Lower Cape Fear River Program 2004 report Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River System, 2003-2004
By
Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver, Troy D. Alphin, Martin H. Posey
and James F. Merritt
October 2005
CMS Report No. 05-02
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
Wilmington, N.C.
28409
Executive Summary
Multiparameter water sampling for the Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP) has
been ongoing since June 1995. Scientists from the University of North Carolina
Wilmington (UNCW) perform the sampling effort. The LCFRP currently encompasses
35 water sampling stations throughout the Cape Fear, Black, and Northeast Cape Fear
River watersheds. The LCFRP sampling program includes physical, chemical, and
biological water quality measurements, analyses of the benthic and epibenthic
macroinvertebrate communities, and assessment of the fish communities. Principal
conclusions of the UNCW researchers conducting these analyses are presented below,
with emphasis on the period January 2003-December 2004. The opinions expressed
are those of UNCW scientists and do not necessarily reflect viewpoints of individual
contributors to the Lower Cape Fear River Program.
The mainstem lower Cape Fear River is characterized by reasonably turbid water
containing moderate to high levels of inorganic nutrients. It is fed by two large
blackwater rivers (the Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers) that have low levels of
turbidity, but highly colored water, with less inorganic nutrient content than the
mainstem. While nutrients are reasonably high in the river channels, algal blooms are
rare because light is attenuated by water color or turbidity, and flushing is high. Periodic
algal blooms are seen in the tributary stream stations, some of which are impacted by
point source discharges. Below some point sources, nutrient loading can be high and
fecal coliform contamination occurs. Other stream stations drain blackwater swamps or
agricultural areas, some of which periodically show elevated pollutant loads or effects.
Due to a drought, the summer of 2002 had been characterized by high salinity in the
estuary and main river channel. USGS records showed a considerable increase in river
discharge in 2003, but in 2004 discharge again decreased. This was reflected in the
water quality data, as 2004 had increased salinity but decreased concentrations of a
number of nutrient and other water quality concentrations (particularly turbidity) in the
main river channel and estuary. In 2003-2004 low dissolved oxygen remained a major
problem in the LCFR basin, with a summer sag in the lower river and upper estuary,
and some stream stations (ANC, NC403, GS and SR) were impacted severely.
Regarding stream stations, chronic or periodic high nutrient levels were found at a
number of sites, including ANC, BC117, 6RC, ROC, NC403, PB and SAR. Algal
blooms were rare in 2003-2004, primarily occurring at PB, a nutrient-impacted stream
site downstream of a point source. Several stream stations, particularly BCRR, BC117,
LRC, BRN and HAM showed high fecal coliform counts on a number of occasions.
Date from May-December 2004 showed that biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
concentrations in several Northeast Cape Fear River watershed stream stations were
considerably higher than BOD concentrations in Black River watershed stream stations.
Water column metals concentrations were not problematic during the period 2003-2004.
This report includes an in-depth look at use support ratings for each subbasin,
comparing the results of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's 2000 Basinwide
Management Plan with the UNCW-LCFRP's assessments of the 2003-2004 sampling
years. The UNCW-LCFRP utilized definitions for use support that consider a water
body to be of poor quality if the water quality standard for a given parameter is in
violation > 25% of the time, of fair quality if the standard is in violation between 11 and
25% of the time, and good quality if the standard is violated no more than 10% of the
time. UNCW also considerers nutrient loading in water quality assessments, based on
published experimental and field scientific findings. For the 2003-2004 period UNCW
rated all stations as good in terms of chlorophyll a, and 83% of the sites were good in
terms of turbidity. However, 26% of the stations had either fair or poor water quality in
terms of fecal coliform bacterial contamination. Using the 5.0 mg/L standard 63% of the
stations were fair to poor in terms of dissolved oxygen concentrations, whereas using
the 4.0 mg/L “swamp water” standard 51% of the sites were rated poor or fair. In
addition, UNCW considered 26% of the stations to be negatively impacted by excessive
nutrient loading.
Researchers at the University of North Carolina Wilmington's Lower Cape Fear River
Program performed a pilot study in 2003-2004 to assess metals and organic
contaminant concentrations at three areas in the Lower Cape Fear River system. This
pilot study was funded by the North Carolina Attorney General's Office as part of the
Smithfield Agreement. Sites examined were Livingston Creek along the mainstem of
the Cape Fear River near Riegelwood, Six Runs Creek in the Black River Basin, and
Rockfish Creek in the Northeast Cape Fear River basin. The results of the investigation
showed that levels of metals and organic pollutants in the sediments were below limits
considered harmful to aquatic life. However, results of fish tissue and clam tissue
analyses showed that concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and
now-banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and the pesticide Dieldrin were above
levels considered safe for human consumption by the U.S. EPA and North Carolina
Health Director's Office. The reason the levels are elevated in the fish and clams but
not the sediments is that these pollutants become more concentrated as they move up
the food chain (from water and sediments to algae and insects to higher organisms), a
process called biomagnification. These pollutants will also biomagnify in humans.
Because this indicates a direct threat to human health, we recommend that a large-
scale study be funded to assess levels of these pollutants in fish and shellfish at
stations distributed throughout the lower Cape Fear Watershed.
It is important to recognize that oysters are important for several reasons in the
estuarine environment. While traditional efforts to manage oyster populations have
focused solely on the value of oysters as a fishery our effort in the last 10 years have
been devoted to raising public awareness of the ecosystem services that oysters
provide, including filtration of pollutants, erosion control, habitat enhancement, support
of other fisheries, and enhanced nutrient cycling. Particularly in the last five years a
number of conservation and community groups have initiated restoration for the
purpose of enhancing these other functions of oysters. As these types of efforts gain
recognition it is critical that we initiate the types of studies described here in order to
provide information and recommendations that will increase the likelihood of success for
these efforts. It is also important to point out that these efforts can and do help oyster
production as well.
The evaluation of North Carolina oyster stocks on a regional basis, with a focus on
developing an oyster stock with consistent performance (survivorship and growth) in
North Carolina waters, has great potential for both the oyster growers and restoration
efforts within the state. High variability in oyster yields between years, and among
regions within the state highlights the need for studies that compare the performance of
oysters from a variety of local areas within the state. We performed a study that
evaluated the potential for stock differentiation among oysters from distinct estuaries by
comparing growth and survivorship among oysters collected from four locations within
southeastern North Carolina as well as from a hatchery line that is typically available for
commercial production. The results showed that stock performance, both growth and
survivorship, are strongly influenced by local conditions. While the differences were
detectable they did not follow a clear site pattern, though growth tended to be less for
White Oak and Cape Fear stocks, and survivorship less for Cape Fear stocks. It is
important to realize that while oysters at some sites may demonstrate good survivorship
this may not necessarily translate into high growth. Factors enhancing one aspect of
performance may not enhance the other.
Because larval supply is the most critical point in enhancing oyster populations in the
Cape Fear River and the most difficult to overcome, we measured larval settlement
among three sites in the Cape Fear River (Carolina Beach State Park, Fort Fisher, and
Southport) and control sites in the New River and Stump Sound. Our results showed
that larval settlement in the Cape Fear River is highly variable both temporally and
spatially. Oyster populations in the Cape Fear River seem to be limited in part by
available settlement substrate. Oysters at the site with the highest density of live
oysters showed signs of overcrowding and poor fitness. Thus, substantially increasing
the amount of available substrate for larval oyster settlement should prove to be a
useful tool for increasing viable oyster populations in the lower Cape Fear River
Estuary. Enhancement of oyster populations in the Cape Fear Estuary would have
potentially beneficial impacts to water quality, to the future of the oyster fishery and to
finfish populations in this region.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...........................................................................………...............…........1
1.1 Site Description................................................……….....................…..........2
2.0 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of the Lower Cape Fear River
and Estuary………………………………………………..…………………….....….. ….8
Physical Parameters..…......................………..........................................……....10
Chemical Parameters…....……..……….........................................................…..13
Biological Parameters.......……….....……......................................................…..17
3.0 Use Support and Water Quality by Sub-basin in the Mid-and-Lower Cape Fear
River System………………………………………………………………………………..71
4.0 Sediment, fish tissue and clam tissue metals burden pilot study………………... 111
5.0 Oyster Studies in the Lower Cape Fear River System………………………….... 123
1.0 Introduction
Michael A. Mallin
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
The Lower Cape Fear River Program is a unique science and education program that
has a mission to develop an understanding of processes that control and influence the
ecology of the Cape Fear River, and to provide a mechanism for information exchange
and public education. This Program provides a forum for dialogue among the various
Cape Fear River user groups and encourages interaction among them. Overall policy is
set by an Advisory Board consisting of representatives from citizen’s groups, local
government, industries, academia, the business community, and regulatory agencies.
This report represents the scientific conclusions of the UNCW researchers participating
in this Program, and does not necessarily reflect opinions of all other Program
participants. This report focuses on the period January 2003 through December 2004.
The scientific basis of the Program consists of the implementation of an ongoing
comprehensive physical, chemical, and biological monitoring program. Another part of
the mission is to develop and maintain a data base on the Cape Fear basin and make
use of this data to develop management plans. Presently the Program has amassed a
ten-year (1995-2004) data base, freely available to the public. Using this monitoring
data as a framework, the Program goals also include focused scientific projects and
investigation of pollution episodes. The scientific aspects of the Program are carried out
by investigators from the University of North Carolina Wilmington Center for Marine
Science. The monitoring program was developed by the Lower Cape Fear River
Program Technical Committee, which consists of representatives from UNCW, the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, The NC Division of Marine Fisheries, the US
Army Corps of Engineers, technical representatives from streamside industries, the City
of Wilmington Wastewater Treatment Plants, Cape Fear Community College, Cape
Fear River Watch, the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the US
Geological Survey, forestry and agriculture organizations, and others. This integrated
and cooperative program was the first of its kind in North Carolina.
Broad-scale monthly water quality sampling at 16 stations in the estuary and lower river
system began in June 1995 (directed by Dr. Michael Mallin). Sampling was increased
to 34 stations in February of 1996, and 35 stations in February 1998. The Lower Cape
Fear River Program added another component concerned with studying the benthic
macrofauna of the system in 1996. This component is directed by Dr. Martin Posey of
the UNCW Biology Department and includes the benefit of additional data collected by
the Benthic Ecology Laboratory under Sea Grant and NSF sponsored projects in the
Cape Fear Estuary. The third major biotic component (added in January 1996) was an
extensive fisheries program directed by Dr. Mary Moser of the UNCW Center for Marine
Science Research, with subsequent (1999) overseeing by Mr. Michael Williams and Dr.
Thomas Lankford of UNCW-CMS. This program involved cooperative sampling with the
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. The fisheries program ended in December 1999, but was renewed with
additional funds from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation from spring – winter 2000, and
has been operational periodically for special projects since that period. The regular
sampling that was conducted by UNCW biologists was assumed by the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries.
1.1. Site Description
The mainstem of the Cape Fear River is formed by the merging of the Haw and the
Deep Rivers in Chatham County in the North Carolina Piedmont. However, its drainage
basin reaches as far upstream as the Greensboro area (Fig. 1.1). The mainstem of the
river has been altered by the construction of several dams and water control structures.
In the coastal plain, the river is joined by two major tributaries, the Black and the
Northeast Cape Fear Rivers (Fig. 1.1). These blackwater streams drain extensive
riverine swamp forests and add organic color to the mainstem. The watershed (about
9,149 square miles) is the most heavily industrialized in North Carolina with 244
permitted wastewater discharges and (as of 2000) over 1.83 million people residing in
the basin (NCDENR 2005). Approximately 24% of the land use in the watershed is
devoted to agriculture and livestock production (NCDENR 2005), with livestock
production dominated by swine and poultry operations. Thus, the watershed receives
considerable point and non-point source loading of pollutants.
Water quality is monitored by boat at ten stations in the Cape Fear Estuary (from
Navassa to Southport) and one station in the Northeast Cape Fear Estuary (Table 1.1;
Fig. 1.1). Riverine stations sampled by boat include NC11, AC, DP, IC, and BBT (Table
1.1; Fig. 1.1). NC11 is located upstream of any major point source discharges in the
lower river and estuary system, and is considered to be representative of water quality
entering the lower system. BBT is located on the Black River between Thoroughfare
and the mainstem Cape Fear, and is influenced by both rivers. We consider B210 and
NCF117 to represent water quality entering the lower Black and Northeast Cape Fear
Rivers, respectively. Data has also been collected at stream and river stations
throughout the Cape Fear, Northeast Cape Fear, and Black River watersheds (Table
1.1; Fig. 1.1). Data collection at a station in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway was
initiated in February 1998 to obtain water quality information near the Southport
Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge.
The LCFRP has a website that contains maps and an extensive amount of past water
quality, benthos, and fisheries data gathered by the Program available at:
www.uncwil.edu/cmsr/aquaticecology/lcfrp/
This report contains five sections assessing LCFRP data. Section 2 presents an
overview of physical, chemical, and biological water quality data from the 35 individual
stations, and provides tables of raw data as well as figures showing spatial or temporal
trends. In Section 3 we analyze our data by sub-basin, compare our results with DWQ's
2000 Basinwide Plan, and make use support assessments for dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, chlorophyll a, metals, and fecal coliform bacterial abundance. We also utilize
other relevant parameters such as nutrient concentrations to aid in these assessments.
This section is designed so that residents of a particular sub-basin can see what the
water quality is like in his or her area based on LCFRP data collections.
Section 4 presents the results of a pilot project designed to assess the concentration of
priority pollutant metals in sediments, bottom feeding fish, and freshwater clams
collected from a limited number of locations in the three main tributaries (the Cape Fear,
Black, and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers). In Sections 5 and 6 we present an
assessment of the benthic community and the results of a special upstream fish
community project in the Lower Cape Fear basin.
1.2. References Cited
NCDENR. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (Draft). North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality/Planning, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617.
Table 1.1. Description of sampling locations in the Cape Fear Watershed, 2003 - 2004,
including UNCW designation and NCDWQ station designation number.
________________________________________________________________
UNCW St. DWQ No. Location
________________________________________________________________
High order river and estuary stations
NC11 B8360000 At NC 11 bridge on Cape Fear River (CFR)
GPS N 34.39663 W 78.26785
LVC B8445000 40 m up Livingston Creek from Cape Fear River
GPS N 34.35180 W 78.20128
AC B8450000 5 km downstream from International Paper on CFR
GPS N 34.35547 W 78.17942
DP B8460000 At Dupont Intake above Black River
GPS N 34.33595 W 78.05337
IC B9030000 Cluster of dischargers upstream of Indian Cr. on CFR
GPS N 34.30207 W 78.01372
B210 B9000000 Black River at Highway 210 bridge
GPS N 34.43138 W 78.14462
BBT none Black River between Thoroughfare and Cape Fear River
GPS N 34.35092 W 78.04857
NCF117 B9580000 Northeast Cape Fear River at Highway 117, Castle Hayne
GPS N 34.36342 W 77.89678
NCF6 B9670000 Northeast Cape Fear River near GE dock
GPS N 34.31710 W 77.95383
NAV B9050000 Railroad bridge over Cape Fear River at Navassa
GPS N 34.25943 W 77.98767
HB B9050100 Cape Fear River at Horseshoe Bend
GPS N 34.24372 W 77.96980
BRR B9790000 Brunswick River near new boat ramp in Belville
GPS N 34.22138 W 77.97868
M61 B9750000 Channel Marker 61, downtown at N.C. State Port
GPS N 34.19377 W 77.95725
M54 B7950000 Channel Marker 54, 5 km downstream of Wilmington
GPS N 34.13933 W 77.94595
M42 B9845100 Channel Marker 42 near Keg Island
GPS N 34.09017 W 77.93355
M35 B9850100 Channel Marker 35 near Olde Brunswick Towne
GPS N 34.03408 W 77.93943
M23 B9910000 Channel Marker 23 near CP&L intake canal
GPS N 33.94560 W 77.96958
M18 B9921000 Channel Marker 18 near Southport
GPS N 33.91297 W 78.01697
SPD B9980000 1000 ft W of Southport WWT plant discharge on ICW
GPS N 33.91708 W 78.03717
________________________________________________________________
Tributary stations collected from land
________________________________________________________________
SR B8470000 South River at US 13, below Dunn runoff
GPS N 35.15600 W 78.64013
GCO B8604000 Great Coharie Creek at SR 1214
GPS N 34.91857 W 78.38873
LCO B8610001 Little Coharie Creek at SR 1207
GPS N 34.83473 W 78.37087
6RC B8740000 Six Runs Creek at SR 1003 (Lisbon Rd.)
GPS N 34.79357 W 78.31192
BRN B8340050 Browns Creek at NC 87
GPS N 34.61360 W 78.58462
HAM B8340200 Hammonds Creek at SR 1704
GPS N 34.56853 W 78.55147
COL B8981000 Colly Creek at NC 53
GPS N 34.46500 W 78.26553
ANC B9490000 Angola Creek at NC 53
GPS N 34.65705 W 77.73485
NC403 B9090000 Northeast Cape Fear below Mt. Olive Pickle at NC403
GPS N 35.17838 W 77.98028
PB B9130000 Panther Branch below Cates Pickle
GPS N 35.13445 W 78.13630
GS B9191000 Goshen Swamp at NC 11
GPS N 35.02923 W 77.85143
SAR B9191500 Northeast Cape Fear River near Sarecta
GPS N 34.97970 W 77.86251
LRC B9460000 Little Rockfish Creek at NC 11
GPS N 34.72247 W 77.98145
ROC B9430000 Rockfish Creek at US 117
GPS N 34.71689 W 77.97961
BCRR B9500000 Burgaw Canal at Wright St., above WWTP
GPS N 34.56334 W 77.93481
BC117 B9520000 Burgaw Canal at US 117, below WWTP
GPS N 34.56391 W 77.92210
2.0 - Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of the
Lower Cape Fear River and Estuary
Matthew R. McIver and Michael A. Mallin
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
2.1 - Introduction
This section of the report includes a discussion of the physical, chemical, and biological
water quality parameters, concentrating on the January 2003-December 2004 Lower Cape
Fear River Program monitoring period. These parameters are interdependent and define
the overall condition of the river. Physical parameters measured during this study included
water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, salinity, conductivity and pH. The chemical
makeup of the Cape Fear River was investigated by measuring the magnitude and
composition of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water, as well as concentrations of United
States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) priority pollutant metals. Three
biological parameters including fecal coliform bacteria, chlorophyll a and biochemical
oxygen demand were examined.
2.2 - Materials and Methods
All samples and field parameters collected for the estuarine stations of the Cape Fear
River (NAV down through M18) were gathered on an ebb tide. This was done so that the
data better represented the river water flowing downstream through the system rather than
the tidal influx of coastal ocean water. Sample collection and analyses were conducted
according to the procedures in the Lower Cape Fear River Program Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) manual, which has been approved by the NC Division
of Water Quality.
Physical Parameters
Water Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, Salinity, Conductivity
Field parameters were measured at each site using a YSI 6920 (or 6820) multi-parameter
water quality sonde displayed on a YSI 610D (or 650 MDS). Each parameter is measured
with individual probes on the sonde. At stations sampled by boat (see Table 1.1) physical
parameters were measured at 0.1 m, the middle of the water column, and at the bottom
(up to 12 m). Occasionally, high flow prohibited the sonde from reaching the actual bottom
and measurements were taken as deep as possible. At the terrestrially sampled stations
the physical parameters were measured at a depth of 0.1 m.
Chemical Parameters
Nutrients
All nutrient analyses were performed at the UNCW Center for Marine Science (CMS) for
samples collected prior to January 1996. A local state-certified analytical laboratory was
contracted to conduct all subsequent analyses except for orthophosphate, which is
performed at CMS. The following methods detail the techniques used by CMS personnel
for orthophosphate analysis.
Orthophosphate (PO4-3)
Water samples were collected ca. 0.2 m below the surface in triplicate in amber 125 mL
Nalgene plastic bottles and placed on ice. In the laboratory 50 mL of each triplicate was
filtered through separate1.0 micron pre-combusted glass fiber filters, which were frozen
and later analyzed for chlorophyll a. The triplicate filtrates were pooled in a glass flask,
mixed thoroughly, and approximately 100 mL was poured into a 125 mL plastic bottle to be
analyzed for orthophosphate. Samples were frozen until analysis.
Orthophosphate analyses were performed in duplicate using an approved US EPA method
for the Technicon AutoAnalyzer (Method 365.5). In this technique the orthophosphate in
each sample reacts with ammonium molybdate and anitmony potassium tartrate in an
acidic medium (sulfuric acid) to form an anitmony-phospho-molybdate complex. The
complex is then reacted with ascorbic acid and forms a deep blue color. The intensity of
the color is measured at a wavelength of 880 nm by a colorimeter and displayed on a chart
recorder. Standards and spiked samples were analyzed for quality assurance.
Biological Parameters
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria were analyzed at a state-certified laboratory contracted by LCFRP.
Samples were collected approximately 0.2 m below the surface in sterile plastic bottles
provided by the contract laboratory and placed on ice for no more than six hours before
analysis.
Chlorophyll a
The analytical method used to measure chlorophyll a is described in Welschmeyer (1994)
and US EPA (1997) and was performed by CMS personnel. Chlorophyll a concentrations
were determined directly from the 1.0 micron filters used for filtering samples for
orthophosphate analysis. All filters were wrapped individually in foil, placed in airtight
containers and stored in the freezer. During analysis each filter is immersed in 10 mL of
90% acetone for 24 hours, which extracts the chlorophyll a into solution. Chlorophyll a
concentration of each solution is measured on a Turner 10-AU fluorometer. The
fluorometer uses an optimal combination of excitation and emission bandwidth filters which
reduces the errors inherent in the acidification technique.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Five sites were originally chosen for BOD analysis. One site was located at NC11,
upstream of International Paper, and a second site was at AC, about 3 miles downstream
of International Paper (Fig.1.1). Two sites were located in blackwater rivers (NCF117 and
B210) and one site (BBT) was situated in an area influenced by both the mainstem Cape
Fear River and the Black River. For the sampling period May 2000-April 2004 additional
BOD data were collected at stream stations 6RC, LCO, GCO, BRN, HAM and COL. In
May 2004 those stations were dropped and sampling commenced at ANC, SAR, GS,
N403, ROC and BC117. The procedure used for BOD analysis was Method 5210 in
Standard Methods (APHA 1995). Samples were analyzed for both 5-day and 20-day
BOD. During the analytical period, samples were kept in airtight bottles and placed in an
incubator at 20o C. All experiments were initiated within 5 hours of sample collection.
Samples were analyzed in duplicate. Dissolved oxygen measurements were made using
a YSI Model 57 meter that was air-calibrated. No adjustments were made for pH since
most samples exhibited pH values within or very close to the desired 6.5-7.5 range.
Several sites have naturally low pH and there was no adjustment for these samples
because it would alter the natural water chemistry and affect true BOD.
2.3 - Results and Discussion
This section includes results from monitoring of the physical, biological, and chemical
parameters at all stations for the time period Jamuary 2003-June 2004. Discussion of the
data focuses mainly on the river channel stations, but poor water quality conditions at
stream stations will also be discussed. The contributions of the two large blackwater
tributaries, the Northeast Cape Fear River and the Black River, are represented by
conditions at NCF117 and B210, respectively. The Cape Fear Region did not experience
any significant hurricane activity during this monitoring period (after major hurricanes in
1996, 1998, and 1999). Therefore this report reflects mixed flow conditions for the Cape
Fear River and Estuary.
Physical Parameters
Water temperature
Water temperatures at all stations ranged from 3.3 to 30.5 oC and individual station annual
averages ranged from 15.9 to 19.9 oC (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Highest temperatures
occurred during July of both years and lowest temperatures during February 2004. Stream
stations were generally cooler than river stations, most likely because of shading and lower
nighttime air temperatures affecting the shallower waters.
Salinity
Salinity at the estuarine stations ranged from 0.0 to 35.1 practical salinity units (psu) and
station annual means ranged from 0.3 to 26.0 psu (Tables 2.3 and 2.4). Lowest salinities
occurred in July 2003 and highest salinities occurred in April and November 2004. Two
stream stations, NC403 and PB, had occasional oligohaline conditions due to discharges
from pickle production facilities. Annual mean salinity for 2004 was slightly higher than the
nine-year average for 1996-2004 at all stations, except for M35-SPD (Figure 2.1). Relative
to the previous three years 2003 had high river discharge, but river discharge in 2004
subsequently decreased again (see USGS data at http://nc.water.usgs.gov). This
influenced salinity, and also appeared to lead to a reduction in concentration of certain
nutrients and other parameters (TSS, turbidity, light attenuation) in the main channel and
estuary stations (see below).
Conductivity
Conductivity at estuarine stations ranged from 0.1 to 49.8 mS/cm and from 0.1 to 5.7
mS/cm at the freshwater stations (Tables 2.5-2.6). Temporal conductivity patterns
followed those of salinity. Dissolved ionic compounds increase the conductance of water,
therefore, conductance increases and decreases with salinity, often reflecting river flow
conditions due to rainfall. Conductivity may also reveal point source pollution sources, as
is seen at BC117, which is below a municipal wastewater discharge.
pH
pH values ranged from 3.3 to 10.3 and stations annual medians ranged from 3.7 to 7.9
(Tables 2.7-2.8). pH was typically lowest upstream due to acidic swamp water inputs and
highest downstream as alkaline seawater mixes with the river water. Some unusually high
pH values at BC117 and ANC are most likely due to industrial discharges and or algal
blooms or macrophyte (see also very high dissolved oxygen concentrations). Low pH
values at COL predominate because of naturally acidic blackwater inputs.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) problems are a major water quality concern in the Cape Fear River
and its estuary, and several of the tributary streams (Mallin et al. 1999; 2000; 2001a;
2001b; 2002a; 2002b; 2003; 2004). Concentrations in 2003-2004 ranged from 0.2 to 14.4
mg/L and station annual means ranged from 3.8 to 9.5 mg/L (Tables 2.9-2.10). Average
annual DO levels at the river channel stations for 2004 were very close to the average for
1996-2004 (Figure 2.2). Dissolved oxygen levels were lowest during the summer (Tables
2.9-2.10), often falling below the state standard of 5.0 mg/L at several river and upper
estuary stations. Working synergistically to lower oxygen levels are two factors: lower
oxygen carrying capacity in warmer water and increased bacterial respiration (or
biochemical oxygen demand, BOD), due to higher temperatures in summer. These
hypoxic conditions could have negative impacts on the biota in the Cape Fear River.
There is a dissolved oxygen sag in the main river channel that begins at DP below a paper
mill discharge and persists into the mesohaline portion of the estuary (Fig. 2.2). Mean
oxygen levels were highest at the upper river stations NC11 and AC and in the middle to
lower estuary at station M23. Lowest mainstem mean DO levels occurred in 2004 at the
lower river and upper estuary stations IC (7.3 mg/L ) and M61 (7.2 mg/L). Discharge of
high BOD waste from the paper/pulp mill just above the AC station (Mallin et al. 2003), as
well as inflow of blackwater from the Northeast Cape Fear and Black Rivers, helps to
diminish oxygen in the upper estuary. As the water reaches the lower estuary higher algal
productivity, mixing and ocean dilution help alleviate oxygen problems.
The Northeast Cape Fear and Black Rivers generally have lower DO levels than the
mainstem Cape Fear River (NCF117 2004 mean = 6.2, B210 2004 mean = 6.9). These
rivers are classified as blackwater systems because of their tea colored water. As the
water passes through swamps en route to the river channel, tannins from decaying
vegetation leach into the water, resulting in the observed color. Decaying vegetation on
the swamp floor has an elevated biochemical oxygen demand and usurps oxygen from the
water, leading to naturally low dissolved oxygen levels. Runoff from concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) may also contribute to chronic low dissolved oxygen levels in
these blackwater rivers (Mallin et al. 1998; 1999; Mallin 2000). The Northeast Cape Fear
River in general seems to be more oxygen stressed than the Black River; from 2003-2004
NCF117 had DO concentrations below 4.0 mg/L 33% of the time sampled, while during
that same period B210 had DO below 4.0 mg/L 13% of the occasions sampled (Tables
2.9-2.10)
Several stream stations were severely stressed in terms of low dissolved oxygen during
the year January 2003-December 2004. ANC had DO levels below 4.0 mg/L 46% of the
occasions sampled, NC403 50%, GS 42%, BCRR 25% and SR 50% (Tables 2.9-2.10).
Some of this can be attributed to low water conditions and some potentially to CAFO
runoff; however point-source discharges also likely contribute to low dissolved oxygen
levels at NC403 and possibly SR, especially via nutrient loading (Mallin et al. 2001a;
2002a; 2004).
Field Turbidity
Turbidity levels ranged from 0 to 140 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and station
annual means ranged from 1 to 32 NTU (Tables 2.11-2.12). Annual mean turbidity levels
for 2003 were higher than those for 2004. Highest 2003 and 2004 mean turbidities were at
the upper river sites N11, AC and DP (all 32 NTU) with turbidities gradually decreases
downstream through the estuary (Figure 2.3). Turbidity was lower in the blackwater
tributaries (Northeast Cape Fear River and Black River) than in the mainstem river.
Note: The LCFRP uses nephelometers designed for field use, which allows us to acquire
in situ turbidity from a natural situation. North Carolina regulatory agencies are required to
use turbidity values from water samples removed from the natural system, put on ice until
arrival at a State-certified laboratory, and analyzed using laboratory nephelometers.
Standard Methods notes that transport of samples and temperature change alters true
turbidity readings. Our analysis of samples using both methods shows that lab turbidity is
nearly always substantially lower than field turbidity.
Total Suspended Solids
Total suspended solid (TSS) values system wide ranged from 0 to 109 mg/L with station
annual means from 0.8 to 21.3 mg/L (Tables 2.13-2.14). For the river channel stations
TSS was highest from the upper river and decreasing through the estuary. Although total
suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity both quantify suspended material in the water
column, they do not always go hand in hand. High TSS does not mean high turbidity and
vice versa. This anomaly may be explained by the fact that fine clay particles are effective
at dispersing light and causing high turbidity readings, while not resulting in high TSS. On
the other hand, large organic or inorganic particles may be less effective at dispersing
light, yet their greater mass results in high TSS levels.
Light Attenuation
The attenuation of solar irradiance through a water column is measured by a logarithmic
function (k) per meter. The higher this light attenuation coefficient is, the more strongly
light is attenuated (through absorbance or reflection) in the water column. River and
estuary light attenuation coefficients ranged from 1.08 to 6.20/m and station annual means
ranged from 1.45 at M18 in 2004 to 4.51 /m at NCF6 in 2003 (Tables 2.15-2.16). Annual
light attenuation means for this monitoring period were slightly lower than for the nine-year
period 1996-2004 (Figure 2.4).
High light attenuation did not always coincide with high turbidity. Blackwater, though low in
turbidity, will attenuate light through absorption of solar irradiance. At NCF6 and BBT,
blackwater stations with moderate turbidity levels, light attenuation was high.
Compared to other North Carolina estuaries the Cape Fear has high average light
attenuation. The high average light attenuation is a major reason why phytoplankton
production in the major rivers and the estuary of the LCFR is generally low. Whether
caused by turbidity or water color this attenuation tends to limit light availability to the
phytoplankton (Mallin et al. 1997; 1999).
Chemical Parameters – Nutrients
Total Nitrogen
Total nitrogen (TN) ranged from 90 to 23,000 mg/L and station annual means ranged from
500 to 7,762 mg/L (Tables 2.17-2.18). Mean total nitrogen was slightly lower in 2004 than
for the nine-year mean at all main channel stations (Figure 2.5). Previous research (Mallin
et al. 1999) has shown a positive correlation between river flow and TN in the Cape Fear
system. Total nitrogen concentrations remained fairly constant down the river and
declined from mid-estuary into the lower estuary, most likely reflecting uptake of nitrogen
into the food chain through algal productivity and subsequent grazing by planktivores as
well as through dilution and marsh denitrfication. The pulp mill above AC is a source of
TN, increasing levels at this station slightly over levels at NC11. The blackwater rivers
maintained TN concentrations somewhat lower than those found in the mainstem Cape
Fear River. One stream station, BC117, had a very high mean of 7,762 mg/L, likely from
the upstream Town of Burgaw wastewater discharge. ANC, PB, ROC and SAR (in 2004)
had comparatively high TN values among the stream stations. Temporal patterns for TN
were not evident.
Nitrate+Nitrite
Nitrate+nitrite (henceforth referred to as nitrate) is the main species of inorganic nitrogen in
the Lower Cape Fear River. Concentrations system wide ranged from 5 (detection limit) to
21,300 mg/L and station annual means ranged from 5 to 6,699 mg/L (Table 2.19-2.20).
Station annual means for the 2004 monitoring period were slightly lower than the nine-year
means (Figure 2.6). The highest riverine nitrate levels were at NC11 (2004 mean = 557
mg/L) indicating that much of this nutrient is imported from upstream. Moving downstream
from NC11, nitrate levels decrease most likely as a result of uptake by primary producers,
microbial denitrification in riparian marshes and tidal dilution. The blackwater rivers carried
low loads of nitrate compared to the mainstem Cape Fear stations, though the Northeast
Cape Fear River (NCF117 mean = 242 mg/L) had higher nitrate than the Black River (B210
= 164 mg/L) in 2003. No clear temporal pattern was observable for nitrate.
Several stream stations showed high levels of nitrate on occasion including SAR, NC403,
PB, ROC, BC117 and GCO. NC403 and PB are downstream of industrial wastewater
discharges and ROC and GCO primarily receive non-point agricultural or animal waste
drainage. BC117, with high nitrate levels, exceeded the North Carolina State drinking
water standard of 10 mg/L on three occasions. The Town of Burgaw wastewater plant,
upstream of BC117, has no nitrate discharge limits. Over the past several years a
considerable number of experiments have been carried out by UNCW researchers to
assess the effects of nutrient additions to water collected from blackwater streams and
rivers (i.e. the Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, and Colly and Great Coharie
Creeks). These experiments have collectively found that additions of nitrogen (as either
nitrate, ammonium, or urea) significantly stimulate phytoplankton production and BOD
increases. Critical levels of these nutrients were in the range of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/L as N
(Mallin et al. 1998; Mallin et al. 2001a; Mallin et al. 2002a, Mallin et al. 2004). Thus, we
conservatively consider nitrate concentrations exceeding 0.5 mg/L as N in Cape Fear
watershed streams to be potentially problematic to the streams environmental health.
Blackwater streams where we periodically see concentrations of this magnitude include
6RC, ROC, SAR, BC117, NC403, and PB.
Ammonium
Ammonium concentrations ranged from 10 (detection limit) to 1,180 mg/L and station
annual means ranged from 18 to 198 mg/L (Tables 2.21-2.22). The 2004 monitoring period
mean ammonium levels were generally lower than the nine-year means at the channel
stations (Figure 2.6). River areas with the highest mean ammonium levels this monitoring
period included AC, which is below a pulp mill discharge, and M61, M54 and M42 in the
middle estuary. Ocean dilution accounts for decreasing levels down into the estuary. At
the stream stations, areas with high levels of ammonium include LVC, ANC, BC117 and
PB.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is a measure of the total concentration of organic nitrogen
plus ammonium. TKN ranged from 50 to 3,510 mg/L and station annual means ranged
from 418 to 1,569 mg/L (Tables 2.23-2.24). Mean TKN for 2004 was similar to or slightly
lower than the nine-year mean at the channel stations (Figure 2.8). TKN concentration
drops down through the estuary, likely due to ocean dilution and food chain uptake of
nitrogen. Measured TKN levels in the blackwater rivers are usually higher than in the
mainstem Cape Fear River as a result of the high concentration of organic materials
dissolved in the water (Figure 2.8). The stream stations typically have higher TKN as a
result of the influence of swamp water with high organic and ammonium content. There
were somewhat higher TKN levels during summer months.
Total Phosphorus
Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations ranged from 10 (detection limit) to 3,700 mg/L and
station annual means ranged from 25 to 1,273 mg/L (Tables 2.25-2.26). Mean TP for 2004
was lower than the nine-year mean at all channel stations (Figure 2.9). In the river TP is
highest at the upper riverine channel stations and declines downstream into the estuary.
Some of this decline is attributable to the settling of phosphorus-bearing turbidity, yet
incorporation of phosphorus into the food chain is also responsible. A temporal pattern of
higher summer TP is a result of increasing orthophosphate, as the spatial pattern of TP is
similar to that of orthophosphate.
The experiments discussed above in the nitrate subsection also involved additions of
phosphorus, either as inorganic orthophosphate or a combination of inorganic plus organic
P. The experiments showed that additions of P exceeding 0.5 mg/L led to significant
increases in bacterial counts, as well as significant increases in BOD over control. Thus,
we consider concentrations of phosphorus above 0.5 to be potentially problematic to
blackwater streams. Streams periodically exceeding this critical concentration included
NC403 and BC117, and ROC in 2004 also showed some elevated TP concentrations.
Some of these stations (BC117, NC403) are downstream of industrial or wastewater
discharges, while ROC is in a non-point agricultural area.
Orthophosphate
Orthophosphate ranged from 0 to 3,700 mg/L and station annual means ranged from 9 to
1,236 mg/L (Tables 2.27-2.28). The 2004 annual means at the channel stations were
similar to or lower than the nine-year means (Figure 2.10).
Much of the orthophosphate load is imported into the Lower Cape Fear system from
upstream areas, as NC11 typically has the highest levels. The Northeast Cape Fear River
had higher orthophosphate levels than the Black River. Orthophosphate can bind to
suspended materials and is transported downstream via turbidity; thus high levels of
turbidity at the uppermost river stations may be an important factor in the high
orthophosphate levels. Turbidity declines toward the estuary because of settling, and
orthophosphate concentration also declines. In the estuary, primary productivity helps
reduce orthophosphate concentrations by assimilation into biomass. Orthophosphate
levels typically reach maximum concentrations during summertime, when anoxic sediment
releases bound phosphorus. Also, in the Cape Fear Estuary, summer algal productivity is
limited by nitrogen, thereby allowing the accumulation of orthophosphate (Mallin et al.
1997; 1999). In spring, productivity in the estuary is usually limited by phosphorus (Mallin
et al. 1997; 1999).
The stream station BC117 had very high orthophosphate levels while ROC, ANC and
NC403 had moderately high levels. NC403 and BC117 are strongly influenced by
industrial and municipal wastewater discharges, and ANC and ROC by agriculture/animal
waste runoff.
Chemical Parameters - EPA Priority Pollutant Metals
Aluminum levels in the Lower Cape Fear system were generally higher in the upper river
and decreased toward the lower estuary (Table 2.29). Stream stations were generally low
except COL, which is considered pristine swamp water. There is no North Carolina
aquatic standard for aluminum.
Arsenic, cadmium, and chromium all maintained concentrations below detection limits at
all stations (except As had measurable levels at M23 and M18 in the lower estuary)
throughout the year (Tables 2.30, 2.31, and 2.32). The As concentrations were all below
the N.C. standard.
Copper concentrations frequently exceeded the state tidal saltwater standard of 3 mg/L at
estuarine stations M54, M35, M23 and M18 (Table 2.33). The freshwater standard of 7
mg/L was exceeded four out of nine times at BC117, but did not exceed freshwater
standard at the other stream stations sampled.
The LCFRP is an iron-rich system (Table 2.34). All of the freshwater stations except for
NCF117, BC117, and SAR maintained average iron concentrations near or above the
state standard of 1000 mg/L. Iron concentrations generally decreased down-estuary.
Water-column concentrations of lead, mercury, and nickel were below the analytical
detection limit except for nickel, which remained below the N.C. state standard (Table
2.35, 2.36, 2.37). The Ni standard for tidal saltwater was exceeded on several occasions
at M54, M35, M23 and M18 (Table 2.37).
Zinc concentrations remained below the state standard at all stations except August 2004,
when a concentration of 88 mg/L was recorded from NAV (Table 2.38).
Biological Parameters
Chlorophyll a
During this monitoring period chlorophyll a was generally low at the river and estuarine
stations (Tables 2.39-2.40). Chlorophyll a ranged from 0.1 to 102.7 mg/L and station
annual means ranged from 0.4 to 17.9 mg/L. Production of chlorophyll a biomass is low to
moderate in this system primarily because of light limitation by turbidity in the mainstem
and high organic color and low inorganic nutrients in the blackwater rivers. Spatially,
highest values are normally found in the mid-to-lower estuary stations because light
becomes more available downstream of the estuarine turbidity maximum (Figure 2.11).
Chlorophyll a production is extremely limited in the large blackwater tributaries. Highest
chlorophyll a concentrations were found during spring and summer.
Substantial phytoplankton blooms occasionally occur at the stream stations (Table 2.40).
These streams are generally shallow, so mixing does not carry phytoplankton cells down
below the critical depth where respiration exceeds photosynthesis. Thus, when flow
conditions permit, elevated nutrient conditions (such as are periodically found in these
stream stations) can lead to algal blooms. In areas where the forest canopy opens up
large blooms can occur. When blooms occur in blackwater stream stations, they can
become sources of BOD upon death and decay, reducing further the low summer
dissolved oxygen conditions common to these waters (Mallin et al. 2001; 2002; 2004).
Particularly large stream algal blooms occurred in 2004 at PB, which is downstream of a
point source discharge.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
For the main stem river, mean annual five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
concentrations were highest at AC, on average about 18% higher than at NC11 suggesting
influence from the pulp/paper mill inputs (Table 2.41-2.42). BOD was somewhat lower
during the winter.
From 2000 until April 2004 we performed a project aimed at assessing rural Black River
system stream contributions to BOD. Results of BOD in several stream stations can be
seen in Table 2.41 and 2.42. HAM showed the highest BOD5 and BOD20 levels, with very
little difference among the other stream stations. In May 2004 we changed the stream
sampling to the Northeast Cape Fear River watershed. The preliminary data (Table 2.42)
shows generally greater BOD concentrations at the Northeast Cape Fear Watershed
streams than the Black River Watershed streams. ANC, GS, N403 and ROC all showed
large (> 3.5 mg/L) individual BOD5 measurements during 2004. Station N403 is below a
point source, but the other three sites are non-point runoff areas.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform (FC) bacterial counts ranged from 0 to 4,360 CFU/100 mL and station
annual geometric means ranged from 1 to 169 CFU/100 mL (Tables 2.43-2.44). No clear
temporal pattern was evident. The state human contact standard (200 CFU) was
exceeded only rarely at the channel stations. FC counts in 2004 were lower at the Cape
Fear River stations but similar to or higher at the estuary stations and the blackwater
stations compared with the nine-year average (Figure 2.12). FC bacteria show a notable
spatial trend of highest counts in the upper estuary-lower river area including stations DP,
IC, NAV, HB, BRR, M61 and M54.
Most stream stations surpassed the state standard for human contact of 200 CFU/100 mL
on at least one occasion, and several were particularly problematic. Over the two year
period BC117 exceeded the state standard 50% of the time, BCRR 38%, PB 29%, HAM
29%, GS, LRC, 6RC and BRN all exceeded the standard 17% of the time. LRC, BC117
and PB are located below point source discharges and the other sites are primarily
influenced by non-point source pollution.
2.4 - References Cited
APHA. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed.
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, M.R. McIver, D.C. Parsons and G.C. Shank. 1997. Nutrient
limitation and eutrophication potential in the Cape Fear and New River Estuaries.
Report No. 313. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina,
Raleigh, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, D.C. Parsons and S.H. Ensign. 1998. Effect of organic and
inorganic nutrient loading on photosynthetic and heterotrophic plankton communities in
blackwater rivers. Report No. 315. Water Resources Research Institute of the
University of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, M.R. McIver, D.C. Parsons and G.C. Shank. 1999. Alternation
of factors limiting phytoplankton production in the Cape Fear Estuary. Estuaries
22:985-996.
Mallin, M.A. 2000. Impacts of industrial-scale swine and poultry production on rivers and
estuaries. American Scientist 88:26-37.
Mallin, M.A., M.H. Posey, M.R. McIver, S.H. Ensign, T.D. Alphin, M.S. Williams, M.L.
Moser and J.F. Merritt. 2000. Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River
System, 1999-2000. CMS Report No. 00-01, Center for Marine Science, University of
North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, D.C. Parsons and S.H. Ensign. 2001a. Effect of nitrogen and
phosphorus loading on plankton in Coastal Plain blackwater streams. Journal of
Freshwater Ecology 16:455-466.
Mallin, M.A., M.H. Posey, T.E. Lankford, M.R. McIver, S.H. Ensign, T.D. Alphin, M.S.
Williams, M.L. Moser and J.F. Merritt. 2001b. Environmental Assessment of the Lower
Cape Fear River System, 2000-2001. CMS Report No. 01-01, Center for Marine
Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, M.R. McIver and S.H. Ensign. 2002a. Seeking science-based
nutrient standards for coastal blackwater stream systems. Report No. 341. Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., M.H. Posey, T.E. Lankford, M.R. McIver, H.A. CoVan, T.D. Alphin, M.S.
Williams and J.F. Merritt. 2002b. Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear
River System, 2001-2002. CMS Report No. 02-02, Center for Marine Science,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., M.R. McIver, H.A. Wells, M.S. Williams, T.E. Lankford and J.F. Merritt. 2003.
Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River System, 2002-2003. CMS
Report No. 03-03, Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., M.R. McIver, S.H. Ensign and L.B. Cahoon. 2004. Photosynthetic and
heterotrophic impacts of nutrient loading to blackwater streams. Ecological Applications
14:823-838.
U.S. EPA 1997. Methods for the Determination of Chemical Substances in Marine and
Estuarine Environmental Matrices, 2nd Ed. EPA/600/R-97/072. National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Welschmeyer, N.A. 1994. Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of
chlorophyll b and phaeopigments. Limnology and Oceanography 39:1985-1993.
3.0 Use Support by Subbasin in the
Lower Cape Fear River System
by
Matthew R. McIver, Michael A. Mallin, and James F. Merritt
Aquatic Ecology Laboratory
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
Wilmington, NC 28409
3.0 Use Support Comparison by Subbasins
This section details comparisons, by subbasin, of the use support ratings determined for
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, chlorophyll a, fecal coliform bacteria and some nutrient
species at the LCFRP sampling sites. Twenty four months of LCFRP data from 2003-
2004 is used in the comparisons.
3.1 Introduction
The NC Division of Water Quality prepares a basinwide water quality plan for each of
the seventeen major river basins in the state every five years (NCDENR, DWQ Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000). The basinwide approach is a
nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and protecting the quality of
North Carolina’s surface waters. The first basinwide plan for the Cape Fear River was
completed in 1996 and the 2000 report is the first of the five-year interval updates. The
goals of the basinwide program are to:
- identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters;
- identify and protect high value resource waters;
- protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth;
- develop appropriate management strategies to protect and restore water quality;
- assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers; and
- improve public awareness and involvement in the management of the state’s
surface waters.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) indentifies 6 major hydrological areas in the Cape
Fear River Basin. Each of these hydrologic areas is further divided into subbasins by
DWQ. There are 24 subbasins within the Cape Fear River basin, each denoted by 6-
digit numbers, 03-06-01 to 03-06-24 (NCDENR, DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) conducts an assessment and determines
water classification according to their best-intended uses. Use support ratings are
established such as fully supporting (FS) if the standard is exceeded in < 10% of
measurements, partially supporting (PS) if the standard is exceeded in 11-25% of
measurements, or non supporting (NS) if the standard is exceeded in > 25% of
measurements. DWQ also utilizes other criteria, such as the benthic community
composition and fisheries populations (NCDENR, DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
UNCW Aquatic Ecology Laboratory (AEL) researchers have adopted a rating system
that incorporates some of the guidelines used by DWQ. We determine use support
ratings for the parameters that have a NC State standard including dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll a, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity as well as nutrient species with
levels noted to be problematic in the scientific literature. Our rating system is good
quality (G) if standard is exceeded in < 10% of measurements, fair quality (F) if standard
is exceeded in 11-25% of measurements, or poor quality (P) if standard is exceeded in
> 25% of measurements.
The 35 stations monitored by the LCFRP fall into the middle and lower basins
designated by the NC DWQ. The stations are in the following subbasins:
Subbasin # Basin LCFRP Stations
03-06-16 middle BRN, HAM, NC11
03-06-17 lower LVC, AC, DP, IC, NAV, HB, BRR,
M61, M54, M42, M35, M23, M18,
SPD
03-06-18 middle SR
03-06-19 middle 6RC, LCO, GCO
03-06-20 middle COL, B210, BBT
03-06-21 lower N403
03-06-22 lower SAR, GS, PB, LRC, ROC
03-06-23 lower ANC, BC117, BCRR, NCF6, NCF117
3.2 Methods
Each subbasin is addressed separately, with a description and map showing the
LCFRP stations. This will be followed by a summary of the information published in the
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000 and use support ratings and
discussion using the UNCW-AEL scheme for the 2003-2004 data.
3.3 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-16
Location: Cape Fear River near Elizabethtown downstream to several miles below
Lock and Dam #1
Counties: Bladen
Water bodies: Cape Fear River
Municipalities: Elizabethtown
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #):
BRN (B8340050), HAM (B8340200), NC11 (B8360000)
NC DWQ monitoring stations (DWQ #): NC11 (B8360000)
BRN
HAM
NC11
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Basinwide Report, July 2000:
Fully Supporting: 240.8 miles
Partially Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Supporting: 8.5 miles
Not Rated: 11.8 miles
The portion of the Cape Fear River within this subbasin is deep and slow moving. There are
several natural lakes and streams that are tannin-stained with low pH blackwaters. Land use
is mostly forest and marsh with some agriculture within the subbasin. There are eight
permitted dischargers, mostly near Elizabethtown. Four of the largest dischargers, Veeder-
Root, Smithfield Foods Incorporated in Tar Heel, Alamac Knit Fabrics in Elizabethtown, and
Dupont of Fayetteville, discharge into the Cape Fear River (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Portions of Turnbull Creek and Harrisons Creek were considered partially supporting (PS) in
the 1996 Basinwide Plan. Both are currently fully supporting (FS) and no longer on the state’s
303(d) list. Brown’s Creek (8.5 miles from source to Cape Fear River) is non supporting (NS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an impaired biological community. Urban
non-point sources and sanitary sewer overflows from the City of Elizabethtown are possible
sources of impairment. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (NCDENR, DWQ
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Approximately 1% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by non-point source pollution
(mostly urban). All of the waters in this subbasin are affected by non-point sources.
NCDENR, other state agencies and environmental groups have programs and initiatives
underway to address water quality problems associated with non-point sources (NCDENR
DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: NC11 since June 1995, BRN & HAM since February 1996
Sampling relevance: Represents water entering the Lower Cape Fear River watershed from
the middle basin. There are also several concentrated animal operations within the area.
BRN - representative of small tributaries
of the Cape Fear River
NC11 - main stem of Cape Fear River,
deep channel, freshwater
with slight tidal influence
The sites at Browns Creek (BRN) and North Carolina Highway 11 (NC11) were found to have
a good quality rating for dissolved oxygen, meeting the North Carolina State Standard of 5.0
mg/L in all sampled months except at NC11 in August 2003 (4.7 mg/L). Hammonds Creek
(HAM), a small channelized tributary, was rated as poor, with dissolved oxygen levels falling
below 5.0 mg/L in four of the twelve sampled months (33% of the time). The lowest
concentrations of dissolved oxygen at HAM were 3.6 mg/L, found in July 2003. The dissolved
oxygen concentrations for Hammonds Creek are represented graphically in Figure 3.3.1.
All sites within this subbasin were found to have a good quality rating for chlorophyll a
concentrations. The North Carolina State Standard for chlorophyll a of 40 mg/L was not
exceeded at HAM, BRN, or NC11 during 2003-2004.
Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were low at NC11, receiving a good quality rating with
one sample over the NC State Standard for human contact waters of 200 CFU/100mL in 2003-
2004. Browns Creek (BRN) received a fair quality rating for fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations, exceeding the standard 17% of the time. At BRN fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations were above 2,000 and 3,000 CFU/100 mL in March 2003 and November 2003,
respectively. Hammonds Creek (HAM) was rated as poor quality for fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations, exceeding the NC State Standard in 29% of samples. Fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations were greater than 4,000 CFU/100mL in March 2003 at HAM (Figure 3.3.2).
Though there were elevated turbidity levels noted in the March 2003 sampling, all sites within
this subbasin were rated as good quality for turbidity concentrations. The March 2003
concentrations at all three sites and May 2004 at NC11 were the only ones to exceed the 50
NTU North Carolina State Standard for turbidity. The concentrations for March 2003 were 85
NTU, 125 NTU, and 86 NTU for BRN, HAM, and NC11 respectively. The means for the 2003-
2004 sampling period were 9 NTU (BRN), 11 NTU (HAM) and 25 NTU (NC11).
Hammonds Creek (HAM)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
20032004
Figure 3.3.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) for Hammonds Creek (HAM) showing
the NC State Standard of 5.0 mg/L.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria concentrations at BRN and HAM,
2003-2004.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Fe
c
a
l
C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
B
a
c
t
e
r
i
a
(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
L
)
BRN
HAM
20032004
Figure 3.3.2. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations (CFU/100mL) for Browns Creek (BRN)
and Hammonds Creek (HAM). The line shows the NC State Standard for human contact
waters of 200 CFU/100mL.
3.4 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-17
Location: Cape Fear River near Riegelwood, downstream to estuarine area
near Southport
Counties: Columbus, Pender, Brunswick, New Hanover
Waterbodies: Cape Fear River and Estuary
Municipalities: Wilmington, Southport
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #):
LVC (B8445000), AC (B8450000), DP (B8460000), IC (B9030000),
NAV (B9050000), HB (B9050100), BRR (B9790000), M61 (B9750000),
M54 (B9795000), M42 (B9845100), M35 (B9850100), M23 (B9910000),
M18 (B9921000), SPD (B9980000)
DWQ monitoring stations:
NAV (B9050000), M61 (B9750000), M54(B9795000)
LVC
AC DP
IC
NAV
HB
BRR
M61
M54
M42
M35
M23
M18
SPD
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 251.5 miles
Partially Supporting: 3.8 miles
Not Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Rated: 65.5 miles
Estuarine Waters
Fully Supporting: 16,314 acres
Partially Supporting: 7,211 acres
Not Supporting: 0.0 acres
Not Rated: 925 acres
This subbasin is located in the outer coastal plain and in estuarine regions of the basin.
Significant dischargers in this subbasin are the City of Wilmington and the Town of Southport.
There are 49 permitted dischargers in the subbasin, half of which discharge directly into the
Cape Fear River. The largest dischargers are International Paper, Wilmington North Side
WWTP and Wilmington South Side WWTP (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan, July 2000).
Portions of Livingston Creek, the Cape Fear River and estuarine areas were identified as
impaired in the 1996 Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, DWQ). Currently Livingston
Creek is listed as fully supporting (FS) and is no longer on the 303(d) list of impaired waters.
The Cape Fear River is currently partially supporting (PS), because of an impaired biological
community. The International Paper Board discharge and nonpoint source pollution are
possible causes of impairment, and this segment of the river is on the state’s year 2000 303(d)
list. The Cape Fear River Estuary (5000 acres) is partially supporting (PS) and is on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list. The cumulative impacts from WWTP discharges in the subbasin
as well as nonpoint source pollution are suspected to be the significant contributors to the
impairment. Swamp water drainage may also be a source of low dissolved oxygen (DO)
waters feeding into the estuary. Possible sources of nonpoint source pollution include
marinas, canal systems, and septic systems (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Approximately 45% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution.
All the waters of the subbasin are affected by nonpoint sources. The 303(d) list approach will
be to develop a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for this segment of the Cape Fear River
because of low DO levels. Because of the nature of the river/estuary system in this portion of
the basin, addressing water quality issues must not be limited to problems in impaired
segments alone. Because this segment of the river and estuary are impaired, issuance of new
and expanding discharges that would further increase the load of oxygen-consuming waste
into these waters will be considered on a case by case basis (NCDENR, DWQ, Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: most stations since 1995, all sampled since 1998
Sampling relevance: below point source dischargers and non-point source pollution
AC - representative of riverine system
channel
HB - riverine station, upstream of
HB – upper estuary, upstream of
Wilmington
M35 – represents wide estuary
Sites rated as good quality for dissolved oxygen by concentrations the UNCW-AEL include:
AC, M54, M42, M35, M23, and M18. The following sites were rated as fair quality for dissolved
oxygen, with the percentage of samples not meeting the standard of 5.0 mg/L shown in
parentheses: LVC (13%), DP (13%), IC (21%), NAV (13%), HB (17%), BRR (17%), M61
(13%). Dissolved oxygen concentrations are represented graphically for DP, NAV, HB and
M61 in Figure 3.4.1. Dissolved oxygen levels often drop below the state standard during
summer months.
All sites within this subbasin were found to be good quality in terms of chlorophyll a
concentrations. None of the sampled locations exceeded the 40 mg/L North Carolina State
Standard on any sample occasion.
All sites within this subbassin were rated as good quality for fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations. No site exceeded the 200 CFU/100mL NC State Standard for human contact
waters. Areas in the middle estuary at M35 down to mouth of the river can have harvestable
populations of shellfish including oysters (Crassotrea virginica) and clams (Mercenaria
mercenaria). The NC State fecal coliform bacteria standard for shellfishing states that the
geometric mean cannot exceed 14 CFU/100mL and no more than 10% of samples may
exceed 43 CFU/100mL. All of the LCFRP stations in shellfishing areas met the NC State
standard.
For turbidity, the stations NAV and those upstream were evaluated using the NC State
Standard for freshwater of 50 NTU while all stations downstream of NAV were evaluated with
the NC State Standard for brackish waters of 25 NTU. The following stations were good
quality for turbidity: LVC, DP, IC, NAV, M35, M23, M18, and SPD. The following sites were
rated as fair quality for turbidity (percentage of samples below standard): AC (13%), HB
(21%), BRR (17%), M61 (13%), M54 (25%), M42 (25%).
Dissoved Oxygen at DP, NAV, and M61, 2003-2004.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
DP
NAV
M61
2003 2004
Figure 3.4.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) for DP, NAV and M61 for 2003-2004.
The solid line shows the NC State Standard of 5.0 mg/L.
3.5 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-18
Location: South River headwaters above Dunn down to Black River
Counties: Bladen, Cumberland, Harnett, Johnston, Sampson
Waterbodies: South River, Mingo Swamp
Municipalities: Dunn, Roseboro
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #): SR (B8470000)
DWQ monitoring stations: none
SR
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 165.9 miles
Partially Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Rated: 113.7 miles
This subbasin is located on the inner coastal plain and includes South River which converges
with the Great Coharie Creek to form the Black River, a major tributary of the Cape Fear River.
Land use is primarily agriculture including row crops and concentrated animal operations.
Most streams are slow moving black-water swamp streams. There are three permitted
dischargers within this subbasin (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, July 2000).
The South River (7.2 miles from source to NC 13) and the Little Black River (from Dunn to I-
95) were both rated as partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Neither river was sampled
by DWQ because of low flow conditions, each is currently not rated (NR). Both remain on the
state’s year 2000 303(d) list. Portions of the South River are not impaired; however, because
of fish consumption advisories, this 70.9-mile segment is on the 303(d) list (NCDENR DWQ
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000). All the waters of the subbasin are
affected by non-point pollution sources.
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: since February 1996
Sampling relevance: Below City of Dunn, hog operations in watershed
SR – a slow black water tributary
South River (SR) was found to be poor quality for dissolved oxygen concentrations. The North
Carolina State Standard of 5.0 mg/L was not met 54% of the time and the swampwater
standard of 4.0 mg/L was not 50% of the time. The lowest levels were found in late summer
and early fall (Figure 3.5.1).
This site was found to be good quality for chlorophyll a, with no samples exceeding the 40 mg/L
North Carolina State Standard.
SR was rated as good quality for fecal coliform bacteria concentrations, exceeding the NC
State Standard of 200 CFU/100mL in 8% of samples. The highest concentrations were in
March 2003 (235 CFU/100mL) and November 2004 (240 CFU/100mL).
This site was found to be good quality in terms of turbidity, with no samples above the 50 NTU
North Carolina State Standard.
South River (SR)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
2003 2004
Figure 3.5.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) for South River (SR) for 2003-2004.
The lines show the NC State Standards of 5.0 mg/L and for swampwater of 4.0 mg/L.
3.6 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-19
Location: Three main tributaries of Black River near Clinton
Counties: Sampson
Waterbodies: Black River, Six Runs Creek, Great Coharie Creek,
Little Coharie Creek
Municipalities: Clinton, Newton Grove, Warsaw
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #):
LCO (B8610001), GCO (B8604000), 6RC (B8740000)
DWQ monitoring stations: none
LCO
GCO
6RC
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 452.1 miles
Partially Supporting: 15.0 miles
Not Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Rated: 40.2 miles
This subbasin is located in the coastal plain within Sampson County. Land adjacent
to the Black River is primarily undisturbed forest. There is a very high concentration
of hog farms within this subbasin. There are 7 permitted dischargers, the largest of
which is the Town of Clinton (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan, July 2000).
Stewarts Creek (15.0 miles from source to Six Runs Creek) is currently partially
supporting (PS) due to an impaired biological community. The Town of Magnolia
discharges into a tributary, which eventually flows to Stewarts Creek downstream of
Warsaw. The Magnolia WWTP has had problems with effluent toxicity and has been
fined monthly during violations. Stewarts Creek is the only stream in the subbasin
that is impaired and on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Portions of Great Coharie Creek, Little Coharie Creek, Six Runs Creek and Crane
Creek were impacted during Hurricane Fran in 1996. These steams were also
subject to massive desnagging (removal of fallen trees) operations after the storm.
Benthic monitoring is recommended to determine the impacts of desnagging
operations that remove important habitat in these waters (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: February 1996 to present
Sampling relevance: Concentrated animal operations (CAOs) within the watershed,
reference areas for point and nonpoint source pollution
GCO - blackwater stream, drains
riparian wetlands
Little Coharie Creek (LCO) and Six Runs Creek (6RC) were found to be good quality
for dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. Great Coharie Creek (GCO) was rated as
poor quality for dissolved oxygen concentrations, not meeting the standard of 5.0
mg/L in 38% of the samples. When evaluated using the swampwater standard of 4.0
mg/L, GCO was rated as fair quality, with 13% of samples below the 4.0 mg/L swamp
water standard. The dissolved oxygen concentration values for GCO are
represented graphically in Figure 3.6.1.
All sites within this subbasin were found to be good quality for chlorophyll a
concentrations, fecal coliform bacteria concentrations and turbidity concentrations.
Nitrate levels were high in Six Runs Creek (6RC), exceeding 200 mg/L for 92% of the
samples (Figures 3.6.2). Levels at or above 200 mg/L generally indicate problematic
conditions in small tributaries such as 6RC. These levels are above the
concentrations known to lead to ATP increases, bacterial increases and increased
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in experiments using water from black water
streams (Mallin et al. 2001, Mallin et al. 2002).
Great Coharie Creek (GCO)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
2003 2004
Figure 3.6.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) for GCO during the 2003-
2004 monitoring period. The lines show the NC State Standards of 5.0 mg/L and 4.0
mg/L swamp water.
Nitrate-Nitrite at 6RC, LCO, and GCO, 2003-2004.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
JA
N
MA
R
MA
Y
JU
L
SE
P
NO
V
JA
N
MA
R
MA
Y
JU
L
SE
P
NO
V
Ni
t
r
a
t
e
-
N
i
t
r
i
t
e
(
mmmmg/
L
)
6RC
LCO
GCO
20032004
Figure 3.6.2 Nitrate concentrations (mg/L) for 6RC, LCO, and GCO during 2003-
2004. The line shows level considered problematic in black water streams.
3.7 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-20
Location: Tributaries of the Black River near confluence with the
Cape Fear River
Counties: Pender
Waterbodies: Black River, Colly Creek, Moores Creek
Municipalities: Town of White Lake, Currie, Atkinson
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #):
COL (B8981000), B210 (B9000000), BBT (none)
DWQ monitoring stations: none
COL
B210
BBT
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan, July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 142.5 miles
Partially Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Rated: 35.7 miles
This subbasin is located on the coastal plain in Pender County. The only
permitted discharger within the subbasin is White Lake WWTP. The
characteristics of streams in this area include, typically, low geographic relief, low
pH black waters and a tendency for all but the largest rivers to stop flowing in the
summer. The Black River in this area has been classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan, July 2000).
Agriculture is the major land use with non-point source pollution the major
anthropogenic factor affecting the surface waters. Biological rating resulted in no
streams being classified as impaired. The water quality of this subbbasin
appears to be generally good. Due to the lack of flow in summer months, DWQ
water quality monitoring assessments of tributaries were based on winter
sampling (NCDENR DWQ Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: February 1996 to present
Sampling relevance: Colly Creek is a pristine swamp reference site, B210 and
BBT are middle and lower Black River sites
COL – blackwater stream, drains
large swamp area, very low pH
B210 - Black River at Hwy 210
bridge
Colly Creek was rated as good quality for dissolved oxygen concentrations when
using swamp water standard and rated as fair using regular standard. B210 and
BBT were both rated as fair quality using the swamp water (13%, 13%) and
regular standards (25%, 25%). This area is affected by swamp water inputs and
may have lower dissolved oxygen concentrations as a result of the naturally low
DO levels in swamp water.
Chlorophyll a concentrations were low for each site within this subbasin and
rated as good quality. No single sample exceeded the 40 mg/L North Carolina
State Standard.
Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were generally low, and COL and B210
were good quality. No single sample was above the NC State standard for
human contact (200 cfr/100 mL). BBT samples were not analyzed for fecal
coliform bacteria.
All three sites were rated as good quality for turbidity levels, not exceeding the
North Carolina State Standard of 50 NTU.
3.8 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-21
Location: Headwaters of NE Cape Fear River below Mount Olive
Counties: Duplin, Wayne
Waterbodies: Northeast Cape Fear River
Municipalities: Mount Olive
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ#): NC403 (B9090000)
DWQ monitoring stations: NC403
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 69.3 miles
Partially Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Supporting: 4.3 miles
Not Rated: 6.8 miles
NC403
Significant dischargers in this subbasin are Mount Olive Pickle Company and the Town
of Mount Olive. DWQ biological assessment sampling resulted in no impaired rating for
streams in this subbasin.
Portions of the Northeast Cape Fear River and Barlow Branch were identified as
impaired in the 1996 Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The discharge from Mount Olive
Pickle Company was the cause of impairment. Chloride levels exceeded the water
quality limit in 48% of the samples from 1993 to July 1996, at Northeast Cape Fear
River at SR 1937 approximately 2.7 miles from discharge source. The ambient water
quality station was relocated approximately 5.1 miles downstream in 1996 to the NC403
site. The ambient station data at NC 403 has not indicated high chloride levels.
Currently the Northeast Cape Fear River (3.3 miles from source to SR 1937) and
Barlow Branch (1 mile) are not supporting (NS) (NCDENR, DWQ, Cape Fear River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
The Mount Olive Pickle Company discharges chlorides above permitted levels into
Barlow Branch before it joins the Northeast Cape Fear River. The Mount Olive Pickle
Company was given a variance from the state surface water quality standard for
chloride (230mg/L) in 1996. They have met the requirements of the variance to date,
and have reduced water usage and salt usage (NCDENR, DWQ, Cape Fear River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: June 1997 – present
Sampling relevance: Below Mount Olive Pickle Plant
NC403 - slow moving headwaters of
NE Cape Fear River
The NC403 site was found to be poor quality for dissolved oxygen concentrations, not
meeting the NC State Standard of 5.0 mg/L in 58% of all samples. Even when using
the NC swamp water standard of 4.0 mg/L, NC403 was found to be poor quality, not
meeting the standard 50% of the time. The dissolved oxygen levels were often below
1.0 mg/L in the summer months (Fig. 3.8.1).
NC403 was found to be good quality in terms of chlorophyll a, yet there is very high
aquatic macrophyte biomass present, almost clogging the waterway. As we have
noticed at several of our stations over the years, Chlorophyll a, a measurement of
phytoplankton biomass, and often used as an indicator of eutrophic conditions, is not
always adequate to determine problematic conditions with regard to aquatic flora.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria levels were rated as good quality at NC 403, with one sample
exceeding the NC State standard for human contact (200 CFU/100 mL).
NC403 was found to be good quality for turbidity, with no single sample exceeding the
standard of 50 NTU during the 2003-2004.
UNCW researchers are concerned that elevated nitrate levels are periodically found at
this site. Nitrate-N concentrations >500 mg/L occurred for 21% of the samples at NC403
during the 2003-2004. These levels are likely to lead to algal blooms and excessive
aquatic macrophyte growth. High total phosphorus (TP) concentrations occur at times
(>500 mg/L), which UNCW scientists find can stimulate increased biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and lead to lower dissolved oxygen levels (Mallin et al. 2002). Nutrient
concentrations are shown graphically for NC403 in Figure 3.8.2.
NC 403
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
2003 2004
Figure 3.8.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) at NC403 for 2003-2004. The
lines show the NC State Standard of 5.0 mg/L and swamp water standard of 4.0 mg/L.
Nutrient concentrations (mmmmg/L) for NC403, 2003-2004.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
JA
N
MA
R
MA
Y
JU
L
SE
P
NO
V
JA
N
MA
R
MA
Y
JU
L
SE
P
NO
V
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
mmmmg/
L
)
Total Phosphorus
Nitate-Nitrite
2003 2004
Figure 3.8.2 Nutrient concentrations (mg/L) at NC403 for 2003-2004. Dashed line
represents problematic levels for Total Phosphorus (500 mg/L) and full line represents
problematic levels for Nitrate-Nitrite (200 mg/L).
3.9 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22
Location: NE Cape Fear River and tributaries in the vicinity of Kenansville
Counties: Duplin
Waterbodies: Northeast Cape Fear River, Rockfish Creek
Municipalities: Beulaville, Kenansville, Rose Hill and Wallace
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #):
PB (B9130000), GS (B9191000), SAR (B9191500), LRC (9460000)
ROC (B9430000)
DWQ monitoring stations: none
PB
GS
SAR
ROC
LRC
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 283.3 miles
Partially Supporting: 22.7 miles
Not Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Rated: 208.2 miles
This subbasin contains the towns of Beulaville, Kenansville, Rose Hill, and Wallace.
Most of the watershed is agricultural, including row crops and a dense concentration of
animal operations (poultry and swine). The largest discharger is Stevecoknit Fabrics.
Other large dischargers include Guilford Mills, Swift-Eckrich/Butterball and the town of
Wallace (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Goshen Swamp and Panther Creek were not supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan because
of high chloride discharge from Dean Pickle and Specialty Products. Discharge flows
into a low flow tributary of Panther Creek before entering Goshen Swamp. Dean Pickle
and Specialty Products was given a variance for chloride levels and has met that
variance to date. Goshen Swamp and Panther Creek were not sampled during recent
DWQ monitoring because of low flow conditions. These two streams are currently not
rated (NR) (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Rockfish Creek (7.2 miles SR 1165 to Northeast Cape Fear River) was partially
supporting (PS) in the 1996 plan. Currently, 8.7 miles (from Swift-Eckrich to Little
Rockfish Creek) are partially supporting (PS) because of habitat degradation. The 3.8-
mile segment from Little Rockfish Creek to the Northeast Cape Fear River is fully
supporting (FS). Desnagging operations after Hurricane Fran removed important
habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish in these waters. Point source dischargers may
contribute to the habitat degradation. These waters are on the state’s year 2000 303(d)
list (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Muddy Creek (14.0 miles from the source to Northeast Cape Fear River) was not rated
in 1993 because of its small size. The stream is significantly larger due to changes
associated with Hurricane Fran in 1996. The stream is partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring due to nonpoint sources. The watershed contains
many hog operations. This stream is on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (NCDENR
DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: February 1996 to present
Sampling relevance: Below point and non-point source discharges
PB – slow moving swamp-like
Stream
ROC - Rockfish Creek below
Wallace
For the Dissolved Oxygen standard of 5.0 mg/L, LRC and ROC were good quality, and
PB (25%) and SAR (21%) were found to be fair quality. PB was also found to be fair
quality if measured by the swamp water standard of 4.0.mg/L, not meeting the standard
21% of the time. SAR was considered good quality if measured by the 4.0 mg/L swamp
water standard. One site, GS was found to be poor quality for dissolved oxygen, not
meeting the standard of 5.0 mg/L 46% of the time. Even when considering this site with
the swamp water standard of 4.0 mg/L, it is found to be poor quality, not meeting the
standard 42% of the time. The dissolved oxygen concentrations for GS are shown
graphically in Figure 3.9.1.
For Chlorophyll a concentrations all sites were rated as good quality. PB had the very
high concentration of 103 mg/L in July 2004.
For fecal coliform bacteria concentration, using the NC State standard of 200 CFU/100
mL for human contact, SAR was rated good while ROC (13%), GS (17%) and LRC
(17%) were rated as fair. PB was rated as poor having exceeded the standard in 29%
of the samples. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations are shown graphically for PB in
Figure 3.9.2.
All sites were rated as good quality for turbidity concentrations. Mean turbidity levels
were less than 20 NTU for all sites within this subbasin for the 2003-2004.
Stations PB and ROC both displayed high total phosphorus concentrations (Figure
3.9.3). High phosphorus levels are known to significantly increase bacterial
concentration and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels. Stations SAR, PB, LRC
and ROC had elevated levels of nitrate+nitrite (200 mg/L) in greater than 25% of the
samples, giving them a poor rating (Figure 3.9.4). High nitrate levels have been known
to lead to algal bloom formation (Mallin et al. 2001, Mallin et al. 2002).
Goshen Swamp (GS)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
2003 2004
Figure 3.9.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) for 2003-2004. The lines show
the NC State Standard for dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/L and 4.0 mg/L.
Panther Branch (PB)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Fe
c
a
l
C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
B
a
c
t
e
r
i
a
(
c
f
r
/
1
0
0
m
L
)
2003 2004
Figure 3.9.2 Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations (CFU/100mL) for the 2003-2004 at
PB. The line shows the NC State Standard for human contact of 200 CFU/100mL.
Nitrate-Nitrite concentrations at SAR and PB, 2003-2004.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Ni
t
r
a
t
e
-
N
i
t
r
i
t
e
(
mmmmg/
L
)
SAR
PB
20032004
Figure 3.9.3 Nitrate-Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) at SAR and PB for 2003-2004.
Nitrate-Nitrite concentrations at LRC and ROC, 2003-2004.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Ni
t
r
a
t
e
-
N
i
t
r
i
t
e
(
mmmmg/
L
)
LRC
ROC
20032004
Figure 3.9.4 Nitrate-Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) at LRC and ROC for 2003-2004.
3.10 Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-23
Location: Area near Burgaw and Angola swamp
Counties: Pender
Waterbodies: Northeast Cape Fear River,Burgaw Creek
Municipalities: Burgaw
LCFRP monitoring stations (DWQ #):
ANC (69), BCRR (82), BC117 (83), NCF117 (84), NCF6 (85)
DWQ monitoring stations: NCF117
ANC BCRR
BC117
NCF117
NCF6
Use Support Ratings from NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
July 2000:
Freshwater Streams
Fully Supporting: 304.1 miles
Partially Supporting: 0.0 miles
Not Supporting: 14.3 miles
Not Rated: 37.5 miles
This subbasin is located in the outer coastal plain and contains the Town of Burgaw. Most
streams in this area are slow flowing blackwater streams, and many dry up or stop flowing
during the summer. Much of the subbasin is undeveloped and included in either the Holly
Shelter Game Refuge or the Angola Bay Game Refuge (NCDENR, DWQ Cape Fear River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
There are six permitted dischargers in the subbasin, with the largest dischargers being
Occidental Chemical, Thorn Apple Valley, and Burgaw WWTP. Ambient chemistry data show
average nutrient levels in the Northeast Cape Fear River at US 117 to be lower than more
upstream river sites. Biological rating resulted in impaired ratings for four of the seven stream
segments. Benthic macroinvertebrate data showed fairly stable water quality for most of the
subbasin, exceptions include Burgaw Creek below WWTP, and Burnt Mill Creek in Wilmington,
both of which were rated poor (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, July 2000).
Portions of Burnt Mill Creek and Burgaw Creek are currently rated as impaired according to
recent DWQ monitoring. Burnt Mill Creek (4.8 miles from source to Smith Creek) was not
supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan and is currently not supporting (NS) because of impaired
biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources
and channel dredging is a possible cause of impairment. This stream is on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Burgaw Creek (9.5 miles from Osgood Canal to the Northeast Cape Fear River) was not
supporting (NS) in the 1996 plan, and is currently non-supporting (NS) due to impaired
biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources is
a possible cause of impairment. There are indications of excessive nutrients in this stream,
and fecal coliform bacteria are also noted as a problem parameter. Failing septic systems
have been noted in this watershed as well. The stream is channelized and has been adversely
impacted by desnagging activities after Hurricane Fran. This stream is on the state’s year
2000 303(d) list (NCDENR DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, July 2000).
Lower Cape Fear River Program Assessment
Data collection: NCF117 & NCF6 since June 1995, others from February 1996
Sampling relevance: point and non-point source dischargers
ANC - Angola Creek
BC117 - Burgaw Canal at US 117
NCF117 - Northeast Cape Fear River at
at US117
Four of five sites within this subbasin were rated as poor quality in terms of dissolved oxygen
concentrations using the 5.0 mg/L standard. BC117 was the exception, rated as fair quality,
not meeting the 5.0 mg/L standard in 17% of sampled months. NCF117 and NCF6 were both
found to be poor quality, not meeting the standard in 46% of samples. BCRR was found to be
poor quality, not meeting the standard 42% of the time. ANC was also found to be poor
quality, not meeting the standard 50% of the time. All sites were also rated using the NC
swamp water standard of 4.0 mg/L. ANC (46%), BCRR (25%) and NCF117 (33%) were rated
poor quality, and NCF6 (13%) was rated fair. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are shown
graphically for the four sites found to be poor quality in Figure 3.10.1 and Figure 3.10.2.
All sites in this subbasin were rated as good quality for chlorophyll a concentrations. Means
for 2003-2004 were all less than 2 mg/L, well below the NC State Standard of 40 mg/L.
For Fecal Coliform Bacteria, two sites, NCF117 and NCF6 were rated as good quality. ANC
was rated as fair quality, exceeding the human contact water (200 CFU/100mL) standard 13%
of the time. BC117 and BCRR were rated as poor quality, exceeding the standard 46% and
38% of the time, respectively. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations for BCRR and BC117
are shown graphically in Figure 3.10.3.
For turbidity, all sites within this subbasin were rated as good quality. The mean value at each
station was less than 20 NTU for 2003-2004.
Nutrient loading, especially of Nitrate-N and total phosphorus (TP) was a severe problem at
BC117 (Figures 3.10.4 and Figure 3.10.5). Both Nitrate-N and TP were the highest levels
seen in the LCFRP system. These levels were far above the concentrations known to lead to
algal bloom formation, bacterial increases and increased biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
in blackwater streams (Mallin et al. 2001, Mallin et al. 2002). BCRR and ANC also periodically
experienced elevated nutrient levels as well.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) at ANC and BCRR, 2003-2004.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
ANC
BCRR
Figure 3.10.1 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) for 2003-2004. The lines show the
NC State Standard of 5.0 mg/L and 4.0 mg/L (swamp water).
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) at NCF117 and NCF6, 2003-2004.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
(
m
g
/
L
)
NCF6
NCF117
Figure 3.10.2 Dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) at NCF117 and NCF6, 2003-2004.
The lines show the NC State Standard of 5.0 mg/L and 4.0 mg/L (swamp water).
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CFU/100 mL) at BC117 and BCRR,
2003-2004.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Fe
c
a
l
C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
B
a
c
t
e
r
i
a
(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
L
)
BC117
BCRR
Figure 3.10.2 Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations (CFU/100mL) at BC117 and BCRR,
2003-2004. The line shows the NC State Standard for human contact waters of 200
CFU/100mL.
Nitrate-Nitrite (mmmmg/L) at BC117, 2003-2004
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
Ni
t
r
a
t
e
-
N
i
t
r
i
t
e
(
mmmmg/
L
)
20032004
Figure 3.10.4 Nitrate-nitrite concentrations (mg/L) for BC117, 2003-2004.
Total Phosphorus (mmmmg/L) at BC117, 2003-2004.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JU
N
JU
L
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
To
t
a
l
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
(
mmmmg/
L
)
20032004
Figure 3.10.5 Total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) at BC117, 2003-2004.
3.11 Summary Table
Table 3.11.1 UNCW-AEL ratings of Lower Cape Fear River Program stations,
based on January 2003 – December 2004 monitoring data.
G (good quality) – standard exceeded in < 10% of the measurements
F (fair quality) – standard exceeded in 11-25% of the measurements
P (poor quality) – standard exceeded in > 25% of the measurements
Subbasin Station DO
Swamp
DO Chl a
Fecal
Coliform
Bacteria Turbidity
Excessive
Nutrients
03-06-16 BRN G G G F (17%) G
HAM P (33%) G G P (29%) G
NC11 G G G G G
03-06-17 LVC F (13%) G G G
AC G G G F (13%)
DP F (13%) G G G
IC F (21%) G G G
NAV P (13%) G G G
HB F (17%) G G F (21%)
BRR F (17%) G G F (17%)
M61 F (13%) G G F (13%)
M54 G G G F (25%)
M42 G G G F (25%)
M35 G G G G
M23 G G G G
M18 G G G G
SPD G G G G
03-06-18 SR P (54%) P (50%) G G G
03-06-19 LCO G G G G Nit
GCO P (38%) F (13%) G G G Nit
6RC G G G G Nit
03-06-20 COL F (21%) G G G G
B210 F (25%) F (13%) G G G
BBT F (25%) F (13%) G not sampled G
03-06-21 N403 P (58%) P (50%) G G G TP & Nit
03-06-22 PB F (25%) F (21%) G F (29%) G Nit
GS P (46%) P (42%) G F (17%) G
SAR F (21%) G G G G Nit
LRC G G G F (17%) G TP
ROC G G G F (13%) G TP
03-06-23 ANC P (50%) P (46%) G F (13%) G
BCRR P (42%) P (25%) G P (38%) G
BC117 F (17%) G G P (46%) G TP & Nit
NCF117 P (46%) P (33%) G G G
NCF6 P (46%) F (13%) G G G
3.12 References Cited
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. July 2000. North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Section, Raleigh, N.C.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, D.C. Parsons and S.H. Ensign. 2001. Effect of
nitrogen and phosphorus loading on plankton in Coastal Plain blackwater
streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16:455-466.
Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, M.R. McIver and S.H. Ensign. 2002. Seeking
science-based nutrient standards for coastal blackwater stream systems.
Report No. 341. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of
North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C.
Chapter 4. A Pilot Study of Metals and Organic Pollutants in Sediments,
Clams and Fish Tissue in the Lower Cape Fear River Watershed
Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver and James F. Merritt
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina Wilmington
Wilmington, N.C. 28409
Phone: 910 962-2358
Email: mallinm@uncw.edu
Executive Summary
Researchers at the University of North Carolina Wilmington's Center for Marine Science performed
a pilot study in 2003-2004 to assess metals and organic contaminant concentrations at three areas in
the Lower Cape Fear River system. This pilot study was funded by the North Carolina Attorney
General's Office as part of the Smithfield Agreement. Sites examined were Livingston Creek along
the mainstem of the Cape Fear River near Riegelwood, Six Runs Creek in the Black River Basin,
and Rockfish Creek in the Northeast Cape Fear River basin. The results of the investigation showed
that levels of metals and organic pollutants in the sediments were below limits considered harmful
to aquatic life. However, results of fish tissue and clam tissue analyses showed that concentrations
of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and now-banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and
the pesticide Dieldrin were above levels considered safe for human consumption by the U.S. EPA
and North Carolina Health Director's Office. The reason the levels are elevated in the fish and
clams but not the sediments is that these pollutants become more concentrated as they move up the
food chain (from water and sediments to algae and insects to higher organisms), a process called
biomagnification. These pollutants will also biomagnify in humans. Because this indicates a direct
threat to human health, we recommend that a large-scale study be funded to assess levels of these
pollutants in fish and clams at stations distributed throughout the lower Cape Fear Watershed.
Introduction
Metals in the environment may come from natural or man-made sources. Metals in the water or
sediments can be absorbed or adsorbed by small organisms, such as algae and bacteria, which are
then consumed by larger organisms. As these larger organisms are eaten by even larger ones, the
metals may build up to high concentrations in their tissues, a process called bioaccumulation. If
humans consume fish or shellfish that have high enough tissue concentrations of metals they can
experience serious health effects. Thus Federal and State agencies issue warnings if the fish in an
area are unsafe to eat due to excessive tissue metals concentrations. Presently in North Carolina
there is a fish consumption advisory for the lower Cape Fear River basin due to mercury
contamination of fish tissue. The fish consumption advisory is widespread in fresh and in coastal
North Carolina waters (http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/contaminants.html). Freshwater fishes
included in the advisory are chain pickerel, largemouth bass and bowfin. In saltwater areas along
the North Carolina coast the advisory covers shark, tilefish, swordfish and king mackerel. The
known sources of mercury to this area include airborne inputs from distant fossil fuel power plants,
and a former industry located just upstream of Livingston Creek. The basin also is affected by
discharges from numerous other point and non-point sources that may contain varying amounts of
metals. Therefore, a pilot survey (funded by the Attorney General’s office through the Smithfield
Foods agreement) was conducted to examine metals concentrations in selected sediments, fish
tissue and clam tissue. The U.S. EPA has listed numerous pollutants that can be harmful to humans
if regularly consumed in fish and shellfish. Therefore, in addition to metals, concentrations of
organic contaminants such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenlys), PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons), DDT and various other pesticides were assessed.
The State of North Carolina has no official guidelines for sediment concentrations of metals and
organic pollutants in reference to protection of invertebrates, fish and wildlife. However, academic
researchers (Long et al. 1995) have produced guidelines (Table 4.1) based on extensive field and
laboratory testing that are used by the US Environmental Protection Agency in their National Coastal
Condition Report II (US EPA 2004).
There are no North Carolina or Federal Standards for fish or clams concerning metals or organic
pollutant body burdens that may pose a physiological or ecological risk to the fish. However, the
US EPA (2000a,b) has risk guidelines for four metals and several organic pollutants concerning
human consumption based on four meals per month. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
has human health screening guidelines for four metals, and the N.C. Health Director has human
health guidelines for mercury, selenium and total PCBs for issuing a consumption advisory (Table
4.2; NCDENR 2001).
Table 4.1. Guideline values for sediment metals and organic pollutant concentrations (ppm, or mg/g,
dry wt.) potentially harmful to aquatic life (Long et al. 1995; U.S. EPA 2004).
______________________________________________________________________________
ERL (Effects range low) concentrations below ERL are those in which harmful effects on aquatic
communities are rarely observed. ERM (Effects range median) concentrations above ERM are
those in which harmful effects would frequently occur. Concentrations between ERL and ERM are
those in which harmful effects occasionally occur.
______________________________________________________________________________
Metal ERL ERM
______________________________________________________________________________
Arsenic (As) 8.2 70.0
Cadmium (Cd) 1.2 9.6
Chromium (Cr) 81.0 370.0
Copper (Cu) 34.0 270.0
Lead (Pb) 46.7 218.0
Mercury (Hg) 0.15 0.71
Nickel (Ni) 20.9 51.6
Silver (Ag) 1.0 3.7
Zinc (Zn) 150.0 410.0
Total PCBs 0.0227 0.1800
Total PAHs 4.02 44.80
Total DDT 0.0016 0.0461
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.2. Official human health standards (as ppm, or mg/g) for metals and selected organic
pollutants in fish tissue (US EPA 2000b; US EPA 2004: NCDENR 2001)
______________________________________________________________________________
EPA non-cancer health risk:
Arsenic (inorganic): 0.35-0.70; cancer risk 0.008-0.016
Cadmium: 0.35-0.70
Mercury: 0.12-0.23
Selenium: 5.9-12.0
Total DDT: 0.059-0.12; cancer risk 0.035-0.069
Dieldrin: 0.059-0.12; cancer risk 0.00073-0.0015
Endosulfan: 7.0-14.0
Lindane: 0.35-0.70;0; cancer risk 009-0.018
Total PAHs: 0.0016-0.012 (cancer risk)
Total PCBs: 0.023-0.047; cancer risk 0.0059-0.012
NC DWQ screening levels used to evaluate the need for further intensive site specific monitoring
Arsenic (inorganic): 0.026
Cadmium: 4.0
Mercury: 0.40
Selenium: 20.0
Total PCBs: 0.02
Total DDT: 0.117
Dieldrin: 0.0025
Endosulfan: 24.0
Lindane: 0.0307
NC Health Director human health risk concentrations for issuing a consumption advisory
Mercury: 0.4
Selenium: 5.0
Total PCBs: 0.05
______________________________________________________________________________
Methods
Sediment collections for metals analysis were done in Six Runs Creek (Black River basin),
Rockfish Creek (N.E. Cape Fear River basin), and Livingston Creek (mainstem Cape Fear River).
Samples were collected using a petite ponar grab at Livingston Creek (by boat) and at Six Runs
Creek. (from a bridge, upstream side). At these two sites, three grab samples were taken, the top
layer of sediment (approximately 3cm) was scooped using a stainless steel spoon, put into a
stainless steel bowl and mixed, polypropylene (8oz., metals) and polystyrene (4 oz., mercury) jars
were filled and put on ice. The samples at Rockfish Creek were collected by scooping the top layer
of sediment (approx. 3 cm) into directly into each jar.
Tissues from bottom-feeding fish (bowfin, Amia calva) and clams (Corbicula spp.) were collected
and analyzed for metals. Sites included Six Runs Creek (Black River basin), Rockfish Creek
(Northeast Cape Fear River basin), and Livingston Creek (mainstem Cape Fear River near
Riegelwood). The fish were collected from a boat using electroshocking. They were immediately
placed on ice until return to the laboratory. Whole fish were wrapped in clean aluminum foil,
sealed in ziplock bags, labeled, and frozen. They were then shipped frozen overnight to the Marine
Ecotoxicology Branch, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service in Charleston, S.C. for
analysis. Bowfin livers and bowfin filets (skin off) were analyzed. Clams were collected by hand,
placed unshucked into ziplock bags, and shipped overnight on ice to the NOAA Marine
Ecotoxicology laboratory in Charleston for metals and organic pollutant analysis.
Results and Discussion
Results of sediment analyses
At all three sites (Table 4.3) the concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Ag and Zn were
safely below accepted standards for protection of aquatic life (Table 4.1). Common standards are
not available for Al, An, Be, Co, Fe, Li, Mn, Sn and other metals examined. Likewise, all three
sites had sediment concentrations of total PCBs, total PAHs, and total DDTs that were below the
ERLs (Table 1). Individual pesticides and other organic pollutants were below the laboratory
detection limits (not shown).
Table 4.3. Metals and organic pollutant concentrations (as mg/g, or ppm) in sediments from three
sites in the lower Cape Fear River basin, 2004.
______________________________________________________________________________
Site Livingston Creek Rockfish Creek Six Runs Creek
______________________________________________________________________________
Arsenic <0.909 <0.896 <0.909
Cadmium <0.0895 <0.0913 <0.0900
Chromium 1.94 5.56 5.91
Copper <6.10 <6.22 <6.13
Lead 5.38 1.69 4.30
Mercury 0.00196 0.00257 0.00496
Nickel <1.07 <1.10 2.51
Silver <0.262 <0.268 <0.264
Zinc <15.6 <15.9 32.2
Total PCBs 0.0049 0.0064 0.0036
Total PAHs 0.00827 0.01307 0.0344
Total DDTs 0.0 0.00060 0.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Results of fish and clam tissue analyses
The data showed that freshwater clams and bottom-feeding fishes in the lower Cape Fear River
basin contain tissue concentrations (of the four metals having standards-Table 4.2) that are potential
human health problems. Arsenic in bowfin livers from Rockfish Creek, Livingston Creek and Six
Runs Creek exceeded the recommended concentration range for cancer risk (Table 4.4; Fig. 4.1).
Cadmium in bowfin livers and clam tissue from Rockfish Creek, Livingston Creek and Six Runs
Creek exceeded the recommended concentration range for non-cancer health risk (Table 4.4; Fig.
4.2). Mercury in all fish and clam tissues examined exceeded the recommended concentration
ranges for non-cancer health risk (Fig. 4.3), and selenium in bowfin livers from Rockfish Creek,
Livingston Creek and the Six Runs Creek exceeded recommended concentration ranges for non-
cancer health risk (Table 4.4; Fig.4.4).
Although there are tissue concentration guidelines for only four metals, the results indicate a metals
problem in this basin. These organisms were chosen for analysis because their living habitat or
feeding modes are most likely to concentrate potential contaminants. Bowfin are bottom-feeding
fish, which are most likely to encounter pollutants associated with the sediments or bottom dwelling
prey items, and fish livers concentrate toxins. Clams are filter feeders, and concentrate pollutants
associated with suspended particles and benthic particles, including benthic microalgae.
Determining the potential sources of the four metals in question is important to any mitigation
strategies. Sources of arsenic include fossil fuel power plant emissions, hazardous waste site
leachate, wood preservatives, pesticides and herbicides, and mining/smelting operations (US EPA
2000a). Sources of cadmium include mine drainage, waste disposal operations, paints, batteries,
plastics, pesticides and herbicides (US EPA 2000a). As mentioned, mercury can arrive onsite
through airborne sources from coal-fired power plants upwind (US EPA 2000a). In the sediments
of blackwater swamps and rivers it transforms to the toxic methyl mercury form, a bacterially
mediated process. Another potential source is the former Holtrachem plant, which was located just
upstream of International Paper in Riegelwood along the Cape Fear River. One major source of
selenium is emissions from fossil fuel combustion, and leachate from ash ponds associated with
coal-fired power plants (US EPA 2000a). Several coal-fired power plants are located inland along
the upper Coastal Plain and in the Piedmont, and one (the Sutton Plant) is located 20 km
downstream of Livingston Creek sampling site, near the head of the estuary. Selenium also is
abundant in certain soils, but mostly in the southwestern U.S.
Concentrations of PCBs exceeded levels considered safe for human consumption in bowfin filets,
bowfin livers, and clam tissue at all three locations (Table 4.4; Fig. 4.5). Concentrations of total
DDTs exceeded the safe level in bowfin filets at Six Runs Creek and Rockfish Creek, but only
slightly. Concentrations of the pesticide Dieldrin exceeded levels associated with cancer risk in
bowfin filets and bowfin livers at all three sites, and in clam tissue at Rockfish Creek (Fig. 4.6).
Concentrations of total PAHs were below the analytical detection limit for all samples, and
concentrations of pesticides other than DDT and Dieldrin were below the EPA recommended
standards in tissue from all three sites.
PCBs were previously used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and insulating fluids in electrical
transformers, compressors, vacuum pumps and other equipment. They are closely related to
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. PCBs were banned by the EPA in 1979, but are very persistent
and bioaccumulate in the food chain (US EPA 2000a). Some studies have indicated that PCBs,
through ingestion of contaminated fish, have caused various developmental effects in children
including lower IQ, birth weight, and other effects. Various individual PCBs may cause liver
problems, cardiovascular toxicity, neurological problems, and cancers (US EPA 2000b). Although
banned, PCBs enter the environment through landfills and waste dumps, and are spread through
airborne deposition as well as by water. DDT and its metabolites, DDD and DDE are
organochlorine compounds that were extensively used in the past as pesticides. They are persistent
in the environment and bioaccumulate in the food chain. These compounds cause reproductive and
developmental toxicities, chromosomal damage, and considered probable human carcinogens (U.S.
EPA 2000b). The use of DDT in the United States was banned in 1972, but it is still sold overseas.
Though long banned in the U.S., its persistency in the environment causes it to still be present in
water, soil, and food. Dieldrin is an organochlorine pesticide previously used to control termites
and soil dwelling insects, and was used on corn, cotton, and citrus crops (U.S. EPA 2000a). The
U.S. EPA banned many uses of Dieldrin in 1974, and the remaining uses were terminated by
industry in 1987. It is known to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity and cancers in
animals, and neurological toxicity in animals and humans. It is persistent in the environment and is
also a breakdown product of aldrin, another pesticide no longer in use.
Summary
In summary, metals and organic pollutant concentrations in sediments from Rockfish Creek, Six
Runs Creek, and Livingston Creek were below concentrations considered harmful to the health of
benthic invertebrates. However, bottom dwelling fish (bowfin) and clams in Rockfish Creek,
Livingston Creek and Six Runs Creek showed levels unsafe for human consumption for arsenic,
cadmium, mercury and selenium. Unsafe concentrations of PCBs and the pesticide Dieldrin were
found in bowfin and clams at all three sites, and unsafe concentrations of DDT were found in
bowfin in Six Runs Creek and Rockfish Creek. We recommend that a large-scale survey of bottom
fish and clam tissue be initiated for assessing the distribution and magnitude of metals and organic
pollutant contamination throughout the lower Cape Fear River basin. This is essential in that if
contaminants that cause cancer and other health effects are at dangerous levels in fish and clams, the
public and the regulatory agencies need to know where and in what organisms these levels are
found. Furthermore, the State should conduct an assessment of potential sources of metals and
organic pollutant pollution throughout the lower watershed as a proactive means of protecting
human health.
Acknowledgements
We thank the North Carolina Attorney General's Office for funding through the Smithfield
Agreement to the Lower Cape Fear River Program. For support for the LCFRP we thank Ms.
Marian McPhaul and for field collection help we thank Mr. Mike Williams. For analyses
facilitation we thank Drs. Geoff Scott, Mike Fulton, and Ed Wirth at the Center for Coastal
Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service in Charleston, S.C.
Table 4.4. Metals concentrations (mg/g, or ppm) in bowfin filets and livers and clam tissue from
Livingston Creek, Six Runs Creek, and Rockfish Creek. Bowfin filets and liver, n = 2 for all three
sites. For clams, at Livingston Creek n = 2, for Six Runs Creek and Rockfish Creek n = 1. Values
are mean + standard deviation. *Arsenic concentrations are estimated as inorganic As, computed as
2% of total As.
______________________________________________________________________________
Metal Tissue Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
______________________________________________________________________________
Arsenic* bowfin filet 0.039+0.003 0.027+0.011 0.024+0.002
Arsenic* bowfin liver 0.010+0.001 0.013+0.001 0.011+0.003
Arsenic* clam tissue 0.068+0.001 0.056 0.044
Cadmium bowfin filet 0.0154+0.000 0.0109+0.0018 0.013+0.0008
Cadmium bowfin liver 1.68+0.17 0.742+0.620 0.925+0.346
Cadmium clam tissue 2.01+0.25 2.54 2.13
Mercury bowfin filet 7.23+1.79 3.15+2.67 5.76+3.78
Mercury bowfin liver 4.30+0.64 3.96+4.36 4.95+4.92
Mercury clam tissue 0.46+0.03 0.32 0.94
Selenium bowfin filet 1.90+0.20 1.60+0.52 1.93+0.23
Selenium bowfin liver 77.95+9.26 105.60+67.03 62.75+62.58
Selenium clam tissue 3.77+0.01 3.91 4.02
Total PCBs bowfin filet 0.0885+0.0361 0.1430+0.0651 0.0635+0.0134
Total PCBs bowfin liver 0.1895+0.0445 0.0325+0.0219 0.1400+0.0057
Total PCBs clam tissue 0.1485+0.0431 0.1490 0.2220
Total PAHs bowfin filet BDL BDL BDL
Total PAHs bowfin liver BDL BDL BDL
Total PAHs clam tissue BDL BDL BDL
Total DDTs bowfin filet 0.024+0.006 0.048+0.019 0.036+0.001
Total DDTs bowfin liver 0.015+0.022 0.0 0.021+0.071
Total DDTs clam tissue 0.031+0.005 0.012 0.027
Dieldrin bowfin filet 0.0043+0.0004 0.0037+0.0052 0.0320+0.0056
Dieldrin bowfin liver 0.0091+0.0069 0.0096+0.0003 0.1650+0.0665
Dieldrin clam tissue BDL BDL 0.0019
______________________________________________________________________________
Bolded concentrations exceed either the NC Health Director standards or the US EPA standards.
Bolded As, total DDTs, and Dieldrin clam tissue values are for cancer risk; the other metals are for
non-cancer health risk.
BDL = below analytical detection limit.
References Cited
Long, E.R., D.D. McDonald, S.L. Smith and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments.
Environmental Management 19:81-97.
NCDENR 2001. Standard Operating Procedures, Stream Fish Community Assessment and Fish
Tissue. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch, Biological Assessment Unit.
Raleigh, N.C.
US EPA. 2000a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. EPA-823-B-00-007. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
US EPA. 2000b. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. EPA-823-B-00-008. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
US EPA. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.
Figure 4.1. Inorganic arsenic concentrations in
bowfin and clam tissue in the Lower Cape Fear River
watershed
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
FLCFLCFLC
As
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
p
m
)
F = bowfin filet L = bowfin liver C = clam tissue
Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
US EPA inorganic arsenic
concentration health risk (cancer)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
FLCFLCFLC
Cd
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
p
m
)
F = bowfin filet L = bowfin liver C = clam tissue
Figure 4.2. Cadmium concentrations in bowfin and clam
tissue in the Lower Cape Fear River watershed
Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
US EPA cadmium concentration
non-cancer health risk
Figure 4.3. Mercury concentrations in bowfin and clam
tissue in the Lower Cape Fear River watershed
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
FLCFLCFLC
Hg
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
p
m
)
Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
F = bowfin filet L = bowfin liver C = clam tissue
NC Health Director
mercury concentration
non-cancer health risk
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
FLCFLCFLC
Se
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
p
m
)
F = bowfin filet L = bowfin liver C = clam tissue
Figure 4.4. Selenium concentrations in bowfin and clam tissue
in the Lower Cape Fear River watershed
Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
NC Health Director
selenium concentration
non-cancer health risk
Figure 4.5. Total PCBs concentrations in bowfin and
clam tissue in the Lower Cape Fear River watershed
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
FLCFLCFLC
PC
B
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
p
m
)
F = bowfin filet L = bowfin liver C = clam tissue
Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
NC Health Director total PCB
concentration non-cancer
health risk
Figure 4.6. Dieldrin concentrations in bowfin and clam
tissue in the Lower Cape Fear River watershed
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
FLCFLCFLC
Di
e
l
d
r
i
n
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
p
m
)
F = bowfin filet L = bowfin liver C = clam tissue
Livingston Creek Six Runs Creek Rockfish Creek
US EPA Dieldrin concentration
health risk (cancer)
5.0 Oyster Studies in the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary 2003-2004
Troy D. Alphin and Martin H. Posey
Benthic Ecology Laboratory
University of North Carolina Wilmington
5.1 Introduction
The UNCW Benthic Ecology Laboratory has been an active participant in the Lower
Cape Fear River Program since 1995. In that time we have focused on a number of
issues related to benthic community structure, the role critical habitats play in the proper
function of a healthy ecosystem, and the maintenance of fishery species populations. In
recent years concern for the declining population of oysters (Crassostrea virginica) has
become a paramount issue for fisheries managers in North Carolina and along much of
the east coast of the United States. The Lower Cape Fear River Program has
supported our proposals to North Carolina Sea Grant and to the North Carolina
Fisheries Resource Grant Program to investigate the apparent lack of healthy oyster
populations in the Cape Fear River estuary and the potential for stock differentiation
among select estuarine systems in the southern and central fishery regions of North
Carolina. For this annual report we present data from two projects that have been of
interest to the participants of the lower Cape Fear River Program and to state resource
managers. The first is an evaluation of larval settlement in the lower Cape Fear River
estuary. The second study is a comparison of potential stock differentiation among
oysters from several North Carolina estuarine systems of North Carolina, including the
Cape Fear River.
5.2: Evaluation of Potential Stock Differentiation
The evaluation of North Carolina oyster stocks on a regional basis, with a focus on
developing an oyster stock with consistent performance in North Carolina waters, has
great potential for both the oyster growers and restoration efforts within the state.
Although there have been efforts to evaluate stock performance for oysters originating
from different states and from state and commercial run hatcheries, these evaluations
have generally compared only short-term responses of one or two stocks and fail to
consider local difference in physical conditions, leaving managers and growers to make
anecdotal comparisons and best guess decisions regarding the potential value of
particular oyster stocks. Information on potential source effects is critical in the
selection of oyster stocks for grow-out. In the case of commercial growers that have to
deal with a restricted market, limited resources, and uncertain budgets, “experimenting”
with new stocks is risky and a failed year may have disastrous consequences for their
livelihood. The issue of oyster performance is not a simple one. High variability in
oyster yields between years, and among regions within the state highlights the need for
studies that compare the performance of oysters from a variety of local areas within the
state. Our study evaluated the potential for stock differentiation among oysters
from distinct estuaries by comparing growth and survivorship among oysters
collected from four locations within southeastern North Carolina as well as from a
hatchery line that is typically available for commercial production. It is important
to note that a concurrent companion study evaluated these same stocks for genetic
differences based on two genetic markers. Data on the genetic evaluation are not
presented here but are available from North Carolina Sea Grant by requesting the final
report for FRG 00-AM-07.
This study used reciprocal transplants and a common garden approach to evaluate the
performance of five oyster stocks. Recently set oysters were collected from the Cape
Fear River estuary (CF), New River Estuary (NR), and White Oak River Estuary (WO).
To the extent possible, all oysters from the ambient stocks were from the most recent
set. As a control for stock origin, a hatchery stock from the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science hatchery (VIMS) was also used. The hatchery stock is readily available for
commercial growers and presumably has been selected for faster growth rates. A
fourth stock used in this study originated in Stump Sound, North Carolina. Brood stock
from Stump Sound (JB) were spawned in a hatchery and shipped as eyed larvae to J&B
AquaFood (managed by Jim Swartzenberg) located at Stump Sound. These larvae
were then set on microcultch in a flow-through system using ambient water. Because
the goal of this project was to evaluate growth, we tried to limit the initial size distribution
of the oysters used for the study, with the majority of individuals used being less than
50mm in shell height. Both of the hatchery-spawned stocks demonstrated slightly lower
initial sizes compared to oysters collected from the ambient stock (Figure 1). (Size
distributions in Figure 1 are based on shell height (distance from umbo to outer edge of
shell) measurements only.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
16-
20
21-
25
26-
30
31-
35
36-
40
41-
45
46-
50
51-
55
56-
60
61-
65
66-
70
71-
75
76-
80
Shell height (mm)
Figure 1. Initial size distribution of oysters
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
NR
JB
WO
VIMS
CF
Within two weeks of collection from the field, oysters from each stock were measured
for shell height and shell width (defined as the longest axis perpendicular to shell height)
and numbered. The numbering allowed us to collect data on the individual growth of
each oyster from each stock. Following the initial measurement of the oysters,
photographs of each set of oysters were also taken to later reference possible shell
breakage and condition. Oysters from each stock were divided into sets of 50 and
placed in numbered cages. One of the key aspects of this study was to evaluate how
oysters from each stock performed in relation to the other stocks within each of the
estuarine systems that the oysters had originally settled within. To do this three
randomly selected cages of each of the five stocks (Cape Fear=CF, New River=NR,
White Oak=WO, Stump Sound=JB, and hatchery=VIMS) were placed in each of the four
areas (Cape Fear River, New River, White Oak, and Stump Sound). Oysters were
placed as close as possible to areas where they had been collected. Because this
project was proposed to last one year, small research sanctuaries were established in
each area where oysters were planted to help prevent tampering with the experiment
during the crucial time period. Cages containing oysters were placed on a rack and
cage system (constructed of 4 inch PVC and 1/2 inch rebar) that helped keep the
oysters 10-15 cm (4-6 inches) above the bottom, prevented possible sedimentation that
would have interfered with the survival and growth of the oysters, and prevented
movement of the cages even during storm events. Every 6-8 weeks all the oysters at
each location were retrieved from the field and measured for shell height and width.
Overall mortality was also recorded at that time.
An Analysis of Variance was used to statistically evaluate growth among oyster stocks
at each site and among sites for each of the oyster stocks. All analyses were
conducted on mean growth per individual, rather than percent growth or on size
distributions. Mean growth per individual is a better metric for evaluation of
performance and avoids potential bias associated with differential mortality. We were
unable to perform any analysis of single oyster stocks among sites due to variable
growth periods and high mortality at some sites.
There were several deviations from the original experimental design that did impact the
study in some way. Each of these involved oyster mortalities or lost cages, but in all
cases these events were beyond the control of the investigators. With regard to the data
from the Cape Fear River, these data only reflect growth from March, 2001 to July,
2001. The oysters in this system experienced a major over-spat event in late August-
early September, with as many as 30 spat settling on individual oysters causing high
mortality. This unusual spat settlement event likely affected both survival and growth of
experimental oysters, preventing reliable measurement of the experimental oysters, so
comparisons among stocks were made from the last pre-settlement data for the Cape
Fear site only. Additional considerations included:
· Although each set of experimental oysters was placed within a research
sanctuary we did see evidence of vandalism at the New River Site, where we
recovered two numbered cages and numbered oyster shells by the remains of a
campfire.
· A single cage was lost at the White Oak site, due to a storm event.
· The drought of 2001-2003 caused significant growing problems at J&B
AquaFood among cultured oysters to including Polydora sp. and tunicates and
significant fouling in cages and chubs, and a high rate of mortality among other
oyster crops at this location.
Results
· The size distribution of oysters at the end of the experiment showed relatively
consistent patterns among sites (Figure 2), although both the JB and VIMS
stocks did show peak numbers at slightly smaller sizes than other stocks. This
may reflect slightly smaller initial sizes for these stocks.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
16-
20
21-
25
26-
30
31-
35
36-
40
41-
45
46-
50
51-
55
56-
60
61-
65
66-
70
71-
75
76-
80
81-
85
86-
90
91-
95
96-
100
101-
105
Shell height (mm)
Figure 2. Final size distribution of oysters
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
NR
JB
WO
VIMS
CF
· Because of mass mortality at the Cape Fear site, survivorship data is not
available from that area. However, in the four months the Cape Fear site had
oysters deployed, there was little mortality among the various stocks.
Survivorship data indicated oysters at the White Oak site demonstrated relatively
similar survivorship (45-50%) among all stocks, except for low survivorship of the
Cape Fear stock (Figure 3). This was not the case with either the New River site
or Stump Sound site. Survivorship varied at these sites, with the New River and
White Oak stocks showing greater survivorship at the Stump Sound site (Figure
4) and the hatchery stock (VIMS) clearly showing greater survivorship at the New
River site (Figure 5). Interestingly, the Stump Sound stock (JB) shows very
consistent survivorship among all three sites.
0
20
40
60
80
100
NRJBWOVIMSCF
Figure 3. Survivorship of oyster stocks at the White Oak
site.
Su
r
v
i
v
o
r
s
h
i
p
(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
NRJBWOVIMSCF
Figure 4. Survivorship of oyster stocks at the Stump Sound
site.
Su
r
v
i
v
o
r
s
h
i
p
(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
NRJBWOVIMSCF
Figure 5. Survivorship of oyster stocks at the New River
site.
Su
r
v
i
v
o
r
s
h
i
p
(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
· Comparisons of growth indicated significant differences among stocks at the
White Oak site (F=14.13, p<0.0006) (Figure 6) and New River site (F=15.44, P<
0.005) (Figure 7). Columns with the same letter designation are not significantly
different from one another (based on Student-Newman-Keuls procedure).
Surprisingly, the stock from the White Oak performed worse at the White Oak
site.
0
5
10
15
20
25
VIMSNRJBWOCF
Figure 6. Average growth at the White
Oak site.
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
(
m
m
)
Growth Width
Growth Height
A
A,B B,CDC
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
VIMSNRJBWOCF
Figure 7. Average growth at the New River
site.
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
(
m
m
)
Growth Width
Growth Height
A
BBBB
· While the hatchery and New River stocks did perform better at the White Oak
site, only the hatchery stock showed any significant increase over other stocks at
the New River site. White Oak and Cape Fear stocks did poorest at the New
River. There were no differences in growth among the various stocks placed at
the Stump Sound site (Figure 8).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
VIMSNRJBWOCF
Figure 8. Average growth at the Stump
Sound site.
Av
e
r
a
g
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
(
m
m
)
Growth Width
Growth Height
· Although comparisons of stocks among sites is not appropriate (experimental
duration varied among sites, based on site-specific problems previously
mentioned), all five stocks grown at the Stump Sound site did tend to have
greater growth than the average growth among stocks at either the White Oak or
New River sites. Average increase in shell height at the Stump Sound site was
20mm or more, while average increases in shell height at the other sites was 15
mm or less for all stocks except the hatchery stock control.
Conclusions
· Stock performance, both growth and survivorship, are strongly influenced by
local conditions. While the differences were detectable they did not follow a clear
site pattern; though growth tended to be less for White Oak and Cape Fear
stocks.
· While oysters at some sites may demonstrate good survivorship this may not
necessarily translate into high growth. Factors enhancing one aspect of
performance may not enhance the other.
· Stock origin did have a lasting impact on performance through the first year.
These findings suggest that oysters from different sites demonstrate variability in
response to the environment and may experience selection based on local
conditions.
· Evaluation of individual growth is an effective method for determining
performance and avoids some of the potential bias of analysis on other metrics
such as size distribution that is strongly influenced by mortality.
5.3: Evaluation of Spatfall in the Cape Fear River
Sparse oyster stocks are present near the mouth of the Cape Fear River as well as a
within the marshes behind Bald Head Island and on the rock wall at Fort Fisher. There
are also records of some subtidal oysters present on rocks in front of Fort Fisher.
However, none of these oyster populations are substantial. There are a number of
possible reasons for the lack of healthy oyster populations. The first is a lack of larval
supply. If oyster larvae cannot reach these locations in sufficient numbers then there is
little opportunity to establish sustainable and extensive beds or reefs. The second
possible explanation is the lack of suitable settlement habitat for larvae that may reach
these areas. This explanation does hold some merit since oysters require hard
substrate to settle and metamorphose (preferring the shells of other oysters but they will
settle on other hard surfaces as well). The Cape Fear River in general is a dynamic
system with little hard substrate, other than in the lower region of the river near Fort
Fisher. A third possible explanation is that post-settlement factors such as extreme tide
events and/or variation in water quality cause high mortality among recently settled
oysters. None of these explanations are mutually exclusive and likely that a
combination of these factors may interact among years preventing the establishment of
persistent oyster populations.
Because larval supply is the most critical point in enhancing oyster populations
in the Cape Fear River and the most difficult to overcome, we measured larval
settlement among three sites in the Cape Fear River (Carolina Beach State Park,
Fort Fisher, and Southport) and control sites in the New River and Stump Sound.
All three sites used for this study were of similar salinity and tidal height. Both of the
control sites have a proven record for supporting healthy oyster stocks and productive
oyster culture and provide a general idea of the regional timing and intensity of spatfall
(larval settlement) for comparison with the Cape Fear. We used nine settlement tiles (8
in. X 8 in.) placed in sets of three, spaced 1m apart at each site. All tiles were in place
by April (the time period presumed to be the start of the settlement period for many of
the state’s estuarine waters). Tiles were collected from each field site every six weeks
(and replaced with new ones) and returned to the lab for evaluation. Because newly
settled oyster larvae are too small to be reliably seen with the unaided eye, tiles were
maintained in a flow through water system with filtered seawater (to prevent additional
settlement) for two weeks (after two weeks oyster larvae reach a size of approximately
2mm, large enough to be accurately identified). If larval settlement were the cause of
scant oyster populations in the Cape Fear, we would expect to see settlement on Cape
Fear tiles lower than that recorded from the control sites
Settlement of oysters in the Cape Fear was highly variable temporally and spatially.
Although all tiles were deployed in April, settlement was not detected until August or
September for any site. Among the Cape Fear sites, Carolina Beach showed the
highest settlement (Table 1, Figure 9), with Southport being intermediate with peak
settlement density of 20.75 larvae per tile (Figure 10), and the Fort Fisher site showed
the least amount of settlement (Figure 11). It is important to note that all sites in the
Cape Fear did have oyster populations (the Carolina Beach site lacks any hard
substrate other than docks and pilings where oysters do settle in relatively low
densities) but there was not a clear relationship between the density of live oysters at a
site and the density of larvae that settled at that site.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Sep 02Nov 02Dec 02Jan 03Feb 03Mar 03Apr 03May 03
Figure 9. Mean larval settlement per tile at Carolina Beach
State Park.
Av
g
#
s
p
a
t
/
t
i
l
e
0
5
10
15
20
25
Aug 02Dec 02Jan 03Mar 03May 03
Figure 10. Mean larval settlement per tile at Southport.
Av
g
#
s
p
a
t
/
t
i
l
e
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Dec 02Jan 03Feb 03Mar 03Apr 03
Figure 11. Mean larval settlement per tile at Fort Fisher
Av
g
#
s
p
a
t
/
t
i
l
e
The control sites also showed high variation with New River having the highest density
of larval set among all sites (Figure 12), while the Stump Sound site had a peak density
of 4.3 larvae per tile (Figure 13). Unlike the sites in the Cape Fear, both the New River
site and the Stump Sound site have healthy oyster populations with densities of live
oysters that exceed 125 oysters per meter square. Both control sites also support
active commercial fisheries with leased bottom culture activities adjacent to the
research sites.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Aug 02Sep 02Oct 02Nov 02Dec 02Jan 03Feb 03Mar 03Apr 03
Figure 12. Mean larval settlement per tile at New River.
Av
g
#
s
p
a
t
/
t
i
l
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sep 02Oct 02Nov 02Dec 02Jan 03Feb 03Mar 03Apr 03May 03
Figure 13. Mean larval settlement per tile at Stump Sound.
Av
g
#
s
p
a
t
/
t
i
l
e
While two of the Cape Fear sites had peak settlement rates within the ranges of the two
control sites, the Cape Fear sites physically contrasted with those control areas by
having an apparent lack of naturally occurring settlement substrate. A rock wall and
rocky debris at the Fort Fisher site offer the most substantial settlement surfaces of the
three sites in the Cape Fear River, and in fact we have recorded densities of oysters at
this location that exceed 300 m2, even though peak settlement densities were less than
1 per tile. The oyster population at the Fort Fisher site was characterized by dense
settlement, predominantly immature individuals (shell height <50mm), and low vertical
relief of the oyster aggregates or clusters. Low vertical relief and small size of the
oysters at this location may be indicators of poor health of the oysters, either from water
quality or possibly from overcrowding. With a limited amount of hard substrate it is likely
that the oysters suffer from “over spat” events. This occurs when too many larvae settle
in a confined space and begin to compete with one another. We also observed that
oysters at this location are easily broken and dislodged. Weak shell strength may be
another possible indicator of overcrowding and the poor fitness of the oysters that settle
in this region of the river. This is in contrast to the oysters that settle in the other two
sites in the Cape Fear where we found oysters in low density, growing solitarily, but
otherwise seeming to be normal with regard to shell strength
The combination of periodic but highly variable recruitment at two of the Cape Fear sites
but low recruitment at the only site with substantial substrate present leads us to
conclude that the lack of substantial oyster populations in the Cape Fear Estuary is due
in part to the lack of sufficient settlement substrate to support the larvae that settle in
this estuary. The fact that thriving oyster populations are observed in other river
systems with comparable larval settlement and settlement substrate throughout the
littoral and subtidal zones suggests that settlement substrate does play a key role in the
establishment of oyster populations at these sites. This study was a short-term
evaluation of oyster settlement for one year and was not designed to be an exhaustive
study of the possible mitigating factors that influence oyster populations in the lower
Cape Fear estuary. The Cape Fear River is a dynamic system with high flushing rate
and variable water quality conditions that may play a role the long-term establishment of
oysters. Deleted: .
Table 1. Settlement tiles were deployed from June 2002 to May 2003. However the
number of sampling periods did vary due to weather events and site disturbance (note
Fort Fisher site was only sampled from Nov02- Apr03). Settlement months represent
the actual number of sampling periods were oyster spat were present. Mean set
represents the average number of larvae that settled adjusted for months deployed.
Peak set is the peak average settlement actually measured.
______________________________________________________________________
Site Settlement months Mean Set Peak Set
______________________________________________________________________
Carolina Beach State Park 2 39.84 231.67
Southport 2 2.71 20.75
Fort Fisher 1 0.03 0.17
New River 4 57.02 261.91
Stump Sound 2 7.02 4.33
______________________________________________________________________
Conclusions
· Larval settlement in the Cape Fear River is highly variable both temporally
and spatially.
· Oyster populations in the Cape Fear River seem to be limited in part by
available settlement substrate.
· Oysters at the site with the highest density of live oysters show signs of
overcrowding and poor fitness.
Summary
It is important to recognize that oysters are important for several reasons in the
estuarine environment. While traditional efforts to manage oyster populations have
focused solely on the value of oysters as a fishery our effort in the last 10 years have
been devoted to raising public awareness of the ecosystem services that oysters
provide, including filtration of pollutants, erosion control, habitat enhancement, support
of other fisheries, and enhanced nutrient cycling. Particularly in the last five years a
number of conservation and community groups have initiated restoration for the
purpose of enhancing these other functions of oysters. As these types of efforts gain
recognition it is critical that we initiate the types of studies described here in order to
provide information and recommendations that will increase the likelihood of success for
these efforts. It is also important to point out that these efforts can and do help oyster
production as well.
The evaluation of North Carolina oyster stocks on a regional basis, with a focus on
developing an oyster stock with consistent performance (survivorship and growth) in
North Carolina waters, has great potential for both the oyster growers and restoration
efforts within the state. High variability in oyster yields between years, and among
regions within the state highlights the need for studies that compare the performance of
oysters from a variety of local areas within the state. We performed a study that
evaluated the potential for stock differentiation among oysters from distinct estuaries by
comparing growth and survivorship among oysters collected from four locations within
southeastern North Carolina as well as from a hatchery line that is typically available for
commercial production. The results showed that stock performance, both growth and
survivorship, are strongly influenced by local conditions. While the differences were
detectable they did not follow a clear site pattern, though growth tended to be less for
White Oak and Cape Fear stocks, and survivorship less for Cape Fear stocks. It is
important to realize that while oysters at some sites may demonstrate good survivorship
this may not necessarily translate into high growth. Factors enhancing one aspect of
performance may not enhance the other.
Because larval supply is the most critical point in enhancing oyster populations in the
Cape Fear River and the most difficult to overcome, we measured larval settlement
among three sites in the Cape Fear River (Carolina Beach State Park, Fort Fisher, and
Southport) and control sites in the New River and Stump Sound. Our results showed
that larval settlement in the Cape Fear River is highly variable both temporally and
spatially. Oyster populations in the Cape Fear River seem to be limited in part by
available settlement substrate. Oysters at the site with the highest density of live
oysters showed signs of overcrowding and poor fitness. Thus, substantially increasing
the amount of available substrate for larval oyster settlement should prove to be a
useful tool for increasing viable oyster populations in the lower Cape Fear River
Estuary. Enhancement of oyster populations in the Cape Fear Estuary would have
potentially beneficial impacts to water quality, to the future of the oyster fishery and to
finfish populations in this region.