2019-2020 Final ReportCPE-NC
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
2019-2020 FINAL REPORT Prepared by:
Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Marine Scientist: Brad Rosov, M.Sc.
Prepared For: New Hanover County, North Carolina
Recommended Citation: Rosov, B., 2020. New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program: 2019-2020 Final Report. New Hanover County, North Carolina: Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 53p.
October 2020
i CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the results of the New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Program
from July 2019 to June 2020. 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, and Enterococci 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 four (4) creeks, "Fair" ratings were determined at Futch Creek and Pages Creek, and a "Poor" rating was reached at Prince George Creek during the study period. Enterococci was “Good” within five
(5) of these watersheds: Barnards Creek, Futch Creek, Lords Creek, Prince George Creek, and
Smith Creek. Mott Creek and Pages Creek were deemed “Fair” for Enterococci. Ratings by watershed during the 2019-2020 reporting period.
Parameter Barnards
Creek
Futch
Creek
Lords
Creek
Mott
Creek
Pages
Creek
Prince George
Creek
Smith
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
Long Term Trends
During the 2019-2020 study period, water quality within each creek has remained similar to what
has been observed over previous years. One exception, however, has been an improvement with the Enterococci levels compared to recent years. Using data collected on a monthly basis since June 2008, 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.
ii CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Generally speaking, the dissolved oxygen levels within each creek have not changed drastically from year to year. Dissolved oxygen within Prince George Creek has been consistently low over
time which may be attributed to the natural physical condition of the creek which includes slow
moving swamp-like waters. Turbidity and chlorophyll-a were not problematic within any creeks. Overall, the ratings for Enterococci bacteria during the 2019-2020 sampling period were the best since monitoring began in 2008. Following a spike in high levels of bacteria observed during the
2018-2019 study period, the levels improved (decreased) over the most recent two study periods.
This may be attributed to relatively fewer samples collected following a rain event during the 2019-2020 sampling period compared to previous years. Enterococci bacteria has had a history of elevated levels within several of the creeks including Mott Creek, Pages Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince George Creek. Lords Creek and Futch Creek, on average, have contained
relatively lower bacteria levels compared to the other creeks included within this study. Since
June 2008, samples collected within Mott Creek and Pages Creek exceeded the State standard for
Enterococci 43% and 42% of the time, respectively. Smith Creek and Barnards Creek have both exceeded the standard 28% of the time while Prince George Creek exceeded the standard 24% of the time. Lords Creek exceeded the standard for Enterococci 11% of the time while Futch Creek
has only exceeded the standard 5% of the time.
Enterococci ratings for each watershed during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 reporting periods.
Monitoring Period Barnards Creek Futch Creek Lords Creek Mott Creek Pages Creek
Prince George Creek
Smith Creek
2018-2019 FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR POOR POOR POOR
2018-2019 FAIR GOOD FAIR FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
2019-2020 GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
An analysis of the long-term data set has shown that samples collected after a significant rainfall
were more than twice as likely to exceed the Enterococci standard compared to samples collected following a period of dry weather. This suggests that the delivery of the indicator bacteria into the County's creeks may not only be through point-source pathways (i.e. sanitary sewer overflows, "straight pipe" discharge, etc.), but also via non-point source delivery mechanisms including rainfall runoff. Furthermore, bacterial loading may be caused by infiltration of groundwater into
the creeks following heavy rain events. Airlie Gardens The 10-acre lake at Airlie Gardens has historically experienced persistent algal blooms over the years. In order to assess the overall condition of the lake's water, the County implemented monthly
water quality monitoring in 2015. Three sampling sites within the lake at Airlie Gardens were included in the 2019-2020 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 as they have since monitoring began in 2015. Similar to previous years’ results, the levels of the nutrient nitrite/nitrate were relatively higher at the sampling location closest to the main storm
water runoff input near the entrance of the gardens at Airlie Road compared to the outfall by Bradley Creek. The levels of the nutrient orthophosphate had also been higher at the entrance to the lake compared to the sampling sites located at the central portion of the lake and in proximity
iii CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
to the outfall until recent years when the levels have nearly equilibrated at all three sites. Meanwhile, chlorophyll-a levels have increased in recent years at the sampling sites closer to the
Bradley Creek outfall and the central areas of the lake compared to the sampling location in
proximity to the stormwater input into the lake. These trends indicate that the aquatic vegetation in the lake was utilizing the available nitrogen in the water column to facilitate growth. This was indicated by the presence of algal blooms throughout much of the lake during the summer months as nutrient-rich stormwater runoff may have been contributing to eutrophication and resultant algal
blooms. In 2019, specifically, algal blooms were observed in July and August at AG-FD and in
August, September and October at AG-OUT. High levels of chlorophyll-a we also noted at AG-IN during August of 2019. Algal blooms during the summer months also lead to decreased dissolved oxygen levels. To help combat problems associated with this eutrophication and low dissolved oxygen, the management at Airlie Gardens has implemented several measures to
improve water quality within the lake.
In order to help address issues associated with eutrophication, low dissolved oxygen, and over all water quality, county Parks and Gardens has implemented several measures identified in its stormwater master plan for Airlie Gardens over the past two years. Project have included
installing several aerators that help circulate air into the water to increase the dissolved oxygen
levels, dredging portions of the lake to remove silt and create “pockets” for fish habitat, planting native cypress trees, and stream restoration efforts, including installation of an engineered wetland where water enters the lake. As these implementation projects were recently completed, the monitoring data for 2019-2020 did not show a reduction of nutrient loading into the lake.
Continued monitoring of the lake is recommended in order to gauge the status of the lake and
determine the success of the implemented projects. Recommendations The long-term water quality monitoring results suggest that the seven (7) creeks have experienced
good water quality in terms of turbidity and chlorophyll-a levels over the course of the twelve (12)
year study thus far. Enterococci bacteria, however, has been problematic within several creeks over time. In particular, the bacteria levels within a portion of Pages Cree has persisted at high levels over the course of this long-term study.
County-funded source tracking studies conducted in 2009 and 2013 suggested that human sewage
was a contributing factor to the bacteria loading in the Bayshore neighborhood within the Pages Creek watershed. Although the bacteria levels have decreased over the past two years, the long-term dataset continues to suggest that testing sites PC-BDUS and PC-BDDS continue to frequently exceed the Enteroccoci standard. The continued presence of bacteria in the waters of Pages Creek,
particularly within the two Bayshore sampling sites, indicates there is a possible point-source
and/or non-point source delivery of Enterococci into the creek warranting further investigation. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) performed inspections of the lift stations adjacent to the two sampling sites in 2008, however their efforts did not reveal any deficiencies with the integrity of the sewer infrastructure. Following these efforts, a sign was posed by the
New Hanover County Health Department warning of the health hazard caused by the bacteria, and
grant funding for additional research was applied for as the County continued to monitor the creek. While the requested funding was not awarded, New Hanover County has partnered with Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina (CPE) and the University of North Carolina Wilmington
iv CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
(UNCW) to conduct a research project in the winter 2020/2021. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) will be equipped with thermal infrared sensors and flown along targeted segments within
the Pages Creek watershed to identify temperature differences between the surface water of the
creek and surrounding areas, which can indicate the presence of any contamination entering the creek. Once potential point source targets are located, ground truthing efforts will be developed to investigate further.
v CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 5
Standards .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 METHODS..................................................................................................................... 10
Physical Parameters........................................................................................................ 10
Chemical and Biological Parameters ............................................................................. 10
3.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 11
Rating System ................................................................................................................ 11
Barnards Creek ............................................................................................................... 11
Futch Creek .................................................................................................................... 14
Lords Creek .................................................................................................................... 19
Mott Creek...................................................................................................................... 21
Pages Creek .................................................................................................................... 24
Prince George ................................................................................................................. 28
Smith Creek .................................................................................................................... 32
Comprehensive Rating by Watershed ............................................................................ 37
Long-Term Trends ...................................................................................................... 37
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................... 38
3.10.2 Turbidity ................................................................................................................. 39
Chlorophyll-a ........................................................................................................................ 40
3.10.3 Enterococci ............................................................................................................. 40
Airlie Gardens............................................................................................................. 42
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 47
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 51
5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 53
vi CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ....................... 13
Figure 5. Enterococci at BC-CBR ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Water Quality Sites within the Futch Creek Watershed ............................................... 15
Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ............................. 16
Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ............................. 16
Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ........................... 16
Figure 10. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ..................... 17
Figure 11. Enterococci at FC-4 .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 12. Enterococci at FC-6 .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 13. Enterococci at FC-13 .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 14. Enterococci at FC-FOY .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 15. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed ............................................... 19
Figure 16. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ........................ 20
Figure 17. Enterococci Levels at LC-RR .................................................................................... 20
Figure 18. Water Quality Sites within the Mott Creek Watershed .............................................. 22
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR at surface (DO-S) .................................................. 23
Figure 20. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND at surface (DO-S) .................................................... 23
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-CBR .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 22. Enterococci at MOT-ND ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 23. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed ............................................ 25
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS at surface (DO-S) .................................................... 25
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS at surface (DO-S) ................................................... 26
Figure 26. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) .......................... 26
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDDS ........................................................................................... 26
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-BDUS ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 29. Enterococci at PC-M .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 30. Water Quality Sites within the Prince George Creek Watershed ............................... 29
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)........................ 29
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML at surface (DO-S) ........................................................ 29
Figure 33. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)........................ 31
Figure 34. Enterococci at PG-CH ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-ML ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 36. Enterococci at PG-NC ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 37. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed ............................................ 33
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ......................... 34
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD at surface (DO-S) ........................................................ 34
vii CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B) ........................ 34
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR at surface (DO-S) ........................................................ 35
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)........................ 35
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-23 .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CD ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-CH ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 46. Enterococci at SC-GR ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 47. Enterococci at SC-NK ................................................................................................ 37
Figure 48. Long-term surface dissolved oxygen data within tidal creeks .................................... 38
Figure 49. Long-term surface turbidity data within tidal creeks .................................................. 39
Figure 50. Long-term chlorophyll-a data within tidal creeks ...................................................... 39
Figure 51. Long-term Enterococci data within tidal creeks .......................................................... 41
Figure 52. Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites .................................................................................... 42
Figure 53. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-IN ....................................................................................... 43
Figure 54. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-FD ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 55. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-OUT ................................................................................... 44
Figure 56. Chlorophyll-a levels at Airlie Gardens Over Time ..................................................... 45
Figure 57. Nitrate/Nitrate Levels in Airlie Gardens Over Time ................................................... 45
Figure 58. Orthophosphate Levels in Airlie Gardens Over Time ................................................. 46
Figure 59. Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Airlie Gardens Over Time ............................................. 46
Figure 60. Percentage of samples exceeding the Enterococci standard following rain and dry
weather conditions. ....................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 61. Apparent algal bloom in proximity to AG-OUT observed on October 2, 2019.......... 51
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 ........................ 9
Table 5. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DEQ 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 .......................... 20 Table 13. Mean values of select parameters from Mott Creek. Range in parentheses. .............. 22
Table 14. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Mott Creek ............................ 24
Table 15. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 25 Table 16. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek .......................... 27
viii CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 17. Mean values of select parameters from Prince George Creek. . ................................. 29 Table 18. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince George Creek ............ 32
Table 19. Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek. Range in parentheses. ............ 33
Table 20. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek .......................... 36 Table 21. Ratings of parameters within each watershed.............................................................. 37 Table 22. Enterococci ratings for each watershed during all reporting periods…………….......40 Table 23. Mean values of select parameters from Airlie Gardens. Range provided in
parentheses. ................................................................................................................................... 44
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Photographs of Sampling Sites
B Raw Data C Airlie Gardens Data
1
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
New Hanover County (County) is the second smallest county and the third most densely populated
county in North Carolina. 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
the County. Water quality in the tidal creeks of Wilmington and the New Hanover County, have degraded over time due to a number of possible factors including aging infrastructure, increased impervious
surface area, and subsequent increased amounts of stormwater runoff. The population within the
County continues to grow, with an increase of approximately 32,000 people since the 2010 U.S. Census. The census estimates the County contains a population of 234,473 as of July 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). To address these issues associated with growth that impact water quality, the County has administered a long-standing water quality monitoring program designed to assess
the water quality within the creeks located within the County since 1993.
Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) 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 from July 2019 to June 2020. The
creeks included in this study are Pages and Futch, which drain into the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (ICW) and Lords, Mott, Barnards, Smith, and Prince George, which drain into the Cape Fear River (Figure 1, Table 1). 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: AG-IN, 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 of the lake 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
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 1. List of Tidal Creek Sampling Sites
Creek Name Site Name Site Code Latitude Longitude
Mott Creek Carolina Beach Road MOT-CBR 34° 08.610 77° 53.830
Mott 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 George Creek Marathon Landing PG-ML 34° 21.088 77° 55.349
Prince George Creek Castle Hayne Road PG-CH 34° 20.675 77° 54.217
Prince George 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
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 1. Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study
4
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 2. Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites
5
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 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: Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological
integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. This includes the lake within Airlie Gardens.
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, Mott Creek, Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince George 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.
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 deemed to be a potential threat, Enterococci samples were not collected at Airlie Gardens. Rather, due to the fact that the lake has historically undergone periods of 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
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 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 a
water body turning 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 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 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.
7
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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.
8
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 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/100
ml, 158 CFU/100 ml, 276 CFU/100 ml, and 501 CFU/100 ml 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/100 ml, 276 CFU/100 ml, and 500 CFU/100 ml, respectively (Table 5). A geometric mean of 35 CFU/100 ml 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 DEQ Recreational Water Quality Program
9
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA Single sample maximum Designated beach areas < 104 CFU/100 ml Swimming areas with moderate full body contact < 158 CFU/100 ml Lightly used full body contact swimming areas < 276 CFU/100 ml Infrequently used full body contact swimming areas < 501 CFU/100 ml Table 5. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DEQ Recreational Water Quality Program
Description Single sample maximum
Tier I, swimming areas used daily during the swimming season <104 CFU/100 ml
Tier II, swimming areas used three days a week during the swimming season <276 CFU/100 ml
Tier III, swimming areas used on average four days a month during the swimming season <500 CFU/100 ml
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 Canady's Yacht Basin 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
10
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
2.0 METHODS
These seven (7) 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 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, Mott Creek, and Barnards Creek were visited on the first sampling day while Smith Creek and Prince George 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 = 0.1 m) and near the creek bottom at sites with depths greater than 0.5 m. 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
11
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 from July 2019 through June 2020. These results are
primarily organized by watershed with the results of the seven (7) tidal creeks presented first followed by the results from Airlie Gardens. All raw data, including parameters not summarized in this section, from the tidal creeks sampling sites and the Airlie Garden sampling sites are found in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.
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 covers 4,176 acres and is among the most urban of watersheds located within the unincorporated portion of New Hanover County. While most of the Barnards Creek watershed lies within the City of Wilmington’s jurisdiction, roughly eighteen percent of the watershed is within the unincorporated County. The watershed in the unincorporated county
contains mostly lower density single family homes with some commercial uses along the Carolina
Beach Road corridor. Within the City of Wilmington, the watershed consists of medium to low density residential development, including the Riverlights development, and The Pointe at Barclay mixed use project. Barnards Creek flows in a generally westerly direction from its headwaters near the intersection of S. College Road and 17th Street to the Cape Fear River between the
intersection of River Road and Independence Blvd, and the Riverlights development. Sampling
was conducted at one site (BC-CBR) within the Barnards Creek watershed (Figure 3). Dissolved oxygen within BC-CBR ranged between 3.0 mg/l and 8.6 mg/l with a mean value of 6.0 mg/l (Table 7). Two (2) samples contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard of
4.0 mg/l for C Sw waters at the surface (Figure 4).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 4.0 ug/l with a mean value of 2.0 ug/l at BC-CBR (Table 7). These values did not approach the 40 ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 52 CFU/100 ml and 231 CFU/100 ml with a geometric mean value
of 52 CFU/100 ml, which is below the NCDEQ standard of 500 CFU/100 ml for Tier III waters
(Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period.
Figure 5, Table 7). None of the twelve (12) samples collected during this period exceeded this standard.
Turbidity values were generally good, ranging between 2 and 37 NTU with a mean value of 13 NTU (Table 7). No samples exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C SW waters.
12
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 8 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
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) 13 (2-37)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.0 (3.0-8.6)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 2.0 (1.0-4.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 52 (5-231)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
13
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 5. Enterococci at BC-CBR
Table 8. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek
Parameter BC-CBR
Turbidity GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci GOOD
Figure 4. Dissolved Oxygen at BC-CBR at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
14
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 3,813 acres extending from
Scotts Hill Loop Road and Highway 17 on the north and east, to Porters Neck Road on the south. Development in the Futch Creek watershed is predominately low density single family residential with some businesses along Highway 17. Sampling was conducted at four (4) sites (FC-4, FC-6, FC-13, and FC-FOY) within the Futch Creek watershed (Figure 6) on eleven (11) occasions over
the twelve (12) month study.
Dissolved oxygen within Futch Creek ranged between 3.5 mg/l and 9.1 mg/l with a mean value of 6.5 mg/l (Figure 7 - Figure 10, Table 9). Four (4) samples collected each from FC-13 contained dissolved oxygen levels below the State standard of 5.0 mg/l for SA while three (3) samples and two (2) samples from FC-FOY and FC-6, respectively, exceeded the standard. The rest of the
samples were compliant.
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 11.0 ug/l with a mean value of 3.0 ug/l (Table 9). None of these values approached the 40ug/l chlorophyll-a standard.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 120 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of
8 CFU/100ml. No samples collected within Futch Creek during exceeded the NCDEQ Enterococci
standard of 500 CFU/100 ml for Tier III waters (Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any
samples collected during this sampling period.
Figure 11- 14, Table 9).
Turbidity values were generally low ranging between 2 and 38 NTU with a mean value of 8 NTU (Table 9). Two (2) samples exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU for SA waters during this
study period.
Table 10 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
15
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 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) 8 (3-28) 7 (2-20) 9 (2-22) 10 (2-38)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.8 (5.0-8.6) 6.6 (4.2-8.7) 6.3 (3.5-8.9) 6.5 (3.6-9.1)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 3.0 (2.0-7.0) 4.0 (1.0-10.0) 4.0 (2.0-11.0) 3.0 (1.0-8.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml) 5 (5-10)1 7 (5-52)1 14 (5-120)1 8 (5-41)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
16
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
17
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 10. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 11. Enterococci at FC-4
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period.
18
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 12. Enterococci at FC-6
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 13. Enterococci at FC-13
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. 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 POOR FAIR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
19
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
LORDS CREEK
The Lords Creek Watershed is located in the southwestern portion of the County and encompasses
approximately 1,058 acres and consists of predominantly low density single family homes and
undeveloped land. Sampling was conducted at one (1) site (LC-RR) within the Lords Creek watershed (Figure 15).
Dissolved oxygen at LC-RR ranged between 3.8 mg/l and 9.5 mg/l with a mean value of 6.7 mg/l (Table 11).
No surface samples were below the acceptable level above the State standard of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw
waters during the sampling period, however one sample taken at depth was below 4.0 mg/l (Figure 16).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 3.0 ug/l and 29.0 ug/l with a mean value of 9.0 ug/l (Table 11). No samples exceeded the State standard of 40 ug/l for chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 171 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of
22 CFU/100ml (Table 11).
None of the twelve (12) samples collected over this reporting period contained high levels of Enterococci beyond the NCDEQ standard of 500 CFU/100 ml for Tier III waters.
Turbidity values were generally moderate ranging between 7 and 24 NTU with a mean value of
15 NTU (Table 11).
No samples 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.
Figure 15. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed
20
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 11. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity (NTU) 15 (7-24)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.7 (3.8-9.5)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 9 (3.0-29.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 22 (5-171)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 16. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. 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 GOOD
21
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
MOTT CREEK
Mott Creek is located in the southern portion of New Hanover County and drains an area of 3,342
acres including a small portion that crosses into the City of Wilmington. Three quarters of the
total area of the watershed is residential but includes Monkey Junction, the intersection of Carolina Beach and South College Roads, which is a major node for retail and commercial services. The creek itself flows from its headwaters through the center of the immediate Monkey Junction area, then in a generally southwesterly direction until it meets the Cape Fear River near the intersection
of River and Sanders Roads. Sampling was conducted at two (2) sites (MOT-CBR, MOT-ND)
within the Mott Creek watershed (Figure 18). Dissolved oxygen within Mott Creek ranged between 4.6 mg/l and 10.4 mg/l with a mean value of 7.1 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 1.0 ug/l and 61.0 ug/l with a mean value of 10.0 ug/l (Table 13). One sample exceeded the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 10 CFU/100ml and 1,130 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 154 CFU/100 ml (Table 13) Samples exceeded the NCDEQ standard of 500 CFU/100 ml for Tier III waters during three (3) sampling events during the reporting period Figure 21and Figure 22).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 3 and 106 NTU with a mean value of 15 NTU (Table 13). One (1) turbidity observation exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters. Table 14 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
22
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 18. Water Quality Sites within the Mott Creek Watershed
Table 13. Mean values of select parameters from Mott Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter MOT-CBR MOT-ND
Turbidity (NTU) 17 (3-106) 14 (6-26)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.7 (4.6-10.4) 7.5 (5.7-10.2)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 8.0 (1.0-27.0) 11.0 (1.0-61.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 136 (10-683)1 174 (51-1130)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
23
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR at surface (DO-S)
Figure 20. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND at surface (DO-S)
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-CBR
24
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 22. Enterococci at MOT-ND
Table 14. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Mott Creek
Parameter MOT-CBR MOT-ND
Turbidity GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD
Enterococci FAIR GOOD
PAGES CREEK
Located in northeastern New Hanover County and encompassing 5,025 acres, Pages Creek watershed drains into the Intracoastal Waterway, north of Middle Sound Loop Road. Development within the watershed is predominately low density residential, with commercial and retail uses along Market St/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 3.5 mg/l and 8.5 mg/l with a mean value of 6.2 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 four (4) times at PC-BDDS and three (3) times at PC-BDUS (Figure 24 and Figure 25).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 29.0 ug/l with a mean value of 5.0 ug/l (Table 15). No
samples exceeded the State standard of 40 ug/l for chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100 ml and 908 CFU/100 ml with a geometric mean value of 72 CFU/100 ml (Figure 27 through Figure 29, Table 15). One (1) sample from PC-M contain high levels of Enterococci while five (5) and two (2) samples from PC-BDUS and PC-BDDS,
respectively, contained levels higher than the NCDEQ standard.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 2 and 27 NTU with a mean value of 10 NTU (Table 15). One (1) 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.
25
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS at surface (DO-S)
Figure 23. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed
Table 15. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PC-BDUS PC-BDDS PC-M
Turbidity (NTU) 12 (4-25) 8 (3-14) 10 (2-27)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.3 (4.3-8.5) 5.5 (3.0-7.8) 6.6 (5.2-8.2)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 6.0 (1.0-29.0) 5.0(1.0-11.0) 4.0 (1.0-8.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 202 (20-908)1 107 (5-545)1 18 (5-563)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
26
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS at surface (DO-S)
Figure 26. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDDS
27
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-BDUS
Figure 29. Enterococci at PC-M
Table 16. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek
Parameter PC-BDUS PC-BDDS PC-M
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen FAIR POOR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR FAIR GOOD
28
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
PRINCE GEORGE
Prince George Creek drains into the Cape Fear River. The Prince George Creek watershed is
approximately 13,475 acres and drains most of Castle Hayne, extending eastward across I-40 into
the Blue Clay Road area. It is predominately made up of very low density residential uses with some retail and commercial businesses along the Castle Hayne Road corridor. Sampling was conducted at three (3) sites (PG-CH, PG-ML, and PG-NC) within the Prince George Creek watershed (Figure 30).
Dissolved oxygen within Prince George Creek ranged between 0.5 mg/l and 10.0 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 eleven (11) occasions during the reporting period at PG-NC, five (5) times at PG-NC, four (4) times at PG-CH, and twice at PG-ML (Figure 31 through Figure 33). Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 23.0 ug/l with a mean value of 5.0 ug/l (Table 17). No
samples from Prince George Creek exceeded the 40 ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 1 CFU/100ml and 417 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of 40 CFU/100ml (Table 17). No samples collected from within Prince George Creek contained Enterococci levels above the NCDEQ standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters (Note: The
Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period.
Figure 34 through Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period.
Figure 36).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 2 and 29 NTU with a mean value of 6 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.
29
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 30. Water Quality Sites within the Prince George Creek Watershed
30
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Table 17. Mean values of select parameters from Prince George Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity (NTU) 7 (2-29) 5 (3-8) 6 (2-14)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 5.8 (2.5-10.0) 5.9 (0.5-8.9) 4.4 (0.5-9.8)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 4.0 (1.0-14.0) 7.0 (1.0-23.0) 5.0 (1.0-20.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 52 (5-417)1 74 (20-22)1 17 (1-121)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML at surface (DO-S)
31
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 33. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 34. Enterococci at PG-CH
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-ML
32
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 36. Enterococci at PG-NC
Table 18. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince George Creek
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR FAIR POOR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD
SMITH CREEK
Smith Creek is located in the north-central portion of New Hanover County and drains an area covering more than 26 square miles (16,650 acres). While the watershed covers parts of the City
of Wilmington, the majority of the watershed is within the unincorporated portion of the county
and consists of mostly low density residential uses with commercial, business, and retail along the major corridors of Market Street, North College Road and Castle Hayne Road. The Smith Creek watershed is the largest watershed in New Hanover County beginning near Murrayville and flowing in a generally west-southwesterly direction, passing Wilmington International Airport and
under Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway multiple times before reaching its confluence with the
Northeast Cape Fear River north of downtown Wilmington. 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 2.5 mg/l and 10.1 mg/l with a mean value of
7.2 mg/l (Table 19; Figure 38 through Figure 402).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 80.0 ug/l with a mean value of 11.0 ug/l (Table 19). Three (3) samples exceeded the State Standard for chlorophyll-a from within Smith Creek.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100 ml and 13,000 CFU/100 ml with a geometric mean value
of 57 CFU/100ml (Table 19). Only one (1) samples exceeded the NCDEQ standard of 500
33
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
CFU/100 ml for Tier III waters (Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected
during this sampling period.
Figure 43 through Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling
period.
Figure 47).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 3 and 32 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 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) 12 (5-21) 8 (5-11) 17 (7-32) 7 (3-20) 9 (5-26)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 7.1 (3.1-10.1) 8.0 (6.6-9.7) 6.5 (2.5-9.4) 7.3 (4.6-9.1) 7.1 (4.2-9.6)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 19.0 (3.0-80.0) 3.0 (1.0-15.0) 8.0 (1.0-52.0) 6.0 (1.0-28.0) 20.0 (5.0-49.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 30 (5-171)1 260 (75-13000)1 22 (5-1221 67 (5-213)1 50 (20-145)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
34
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23 at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD at surface (DO-S)
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
35
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR at surface (DO-S)
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK at surface (DO-S) and bottom (DO-B)
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-23
36
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CD
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-CH
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. Figure 46. Enterococci at SC-GR
37
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Note: The Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100/ml is greater than any samples collected during this sampling period. 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 FAIR GOOD GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
COMPREHENSIVE RATING BY WATERSHED
When combining all results from each site within individual watersheds, it is possible to obtain a
“snapshot” of water quality within each watershed (Table 21). As displayed in the table below,
turbidity and chlorophyll-a were determined to be “good” within all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be “Good” in all creeks with the exception of Futch Creek, Prince George Creek, and Pages Creek; these deemed to be “Fair” during the study period. Enterococci was determined to be “Good” in all creeks aside from Mott Creek and Pages
Creek where they were deemed to be “Fair” during the 2019-2020 study period.
Table 21. Ratings of parameters within each watershed
Parameter Barnards Creek Futch Creek Lords Creek Mott Creek Pages Creek
Prince George Creek
Smith Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
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
38
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 2020.
3.10.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 48 depicts the long-term trends in dissolved oxygen within the seven (7) creeks examined within this study. The data show 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 35%, 23%, 18%, and 10% of the time within Prince George Creek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Barnard Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen exceeded the standard 8%, 7%, and 6% of the time within Mott Creek, Smith Creek, and Lords Creek, respectively.
Note: Futch and Pages Creek are classified as "SA Waters" with a dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0mg/l while the other creeks are classified as "C Sw" with a dissolved oxygen standard of 4.0 mg/l Figure 48. Long-term surface dissolved oxygen data within tidal creeks
39
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
3.10.2 Turbidity
Figure 49 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 several creeks have experienced minor increases over time and seasonal patterns have emerged. This includes higher turbidity observations during the warmer months and lower turbidity during the cooler months. Since 2008, the turbidity standard from observations monitored from the surface waters was only breached seventeen (17) times in total:
seven (7) from within Pages Creek, five (5) from Smith Creek, two (2) from Prince George Creek, and one time each from within Barnards Creek, Lords Creek and Mott Creek.
Note: Futch and Pages Creek are classified as "SA Waters" with a turbidity standard of 25 NTU while the other creeks are classified as "C Sw" with a turbidity standard of 50 NTU Figure 49. Long-term surface turbidity data within tidal creeks
40
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Chlorophyll-a
Figure 50 depict 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
in July 2008, only 34 exceedances of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 2,739
samples collected.
Figure 50. Long-term chlorophyll-a data within tidal creeks
3.10.3 Enterococci
Figure 51 and Table 22 depict the long-term trends in Enterococci within the seven (7) creeks examined within this study. Of these creeks, Mott Creek, Pages Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince George Creek have maintained relatively higher levels of bacteria over time compared to Lords Creek and Futch Creek. The levels of bacteria in Barnards, Smith, and Mott Creek have moderated
over recent years (Table 22). Two sites in particular within the Bayshore community (PC-BDDS and PC-BDUS) in the Pages Creek watershed have demonstrated relatively high levels of Enterococci bacteria over time. Since June 2008, samples collected within Mott Creek and Pages Creek exceeded the State
standard for Enterococci 43% and 42% of the time, respectively. Smith Creek and Barnards Creek have both exceeded the standard 28% of the time while Prince George Creek exceeded standard 24% of the time. Lords Creek exceeded the standard 11% of the time while Futch Creek has only exceeded the standard for Enterococci 5% of the time.
41
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
It should be noted that the 2019-2020 study period revealed the lowest Enterococci levels collectively from all seven (7) creeks.
Note: Sites PC-BDUS and PC-BDDS in Pages Creek along with SC-NK is Smith Creek have an Enterococci standard of 276 CFU/100 ml while all other sites have an Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100ml. Figure 51. Long-term Enterococci data within tidal creeks
Table 22. Enterococci ratings for each watershed during all reporting periods.
Study Period Barnards
Creek
Futch
Creek
Lords
Creek
Mott
Creek
Pages
Creek
Prince
George
Creek
Smith
Creek
2008-2009 POOR GOOD FAIR POOR POOR FAIR POOR
2009-2010 POOR GOOD POOR POOR POOR POOR POOR
2010-2011 POOR GOOD GOOD POOR FAIR POOR POOR
2011-2012 POOR GOOD GOOD POOR POOR POOR POOR
2012-2013 POOR GOOD FAIR POOR POOR POOR POOR
2013-2014 GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR POOR POOR FAIR
2014-2015 GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR POOR POOR FAIR
2015-2016 POOR FAIR FAIR POOR POOR POOR FAIR
2016-2017 GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD FAIR
2017-2018 FAIR FAIR POOR FAIR POOR POOR POOR
2018-2019 FAIR GOOD FAIR FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
2019-2020 GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD GOOD
42
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 near the drainage outfall (Figure 52).
Figure 52. Airlie Gardens Sampling Sites
43
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Dissolved oxygen within the lake ranged between 0.6 mg/l and 10.1 mg/l with a mean value of 6.6 mg/l (Table 23; Figure 53 through Figure 55)
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 3 and 110 NTU with a mean value of 22
NTU (23). One observation exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for Class C waters.
Chlorophyll-a ranged from 0 mg/l to 262 mg/l with a mean value of 50 mg/l. The standard of 40 mg/l was exceeded ten (10) times.
No sampling was performed during April 2020 due to limited access into Airlie Gardens during
the Covid-19 pandemic.
Figure 54. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-FD
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
DO
m
g
/
L
AG-FD Dissolved Oxygen
FD
Figure 53. Dissolved Oxygen at AG-IN
44
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 55. 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) 27 (5-110) 22 (3-56) 17 (3-45)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/l) 5.6 (0.6-8.7) 7.3 (2.1-10.1) 7.1 (2.7-10.0)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/l) 20 (1-43) 82 (14-262) 47 (14-165)
Orthophosphate 0.06 (0.01-0.28) 0.07 (0.03-0.15) 0.06 (0.02-0.14)
Nitrate/Nitrite 0.05 (0.01-0.14) 0.03 (0.01-0.16) 0.03 (0.01-0.23)
3.11.1 Long Term Trends within Airlie Gardens Since monthly water quality monitoring within the lake at Airlie Gardens began in July of 2015,
some trends have emerged. Chlorophyll-a was not monitored during the 2015-2016 study period.
During the 2016-2017 study period, Chlorophyll-a levels were similar at all three (3) sampling sites, however, the next year (2017-2018 study period) these levels were relatively higher at AG-IN compared to the two (2) sites situated in the central portion of the lake (AG-FD) and at the outfall location (AG-OUT). During the most recent study periods, the trend reversed, and higher
levels of Chlorophyll-a was observed at AG-FD and AG-OUT compared to AG-IN (Figure 56).
This reversal may not reflect a significant change in geochemical dynamics, but, rather many simply be a result of a small sample size with high variability amongst individual samples. When examining the levels of nutrients over time within these sampling sites, more nitrate/nitrate has been observed at AG-IN compared to the other two sampling sites on an annual basis since sampling began in 2015 (Figure 57). This trend held true for orthophosphate as well for the first three (3) sampling periods, however the values were similar at all three (3) sites over the past two
(2) years (Figure 58). Collectively, however, over the past five (5) years of sampling, the
orthophosphate level within AG-IN has have averaged 0.05 mg/l while AG-FD and AG-OUT have averaged 0.03mg/l and 0.02 mg/l, respectively. Nitrite/Nitrate levels have been 0.06 mg/l at AG-IN while AG-FD and AG-OUT both averaged 0.02 mg/l.
45
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Dissolved oxygen within the lake has been good, on average, through the years within each site with the exception of AG-IN during the 2015-2016 study period. The levels at AG-FD and AG-
OUT have been similar to each other each year and have been consistently higher in comparison
to the levels observed at AG-IN (Figure 59). At each site, the dissolved oxygen levels generally decreased during the warmer summer months and increased during the colder winter months.
Figure 56. Chlorophyll-a levels at Airlie Gardens Over Time
Figure 57. Nitrate/Nitrate Levels in Airlie Gardens Over Time
46
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Figure 58. Orthophosphate Levels in Airlie Gardens Over Time
Figure 59. Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Airlie Gardens Over Time
47
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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 factors most likely to impact water quality in this area identified by experts 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 234,473 as of July 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), which
reflects a growth rate of 8.0% over that five-year time period. Along with this population growth came increased stormwater runoff, aging wastewater infrastructure, and other issues that potentially impacted the water quality within the County’s creeks. Over the course of decades of rapid growth, New Hanover County’s water quality within its tidal creeks has become altered.
Despite the continuation of development and its associated increase of impervious surface within the County, generally speaking, the ratings for many water quality parameters as depicted in this report have improved over the past several years. While there are no clearly identifiable factors that may be facilitating this trend, several notable efforts may be contributing to these improvements. For instance, in 2017, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) completed
work to provide the Marquis Hills subdivision within the Mott Creek watershed with sewer service. With this new wastewater infrastructure in place, aging septic tanks have been removed and homes have been connected to CPFUA’s sewer system. The County, meanwhile, 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. Over the past twelve years of water quality monitoring within these seven (7) creeks, some trends have emerged. Typically, water quality degrades as the water temperature increases and oxygen is
not as readily dissolved in the water column. This phenomenon has been observed while investigating the long-term trends of water quality in this study. The dissolved oxygen along with chlorophyll-a and turbidity levels generally increased during the warmer summer months. The longer summer days allow for increased photosynthetic activity that, as a result, allows for an increase in phytoplankton blooms. While often 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 and turbidity measurements were generally found to be within acceptable ranges. However, four (4) chlorophyll-a samples exceeded the State standard during the 2019-2020 study period. It is possible that algal blooms were
occurring within the creeks during those times In general, the dissolved oxygen within Barnards Creek, Lords Creek, Mott Creek, and Smith Creek has been rated “Good” through the course of this long-term study with few exceptions. Barnards Creek had declined in dissolved oxygen in recent years, however it improved to “Good”
48
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
again over the past three years. Futch Creek has maintained a “Fair” rating for nine (9) of the twelve (12) years. Pages Creek has demonstrated varying dissolved oxygen levels over time
ranging from “Poor” to “Good” over the years. Prince George Creek has demonstrated the worst
long-term dissolved oxygen levels compared to the other creeks in the study as it has been designated as “Poor” ten (10) of the twelve (12) years. Of the 33 samples that fell below the standard for dissolved oxygen during the 2019-2020 study period, more than one half (52%) were observed during June, July, and August when water temperatures were the highest. It should be
noted that the slow moving water and swamp-like features within portions of Prince George Creek
may help naturally facilitate these low dissolved oxygen levels. Compared to the last reporting period (2018-2019), the dissolved oxygen levels decreased from “Fair” to “Poor” at Prince George Creek. However, Lords Creek and Smith Creek improved from "Fair" to "Good" while Pages Creek improved from "Poor" to "Fair" over the past two reporting periods.
High levels of Enterococci bacteria persisted within several sites throughout the 2019-2020 study period. However, collectively, bacteria was much less of a concern than observed during previous years. No samples collected from within four creeks (Lords Creek, Futch Creek, Barnard Creek, and Prince George Creek) exceeded the State Enterococci standard. Three (3) of the 24 samples
(13%) collected within Mott Creek exceeded the standard while only 1 (one) of the 60 samples
(2%) collected within Smith Creek exceeded the standard. As observed in previous years, samples collected within portions of Pages Creek contained relatively high levels of Enterococci where eight (8) out of 36 samples (22%) exceeded the State
standard. The two sampling sites in the Bayshore neighborhood within the Pages Creek watershed
accounted for seven (7) of these exceedances. While the water quality was above the state standard at the two sites 29% of the time during this past study period, this is an improvement from 50% during the 2018-2019 study period and 83% during the 2017-2018 study period. Despite the improved trend in bacteria levels over the past few years, bacterial contamination at the two
Bayshore Drive sites persists.
At Mott Creek, the bacteria levels continue to improve; only three (3) samples were above the state standard during the 2019-2020 study period compared to six (6) during the two previous study periods. Prior to the 2016-2017 sampling effort, Mott Creek had consistently demonstrated “Poor”
water quality in terms of bacterial contamination. In order to remove one source of contamination
in Mott Creek, New Hanover County partnered with the CFPUA to install a centralized sewer system in the Marquis Hills community. Completed in 2017, this initiative replaced failing septic tanks that were shown to be leaking bacteria into the ground. Since then there has been a noticeable improvement in the levels of enterococci bacteria at the Mott Creek testing sites.
It should also be noted that this was the second consecutive study period when the Smith Creek watershed exhibited “Good” water quality for Enterococci; prior to 2018, Enterococci levels within Smith Creek were consistently rated "Poor" or "Fair".
The long-term trends for Enterococci ratings over the past twelve (12) years have shown that
Mott Creek, Pages Creek, and Prince George Creek maintained “Poor” ratings during much of the time; however, over the past two years these three creeks have demonstrated some improvements. Mott Creek, which was deemed “Poor” between 2008 and 2016, has improved to “Fair” over the past four (4) study periods. The most noted improvement has been within Prince
George Creek and Smith Creek. Both creeks have demonstrated "Good" water quality in terms
49
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
of Enterococci levels over the past two years whereas previous years they contained either "Poor" or "Fair" levels. Barnards Creek and Lords Creek have demonstrated varying conditions
since sampling was first initiated. Futch Creek, meanwhile, has consistently maintained a
“Good” rating, with two exceptions when it was deemed “Fair”. The levels of Enterococci bacteria levels in New Hanover County's tidal creeks may be influenced by a number of factors. The amount of bacteria observed in samples could be
attributed to multiple factors. For instance, point-source contamination originating from direct
discharges (such as abandoned or existing leaky septic tanks, or from any faults in sewer infrastructure) could be a contributing factor. Others may include non-point sources of contamination from runoff generated by rainstorms and urban activities such as car washing and irrigation, which can wash high concentrations of Enterococci, into nearby creeks and streams
(Olivieri, et al, 2007). Enterococci in runoff can originate from soil, animal feces, raw sewage, and decaying plant material. Recent research indicates that decaying vegetation on both freshwater and marine beaches can contain Enterococci (Byappanahalli et al., 2003), while sediments and soils may also harbor Enterococci (Mote et al., 2012). Along with runoff, heavy rains cause elevation of the water table, promoting infiltration of groundwater into the creeks.
Should the groundwater be tainted with elevated bacteria levels (originating naturally from soils
or from anthropogenic sources such as leaking septic tanks or sewer lines), the bacteria may infiltrate into the creek’s surface waters following large rain events. Over the course of the long-term study, a total of 2,729 samples were collected and analyzed for
Enterococci levels. Of these samples, 2,116 were collected during a period of dry weather while
613 were collected during or following a period of rain within 24-hours of sample collection. Twenty (20) percent of the samples collected following the dry period were above the standard for Enterococci, while 41.4% of the samples collected following a measurable rainfall were above the state standards. The percent of samples that exceeded the standard for Enterococci following
rainfall was higher than following dry weather during ten (10) of the twelve (12) sampling periods
since 2008 (Figure 60). This trend clearly suggests that rainfall is a driving force behind the delivery of Enterococci within the creek's surface waters.
Figure 60. Percentage of samples exceeding the Enterococci standard following rain and dry weather conditions.
50
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
Of the nineteen (19) sites included in this long-term study, the site PC-BDUS has exhibited the highest rate of Enterococci above state standards. This station, located at the boat ramp in the
Bayshore community within the Pages Creek watershed, has exceeded the standard 61% of the time. Following the 2008 source tracking study that was performed that identified human sewage in the waters at PC-BDUS, the CFPUA inspected its lift station in proximity to the sampling site to determine if it may be a contributing factor to the elevated bacteria levels. These investigations did not reveal and deficiencies. Non-point runoff sources of bacterial loading may be a
contributing factor as well. Bird feces has frequently been observed on the boat ramp and domestic pets are known to live at adjacent homes. In addition, regular boating activity in to the vicinity of the boat ramp facilitates the resuspension of bottom sediments. Studies have implicated streambed sediment and its resuspension as sources and principal transport vectors for bacteria (Meade et al. 1990). Bottom sediment, including those in brackish waters, may act as a reservoir for prolonging
Enterococci survival and, due to the resuspension of sediments, add concern of recontamination of overlaying waters. Airlie Gardens
The 10-acre lake at Airlie Gardens has historically experienced numerous algal blooms over the
years. In order to assess the overall condition of the lake's water, the County implemented
monthly water quality monitoring in 2015.The results from monthly sampling over the past five (5) years 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 (3) sites in Airlie Gardens were generally low. However, generally
speaking, the within AG-IN have been relatively higher on average compared to the other two sites further south and closer to the outfall. Over the past five (5) years of sampling, the orthophosphate level within AG-IN has have averaged
0.05 mg/l while AG-FD and AG-OUT have averaged 0.03mg/l and 0.02 mg/l, respectively.
Nitrite/Nitrate levels have been 0.06 mg/l at AG-IN while AG-FD and AG-OUT both averaged 0.02 mg/l. This suggests that the nutrient-rich stormwater runoff delivered to the lake at AG-IN are ultimately taken up by aquatic plants and macroalgae within the lake. Phosphorus is a particularly vital nutrient for converting sunlight into usable energy, and essential to cellular
growth and reproduction. Under natural conditions phosphorus is typically scarce in water. In the
late 1960s scientists discovered phosphorus contributed by human activity to be a major cause of excessive algae growth and degraded lake water quality (MPCA, 2008) (Figure 58). The process involving an increase of nutrient loading to a waterbody, called eutrophication, 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.
To help combat problems associated with this eutrophication and overall water quality, county Parks and Gardens has implemented initiatives identified in their stormwater master plan. These initiatives include installing several aerators in the lake in an attempt to increase the dissolved
oxygen levels. In addition, the tributary that delivers stormwater runoff into the lake just upstream
from the AG-IN sampling location was restored in early 2019 which included the planting of native Cyprus and the installation of an engineered wetland BMP. Beginning in December 2019, the County initiated a dredging operation by excavating 5' deep by 10' wide channels in the lake, effectively removing approximately 4,000 cubic yards of bottom sediment and material. The
removal of the nutrient-laden sediments will ideally result in decreased levels of orthophosphate
51
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
and nitrate/nitrite within the water column which should result in a reduction of algal blooms thereby helping to maintain appropriate levels of dissolved oxygen. Since these implementation
projects were recently completed, the monitoring data has not shown a reduction on nutrient
loading into the lake but it is anticipated to see a trend in the next couple of years. It is recommended to continue to monitor the lake in order to gauge the status of the lake and the success of the implemented projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The long-term water quality monitoring results suggest that the seven (7) creeks have experienced good water quality in terms of turbidity and chlorophyll-a levels over the course of the twelve (12) year study thus far. The one parameter, however, that has been problematic has been Enterococci
bacteria. Of the 2,729 samples collected and analyzed since June 2008, 678 samples (25% of all
samples) have exceeded the State standard for this bacterium. While several creeks have exhibited relatively low levels of bacteria throughout the study (namely Futch Creek and Lords Creek), other creeks have proven to contain high levels of
Enterococci throughout the course of the monitoring program. Mott Creek has exceeded the
standard 43% of the time and PC-BDDS and PC-BDUS within Pages Creek have exceeded the standard 44% and 61% of the time, respectively. In an attempt to determine the source of this contamination, the County funded two studies in 2008 and 2013 including a DNA analysis. The DNA analysis showed the bacteria was from a human source which suggested that human waste
was a contributing factor to the bacteria loading in Pages Creek. The CFPUA performed
inspections of the lift stations adjacent to the two sampling sites. Following these efforts, a sign was posted by the Health Department warning of the health hazard caused by the bacteria, and grant funding for additional research was applied for as NHC continued to monitor the creek. Although the bacteria levels within these two sites have dropped considerably over recent years,
the long-term trend of relatively high Enterococci remains a concern.
Figure 61. Apparent algal bloom in proximity to AG-OUT observed on October 2, 2019.
52
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
In order to investigate the source or sources of human waste contributing to the high bacteria
amount, the County will be partnering with Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina
(CPE) and the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) on a research project in the winter 2020/2021. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) will be equipped with thermal infrared sensors and flown along targeted segments within the Pages Creek watershed to identify temperature differences between the surface water of the creek and surrounding areas, which can
indicate the presence of any contamination entering the creek. Once potential point source targets
are located, ground truthing efforts will be developed to investigate further.
53
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Byappanahalli MN, Shively DA, Nevers MB, Sadowsky MJ, Whitman RL. Growth and survival of Escherichia coli and enterococci populations in the macro-alga Cladophora (Chlorophyta). FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2003;46(2):203–211. 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.
Meade, R., Yazyk, T. & Day, T. 1990. Movement and storage of sediment in rivers of the United
States and Canada. In: The Geology of North America, Woman, H. & Riggs, S. R. (Eds.). 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.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008. Nutrients: Phosphorus, Nitrogen Sources, Impact on Water Quality - A General Overview Water Quality/Impaired Waters #3.22 website last accessed August 31, 2020. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw3-22.pdf
Mote BL, Turner JW, Lipp EK. Persistence and growth of the fecal indicator bacteria
enterococci in detritus and natural estuarine plankton communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(8):2569–2577
54
CPE-NC
New Hanover County
2019-2020 Water Quality Monitoring Report
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.
Olivieri AW, Boehm AB, Sommers CA, Soller JA, Eisenberg JN, Danielson R. (2007). Development of a protocol for risk assessment of separate stormwater system microorganisms. Alexandria: Water Environment Research Foundation.
Ricks, C., 2011. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Personal communication regarding sewage spills in New Hanover County. U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. Quick facts: New Hanover County, NC.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newhanovercountynorthcarolina 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.
APPENDIX A
Photographs of Sampling Sites
53
Barnards Creek at Carolina Beach Road (BC-CBR)
Futch Creek 4 (FC-4)
Futch Creek 6 (FC-6)
54
Futch Creek 13 (FC-13)
Futch Creek at Foy Branch (FC-FOY)
Lords Creek at River Road (LC-RR)
55
Motts Creek at Carolina Beach Road (MOTT-CBR)
Motts Creek at Normandy Drive (MOT-ND)
Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive Upstream (PC-BDUS)
56
Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive (PC-BDDS)
Pages Creek Mouth (PC-M)
Prince Georges Creek at Castle Hayne Road (PG-CH)
57
Prince Georges Creek at Marathon Landing (PG-ML)
Prince Georges Creek at North College Road (PG-NC)
Smith Creek at Candlewood Drive (SC-CD)
58
Smith Creek at Castle Hayne Road (SC-CH)
Smith Creek at 23rd Street (SC-23)
Smith Creek at North Kerr Ave. (SC-NK)
59
Smith Creek at Gordon Road (SC-GR)
60
Airlie Gardens Lake at Input (AG-IN)
Airlie Gardens Lake at Floating Dock (AG-FD)
Airlie Gardens Lake at Output (AG-OUT)
61
Appendix B
2019-2020 Tidal Creek Raw Data
Date Site Time Depth Temp. Cond. Salinity DO mg/L DO% pH Turb Entero. Chl-A
6/3/2019 LC-RR 11:35 AM 0.1 27.4 33498 19.9 5.4 76 7.3 20 2420 16
6/3/2019 LC-RR 11:35 AM 1.9 27.4 33487 19.9 5.4 75 7.4 19 N/A N/A
6/3/2019 BC-CBR 11:48 AM 0.1 23.6 229 0.1 4.9 58 9.3 4 407 4
6/3/2019 BC-CBR 11:48 AM 1.7 22.9 225 0.1 4.1 47 9.2 14 N/A N/A
6/3/2019 MOT-CBR 11:55 AM 0.1 25.6 241 0.1 5.4 67 8.7 8 2420 5
6/3/2019 MOT-NB 12:03 PM 0.1 24.6 296 0.1 5.8 70 8.3 16 2420 9
6/4/2019 PG-ML 11:12 AM 0.1 25.4 450 0.2 4.6 55 9.3 3 30 1
6/4/2019 PG-CH 11:18 AM 0.1 23.8 526 0.3 4.6 54 8.8 3 97 2
6/4/2019 PG-CH 11:18 AM 1.4 23.7 530 0.3 4.3 50 8.7 3 N/A N/A
6/4/2019 PG-NC 11:25 AM 0.1 23.0 224 0.1 2.0 22 8.6 7 10 2
6/4/2019 PG-NC 11:25 AM 3.1 16.8 581 0.3 0.9 10 8.4 6 N/A N/A
6/4/2019 SC-CH 10:46 AM 0.1 27.6 24164 13.9 4.5 61 8.1 18 10 8
6/4/2019 SC-CH 10:46 AM 2.5 27.6 24242 13.9 4.4 60 8.1 29 N/A N/A
6/4/2019 SC-23 10:55 AM 0.1 27.6 11871 6.4 5.1 66 8.3 12 5 10
6/4/2019 SC-23 10:55 AM 1.9 27.6 12038 6.5 5.1 67 8.3 13 N/A N/A
6/4/2019 SC-CD 11:40 AM 0.1 24.7 252 0.1 7.6 92 8.4 9 85 3
6/4/2019 SC-NK 11:53 AM 0.1 25.9 3084 1.6 6.9 85 7.7 7 30 21
6/4/2019 SC-NK 11:53 AM 1.2 26.1 3311 1.7 6.5 81 7.8 10 N/A N/A
6/4/2019 SC-GR 12:02 PM 0.1 24.2 232 0.1 6.7 80 8.6 4 10 3
6/6/2019 FC-4 11:36 AM 0.1 26.4 56672 36.4 5.7 87 8.6 5 5 2
6/6/2019 FC-4 11:36 AM 1.6 26.4 56470 36.3 5.7 87 8.6 6 N/A N/A
6/6/2019 FC-6 11:33 AM 0.1 26.8 56717 36.3 5.9 90 8.5 6 10 0
6/6/2019 FC-6 11:33 AM 1.3 26.5 56670 36.3 5.4 82 8.5 6 N/A N/A
6/6/2019 FC-13 11:24 AM 0.1 27.0 54923 34.8 5.3 80 8.5 10 10 4
6/6/2019 FC-13 11:24 AM 0.9 27.0 55044 34.9 5.1 78 8.5 18 N/A N/A
6/6/2019 FC-FOY 11:29 AM 0.1 27.0 55177 35.0 5.2 80 8.5 7 5 2
6/6/2019 FC-FOY 11:29 AM 1.0 27.0 56153 35.7 5.4 83 8.5 23 N/A N/A
6/6/2019 PC-BDUS 12:10 PM 0.1 27.4 52732 32.9 3.7 56 8.4 22 85 5
6/6/2019 PC-BDDS 12:14 PM 0.1 26.6 55352 35.4 3.6 53 8.3 7 98 5
6/6/2019 PC-M 12:27 PM 0.1 26.8 56729 36.3 5.2 80 8.5 7 10 2
6/6/2019 PC-M 12:27 PM 1.8 26.8 56822 36.7 4.3 66 8.5 11 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 LC-RR 10:48 AM 0.1 29.5 35537 20.4 5.3 78 7.5 15 10 14
7/2/2019 LC-RR 10:48 AM 1.8 29.5 355555 20.4 5.3 78 7.6 17 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 BC-CBR 11:09 AM 0.1 25.4 291 0.1 3.2 39 9.1 8 41 1
7/2/2019 BC-CBR 11:09 AM 1.3 25.3 299 0.1 3.0 37 9.0 11 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 MOT-CBR 10:27 AM 0.1 26.9 334 0.2 4.9 62 8.3 106 95 3
7/2/2019 MOT-NB 10:33 AM 0.1 25.8 398 0.2 7.1 88 8.2 16 226 61
7/2/2019 PG-ML 12:03 PM 0.1 29.3 1251 0.6 6.2 81 8.8 3 20 23
7/2/2019 PG-CH 12:10 PM 0.1 27.0 449 0.2 3.7 47 8.6 2 30 6
7/2/2019 PG-CH 12:10 PM 2.4 26.8 551 0.2 3.6 45 8.6 3 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 PG-NC 12:16 PM 0.1 25.6 278 0.1 2.5 31 8.3 4 10 4
7/2/2019 PG-NC 12:16 PM 3.2 18.0 639 0.4 0.5 5 8.0 13 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 SC-CH 11:36 AM 0.1 29.6 22047 12.0 6.3 88 7.7 22 41 52
7/2/2019 SC-CH 11:36 AM 2.1 29.4 21997 12.0 5.6 78 7.7 30 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 SC-23 11:44 AM 0.1 30.5 13561 7.0 8.0 101 8.0 10 51 29
7/2/2019 SC-23 11:44 AM 1.7 30.3 14342 7.5 8.0 101 8.0 12 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 SC-CD 12:30 PM 0.1 27.6 287 0.1 6.8 86 8.1 6 13000 15
7/2/2019 SC-NK 12:40 PM 0.1 28.8 5342 2.7 6.0 78 7.5 26 144 23
7/2/2019 SC-NK 12:40 PM 1.4 29.1 5704 2.8 5.5 73 7.5 7 N/A N/A
7/2/2019 SC-GR 12:50 PM 0.1 26.7 255 0.1 5.1 64 8.5 4 20 4
7/3/2019 FC-4 9:28 AM 0.1 28.5 59380 36.8 5.3 85 8.2 4 5 6
7/3/2019 FC-4 9:28 AM 1.8 28.0 58800 36.8 5.7 89 8.2 5 N/A N/A
7/3/2019 FC-6 9:25 AM 0.1 29.0 60028 36.9 4.6 75 8.1 5 5 5
7/3/2019 FC-6 9:25 AM 1.4 28.9 59903 36.9 4.7 75 8.1 6 N/A N/A
7/3/2019 FC-13 9:16 AM 0.1 29.4 59329 36.2 3.7 58 7.9 8 5 4
7/3/2019 FC-13 9:16 AM 1.0 29.3 59496 36.3 3.8 60 8.0 9 N/A N/A
7/3/2019 FC-FOY 9:21 AM 0.1 29.4 54927 36.8 3.6 58 8.0 7 10 4
7/3/2019 FC-FOY 9:21 AM 1.2 29.2 59633 36.5 3.9 63 8.0 14 N/A N/A
7/3/2019 PC-BDUS 10:01 AM 0.1 29.8 53391 34.0 5.6 88 8.2 9 428 17
7/3/2019 PC-BDDS 10:05 AM 0.1 30.2 59812 35.9 3.5 57 8.1 6 359 11
7/3/2019 PC-M 10:23 AM 0.1 28.1 58949.0 36.8 5.7 90 8.2 6 5 5
7/3/2019 PC-M 10:23 AM 1.9 28.1 58876.0 36.8 5.7 90 8.3 16 N/A N/A
8/13/2019 LC-RR 10:10 AM 0.1 28.8 34166 19.8 4.0 58 6.6 24 171 29
8/13/2019 LC-RR 10:10 AM 1.7 28.8 34292 19.8 4.0 58 6.7 25 N/A N/A
8/13/2019 BC-CBR 10:24 AM 0.1 25.4 268 0.1 5.1 63 8.1 33 5 2
8/13/2019 BC-CBR 10:24 AM 1.8 23.2 477 0.2 5.0 23 7.8 37 N/A N/A
8/13/2019 MOT-CBR 10:32 AM 0.1 27.0 351 0.2 4.6 57 7.5 28 594 19
8/13/2019 MOT-NB 10:39 AM 0.1 26.3 357 0.2 6.5 81 7.0 17 1130 17
8/15/2019 PG-ML 10:50 AM 0.1 28.5 977 0.5 4.6 60 8.1 4 109 20
8/15/2019 PG-CH 11:00 AM 0.1 27.1 647 0.3 2.9 36 7.8 5 417 14
8/15/2019 PG-CH 11:00 AM 1.5 26.8 658 0.3 2.7 33 7.7 23 N/A N/A
8/15/2019 PG-NC 11:10 AM 0.1 26.8 261 0.1 2.9 36 7.7 5 20 11
8/15/2019 PG-NC 11:10 AM 3.2 20.3 625 0.3 1.3 15 7.4 14 N/A N/A
8/15/2019 SC-CH 10:20 AM 0.1 30.0 22002 11.9 3.8 54 7.3 14 75 11
8/15/2019 SC-CH 10:20 AM 2.1 30.0 22384 12.1 3.6 51 7.2 30 N/A N/A
8/15/2019 SC-23 10:31 AM 0.1 30.2 16462 8.6 5.8 80 7.4 11 84 80
8/15/2019 SC-23 10:31 AM 1.9 30.2 16484 8.6 5.7 80 7.3 13 N/A N/A
8/15/2019 SC-CD 11:20 AM 0.1 27.8 266 0.1 6.6 84 7.6 6 211 1
8/15/2019 SC-NK 11:33 AM 0.1 29.1 9565 5.0 5.2 70 7.0 5 31 49
8/15/2019 SC-NK 11:33 AM 1.2 29.0 9570 5.0 5.1 69 7.1 6 N/A N/A
8/15/2019 SC-GR 11:41 AM 0.1 27.0 239 0.1 4.6 58 7.9 4 5 22
8/19/2019 FC-4 11:45 AM 0.1 28.9 53766 32.5 6.0 94 7.8 6 5 7
8/19/2019 FC-4 11:45 AM 1.9 28.7 55151 33.8 6.2 97 7.8 13 N/A N/A
8/19/2019 FC-6 11:41 AM 0.1 29.3 52308 31.0 5.7 89 7.7 6 10 10
8/19/2019 FC-6 11:41 AM 1.4 29.0 52740 32.0 5.5 86 7.8 9 N/A N/A
8/19/2019 FC-13 11:30 AM 0.1 29.4 36343 21.2 4.5 66 7.9 10 120 11
8/19/2019 FC-13 11:30 AM 1.1 28.9 44981 26.8 4.4 66 7.8 21 N/A N/A
8/19/2019 FC-FOY 11:37 AM 0.1 28.6 41736 24.8 4.6 68 7.8 11 41 6
8/19/2019 FC-FOY 11:37 AM 1.1 28.6 48320 29.5 4.8 73 7.4 38 N/A N/A
8/19/2019 PC-BDUS 12:35 PM 0.1 28.5 44158 26.5 4.3 66 7.7 17 496 3
8/19/2019 PC-BDDS 12:28 PM 0.1 29.7 23135 12.7 6.6 93 8.0 13 488 6
8/19/2019 PC-M 12:48 PM 0.1 29.4 54692 32.9 6.0 93 7.8 7 5 6
8/19/2019 PC-M 12:48 PM 2.1 29.1 54689 33.1 5.9 92 7.8 13 N/A N/A
9/11/2019 LC-RR 10:20 AM 0.1 26.4 5636 3.0 4.1 53 6.0 15 132 14
9/11/2019 LC-RR 10:20 AM 1.8 26.4 5616 3.0 3.8 48 6.7 27 N/A N/A
9/11/2019 BC-CBR 10:36 AM 0.1 25.0 276 0.1 4.9 60 7.4 5 97 4
9/11/2019 BC-CBR 10:36 AM 2.0 25.0 279 0.1 4.8 58 7.3 18 N/A N/A
9/11/2019 MOT-CBR 10:42 AM 0.1 26.3 350 0.2 5.3 66 7.1 6 146 10
9/11/2019 MOT-NB 10:42 AM 0.1 26.1 347 0.2 5.8 72 7.1 18 253 8
9/12/2019 PG-ML 10:11 AM 0.1 25.1 224 0.1 3.7 45 7.1 4 121 3
9/12/2019 PG-CH 10:11 AM 0.1 24.1 202 0.1 3.8 45 6.9 4 109 1
9/12/2019 PG-CH 10:18 AM 1.6 24.1 202 0.1 3.6 43 6.8 5 N/A N/A
9/12/2019 PG-NC 10:24 AM 0.1 24.2 162 0.1 2.9 35 6.7 5 63 4
9/12/2019 PG-NC 10:24 AM 3.4 24.1 159 0.1 2.1 25 6.5 8 N/A N/A
9/12/2019 SC-CH 9:44 AM 0.1 26.8 239 0.1 2.6 33 7.8 7 31 3
9/12/2019 SC-CH 9:44 AM 2.1 26.8 241 0.1 2.5 31 7.6 14 N/A N/A
9/12/2019 SC-23 9:53 AM 0.1 27.5 407 0.2 3.3 42 7.2 5 52 5
9/12/2019 SC-23 9:53 AM 2.1 27.7 407 0.2 3.1 39 7.2 5 N/A N/A
9/12/2019 SC-CD 10:39 AM 0.1 24.8 212 0.2 7.0 81 6.6 9 135 7
9/12/2019 SC-NK 10:50 AM 0.1 25.9 333 0.2 4.5 56 6.7 6 85 28
9/12/2019 SC-NK 10:50 AM 1.4 25.9 322 0.2 4.2 53 6.7 7 N/A N/A
9/12/2019 SC-GR 11:00 AM 0.1 24.3 190 0.1 6.2 74 6.6 6 213 3
9/16/2019 FC-4 11:08 AM 0.1 28.4 56778 35.0 5.5 86 8.1 6 5 3
9/16/2019 FC-4 11:08 AM 1.9 28.1 57349 35.7 5.8 90 8.1 28 N/A N/A
9/16/2019 FC-6 11:00 AM 0.1 28.3 55956 34.6 5.6 86 8.0 5 5 4
9/16/2019 FC-6 11:00 AM 1.5 28.2 56477 35.0 5.3 83 8.0 6 N/A N/A
9/16/2019 FC-13 10:51 AM 0.1 28.0 45007 28.1 4.2 63 8.0 10 10 4
9/16/2019 FC-13 10:51 AM 1.0 28.1 53492 33.0 4.6 70 8.0 14 N/A N/A
9/16/2019 FC-FOY 10:55 AM 0.1 28.2 52210 32.0 5.2 79 7.9 5 5 4
9/16/2019 FC-FOY 10:55 AM 1.0 28.2 55136 34.1 5.0 78 8.0 7 N/A N/A
9/16/2019 PC-BDUS 11:37 AM 0.1 29.2 43876 25.8 7.2 108 8.1 7 762 5
9/16/2019 PC-BDDS 11:42 AM 0.1 28.2 53723 33.1 4.5 70 8.0 10 545 3
9/16/2019 PC-M 11:57 AM 0.1 28.7 57266 35.2 6.0 94 8.0 8 10 4
9/16/2019 PC-M 11:57 AM 1.0 28.6 57294 35.3 5.9 92 8.1 11 N/A N/A
10/2/2019 LC-RR 1:20 PM 0.1 28.0 38185 22.8 5.9 86 6.7 7 5 12
10/2/2019 LC-RR 1:20 PM 2.4 27.6 39636 23.9 5.7 83 6.9 7 N/A N/A
10/2/2019 BC-CBR 1:40 PM 0.1 23.1 289 0.1 5.6 65 8.3 8 63 3
10/2/2019 BC-CBR 1:40 AM 1.8 22.9 288 0.1 5.2 60 8.1 31 N/A N/A
10/2/2019 MOT-CBR 1:47 PM 0.1 25.1 469 0.2 4.8 59 7.5 29 73 27
10/2/2019 MOT-NB 1:54 PM 0.1 23.8 1585 0.1 6.0 71 7.2 7 122 13
10/3/2019 PG-ML 1:12 PM 0.1 26.3 233 0.1 4.3 56 7.1 5 52 3
10/3/2019 PG-CH 1:17 PM 0.1 26.7 212 0.1 4.2 56 6.9 7 51 12
10/3/2019 PG-CH 1:17 PM 1.5 26.3 212 0.1 4.1 55 6.8 6 N/A N/A
10/3/2019 PG-NC 1:23 PM 0.1 26.8 158 0.1 5.0 64 6.6 6 75 20
10/3/2019 PG-NC 1:23 PM 3.3 25.3 150 0.1 3.0 47 6.5 11 N/A N/A
10/3/2019 SC-CH 12:44 PM 0.1 27.6 16121 8.9 3.7 49 7.5 11 31 7
10/3/2019 SC-CH 12:44 PM 2.4 27.5 16310 9.1 3.6 48 7.5 15 N/A N/A
10/3/2019 SC-23 12:53 PM 0.1 27.3 8151 4.3 4.8 64 7.6 10 5 10
10/3/2019 SC-23 12:53 PM 1.7 27.4 8238 4.4 4.3 56 7.6 11 N/A N/A
10/3/2019 SC-CD 1:36 PM 0.1 25.4 201 0.2 6.9 80 6.9 7 223 1
10/3/2019 SC-NK 2:07 PM 0.1 26.2 2140 1.1 5.6 70 8.0 6 41 20
10/3/2019 SC-NK 2:07 PM 1.1 26.3 2275 1.1 5.1 65 8.0 7 N/A N/A
10/3/2019 SC-GR 2:18 PM 0.1 24.9 245 0.1 6.4 78 8.1 6 10 3
10/4/2019 FC-4 1:15 PM 0.1 27.8 57967 36.4 5.0 66 8.1 7 5 5
10/4/2019 FC-4 1:15 PM 1.7 27.7 57876 36.4 5.1 67 8.1 10 N/A N/A
10/4/2019 FC-6 1:10 PM 0.1 28.1 57915 36.1 4.2 62 8.0 10 5 8
10/4/2019 FC-6 1:10 PM 1.2 28.1 57929 36.2 4.2 62 8.0 11 N/A N/A
10/4/2019 FC-13 12:59 PM 0.1 28.4 55618 34.3 3.5 55 7.8 12 10 8
10/4/2019 FC-13 12:59 PM 1.0 28.4 55592 34.7 3.7 58 7.9 16 N/A N/A
10/4/2019 FC-FOY 1:04 PM 0.1 28.4 56317 34.8 3.9 60 7.9 11 5 8
10/4/2019 FC-FOY 1:04 PM 1.1 28.4 5699 34.9 3.8 59 7.9 12 N/A N/A
10/4/2019 PC-BDUS 1:44 PM 0.1 29.1 50390 30.2 4.4 53 8.0 12 63 29
10/4/2019 PC-BDDS 1:49 PM 0.1 27.8 54621 34.1 4.8 59 8.0 14 85 11
10/4/2019 PC-M 2:05 PM 0.1 28.0 57901 36.2 5.4 66 8.0 8 20 8
10/4/2019 PC-M 2:05 PM 1.8 27.8 57771 36.2 5.4 66 8.0 13 N/A N/A
11/13/2019 LC-RR 11:16 AM 0.1 13.0 24225 19.6 4.7 51 6.7 11 5 4
11/13/2019 LC-RR 11:16 AM 2.0 13.0 24150 19.6 4.3 46 6.6 12 N/A N/A
11/13/2019 BC-CBR 11:31 AM 0.1 10.6 237 0.2 8.3 74 8.5 3 160 1
11/13/2019 BC-CBR 11:31 AM 1.6 10.5 217 0.1 7.8 70 8.4 29 N/A N/A
11/13/2019 MOT-CBR 11:43 AM 0.1 11.8 257 0.2 7.6 71 7.9 5 206 7
11/13/2019 MOT-NB 11:50 AM 0.1 11.8 259 0.2 8.5 76 7.8 6 341 5
11/14/2019 PG-ML 10:44 AM 0.1 9.0 321 0.2 5.7 50 8.4 3 73 2
11/14/2019 PG-CH 10:53 AM 0.1 8.6 225 0.2 10.0 85 8.1 3 75 2
11/14/2019 PG-CH 10:53 AM 1.6 8.5 226 0.2 9.5 82 8.0 3 N/A N/A
11/14/2019 PG-NC 10:59 AM 0.1 7.2 163 0.1 9.8 82 8.0 2 62 1
11/14/2019 PG-NC 10:59 AM 3.3 6.9 161 0.1 7.5 60 7.9 3 N/A N/A
11/14/2019 SC-CH 10:11 AM 0.1 14.9 17957 13.5 7.1 75 7.2 17 20 6
11/14/2019 SC-CH 10:11 AM 2.4 15.0 18350 13.8 6.6 71 7.2 32 N/A N/A
11/14/2019 SC-23 10:20 AM 0.1 13.4 8205 6.0 10.1 700 7.6 12 20 39
11/14/2019 SC-23 10:20 AM 2.0 13.5 8333 6.1 9.7 96 7.6 13 N/A N/A
11/14/2019 SC-CD 11:08 AM 0.1 11.0 182 0.1 9.7 97 7.7 5 187 1
11/14/2019 SC-NK 11:20 AM 0.1 10.6 881 0.6 9.3 94 7.3 5 20 8
11/14/2019 SC-NK 11:20 AM 1.2 10.5 875 0.6 9.2 93 7.3 6 N/A N/A
11/14/2019 SC-GR 11:36 AM 0.1 11.1 178 0.1 8.8 87 7.3 4 161 2
11/18/2019 FC-4 12:31 PM 0.1 13.3 41521 35.2 5.5 58 7.6 12 5 2
11/18/2019 FC-4 12:31 PM 2.4 14.2 43272 35.8 5.7 61 7.6 15 N/A N/A
11/18/2019 FC-6 12:26 PM 0.1 13.0 40750 34.5 5.2 53 7.4 8 5 1
11/18/2019 FC-6 12:26 PM 2.2 14.0 41564 35.3 5.4 55 7.4 20 N/A N/A
11/18/2019 FC-13 12:17 PM 0.1 12.5 38977 33.6 5.5 57 6.7 4 10 2
11/18/2019 FC-13 12:17 PM 1.2 12.7 34410 34.3 5.5 57 6.9 5 N/A N/A
11/18/2019 FC-FOY 12:22 PM 0.1 12.6 34490 33.9 5.1 52 7.2 4 5 2
11/18/2019 FC-FOY 12:22 PM 1.3 12.8 40521 34.7 5.1 52 7.2 8 N/A N/A
11/18/2019 PC-BDUS 1:00 PM 0.1 12.4 30952 26.1 4.5 50 7.8 4 130 1
11/18/2019 PC-BDDS 1:05 PM 0.1 11.9 37521 32.6 4.8 54 7.8 3 20 1
11/18/2019 PC-M 1:23 PM 0.1 13.2 41433 35.3 5.2 58 7.8 9 10 2
11/18/2019 PC-M 1:23 PM 1.5 13.3 41630 35.4 5.2 55 7.8 13 N/A N/A
12/16/2019 LC-RR 12:03 PM 0.1 12.0 15807 12.6 9.4 94 6.6 22 10 4
12/16/2019 LC-RR 12:03 PM 1.5 12.0 15756 12.6 9.5 95 6.7 24 N/A N/A
12/16/2019 BC-CBR 12:25 PM 0.1 12.5 247 0.2 7.2 68 8.0 2 75 2
12/16/2019 BC-CBR 12:25 PM 1.8 11.8 245 0.2 7.3 68 8.0 6 N/A N/A
12/16/2019 MOT-CBR 12:35 PM 0.1 13.2 302 0.2 8.8 84 7.6 3 457 4
12/16/2019 MOT-NB 12:40 PM 0.1 13.2 304 0.2 8.6 82 7.5 10 51 2
12/17/2019 PG-ML 1:45 PM 0.1 13.1 264 0.2 7.8 74 8.2 4 52 3
12/17/2019 PG-CH 1:52 PM 0.1 13.1 229 0.1 6.5 62 7.7 2 5 1
12/17/2019 PG-CH 1:52 PM 1.4 13.1 230 0.1 6.4 61 7.7 3 N/A N/A
12/17/2019 PG-NC 1:58 PM 0.1 13.7 201 0.1 4.3 42 7.5 2 5 1
12/17/2019 PG-NC 1:58 PM 3.3 10.9 208 0.1 3.8 34 7.4 3 N/A N/A
12/17/2019 SC-CH 1:00 PM 0.1 12.2 1021 0.7 9.4 88 8.4 19 5 2
12/17/2019 SC-CH 1:00 PM 2.3 12.2 1065 0.7 9.4 88 8.3 27 N/A N/A
12/17/2019 SC-23 1:11 PM 0.1 13.0 938 0.6 8.8 84 8.0 13 31 5
12/17/2019 SC-23 1:11 PM 1.8 13.0 949 0.7 8.8 84 8.0 13 N/A N/A
12/17/2019 SC-CD 2:13 PM 0.1 16.6 235 0.1 8.1 84 7.4 7 243 2
12/17/2019 SC-NK 2:26 PM 0.1 13.8 314 0.2 8.4 82 7.6 5 20 9
12/17/2019 SC-NK 2:26 PM 1.6 13.7 309 0.2 8.4 82 7.4 9 N/A N/A
12/17/2019 SC-GR 2:37 PM 0.1 15.3 201 0.1 8.1 81 7.4 4 85 1
12/18/2019 FC-4 1:09 PM 0.1 12.9 46498 40.1 5.4 65 7.8 6 5 4
12/18/2019 FC-4 1:09 PM 1.4 12.9 46411 40.1 6.0 73 7.9 7 N/A N/A
12/18/2019 FC-6 1:05 PM 0.1 13.2 44915 38.5 6.6 80 7.7 3 5 2
12/18/2019 FC-6 1:05 PM 1.1 13.2 44911 38.5 6.0 73 7.8 3 N/A N/A
12/18/2019 FC-13 12:56 PM 0.1 13.4 44161 37.5 6.9 83 7.3 2 31 4
12/18/2019 FC-13 12:56 PM 0.8 13.4 44790 38.2 6.8 83 7.4 2 N/A N/A
12/18/2019 FC-FOY 1:01 PM 0.1 13.3 44728 38.2 6.8 83 7.6 4 10 1
12/18/2019 FC-FOY 1:01 PM 1.0 13.4 44328 38.1 6.2 76 7.6 14 N/A N/A
12/18/2019 PC-BDUS 1:46 PM 0.1 15.0 34285 27.4 5.3 62 8.0 10 187 2
12/18/2019 PC-BDDS 1:55 PM 0.1 13.6 44884 38.2 5.6 68 7.9 8 10 4
12/18/2019 PC-M 2:19 PM 0.1 15.2 45153 38.3 5.6 69 8.0 4 563 1
12/18/2019 PC-M 2:19 PM 1.7 13.3 45150 38.3 5.6 69 8.0 4 N/A N/A
1/15/2020 LC-RR 1:28 PM 0.1 15.1 9880 7.1 7.2 75 6.8 14 30 3
1/15/2020 LC-RR 1:28 PM 2.3 15.1 10002 7.1 6.8 71 6.8 14 N/A N/A
1/15/2020 BC-CBR 1:45 PM 0.1 19.2 299 0.2 6.2 67 7.7 5 10 2
1/15/2020 BC-CBR 1:45 PM 1.8 18.3 296 0.2 6.8 72 7.6 31 N/A N/A
1/15/2020 MOT-CBR 1:53 PM 0.1 18.5 368 0.2 7.3 78 7.3 4 10 1
1/15/2020 MOT-NB 2:03 PM 0.1 19.0 365 0.2 8.1 88 7.3 15 52 2
1/16/2020 PG-ML 1:37 PM 0.1 17.9 304 0.2 5.9 62 7.4 4 74 17
1/16/2020 PG-CH 1:45 PM 0.1 17.9 278 0.2 7.2 76 7.3 4 20 4
1/16/2020 PG-CH 1:45 PM 1.4 17.5 273 0.2 6.2 65 7.2 29 N/A N/A
1/16/2020 PG-NC 1:52 PM 0.1 18.0 219 0.1 3.0 32 7.2 5 10 3
1/16/2020 PG-NC 1:52 PM 3.5 9.7 269 0.2 1.7 15 7.1 10 N/A N/A
1/16/2020 SC-CH 1:03 PM 0.1 14.5 343 0.2 9.3 91 8.0 16 10 2
1/16/2020 SC-CH 1:03 PM 2.3 14.4 343 0.2 9.2 90 8.0 19 N/A N/A
1/16/2020 SC-23 1:13 PM 0.1 16.8 547 0.3 8.4 87 7.5 11 5 22
1/16/2020 SC-23 1:13 PM 1.8 16.9 547 0.3 8.4 87 7.5 12 N/A N/A
1/16/2020 SC-CD 2:10 PM 0.1 18.7 232 0.1 8.0 85 7.0 6 97 1
1/16/2020 SC-NK 2:20 PM 0.1 18.0 370 0.2 7.8 83 7.1 6 31 23
1/16/2020 SC-NK 2:20 PM 1.1 18.0 372 0.2 7.5 79 7.1 7 N/A N/A
1/16/2020 SC-GR 2:30 PM 0.1 17.7 202 0.1 7.6 79 7.2 7 145 2
1/17/2020 FC-4 1:52 PM 0.1 13.2 45288 38.9 8.6 105 7.5 3 5 2
1/17/2020 FC-4 1:52 PM 1.6 13.3 45635 39.1 8.6 106 7.5 3 N/A N/A
1/17/2020 FC-6 1:49 PM 0.1 13.1 44945 38.7 8.7 10.5 7.4 2 5 1
1/17/2020 FC-6 1:49 PM 1.1 13.1 45010 38.7 8.7 106 7.5 2 N/A N/A
1/17/2020 FC-13 1:37 PM 0.1 13.2 42805 36.5 8.9 106 7.0 2 15 2
1/17/2020 FC-13 1:37 PM 1.0 13.3 43219 36.9 8.8 106 7.0 2 N/A N/A
1/17/2020 FC-FOY 1:43 PM 0.1 13.3 42976 36.9 9.1 109 7.3 2 5 1
1/17/2020 FC-FOY 1:43 PM 1.0 13.4 44187 37.7 9.1 109 7.3 2 N/A N/A
1/17/2020 PC-BDUS 2:30 PM 0.1 14.6 34590 27.8 8.5 99 7.7 12 51 2
1/17/2020 PC-BDDS 2:35 PM 0.1 13.6 4294 36.7 7.8 94 7.6 5 5 1
1/17/2020 PC-M 2:50 PM 0.1 13.3 44937 38.6 8.2 100 7.7 2 109 2
1/17/2020 PC-M 2:50 PM 2.1 13.3 45022 38.6 8.2 100 7.7 12 N/A N/A
2/10/2020 LC-RR 9:33 AM 0.1 11.9 1291 0.8 9.5 89 7.7 23 41 4
2/10/2020 LC-RR 9:33 AM 1.8 11.9 1286 0.8 9.5 88 7.6 24 N/A N/A
2/10/2020 BC-CBR 9:48 AM 0.1 10.1 243 0.2 8.6 76 7.6 3 20 2
2/10/2020 BC-CBR 9:48 AM 1.7 9.9 243 0.2 8.3 74 7.5 18 N/A N/A
2/10/2020 MOT-CBR 9:55 AM 0.1 12.0 311 0.2 10.4 96 7.1 3 52 6
2/10/2020 MOT-NB 10:05 AM 0.1 11.0 303 0.2 10.2 91 7.0 13 52 3
2/11/2020 PG-ML 11:14 AM 0.1 13.0 197 0.1 7.8 74 7.4 7 75 1
2/11/2020 PG-CH 11:20 AM 0.1 14.0 179 0.1 7.6 74 7.2 6 10 2
2/11/2020 PG-CH 11:20 AM 1.6 14.0 179 0.1 7.5 73 7.2 7 N/A N/A
2/11/2020 PG-NC 11:27 AM 0.1 14.0 150 0.1 7.4 72 7.0 6 1 3
2/11/2020 PG-NC 11:27 AM 3.4 13.3 146 0.1 6.5 63 7.0 6 N/A N/A
2/11/2020 SC-CH 10:44 AM 0.1 13.4 148 0.1 8.1 78 7.5 15 5 2
2/11/2020 SC-CH 10:44 AM 2.6 13.4 149 0.1 8.0 76 7.5 16 N/A N/A
2/11/2020 SC-23 10:55 AM 0.1 13.6 206 0.1 8.2 79 7.4 21 31 4
2/11/2020 SC-23 10:55 AM 2.0 13.7 205 0.1 8.1 78 7.3 21 N/A N/A
2/11/2020 SC-CD 11:42 AM 0.1 15.9 180 0.1 9.4 95 6.8 9 75 2
2/11/2020 SC-NK 12:00 PM 0.1 13.9 202 0.1 9.6 93 7.1 14 63 6
2/11/2020 SC-NK 12:00 PM 1.5 13.7 200 0.1 9.4 91 7.0 14 N/A N/A
2/11/2020 SC-GR 12:10 PM 0.1 15.3 163 0.1 9.1 91 7.0 8 52 1
2/12/2020 FC-4 10:36 AM 0.1 13.9 45698 38.0 8.4 104 7.7 4 5 3
2/12/2020 FC-4 10:36 AM 1.2 14.0 45736 38.0 8.4 104 7.7 4 N/A N/A
2/12/2020 FC-6 10:32 AM 0.1 14.6 45828 37.8 8.3 103 7.6 3 10 2
2/12/2020 FC-6 10:32 AM 1.4 14.6 45825 37.8 8.3 103 7.6 3 N/A N/A
2/12/2020 FC-13 10:23 AM 0.1 15.4 45278 36.8 8.3 103 7.4 3 5 2
2/12/2020 FC-13 10:23 AM 0.8 15.4 45496 36.9 8.2 102 7.5 11 N/A N/A
2/12/2020 FC-FOY 10:27 AM 0.1 15.3 45727 37.3 8.4 104 7.5 3 20 1
2/12/2020 FC-FOY 10:27 AM 1.3 15.3 45751 37.3 8.4 104 7.5 14 N/A N/A
2/12/2020 PC-BDUS 11:08 AM 0.1 17.5 34332 25.7 8.4 102 7.8 9 218 2
2/12/2020 PC-BDDS 11:13 AM 0.1 15.9 43757 35.0 6.8 85 7.7 7 5 5
2/12/2020 PC-M 11:22 AM 0.1 14.2 45931 38.5 8.0 99 7.7 6 225 4
2/12/2020 PC-M 11:22 AM 2.0 14.2 45906 38.5 8.0 99 7.7 10 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 LC-RR 11:02 AM 0.1 11.9 11171 8.7 9.1 88 7.5 8 30 3
3/9/2020 LC-RR 11:02 AM 1.4 12.0 11208 8.7 9.0 87 7.5 11 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 BC-CBR 11:15 AM 0.1 10.7 228 0.2 8.5 77 8.7 4 84 2
3/9/2020 BC-CBR 11:15 AM 1.1 10.6 228 0.2 8.5 77 8.6 5 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 MOT-CBR 10:40 AM 0.1 11.7 278 0.2 9.4 87 8.9 4 30 3
3/9/2020 MOT-NB 10:45 AM 0.1 11.3 275 0.2 9.3 86 8.5 6 75 3
3/9/2020 PG-ML 12:05 PM 0.1 11.3 187 0.1 8.9 82 7.9 6 52 2
3/9/2020 PG-CH 12:14 PM 0.1 10.4 166 0.1 9.1 81 7.9 6 73 1
3/9/2020 PG-CH 12:14 PM 2.0 10.4 166 0.1 9.0 80 7.9 8 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 PG-NC 12:22 PM 0.1 10.0 146 0.1 8.5 75 7.8 6 5 1
3/9/2020 PG-NC 12:22 PM 3.7 9.5 145 0.1 7.9 69 7.7 8 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 SC-CH 11:42 AM 0.1 12.5 685 0.5 9.0 84 7.9 8 30 2
3/9/2020 SC-CH 11:42 AM 2.9 12.4 6778 0.5 8.9 83 7.9 14 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 SC-23 11:51 AM 0.1 12.3 220 0.1 8.9 83 8.1 8 41 3
3/9/2020 SC-23 11:51 AM 2.0 12.3 222 0.1 8.7 81 8.0 9 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 SC-CD 12:52 PM 0.1 13.6 180 0.1 8.9 87 7.5 9 231 2
3/9/2020 SC-NK 1:02 PM 0.1 12.3 200 0.1 9.1 85 7.5 11 31 5
3/9/2020 SC-NK 1:02 PM 1.7 12.1 194 0.1 8.9 83 7.4 11 N/A N/A
3/9/2020 SC-GR 1:15 PM 0.1 12.6 168 0.1 9.1 85 7.4 8 120 1
3/10/2020 FC-4 10:02 AM 0.1 13.2 44150 37.9 7.7 93 7.9 4 10 2
3/10/2020 FC-4 10:02 AM 1.7 12.9 44223 38.0 7.8 93 7.9 6 N/A N/A
3/10/2020 FC-6 9:57 AM 0.1 13.4 43800 37.4 7.8 94 7.8 3 52 2
3/10/2020 FC-6 9:57 AM 1.8 13.1 44054 37.9 7.7 93 7.8 17 N/A N/A
3/10/2020 FC-13 9:49 AM 0.1 13.8 42816 36.0 7.5 80 7.7 3 84 3
3/10/2020 FC-13 9:49 AM 1.2 13.8 43312 36.5 7.3 88 7.8 22 N/A N/A
3/10/2020 FC-FOY 9:53 AM 0.1 13.8 43161 36.4 7.7 93 7.8 3 5 2
3/10/2020 FC-FOY 9:53 AM 1.4 13.6 43639 37.0 7.5 91 7.5 22 N/A N/A
3/10/2020 PC-BDUS 10:37 AM 0.1 14.5 37671 30.6 6.5 77 7.8 9 908 1
3/10/2020 PC-BDDS 10:42 AM 0.1 13.8 42979 36.2 7.2 88 7.9 5 201 1
3/10/2020 PC-M 11:02 AM 0.1 13.2 44401 38.1 7.9 96 7.9 4 5 2
3/10/2020 PC-M 11:02 AM 2.1 13.2 44315 38.0 7.9 95 7.9 18 N/A N/A
4/7/2020 LC-RR 10:22 AM 0.1 18.7 21662 15.0 8.0 94 5.1 8 10 5
4/7/2020 LC-RR 10:22 AM 1.9 18.7 21617 15.0 8.0 94 5.7 8 N/A N/A
4/7/2020 BC-CBR 10:40 AM 0.1 17.7 266 0.2 5.5 58 7.5 5 31 1
4/7/2020 BC-CBR 10:40 AM 1.6 17.6 273 0.2 4.8 50 7.2 10 N/A N/A
4/7/2020 MOT-CBR 10:00 AM 0.1 18.3 316 0.2 6.4 68 6.1 5 185 4
4/7/2020 MOT-NB 10:06 AM 0.1 18.4 322 0.2 7.5 80 6.1 8 384 5
4/8/2020 PG-ML 11:30 AM 0.1 19.1 214 0.1 5.6 61 7.4 3 52 3
4/8/2020 PG-CH 11:40 AM 0.1 17.9 278 0.2 6.2 66 7.0 4 52 3
4/8/2020 PG-CH 11:40 AM 1.6 17.4 277 0.2 6.2 65 6.9 4 N/A N/A
4/8/2020 PG-NC 11:51 AM 0.1 16.8 206 0.1 5.5 57 6.9 4 10 3
4/8/2020 PG-NC 11:51 AM 3.2 13.7 229 0.1 3.1 30 6.8 8 N/A N/A
4/8/2020 SC-CH 11:05 AM 0.1 18.6 6867 4.4 7.2 79 6.2 8 5 2
4/8/2020 SC-CH 11:05 AM 2.3 18.5 6978 4.4 7.2 79 6.2 15 N/A N/A
4/8/2020 SC-23 11:13 AM 0.1 18.9 4571 2.8 7.3 80 6.6 9 20 4
4/8/2020 SC-23 11:13 AM 1.9 18.9 4671 2..9 7.2 79 6.6 10 N/A N/A
4/8/2020 SC-CD 12:05 PM 0.1 19.2 243 0.1 8.6 97 6.7 6 405 2
4/8/2020 SC-NK 12:20 PM 0.1 19.5 517 0.3 7.8 85 6.6 7 41 20
4/8/2020 SC-NK 12:20 PM 1.3 19.6 521 0.3 7.8 85 6.5 7 N/A N/A
4/8/2020 SC-GR 12:30 PM 0.1 19.2 323 0.2 7.1 80 6.6 3 120 28
4/10/2020 FC-4 11:03 AM 0.1 17.2 46371 36.1 8.1 102 7.3 6 5 2
4/10/2020 FC-4 11:03 AM 1.3 17.2 46386 36.1 7.9 97 7.4 6 N/A N/A
4/10/2020 FC-6 10:59 AM 0.1 17.8 46689 35.9 8.0 101 7.1 6 5 2
4/10/2020 FC-6 10:59 AM 1.1 17.8 46712 35.9 8.0 101 7.1 6 N/A N/A
4/10/2020 FC-13 10:49 AM 0.1 19.0 46981 35.0 6.9 92 6.6 8 5 2
4/10/2020 FC-13 10:49 AM 1.0 19.0 47179 35.2 6.9 92 6.6 8 N/A N/A
4/10/2020 FC-FOY 10:54 AM 0.1 18.8 47114 35.3 7.4 98 6.8 8 20 2
4/10/2020 FC-FOY 10:54 AM 0.9 18.8 47118 35.3 7.3 96 6.8 8 N/A N/A
4/10/2020 PC-BDUS 11:39 AM 0.1 21.8 42628 28.4 6.1 83 7.5 13 173 2
4/10/2020 PC-BDDS 11:44 AM 0.1 18.6 43064 32.0 5.8 76 7.5 9 379 6
4/10/2020 PC-M 12:01 PM 0.1 17.6 46763 36.1 5.9 76 7.6 7 5 2
4/10/2020 PC-M 12:01 PM 2.0 17.6 46734 36.2 6.6 86 7.8 12 N/A N/A
5/6/2020 LC-RR 10:33 AM 0.1 21.7 14817 9.3 6.6 80 6.8 17 10 8
5/6/2020 LC-RR 10:33 AM 1.4 21.7 14802 9.3 6.5 79 6.9 18 N/A N/A
5/6/2020 BC-CBR 10:52 AM 0.1 20.1 254 0.1 5.5 61 8.4 4 231 1
5/6/2020 BC-CBR 10:52 AM 1.7 20.1 259 0.1 5.0 55 8.3 4 N/A N/A
5/6/2020 MOT-CBR 10:59 AM 0.1 20.8 327 0.2 5.8 65 7.8 5 683 14
5/6/2020 MOT-NB 11:05 AM 0.1 20.3 327 0.2 6.8 76 7.7 26 428 9
5/7/2020 PG-ML 11:23 AM 0.1 19.0 240 0.1 5.9 64 8.5 8 145 5
5/7/2020 PG-CH 11:29 AM 0.1 17.2 210 0.1 6.4 66 8.2 6 119 1
5/7/2020 PG-CH 11:29 AM 1.6 17.2 211 0.1 6.3 65 8.1 6 N/A N/A
5/7/2020 PG-NC 11:42 AM 0.1 16.8 195 0.1 5.2 52 8.0 6 31 1
5/7/2020 PG-NC 11:42 AM 3.4 16.6 191 0.1 4.3 44 7.9 8 N/A N/A
5/7/2020 SC-CH 10:56 AM 0.1 20.7 920 0.5 6.9 77 8.8 14 62 3
5/7/2020 SC-CH 10:56 AM 2.3 20.7 921 0.5 6.9 77 8.7 20 N/A N/A
5/7/2020 SC-23 11:04 AM 0.1 21.3 646 0.3 7.2 83 8.5 14 30 22
5/7/2020 SC-23 11:04 AM 1.8 21.3 651 0.3 7.2 83 8.5 15 N/A N/A
5/7/2020 SC-CD 11:51 AM 0.1 18.6 22.2 0.1 8.5 91 7.8 11 307 1
5/7/2020 SC-NK 12:20 PM 0.1 19.7 282 0.2 7.2 80 7.8 8 121 37
5/7/2020 SC-NK 12:20 PM 1.1 20.0 281 0.2 7.0 79 7.7 10 N/A N/A
5/7/2020 SC-GR 12:30 PM 0.1 18.1 203 0.1 8.1 86 7.7 20 199 2
5/11/2020 FC-4 12:30 PM 0.1 20.9 48967 35.2 8.0 109 8.4 5 5 2
5/11/2020 FC-4 12:30 PM 1.3 20.6 49058 35.5 8.0 109 8.5 6 N/A N/A
5/11/2020 FC-6 12:24 PM 0.1 20.9 48755 34.9 8.2 112 8.4 7 5 2
5/11/2020 FC-6 12:24 PM 1.2 20.7 48752 35.1 8.2 112 8.4 6 N/A N/A
5/11/2020 FC-13 12:15 PM 0.1 21.4 45477 32.0 8.4 115 8.2 11 5 2
5/11/2020 FC-13 12:15 PM 0.7 21.3 4693 32.5 8.4 115 8.3 11 N/A N/A
5/11/2020 FC-FOY 12:20 PM 0.1 21.3 47193 33.3 8.6 118 8.3 11 5 2
5/11/2020 FC-FOY 12:20 PM 1.0 21.1 47368 33.7 8.6 118 8.3 13 N/A N/A
5/11/2020 PC-BDUS 1:06 PM 0.1 24.9 45230 32.5 7.8 111 8.4 25 20 2
5/11/2020 PC-BDDS 1:11 PM 0.1 20.7 45709 32.6 6.5 89 8.4 7 420 3
5/11/2020 PC-M 1:27 PM 0.1 21.1 49448 35.4 7.8 106 8.4 6 10 3
5/11/2020 PC-M 1:27 PM 1.5 21.1 49481 35.4 8.0 110 8.5 27 N/A N/A
6/4/2020 LC-RR 9:22 AM 0.1 24.4 1133 0.6 7.4 89 7.4 17 52 4
6/4/2020 LC-RR 9:22 AM 2.0 24.4 1137 0.6 7.4 88 7.3 18 N/A N/A
6/4/2020 BC-CBR 9:36 AM 0.1 22.6 316 0.2 3.8 45 7.1 6 228 1
6/4/2020 BC-CBR 9:36 AM 1.7 22.1 323 0.2 4.2 48 7.0 22 N/A N/A
6/4/2020 MOT-CBR 10:00 AM 0.1 23.2 423 0.2 5.3 62 6.6 4 345 1
6/4/2020 MOT-NB 10:00 AM 0.1 23.0 409 0.2 5.7 65 6.7 20 173 1
6/5/2020 PG-ML 11:05 AM 0.1 24.4 237 0.1 3.8 46 7.4 3 226 1
6/5/2020 PG-CH 11:12 AM 0.1 23.1 284 0.1 3.3 39 7.2 4 153 2
6/5/2020 PG-CH 11:12 AM 2.2 22.5 307 0.1 2.5 30 7.2 11 N/A N/A
6/5/2020 PG-NC 11:20 AM 0.1 23.0 216 0.1 3.7 42 7.2 4 121 3
6/5/2020 PG-NC 11:20 AM 3.4 19.8 219 0.1 2.0 22 7.1 4 N/A N/A
6/5/2020 SC-CH 10:35 AM 0.1 24.4 189 0.1 5.8 70 8.0 7 122 1
6/5/2020 SC-CH 10:35 AM 3.1 24.4 190 0.1 4.5 54 7.9 17 N/A N/A
6/5/2020 SC-23 10:48 AM 0.1 25.1 248 0.1 5.1 62 7.6 12 171 8
6/5/2020 SC-23 10:48 AM 2.0 25.1 247 0.1 4.9 60 7.5 11 N/A N/A
6/5/2020 SC-CD 11:32 AM 0.1 23.8 238 0.1 7.6 90 7.1 9 119 1
6/5/2020 SC-NK 11:45 AM 0.1 25.0 274 0.1 5.4 65 7.2 8 145 14
6/5/2020 SC-NK 11:45 AM 1.1 25.1 270 0.1 5.4 64 7.1 10 N/A N/A
6/5/2020 SC-GR 11:58 AM 0.1 23.4 230 0.1 7.1 83 7.1 10 130 2
6/8/2020 FC-4 12:23 PM 0.1 26.8 56423 36.0 7.4 114 7.9 6 5 3
6/8/2020 FC-4 12:23 PM 2.0 26.2 56024 36.3 7.8 118 8.0 12 N/A N/A
6/8/2020 FC-6 12:18 PM 0.1 26.9 56108 35.8 6.5 98 7.9 5 5 3
6/8/2020 FC-6 12:18 PM 1.7 27.0 56188 3.8 6.6 100 7.9 6 N/A N/A
6/8/2020 FC-13 12:09 PM 0.1 27.9 51581 31.8 6.9 103 7.6 7 20 3
6/8/2020 FC-13 12:09 PM 0.9 27.2 54130 34.2 7.0 104 7.7 14 N/A N/A
6/8/2020 FC-FOY 12:14 PM 0.1 27.5 53609 33.6 7.5 110 7.7 12 5 3
6/8/2020 FC-FOY 12:14 PM 1.3 27.0 55300 35.1 7.4 110 7.8 12 N/A N/A
6/8/2020 PC-BDUS 1:28 PM 0.1 27.6 28756 16.8 7.0 98 7.1 13 537 8
6/8/2020 PC-BDDS 1:33 PM 0.1 26.6 52617 33.6 5.4 84 7.8 12 1660 9
6/8/2020 PC-M 1:55 PM 0.1 26.6 56642 36.4 7.1 106 8.0 6 5 3
6/8/2020 PC-M 1:55 PM 1.6 26.6 56638 36.4 6.7 100 8.0 24 N/A N/A
Appendix C
2019-2020 Airlie Gardens Lake Raw Data
Site Date Time Rain Temp. Cond. Salinity
DO
mg/L DO% pH Turb. Ortho.
Nitrate
+
Nitrite Chl-a
AG-IN 7/2/19 9:06 0.0 26.4 555 0.3 0.6 8 8 31 0.06 0.01 10
AG-IN 8/13/19 9:25 0.0 26.6 647 0.3 2.2 28 7.1 19 0.14 0.01 43
AG-IN 9/11/19 9:28 0.0 25.2 531 0.3 3.7 45 6.8 6 0.04 0.01 3
AG-IN 10/2/19 11:35 0.0 25.2 584 0.3 3.7 45 7 14 0.05 0.01 39
AG-IN 11/13/19 10:30 0.3 11.4 290 0.2 8.7 80 7.8 7 0.02 0.07 20
AG-IN 12/16/19 11:20 0.0 13.6 455 0.3 7.8 75 7 5 0.01 0.06 1
AG-IN 1/15/20 12:26 0.0 20.1 434 0.2 7.7 85 6.7 110 0.11 0.28 35
AG-IN 2/11/20 10:14 0.0 15.8 346 0.2 8.5 85 7.6 70 0.07 0.01 18
AG-IN 3/9/20 10:13 0.0 16 384 0.3 6.7 85 7.4 9 0.02 0.01 3
AG-IN 4/X/20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AG-IN 5/6/20 9:50 0.3 20.1 350 0.2 4.9 55 7.4 5 0.12 0.05 20
AG-IN 6/4/20 11:23 0.0 25.4 448 0.2 7.1 89 7.3 18 0.03 0.01 23
AG-FD 7/2/19 8:50 0.0 30.3 517 0.2 6.8 90 9.2 52 0.040 0.010 248
AG-FD 8/13/19 9:11 0.0 30.7 592 0.3 2.1 28 7.4 3 0.15 0.01 121
AG-FD 9/11/19 9:11 0.0 28.5 434 0.2 7.8 100 7.2 8 0.04 0.01 41
AG-FD 10/2/19 11:16 0.0 27.8 599 0.3 10.0 127 7 48 0.06 0.01 262
AG-FD 11/13/19 10:17 0.3 12.2 342 0.2 10.1 94 8.1 6 0.03 0.03 37
AG-FD 12/16/19 11:02 0.0 13.8 659 0.4 8.6 82 7.8 10 0.03 0.01 18
AG-FD 1/15/20 12:13 0.0 19.7 421 0.2 10.0 107 6.3 22 0.09 0.16 30
AG-FD 2/11/20 9:57 0.0 14.7 317 0.2 7.8 77 8.1 56 0.07 0.01 62
AG-FD 3/9/20 9:58 0.0 16.2 321 0.3 6.8 87 7.9 11 0.03 0.01 44
AG-FD 4/X/20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AG-FD 5/6/20 9:36 0.3 23.7 400 0.2 2.8 33 7.5 4 0.14 0.02 14
AG-FD 6/4/20 11:08 0.0 27 445 0.2 7.2 87 7.2 17 0.05 0.01 27
AG-OUT 7/2/19 8:57 0.0 30.0 490 0.2 3.6 48 8.5 21 0.03 0.01 25
AG-OUT 8/13/19 9:17 0.0 30.3 539 0.2 2.9 37 7.3 21 0.14 0.01 62
AG-OUT 9/11/19 9:20 0.0 28.4 305 0.1 6.4 83 7.0 17 0.08 0.01 54
AG-OUT 10/2/19 11:23 0.0 27.5 396 0.2 10 127 7.2 45 0.03 0.01 165
AG-OUT 11/13/19 10:24 0.3 12.3 258 0.2 9.9 93 8.0 6 0.02 0.03 40
AG-OUT 12/16/19 11:12 0.0 11.5 352 0.2 8.6 78 7.4 5 0.02 0.01 32
AG-OUT 1/15/20 12:20 0.0 19.1 416 0.2 10 106 6.5 3 0.08 0.23 21
AG-OUT 2/11/20 10:04 0.0 13.2 316 0.2 8.5 81 7.8 20 0.04 0.01 20
AG-OUT 3/9/20 10:05 0.0 16.3 307 0.2 7 89 7.4 22 0.05 0.01 14
AG-OUT 4/X/20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AG-OUT 5/6/20 9:42 0.3 23.6 413 0.2 2.7 33 7.4 4 0.12 0.01 32
AG-OUT 6/4/20 11:15 0.0 25.9 410 0.2 8 99 7.3 23 0.03 0.01 50