35.3 5.8 96 8.0 6 5 5
6/15/18 FC-6 1.2 29.5 58401 35.5 7.0 103 8.0 7 N/A N/A
6/15/18 FC-FOY 0.1 30.1 56739 33.9 6.6 105 8.0 9 5 6
6/15/18 FC-FOY 0.9 29.5 57514 34.8 6.6 105 8.0 11 N/A N/A
6/15/18 PC-BDDS 0.1 28.9 52593 32.0 5.4 82 7.7 6 24196 10
6/15/18 PC-BDUS 0.1 30.5 38162 31.6 5.4 82 7.6 13 537 19
6/15/18 PC-M 0.1 29.1 59669 36.5 7.2 114 8.1 7 5 3
6/15/18 PC-M 1.6 29.0 59441 36.5 7.1 113 8.1 16 N/A N/A
Appendix C
2017-2018 Airlie Gardens Lake Raw Data
Site Date Rain Temp. Cond. Salinity
DO
mg/L DO% pH Turb. Ortho.
Nitrate
+
Nitrite Chl-a
AG-IN 7/21/17 0.0 27.6 442 0.2 6.8 89 7.6 12 0.03 0.01 11
AG-IN 8/8/17 0.5 25.0 140 0.1 6.6 80 7.8 11 0.05 0.01 6
AG-IN 9/6/17 0.0 24.7 242 0.1 6.3 77 7.9 3 0.08 0.04 40
AG-IN 10/4/17 0.0 20.2 499 0.3 4.4 49 8 20 0.02 0.01 1
AG-IN 11/6/17 0.0 19.7 400 0.2 5.6 62 7.2 4 0.03 0.01 8
AG-IN 12/19/17 0.0 11.7 466 0.3 5.7 53 8.3 3 0.02 0.01 4
AG-IN 1/17/18 0.0 7.5 466 0.3 8.2 68 8.2 3 0.03 0.01 0
AG-IN 2/20/18 0.0 20.2 424 0.2 10.3 113 7.6 10 0.04 0.01 11
AG-IN 3/19/18 0.0 13.1 349 0.3 8.2 84 8.1 8 0.02 0.04 6
AG-IN 4/17/18 0.0 13.4 355 0.2 6.8 65 7.3 8 0.03 0.13 3
AG-IN 5/15/18 0.0 27.4 509 0.2 3.6 45 7.5 6 0.07 0.01 161
AG-IN 6/13/18 0.3 23.0 540 0.3 3.6 43 7.2 14 0.11 0.01 16
AG-FD 7/21/17 0.0 32.7 386 0.2 10.8 121 9.3 0 0.01 0.01 4
AG-FD 8/8/17 0.5 28.0 296 0.1 3.8 49.0 7.6 11 0.02 0.01 7
AG-FD 9/6/17 0.0 26.6 327 0.1 6.0 75.0 7.7 6 0.05 0.01 43
AG-FD 10/4/17 0.0 20.9 321 0.2 6.6 74.0 8.4 15 0.02 0.01 19
AG-FD 11/6/17 0.0 19.8 308 0.2 6.4 69 7.6 1 0.03 0.01 6
AG-FD 12/19/17 0.0 10.9 316 0.2 12.9 116 8.2 1 0.01 0.01 55
AG-FD 1/17/18 0.0 7.8 500 0.4 10.3 87 8.2 2 0.02 0.01 5
AG-FD 2/20/18 0.0 19.1 433 0.2 9.5 102 7.9 1 0.03 0.01 23
AG-FD 3/19/18 0.0 14.0 454 0.3 9.7 94 9.4 3 0.03 0.01 3
AG-FD 4/17/18 0.0 18.2 349 0.2 7.4 78 7.8 2 0.02 0.01 44
AG-FD 5/15/18 0.0 27.7 474 0.2 2.4 30 7.4 2 0.07 0.01 15
AG-FD 6/13/18 0.0 26.8 480 0.2 1.5 19 7.1 3 0.13 0.01 8
AG-OUT 7/21/17 0.0 29.8 245 0.1 6.7 88 8.7 0 0.01 0.01 2
AG-OUT 8/8/17 0.5 27.4 253 0.1 2.9 37.0 7.7 127 0.02 0.01 3
AG-OUT 9/6/17 0.0 25.7 271 0.1 1.3 15.0 7.7 0 0.01 0.01 4
AG-OUT 10/4/17 0.0 21.6 265 0.1 5.1 58.0 8.3 5 0.02 0.01 21
AG-OUT 11/6/17 0.0 19.7 270 0.1 8.9 97 7.4 3 0.03 0.01 9
AG-OUT 12/19/17 0.0 9.6 265 0.2 13.3 118 8.2 0 0.02 0.1 9
AG-OUT 1/17/18 0.0 7.0 284 0.2 11.7 87 8 1 0.03 0.01 8
AG-OUT 2/20/18 0.0 16.8 357 0.2 10.1 104 8.2 1 0.03 0.01 11
AG-OUT 3/19/18 0.0 14.4 309 0.2 11.6 114 9.5 1 0.04 0.01 3
AG-OUT 4/17/18 0.0 17.0 316 0.2 8.3 86 7.9 2 0.02 0.01 16
AG-OUT 5/15/18 0.0 25.3 513 0.2 5.0 60 7.5 7 0.06 0.01 7
AG-OUT 6/13/18 0.3 27.3 448 0.2 1.9 23 7.2 2 0.09 0.01 7