2013-2014 Final Report
New Hanover County
Water Quality Monitoring Program
2013-2014 Final Report
Prepared for: New Hanover County,
North Carolina
Submitted: July 2014
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
2013-2014
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc.
Marine Scientist: Brad Rosov, M.Sc.
Prepared For:
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Recommended Citation: Rosov, B., 2014. New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Program: 2013-2014 Final Report. New Hanover County, North Carolina: Coastal Planning &
Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 56p.
July 2014
i
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the results of the New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring
Program between July 2013 and June 2014. Nineteen (19) monitoring stations within seven (7)
creeks in New Hanover County were monitored on a monthly basis for physical, chemical, and
biological parameters of water quality. The results presented in this report are described from a
watershed perspective.
In order to provide a quick-glance assessment of the water quality within a particular sampling
station and watershed, a rating system has been established for a number of parameters. This
quantitative system assigns a rating of “GOOD”, “FAIR”, or “POOR” to a sampling station
depending on the percentage of samples exceeding the State standard for dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, chlorophyll-a, Enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria. If the recorded value of a
parameter exceeds the State standard less than 10% of the times sampled, the station will receive
a “GOOD” rating for the parameter. A “FAIR” rating is assigned when a parameter exceeds the
State standard 11-25% of the times sampled. Parameters measured that exceed the State
standard more than 25% of the sampling times are given a “POOR” rating.
As displayed in the table below, turbidity and chlorophyll-a were determined to be “good”
within all watersheds throughout the study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be “good”
in all creeks with the exception of Prince Georges Creek and Futch Creek where their levels, on
average, was considered to be “poor" and “fair”, respectively. Enterococci was problematic
within three of these watersheds- Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Prince Georges Creek. On the
other hand, Futch Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords Creek were deemed “good” for enterococci.
Ratings by Watershed
Parameter Barnards
Creek
Futch
Creek
Lords
Creek
Motts
Creek
Pages
Creek
Prince
Georges
Creek
Smith
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR POOR POOR FAIR
Long Term Trends
Using data collected on a monthly basis since at least November 2007, the long term trends of
select water quality monitoring parameters were assessed in this report as well. In general,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and chlorophyll-a levels oscillate on a seasonal basis. Water
quality, as it relates to these parameters, generally decreases during the warmer months when the
water temperatures increase. However, during the cooler months, when the water temperature
drops, these parameters improve.
Since 2007, dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the State standard within surface samples 33%,
23%, 20%, and 10% of the time within Prince Georges Creek, Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and
Smith Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better within Motts Creek and Lords
ii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Creek as these creeks exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard eight (8%) and four (4%) of the
time, respectively. Barnards Creek breached the standard only three (3%) of the times sampled.
Enterococci bacteria has been a chronic problem within several of the creeks monitored in this
study. Since November 2007, samples collected within Motts Creek, Barnards Creek, and Smith
Creek exceeded the State standard for Enterococci 54%, 40%, and 38% of the time, respectively.
Pages Creek exceeded this standard 35% of the time while Prince Georges Creek exceed the
standard 30% of the time. The least amount of exceedences were observed in Lords Creek and
Futch Creek which exceeded the standard 9% and 4%, respectively.
Turbidity and chlorophyll-a were not problematic in any creeks. Since sampling began, only 18
exceedences of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 1,672 samples collected. The
turbidity standard was only breached three times in total; two from within Smith Creek and one
within Pages Creek.
iii
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Parameters .............................................................................................................................4
1.2 Standards ...............................................................................................................................6
2.0 Methods.......................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Physical Parameters ..............................................................................................................8
2.2 Biological Parameters ...........................................................................................................8
2.3 Chemical Parameters ............................................................................................................9
3.0 Results .........................................................................................................................................9
3.1 Ammonia ...............................................................................................................................9
3.2 Rating System .................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Barnards Creek .......................................................................................................................9
3.4 Futch Creek ...........................................................................................................................12
3.5 Lords Creek ...........................................................................................................................16
3.6 Motts Creek ...........................................................................................................................19
3.7 Pages Creek ...........................................................................................................................22
3.8 Prince Georges ......................................................................................................................26
3.9 Smith Creek ..........................................................................................................................31
3.10 Comprehensive Rating by Watershed .................................................................................35
3.11 Long Term Trends ..............................................................................................................36
3.11.1 Dissolved Oxygen ...................................................................................................36
3.11.2 Turbidity .................................................................................................................40
3.11.3 Chlorophyll-a ..........................................................................................................43
3.11.4 Enterococci .............................................................................................................47
4.0 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................51
5.0 Literature Cited ...........................................................................................................................55
List of Figures
Figure No.
1 Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study ...................................3
2 Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed ...................................................10
3 Dissolved Oxygen at BC-CBR ..............................................................................................11
4 Enterococci at BC-CBR ........................................................................................................11
5 Water Quality Sites with the Futch Creek Watershed ...........................................................13
6 Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4 .....................................................................................................14
7 Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6 .....................................................................................................14
8 Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13 ................................................................................................... 14
9 Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY ............................................................................................... 15
10 Enterococci at FC-4 ............................................................................................................... 15
iv
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
11 Enterococci at FC-6 ...........................................................................................................15
12 Enterococci at FC-13 .........................................................................................................16
13 Enterococci at FC-FOY .....................................................................................................16
14 Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed .....................................................17
15 Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR .............................................................................................18
16 Enterococci Levels at LC-RR ............................................................................................18
17 Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed ....................................................20
18 Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR .......................................................................................21
19 Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND .........................................................................................21
20 Enterococci at MOT-CBR .................................................................................................21
21 Enterococci at MOT-ND ...................................................................................................22
22 Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed ....................................................23
23 Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS ........................................................................................24
24 Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS ........................................................................................24
25 Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M ...............................................................................................25
26 Enterococci at PC-BDDS ..................................................................................................25
27 Enterococci at PC-BDUS ..................................................................................................25
28 Enterococci at PC-M..........................................................................................................26
29 Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed .....................................27
30 Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH .............................................................................................28
31 Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML.............................................................................................28
32 Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC .............................................................................................29
33 Enterococci at PG-CH .......................................................................................................29
34 Enterococci at PG-ML .......................................................................................................29
35 Enterococci at PG-NC .......................................................................................................30
36 Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed ....................................................31
37 Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23 ...............................................................................................32
38 Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD .............................................................................................32
39 Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH .............................................................................................33
40 Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR .............................................................................................33
41 Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK .............................................................................................33
42 Enterococci at SC-23 .........................................................................................................34
43 Enterococci at SC-CD........................................................................................................34
44 Enterococci at SC-CH........................................................................................................34
45 Enterococci at SC-GR........................................................................................................35
46 Enterococci at SC-NK .......................................................................................................35
47 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek ....................................37
48 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek ..........................................37
49 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek..........................................38
v
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
50 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek..........................................38
51 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek..........................................39
52 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek ..........................39
53 Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek .........................................40
54 Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek...................................................40
55 Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek ........................................................41
56 Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek ........................................................41
57 Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek ........................................................42
58 Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek ........................................................42
59 Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek ........................................43
60 Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek .......................................................43
61 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Barnards Creek .......................................................44
62 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Futch Creek ............................................................44
63 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Lords Creek ............................................................45
64 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Motts Creek ............................................................45
65 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Pages Creek ............................................................46
66 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Prince Georges Creek .............................................46
67 Long term chlorophyll-a data within Smith Creek ............................................................47
68 Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek..........................................................48
69 Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek ...............................................................48
70 Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek ...............................................................49
71 Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek ...............................................................49
72 Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek ...............................................................50
73 Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek ...............................................50
74 Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek ..............................................................50
75 Long term dissolved oxygen ratings ..................................................................................53
76 long-term Enterococci ratings............................................................................................53
List of Tables
Table No.
1 List of Sampling Sites ............................................................................................................2
2 North Carolina Water Quality Standards ...............................................................................7
3 Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA ..............................7
4 Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR Recreational
Water Quality Program ..........................................................................................................7
vi
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
5 Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Sites ....................7
6 Mean values of select parameters from Barnards Creek .......................................................11
7 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek ...............................12
8 Mean values of select parameters from Futch Creek .............................................................13
9 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Futch Creek ....................................16
10 Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek .............................................................18
11 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek ....................................18
12 Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek.............................................................20
13 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek ....................................22
14 Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek .............................................................24
15 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek ....................................26
16 Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek .............................................28
17 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek .....................30
18 Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek ............................................................32
19 Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek ....................................35
20 Ratings of parameters within each watershed ........................................................................36
List of Appendices
Appendix No.
A Photographs of Sampling Sites
B Raw Data
C Source Tracking Report
1
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The creeks in New Hanover County, North Carolina provide a wide range of recreational
activities for thousands of local citizens and visiting tourists each year. Tidal creeks are rich
areas in terms of aquatic, terrestrial and avian wildlife and can support complex food webs
(Odum et al, 1984; Kwak and Zedle, 1997). Protection of the water quality within these creeks is
a high priority for New Hanover County. As growth and development continue within the City
of Wilmington and the County, water quality has been increasingly threatened due to many
factors including aging infrastructure, increased impervious surface area and subsequent
stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the County’s population in 2012 was estimated to be 206,359
and is expected to grow at a rate of 1.2% over the next 5 years (NC Division of Commerce,
Labor, and Economic Analysis Division, 2013). To address these issues that impact water
quality, the County, since 1993, has administered a long-standing water quality monitoring
program designed to assess the water quality within the creeks located within the County.
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. began monitoring seven (7) tidal creeks
within New Hanover County on a monthly basis in November 2007. The information presented
in this report represents the results of this monitoring between the months of July 2013 and June
2014. The creeks included in this study are Pages and Futch Creek, which drain into the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and Lords, Motts, Barnards, Smith, and Prince Georges Creek,
which drain into the Cape Fear River (Figure 1) (Table 1). Thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19)
sampling sites were previously monitored by the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. In
order to assess any changes to historical trends within individual sites and entire watersheds, data
provided by UNCW has been analyzed and incorporated into the results and discussion section
of this report. Photographs of each sampling site are found in Appendix A.
2
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 1. List of Sampling Sites
Creek Name Site Name Site Code Latitude Longitude
Motts Creek Carolina Beach Road MOT-CBR 34° 08.610 77° 53.830
Motts Creek Normandy Drive MOT-ND 34° 08.373 77° 54.580
Lords Creek River Road LC-RR 34° 05.185 77° 55.275
Barnards Creek Carolina Beach Road BC-CBR 34° 09.522 77° 54.712
Smith Creek Castle Hayne Road SC-CH 34° 15.541 77° 56.325
Smith Creek 23rd Street SC-23 34° 15.472 77° 55.178
Smith Creek Candlewood Drive SC-CD 34° 17.438 77° 51.332
Smith Creek North Kerr SC-NK 34° 15.744 77° 53.256
Smith Creek Gordon Road SC-GR 34° 16.639 77° 52.037
Prince Georges Creek Marathon Landing PG-ML 34° 21.088 77° 55.349
Prince Georges Creek Castle Hayne Road PG-CH 34° 20.675 77° 54.217
Prince Georges Creek North College PG-NC 34° 20.331 77° 53.607
Futch Creek 4 FC-4 34° 18.068 77° 44.760
Futch Creek 6 FC-6 34° 18.178 77° 45.038
Futch Creek 13 FC-13 34° 18.214 77° 45.451
Futch Creek Foy Branch FC-FOY 34° 18.405 77° 45.358
Pages Creek Mouth PC-M 34° 16.209 77° 46.270
Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Down Stream PC-BDDS 34° 16.685 77° 47.673
Pages Creek Bayshore Drive Up Stream PC-BDUS 34° 16.623 77° 48.104
3
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 1. Map of New Hanover County and watersheds included in this study
The State of North Carolina has employed a series of classifications that apply to all waters in
the State including streams, rivers, and lakes (NC Administrative Code, section 15A NCAC 2B
.0200). These classifications are meant to protect the specified uses within waterbodies. These
include aquatic life survival and reproduction, secondary recreation, primary recreation,
shellfishing, and water supply. The classifications that apply to the creeks examined in this
study are:
4
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
C Sw: Freshwater that is protected for aquatic life and secondary recreation uses. The
“Sw” supplemental classification indicates that these are swamp waters, and so are likely
to have lower dissolved oxygen and pH than non-swamp streams due to natural
conditions. However, a majority of the sites, including Lords Creek, Motts Creek,
Barnards Creek, Smith Creek, and Prince Georges Creek, designated as C Sw by the
State, are tidally influenced and have a brackish salinity range.
SA: Saline water bodies that are protected for shellfishing uses. This use requires a more
stringent standard for fecal coliform. Areas protected for shellfishing are also subject to
the protection requirements for the less stringent classifications of SC and SB, which
include aquatic life, secondary recreation, and primary recreation. This designation
applies to Futch Creek and Pages Creek.
1.1 Parameters
Physical, chemical, and biological water quality monitoring data are currently being collected for
this study. Physical parameters include temperature, salinity, conductivity, pH, turbidity, and
dissolved oxygen. Chemical parameters monitored in this study include orthophosphate and
nitrate/nitrite. Biological parameters include Chlorophyll-a and two suites of fecal indicator
bacteria: Enterococci and fecal coliform bacteria. Due to limited funding, fecal coliform
samples were only collected from sampling sites located within Futch Creek and Pages Creek.
Temperature:
Thermal pollution can result in significant changes to the aquatic environment. Most aquatic
organisms are adapted to survive within a specific temperature range. Thermal pollution may
also increase the extent to which fish are vulnerable to toxic compounds, parasites, and disease.
If temperatures reach extremes of heat or cold, few organisms will survive.
Thermal pollution may be caused by stormwater runoff from warm surfaces such as streets and
parking lots. Soil erosion is another cause, since it can cause cloudy conditions in a water body.
Cloudy water absorbs the sun's rays, resulting in a rise in water temperature. Thermal pollution
may even be caused by the removal of trees and vegetation which normally shade the water
body. In addition to the direct effects of thermal pollution on aquatic life, there are numerous
indirect effects. Thermal pollution results in lowered levels of dissolved oxygen, since cooler
water can hold more oxygen than warmer water.
Salinity:
Salinity is a measure of the amount of sodium chloride ions dissolved in water. This is important
to monitor since changes in the levels of salt concentration can impact the ability of salt sensitive
species to survive. An estuary, such as the lower Cape Fear River, usually exhibits a gradual
change in salinity throughout its length, as freshwater entering the estuary from tributaries mixes
with seawater moving in from the ocean. Salinity levels control, to a large degree, the types of
plants and animals that can live in different zones of the estuary. Freshwater species may be
restricted to the upper reaches of the estuary, while marine species inhabit the estuarine mouth.
Some species tolerate only intermediate levels of salinity while broadly adapted species can
acclimate to any salinity ranging from freshwater to seawater.
5
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Conductivity:
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current.
Similar to salinity, it measures the amount of dissolved ions (including sodium chloride) in the
water.
pH:
The pH of water is a measurement of the concentration of H+ ions, using a scale that ranges from
0 to 14. Natural water usually has a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. While there are natural variations
in pH, many pH variations are due to human influences. Unanticipated decreases in pH could be
indications of acid rain, runoff from acidic soils, or contamination by agricultural chemicals.
Turbidity:
Turbidity is the amount of particulate matter that is suspended in water. Turbidity measures the
scattering effect that suspended solids have on light: the higher the intensity of scattered light,
the higher the turbidity. During a rainstorm, particles from the surrounding land are washed into
the river making the water a muddy brown color, indicating higher turbidity.
Dissolved Oxygen:
Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the volume of oxygen that is contained in water. Oxygen enters
the water as rooted aquatic plants and algae undergo photosynthesis and as oxygen is transferred
across the air-water interface. The amount of oxygen that can be held by the water depends on
the water temperature, salinity, and pressure.
Rapidly moving water, such as in a flowing stream, tends to contain a lot of dissolved oxygen,
while stagnant water contains little. Oxygen levels are also affected by the diurnal (daily) cycle.
Plants, such as rooted aquatic plants and algae produce excess oxygen during the daylight hours
when they are photosynthesizing. During the dark hours they must use oxygen for life processes.
Bacteria in water can consume oxygen as organic matter decays. Thus, excess organic material
in waterbodies can cause oxygen deficits. Aquatic life can become stressed or die in stagnant
water containing high levels of rotting, organic material in it, especially in summer, when
dissolved-oxygen levels are at a seasonal low.
Chlorophyll-a:
Chlorophyll-a is a green pigment found in plants. It absorbs sunlight and converts it to sugar
during photosynthesis. Chlorophyll-a concentrations are an indicator of phytoplankton
abundance and biomass in coastal and estuarine waters. High levels often indicate an algal
bloom which can induce the depletion of oxygen in the water column due to the microbial
degradation of plant cells. Chlorophyll-a concentrations are often higher after rainfall,
particularly if the rain has flushed nutrients into the water. Higher chlorophyll-a levels are also
common during the summer months when water temperatures and light levels are high because
these conditions lead to greater phytoplankton numbers.
Enterococci:
Enterococci are distinguished from fecal coliform bacteria by their ability to survive in saltwater,
and in this respect they more closely mimic many pathogens than do the other indicators.
Enterococci are typically more human-specific than the larger fecal streptococcus group. EPA
6
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
recommends Enterococci as the best indicator of health risk in saltwater used for recreation and
as a useful indicator in freshwater as well. In 2004, Enterococci took the place of fecal coliform
as the new federal standard for water quality at public beaches. It is believed to provide a higher
correlation than fecal coliform with many of the human pathogens often found in sewage (Jeng,
et al., 2004). Results indicated that Enterococci might be a more stable indicator than fecal
coliform and, consequently, a more conservative indicator under brackish water conditions.
Ammonia:
Sewage is the main source of ammonia added by humans to rivers. The ammonia arises mostly
from the hydrolysis of urea in urine, but additional ammonia is generated by the decomposition
of other nitrogenous materials in sewage. In a flowing stream, the presence of ammonia in high
concentrations indicates recent pollution suggesting that sewage may be entering the water
somewhere in the vicinity. With this in mind, samples that resulted in high levels of enterococci
bacteria were further analyzed for the quantification of ammonia levels. A site containing high
levels of both parameters would provide a high likelihood of direct sewage contamination.
1.2 Standards
Water quality standards have been established legislatively for a number of these parameters
(Table 2). Many of the water quality standards are described in the NC Administrative Code,
section 15A NCAC 2H .0100. The water quality standards for Enterococci bacteria are
described by the US EPA (US EPA, 1986) and in the NC Administrative Code, section 15A
NCAC 18A .3402. The US EPA standards for Enterococci bacteria are based on incidents of
gastrointestinal illness following contact with bathing waters. Bacterial contamination is
quantified by “colony forming units” or CFU. Single sample maximum allowable Enterococci
density is 104 CFU/100ml, 158 CFU/100ml, 276 CFU/100ml, and 501 CFU/100ml for
designated beach areas, swimming areas with moderate to full body contact, lightly used full
body contact swimming areas, and infrequently used full body contact swimming areas,
respectively (Table 3). When at least five samples are collected within a 30 day period, the US
EPA recommends utilizing a geometric mean standard of 35 CFU/100ml. Geometric means are
often useful summaries for highly skewed data, as are often found with bacteriological datasets.
The North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program (RWQ) adopted similar standards for
Enterococci bacteria, also determined by the frequency of swimming activity. As defined by
RWQ, Tier I swimming areas are used daily during the swimming season, Tier II swimming
areas are used three days a week during the swimming season, and Tier III swimming areas are
used on average four days a month during the swimming season. Single sample standards for
Tiers I, II, and III are 104 CFU/100ml, 276 CFU/100ml, and 500 CFU/100ml, respectively
(Table 4). A geometric mean of 35 CFU/100ml within Tier I swimming areas may also be
utilized if at least five samples are collected within 30 days. The creeks included in this study
have not been classified within the RWQ tier system; however an analysis of accessibility as an
indicator of swimming and boating usage has been performed (Table 5). Based on this analysis,
of the nineteen (19) sampling sites, two (2) could be considered Tier II and seventeen (17) could
be considered Tier III.
7
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 2. North Carolina Water Quality Standards
Parameter Standard for SA Waters Standard for C Sw Waters
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/l 4.0 mg/la
Turbidity 25 NTU 50 NTU
pH 6.8-8.5 6.0-9.0b
Chlorophyll-a 40.0 ug/l 40.0 ug/l
Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <14 CFU/100ml; or 10%
of samples <43 CFU/100ml
Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <200 CFU/100ml; or single
sample <400 CFU/100ml
Enterococci c Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <35 CFU/100ml
Geometric Mean (5 samples within
30 days) <35 CFU/100ml
(a) Swamp waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions (b) For swamp streams, pH may be as low as 4.3 if caused by natural conditions (c) See Table 4 for single sample standards based off the tiered system employed by NC DENR Recreational Water
Quality Program
Table 3. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the US EPA
Single sample maximum
Designated beach areas < 104 CFU/100ml
Swimming areas with moderate full body contact < 158 CFU/100ml
Lightly used full body contact swimming areas < 276 CFU/100ml
Infrequently used full body contact swimming areas < 501 CFU/100ml
Table 4. Single sample standards for Enterococci as determined by the NC DENR
Recreational Water Quality Program
Single sample maximum
Tier I, swimming areas used daily during the
swimming season <104 CFU/100ml
Tier II, swimming areas used three days a week
during the swimming season <276 CFU/100ml
Tier III, swimming areas used on average four days
a month during the swimming season <500 CFU/100ml
Table 5. Tier Classification for New Hanover County Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Site Name
Proposed
Tier
Classification
Accessible
for
Boating or
Swimming Comments
MOT-CBR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
MOT-ND Tier III No Adjacent to small bridge on Normandy Drive
LC-RR Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on River Road
BC-CBR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert off Carolina Beach Road
SC-CH Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on Castle Hayne Road
SC-23 Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on 23rd Street
8
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
SC-CD Tier III No Narrow, shallow. Adjacent to Candlewood Drive
SC-NK Tier III No Adjacent to bridge on North Kerr
SC-GR Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on Gordon Road
PG-ML Tier III No Small boat launch site on private property
PG-CH Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on Castle Hayne Road
PG-NC Tier III No Adjacent to culvert on North College Road
FC-4 Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC-6 Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC-13 Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
FC-FOY Tier III No No clear access points (no docks on Foy branch)
PC-M Tier II Yes Direct access via docks and boat ramp at Pages Creek Marina
PC-BDDS Tier III No Private docks are the only means of direct access
PC-BDUS Tier II Yes Public boat ramp off Bayshore Drive
2.0 METHODS
The seven creeks included in this study were selected by County staff and individual sampling
sites were selected by County staff in consultation with Coastal Planning & Engineering of North
Carolina, Inc. These seven creeks are primarily located in the unincorporated portion of New
Hanover County. Sampling sites were accessed from land, generally near a bridge or culvert
crossing, or by boat. Each site was sampled one time per month during a high ebb tide. Tides
were determined utilizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
Tides and Currents website (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/).
Due to time constraints, monthly sampling events were conducted on three subsequent days each
month. Lords Creek, Motts Creek, and Barnards Creek were visited on the first sampling day
while Smith Creek and Prince Georges Creek were visited the second day. Futch Creek and
Pages Creek were visited on the third day. Rainfall totals for the 24 hours prior to each sampling
event were obtained from observations recorded at Wilmington International Airport as reported
by NOAA’s National Weather Service web site (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/RAH/RTPRAH).
2.1 Physical Parameters
All physical measurements (temperature, salinity, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and
pH) were taken in situ utilizing a 6820 YSI Multiparameter Water Quality Probe linked to a YSI
650 MDS display unit. The YSI Probe was calibrated each day prior to use. Physical
measurements were taken from the surface at all sites (depth = 0.1m) and near the creek bottom
at sites with depths greater than 0.5m. Following each sampling trip, the YSI Probe was post-
calibrated following each sampling date to ensure that the physical parameters measured were
within an acceptable range.
2.2 Biological Parameters
Water samples were obtained for the laboratory analysis of biological (Enterococci and
Chlorophyll-a) parameters. These grab samples were collected in sterile bottles during a high
ebb tide from the surface at each site (depth = 0.1m). Water samples were placed on ice
9
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
immediately following collection and were delivered in coolers to Environmental Chemists, Inc.
of Wilmington, North Carolina for analysis. All analyses performed by Environmental
Chemists, Inc. were conducted utilizing the following standard EPA approved methods:
Chlorophyll-a: SM 10200H
Enterococci: EnterolertE
2.3 Chemical Parameters
One chemical parameter, ammonia, was measured from sampling sites that contained
enterococci levels above the designated standard during seven months of monitoring. Ammonia
samples were collected, placed on ice, and treated with several drops of sulphuric acid to bring
the ph to ~2.0. Samples were then delivered to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority for
analysis using standard methods.
3.0 RESULTS
The results described in this report represent the physical, biological, and chemical data collected
from all sampling sites on a monthly basis between July 2013 and June 2014. These results are
primarily organized by watershed. All raw data, including parameters not summarized in this
section, are included in Appendix B.
3.1 Ammonia
Ammonia samples were collected during seven (7) months during this study between the months
of August and February. All samples contained <0.1 mg/l, which was below detectable levels.
3.2 Rating System
In order to provide a quick-glance assessment of the water quality within a particular sampling
station or watershed, a rating system for a number of parameters has been employed. This
quantitative system assigns a rating of “GOOD”, “FAIR”, or “POOR” to a sampling station
depending on the percentage of samples exceeding the State standard for dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, Chlorophyll-a, Enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria. If the recorded value of a
parameter exceeds the State standard less than 10% of the times sampled, the station will receive
a “good” rating for the parameter. A “fair” rating is assigned when a parameter exceeds the State
standard 11-25% of the times sampled. Parameters measured that exceed the State standard
more than 25% of the sampling times are given a “poor” rating.
3.3 Barnards Creek
The Barnards Creek watershed includes 4,953 acres and is located in the southwestern portion of
the County, just along the City line. The watershed drains portions of Carolina Beach Road at its
headwaters and flows towards River Road before entering into the Cape Fear River. Zoning
within the watershed is comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses. The land is
classified as a mix of transition, urban, and conservation according to the CAMA land use plan.
This watershed contains approximately 16.9% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009).
Sampling was conducted at one site (BC-CBR) within the Barnards Creek watershed (Figure 2).
10
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Dissolved oxygen within BC-CBR ranged between 1.9 mg/l and 10.2 mg/l with a mean value of
6.2 mg/l (Table 6). These values were within an acceptable level above the State standard of 4.0
mg/l for C Sw waters during all sampling events at both the surface and near the bottom of the
water column with the exception of samples collected in May and June 2014 (Figure 3).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 6.0 ug/l with a mean value of 2.0 ug/l at BC-CBR
(Table 6). These values did not approach the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 31 CFU/100ml and 518 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 109 CFU/100ml, which is below the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters
(Figure 4, Table 6). Only one (1) of the twelve (12) samples collected during this period
exceeded this standard.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 1 and 21 NTU with a mean value of 8
NTU (Table 6). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C SW waters.
Table 7 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 2. Water Quality Sites within the Barnards Creek Watershed
11
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 6. Mean values of select parameters from Barnards Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter BC-CBR
Turbidity (NTU) 8 (1-21)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.2 (1.9-10.7)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 2.0 (1.0-6.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 109 (31-518)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 3. Dissolved Oxygen at BC-CBR
Figure 4. Enterococci at BC-CBR
12
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 7. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Barnards Creek
Parameter BC-CBR
Turbidity GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci GOOD
3.4 Futch Creek
Futch Creek is located on the New Hanover-Pender County line and drains into the Intracoastal
Waterway. The Futch Creek watershed encompasses approximately 3,136 acres extending from
Scotts Hill Loop Road and Highway 17 on the north and east, to Porters Neck Road on the south.
Zoning within the Futch Creek watershed is predominately residential with a small business
district along Highway 17. The land within the Futch Creek watershed is classified as watershed
resource protection or transition in the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains
approximately 11.0% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at
four (4) sites (FC-4, FC-6, FC-13, and FC-FOY) within the Futch Creek watershed (Figure 5).
Dissolved oxygen within Futch Creek ranged between 4.0 mg/l and 10.4 mg/l with a mean value
of 6.9 mg/l (Figures 6-9, Table 8).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 14.0 ug/l with a mean value of 3.0 ug/l (Table 8).
None of these values approached the 40ug/l Chlorophyll-a standard.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 9139 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 21 CFU/100ml. Five (5) samples collected within Futch Creek exceeded the NCDENR
Enterococci standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters (Figures 10-13, Table 8).
Turbidity values were generally low ranging between 0 and 34 NTU with a mean value of 5
NTU (Table 8). One observation exceeded the State standard of 25 NTU for SA waters.
Table 9 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
13
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 5. Water Quality Sites within the Futch Creek Watershed
Table 8. Mean values of select parameters from Futch Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter FC-4 FC-6 FC-13 FC-FOY
Turbidity
(NTU) 3 (0-6) 3 (0-7) 7 (0-34) 7 (0-26)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/l) 7.3 (4.9-10.5) 7.1 (4.1-10.4) 6.6 (3.6-10.1) 6.7 (3.5-10.5)
Chlorophyll-a
(ug/l) 3.0 (1.0-5.0) 3.0 (1.0-5.0) 5.0 (1.0-14.0) 3.0 (1.0-6.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml) 17 (5-1467)1 16 (5-2367)1 26 (5-9139)1 26 (5-3300)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
14
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 6. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-4
Figure 7. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-6
Figure 8. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-13
15
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 9. Dissolved Oxygen at FC-FOY
Figure 10. Enterococci at FC-4
Figure 11. Enterococci at FC-6
16
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 12. Enterococci at FC-13
Figure 13. Enterococci at FC-FOY
Table 9. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Futch Creek
Parameter FC-4 FC-6 FC-13 FC-FOY
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD POOR POOR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD
3.5 Lords Creek
The Lords Creek Watershed is located in the southwestern portion of the County and
encompasses approximately 3,047 acres. Zoning within the watershed is completely residential.
This watershed contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009).
According to the CAMA land use plan, the land in the watershed is classified as a mix of
conservation, transition, watershed resource protection and a small natural heritage resource
protection designation. Sampling was conducted at one (1) site (LC-RR) within the Lords Creek
watershed (Figure 14).
17
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Dissolved oxygen LC-RR ranged between 4.4 mg/l and 11.4 mg/l with a mean value of 7.4 mg/l
(Table 10). All surface samples were within an acceptable level above the State standard of 4.0
mg/l for C Sw waters during both the surface and near the bottom of the water column (Figure
15).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 3.0 ug/l and 24.0 ug/l with a mean value of 8.0 ug/l (Table 10).
No samples exceeded the State standard of 40ug/l for Chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 563 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value of
59 CFU/100ml (Table 10). One sample contained high levels of Enterococci beyond the
NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml for Tier III waters.
Turbidity values were generally moderate ranging between 4 and 27 NTU with a mean value of
10 NTU (Table 10). No observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw waters in
Lords Creek during the study period.
Table 11 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 14. Water Quality Site within the Lords Creek Watershed
18
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 10. Mean values of select parameters from Lords Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity (NTU) 10 (4-27)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 7.4 (4.4-11.4)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 8 (3.0-24.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 59 (5-563)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 15. Dissolved Oxygen at LC-RR
Figure 16. Enterococci Levels at LC-RR
Table 11. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Lords Creek
Parameter LC-RR
Turbidity GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD
Enterococci GOOD
19
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
3.6 Motts Creek
Motts Creek watershed encompasses approximately 2,389 acres and is located in the
southwestern portion of the County, just below Sanders Road. The Creek drains portions of
Carolina Beach Road at its headwaters and then drains toward River Road before entering into
the Cape Fear River. Zoning in the watershed is predominately residential with commercial
business districts along Carolina Beach Road. Land in the watershed is classified as transition,
conservation or wetland resource protection according to the CAMA land use plan. This
watershed contains approximately 12.6% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling
was conducted at two (2) sites (MOT-CBR, MOT-ND) within the Motts Creek watershed
(Figure 17).
Dissolved oxygen within Motts Creek ranged between 3.0 mg/l and 10.3 mg/l with a mean value
of 6.5 mg/l (Figures 18 and 19, Table 12).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 83.0 ug/l with a mean value of 6.0 ug/l (Table 12).
Only one sample exceeded the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 31 CFU/100ml and 1300 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 345 CFU/100ml (Table 12). MOT-CBR exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500 CFU/100ml
for Tier III waters during five (5) of the twelve (12) times it was sampled. MOT-ND exceeded
this standard six (6) of the twelve (12) sample events (Figures 20 and 21).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 2 and 21 NTU with a mean value of 8
NTU (Table 12). No turbidity observations exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw
waters.
Table 13 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
20
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 17. Water Quality Sites within the Motts Creek Watershed
Table 12. Mean values of select parameters from Motts Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter MOT-CBR MOT-ND
Turbidity (NTU) 8 (2-21) 8 (3-14)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.3 (3.0-10.6) 6.7 (4.2-10.3)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 3.0 (1.0-6.0) 9.0 (1.0-83.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 335 (74-1047)1 402 (31-1300)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
21
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 18. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-CBR
Figure 19. Dissolved Oxygen at MOT-ND
Figure 20. Enterococci at MOT-CBR
22
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 21. Enterococci at MOT-ND
Table 13. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Motts Creek
Parameter MOT-CBR MOT-ND
Turbidity GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen FAIR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR
3.7 Pages Creek
Located in northeastern New Hanover County and encompassing 2,044 acres, Pages Creek
watershed drains into the Intracoastal Waterway, north of Middle Sound Loop Road. Zoning
within the Pages Creek watershed is predominately residential, with commercial zoning along
Highway 17. The land within the Pages Creek watershed is predominately classified as
watershed resource protection and conservation, with a small portion classified as transitional
according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed contains approximately 23.2%
impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was conducted at three (3) sites (PC-
BDDS, PC-BDUS, and PC-M) within the Motts Creek watershed (Figure 22).
Dissolved oxygen within Pages Creek ranged between 2.9 mg/l and 10.0 mg/l with a mean value
of 6.5 mg/ (Table 14) (Figures 23 through 25).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 60.0 ug/l with a mean value of 9.0 ug/l (Table 14).
One (1) sample exceeded the State standard of 40 ug/l for chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 24196 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 243 CFU/100ml (Figures 26-28, Table 14). While samples collected from PC-M did not
contain high levels of Enterococci, ten (10) and seven (7) samples from PC-BDDS and PC-
BDUS, respectively, contained levels higher than the NCDENR standards.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 27 NTU with a mean value of 7
NTU (Table 14). Only one of the observed turbidity values exceeded the State standard of 25
NTU for class SA waters.
23
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 15 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 22. Water Quality Sites within the Pages Creek Watershed
24
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 14. Mean values of select parameters from Pages Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter PC-BDUS PC-BDDS PC-M
Turbidity (NTU) 10(0-21) 7 (1-27) 4 (0-13)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 5.9 (2.9-8.4) 6.5 (4.3-9.4) 7.3 (4.6-10.0)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 10 (1.0-34.0) 14 (1.0-60.0) 2.0 (1.0-4.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 544 (20-24196)1 2041 (10-19863)1 13 (5-410)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 23. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDDS
Figure 24. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-BDUS
25
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 25. Dissolved Oxygen at PC-M
Figure 26. Enterococci at PC-BDDS
Figure 27. Enterococci at PC-BDUS
26
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 28. Enterococci at PC-M
Table 15. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Pages Creek
Parameter PC-BDDS PC-BDUS PC-M
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR GOOD
3.8 Prince Georges
Prince Georges Creek drains into the Cape Fear River. The Prince Georges Creek watershed is
approximately 14,589 acres and drains most of Castle Hayne, extending eastward across I-40
into the Blue Clay Road area. Zoning within the Prince Georges Creek watershed is
predominately residential with some business and light industrial districts within Castle Hayne.
Most of the land within the Prince Georges Creek watershed is classified as aquifer resource
protection, conservation or transition according to the CAMA land use plan. This watershed
contains approximately 10.1% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009). Sampling was
conducted at three (3) sites (PG-CH, PG-ML, and PG-NC) within the Prince Georges Creek
watershed (Figure 29).
Dissolved oxygen within Prince Georges Creek ranged between 0.2 mg/l and 11.8 mg/l with a
mean value of 4.1 mg/l (Table 16). Surface dissolved oxygen values at PG-CH and PG-NC were
below the State standard of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw during seven (7) and eight (8) sampling events,
respectively. PG-ML was below the standard on six (6) occasions (Figures 30 through 32).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 1.0 ug/l and 23.0 ug/l with a mean value of 4.0 ug/l (Table 16).
No samples from PG-CH exceeded the 40ug/l standard.
Enterococci ranged between 5 CFU/100ml and 4884 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 166 CFU/100ml (Table 16). During this study, five (5) and four (4) samples from PG-CH and
PG-ML, respectively, contained Enterococci levels above the NCDENR standard of 500
CFU/100ml for Tier III waters. Two (2) samples from PG-NC exceeded this value during the
same time period (Figures 33 through 35).
27
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 44 NTU with a mean value of 9
NTU (Table 16). No observed turbidity values exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for C Sw
waters.
Table 17 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 29. Water Quality Sites within the Prince Georges Creek Watershed
28
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 16. Mean values of select parameters from Prince Georges Creek.
Range in parentheses.
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity (NTU) 11(2-32) 3 (0-9) 14 (0-44)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 4.4 (1.5-10.9) 5.2 (2.7-11.8) 2.7 (0.2-10.9)
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) 5.0(1.0-23.0) 3.0 (1.0-6.0) 5.0 (1.0-14.0)
Enterococci (#CFU/100ml) 341 (41-2,450)1 175 (20-1,414)1 76 (5-4,884)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 30. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-CH
Figure 31. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-ML
29
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 32. Dissolved Oxygen at PG-NC
Figure 33. Enterococci at PG-CH
Figure 34. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform at PG-ML
30
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 35. Enterococci at PG-NC
Table 17. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Prince Georges Creek
Parameter PG-CH PG-ML PG-NC
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen POOR POOR POOR
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci POOR POOR FAIR
3.9 Smith Creek
Located in north-central New Hanover County and containing approximately 14,665 acres, the
Smith Creek watershed drains into the lower northeast Cape Fear River, just north of the Isabelle
Holmes Bridge. The watershed drains land within the City limits and the unincorporated
County, including the Wilmington International Airport. Zoning within the Smith Creek
watershed is a mix of industrial, residential, and commercial. The land within the watershed is
predominately classified as urban and transition, with a small portion classified as conservation.
This watershed contains approximately 21.9% impervious surface coverage (Hume, 2009).
Along with increased development and impervious surfaces, water quality in Smith Creek has
declined in recent years. High bacteria levels have been reported, as well as low dissolved
oxygen levels. As a result, Smith Creek has been listed on the 303(d) list for impaired waters
due to impaired biological integrity. Sampling was conducted at five (5) sites (SC-CH, SC-23,
SC-NK, SC-GR, SC-CD) within the Smith Creek watershed (Figure 36).
Dissolved oxygen within the creek ranged between 1.3 mg/l and 11.5 mg/l with a mean value of
6.9 mg/l (Table 18). Dissolved oxygen levels within SC-CH, SC-NK, and SC-23 fell below
State standard of 4.0 mg/l for C Sw waters on one occasion while SC-GR was below this
standard on three (3) occasions (Figures 37 through 41).
Chlorophyll-a ranged between 0.0 ug/l and 25.0 ug/l with a mean value of 6.0 ug/l (Table 18).
No samples exceeded the State Standard for chlorophyll-a.
Enterococci ranged between 10 CFU/100ml and 6,867 CFU/100ml with a geometric mean value
of 172 CFU/100ml (Table 18). A number of samples exceeded the NCDENR standard of 500
31
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
CFU/100ml for Tier III waters including four (4) from SC-CD, SC-GR, and SC-NK and one (1)
sample from both SC-CH and SC-23 exceeded the standard (Figures 42 through 46).
Turbidity values were generally good ranging between 0 and 62 NTU with a mean value of 10
NTU (Table 18). One observation exceeded the State standard of 50 NTU for SW class C
waters.
Table 19 depicts the ratings for these parameters for the watershed.
Figure 36. Water Quality Sites within the Smith Creek Watershed
32
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 18. Mean values of select parameters from Smith Creek. Range in parentheses.
Parameter SC-23 SC-CD SC-CH SC-GR SC-NK
Turbidity
(NTU) 12 (4-26) 4 (0-29) 20 (3-62) 9 (0-37) 4 (1-8)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/l) 7.2 (4.1-10.4) 8.4 (6.6-10.4) 7.6 (3.6-11.4) 8.1 (6.5-9.8) 6.7 (3.9-11.1)
Chlorophyll-a
(ug/l) 9.0 (2.0-23.0) 2.0 (0.0-12.0) 4.0 (1.0-13.0) 3.0 (1.0-13.0) 12.0 (2.0-43.0)
Enterococci
(#CFU/100ml) 189 (41-1,333)1 1362 (143-60,000)1 267 (41-2200)1 1217 (179-2420)1 483 (136-3100)1
(1)Enterococci values expressed as geometric mean
Figure 37. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-23
Figure 38. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CD
33
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 39. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-CH
Figure 40. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-GR
Figure 41. Dissolved Oxygen at SC-NK
34
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 42. Enterococci at SC-23
Figure 43. Enterococci at SC-CD
Figure 44. Enterococci at SC-CH
35
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 45. Enterococci at SC-GR
Figure 46. Enterococci at SC-NK
Table 19. Ratings of parameters within sampling stations within Smith Creek
Parameter SC-23 SC-CD SC-CH SC-GR SC-NK
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD GOOD GOOD FAIR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD POOR GOOD POOR POOR
3.10 Comprehensive Rating by Watershed
When combining all results from each site within individual watersheds, it is possible to obtain a
“snapshot” of water quality within each watershed (Table 20). As displayed in the table below,
turbidity and chlorophyll-a were determined to be “good” within all watersheds throughout the
study period. Dissolved oxygen was deemed to be “good” in all creeks with the exception of
Prince Georges Creek and Futch Creek where their levels, on average, was considered to be
“poor" and “fair”, respectively. Enterococci was problematic within three (3) of these
watersheds- Motts Creek, Pages Creek, and Prince Georges Creek. On the other hand, Futch
Creek, Barnards Creek, and Lords Creek were deemed “good” for enterococci.
36
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Table 20. Ratings of parameters within each watershed
Parameter Barnards
Creek
Futch
Creek
Lords
Creek
Motts
Creek
Pages
Creek
Prince
Georges
Creek
Smith
Creek
Turbidity GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Dissolved Oxygen GOOD FAIR GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR GOOD
Chlorophyll-a GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Enterococci GOOD GOOD GOOD POOR POOR POOR FAIR
3.11 Long Term Trends
Water quality data has been collected within New Hanover County since the mid 1990’s.
Several of the historical monitoring sites continue to be utilized for the ongoing monitoring
effort. In order to assess the long term trends in water quality, a database has been created to
include the data collected within the seven (7) tidal creeks under current investigation. Prior to
2007, UNCW collected data within three (3) of the tidal creeks included in the present study.
These include Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Smith Creek. Accordingly, the data from these
three creeks dating to 2004 has been incorporated in the analysis of long term trends. The long
term trends from the remaining creeks (Motts Creek, Lords Creek, Prince Georges Creek, and
Barnards Creek) have been derived from data obtained between November 2007 and June 2014.
For each parameter examined, data was plotted on a line graph over time and a trend line was
created. Trend lines, also known as regression lines, can be used as a way of visually depicting
the relationship between the independent (x) and dependent (y) variables in the graph. In this
case the independent variable is time and the dependent variable is the water quality parameter.
A trend in water quality is defined as an increase or decrease in a particular constituent
concentration over time. Statistical analysis was not performed; therefore the significance of
these long term trends should be interpreted with caution.
3.11.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Figures 47-53 depicts the long term trends in dissolved oxygen within the seven (7) creeks
examined within this study. The figures illustrate a distinct seasonal pattern including higher
dissolved oxygen during the cooler winter months and lower dissolved oxygen during the
warmer summer months. Generally speaking, the dissolved oxygen levels within each creek
have not changed drastically from year to year. The apparent increasing trend line associated
with Smith Creek is not necessarily representative of an actual improvement in dissolved oxygen
levels due to the fact that sampling was only conducted seasonally between 2004 and 2006
thereby skewing the data. Since 2007, dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the State standard
within surface samples 33%, 23%, 20%, and 10% of the time within Prince Georges Creek,
Pages Creek, Futch Creek, and Smith Creek, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels were better
within Motts Creek and Lords Creek as these creeks exceeded the dissolved oxygen standard
eight (8%) and four (4%) of the time. Barnards Creek breached the standard only three (3%) of
the times sampled.
37
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 47. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Barnards Creek
Figure 48. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Futch Creek
38
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 49. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Lords Creek
Figure 50. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Motts Creek
39
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 51. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Pages Creek
Figure 52. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Prince Georges Creek
40
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 53. Long term surface dissolved oxygen data within Smith Creek
3.11.2 Turbidity
Figures 54-60 depict the long term trends in turbidity within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. In general, the long term trend of turbidity has remained fairly constant within
each creek on an annual basis, however seasonal patterns emerge. This includes higher turbidity
observations during the warmer months and lower turbidity during the cooler months. The
trends within Futch Creek, Lords Creek, Motts Creek, and Smith Creek have demonstrated a
slight decrease in turbidity over time while turbidity in Prince Georges Creek has increased
slightly. Turbidity within Barnards Creek and Pages Creek have maintained roughly the same
level of turbidity since 2007, however, these long term turbidity trends have not been verified to
be statistically significant. Turbidity has remained within the State standard within all sampling
sites included within this long term analysis.
Figure 54. Long term surface turbidity data within Barnards Creek
41
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 55. Long term surface turbidity data within Futch Creek
Figure 56. Long term surface turbidity data within Lords Creek
42
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 57. Long term surface turbidity data within Motts Creek
Figure 58. Long term surface turbidity data within Pages Creek
43
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 59. Long term surface turbidity data within Prince Georges Creek
Figure 60. Long term surface turbidity data within Smith Creek
3.11.3 Chlorophyll-a
Figures 61-67 depict the long term trends in chlorophyll-a within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. In general, the long term trend of turbidity has remained fairly constant within
each creek. Similar to the trend observed with dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a levels appear to
increase during the warmer months and decrease during the cooler months. Since sampling
began, only 18 exceedences of the chlorophyll-a standard were observed of the 1,672 samples
collected.
44
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 61. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Barnards Creek
Figure 62. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Futch Creek
45
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 63. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Lords Creek
Figure 64. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Motts Creek
46
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 65. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Pages Creek
Figure 66. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Prince Georges Creek
47
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 67. Long term chlorophyll-a data within Smith Creek
3.11.4 Enterococci
Figures 68-74 depict the long term trends in Enterococci within the seven (7) creeks examined
within this study. Motts Creek, Smith Creek, Barnards Creek, and Prince Georges Creek have
all maintained a relatively high level of bacteria over time. Pages Creek, Lords Creek, and Futch
Creek contain levels of bacteria which have apparently increased within recent years. High
levels of Enterococci have persisted within all creeks over time with the exception of Lords
Creek and Futch Creek which, on average, have contained relatively lower bacteria levels
compared to the other creeks included within this study. Since November 2007, samples
collected within Motts Creek, Barnards Creek, and Smith Creek exceeded the State standard for
Enterococci 54%, 40%, and 38% of the time, respectively. Pages Creek exceeded this standard
35% of the time while Prince Georges Creek exceed the standard 30% of the time. The least
amount of exceedences were observed in Lords Creek and Futch Creek which exceeded the
standard 9% and 4%, respectively.
48
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 68. Long term Enterococci data within Barnards Creek
Figure 69. Long term Enterococci data within Futch Creek
49
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 70. Long term Enterococci data within Lords Creek
Figure 71. Long term Enterococci data within Motts Creek
50
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 72. Long term Enterococci data within Pages Creek
Figure 73. Long term Enterococci data within Prince Georges Creek
51
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 74. Long term Enterococci data within Smith Creek
4.0 DISCUSSION
Water quality is an important issue in the region due to the fact that there are many economic and
recreational opportunities that are supported by the aquatic resources in and around these
waterways. One of the greatest threats to water quality in this area is stormwater runoff created
by increased impervious surface coverage (Mallin et al., 2000). Due to many of the
contaminants found in stormwater runoff, adverse effects can be imposed upon plants, fish,
animals and people. Excess nutrients can cause algal blooms while bacteria and other pathogens
can wash into swimming areas and create health hazards. New Hanover County has experienced
rapid growth and development over the past several decades. In 1990, the population within the
County was 120,284. By 2006, the population grew over 50% to 182,591 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2006). The County’s population in 2012 was estimated to be 206,359 and is expected to grow at
a rate of 1.2% over the next 5 years (NC Division of Commerce, Labor, and Economic Analysis
Division, 2013). Along with this population growth came increased stormwater runoff, increase
in septic tanks, aging wastewater infrastructure, and other issues that potentially impacted the
water quality within the County’s creeks. Since this time, New Hanover County’s water quality
within its tidal creeks has become altered. This has led to a strong community desire for greater
protection and enhancement of surface and ground water resources. The County continues to
work toward preventing further deterioration and loss of public uses in surface water through
initiatives such as riparian buffer land acquisition projects and promoting low impact
development. With this in mind, it is important to monitor the water quality of these local
systems to determine potential impacts to both human health and ecosystem function.
Typically, water quality degrades as the water temperature increases and oxygen is not as readily
dissolved in the water column. This was observed while investigating the long term trends of
water quality in this study. The dissolved oxygen along with chlorophyll-a and turbidity levels
increased during the warmer summer months. Furthermore, longer days allow for increased
photosynthetic activity allowing for an increase in phytoplankton blooms. While often more
problematic in the summer months, algal blooms are less common in the fall and winter when
52
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
water temperature decreases. High levels of chlorophyll-a and nutrients along with increases in
pH and turbidity may indicate the presence of an algal bloom. Throughout the course of this
study, pH values were found to be within acceptable ranges as were turbidity values. The lack of
elevated pH and turbidity along with generally low chlorophyll-a levels indicate that algal
blooms were generally not a problem. In fact, no algal blooms were identified within any
sampling site during the course of this study.
Nearly one-fifth of all samples collected during the 12 month study contained dissolved oxygen
levels below the State standard. Of these 44 samples that fell below this standard (19% of all
samples), more than half (56%) were observed during June, July, and August when water
temperatures were the highest. The lowest dissolved oxygen, on average, was observed at PG-
NC where the standard was breached eight (8) of twelve (12) sampling events. This portion of
the creek is characterized by a broad shallow bank in a swamp-like setting. PG-CH and PG-ML
also contained low dissolved oxygen with seven (7) and six (6) samples containing oxygen levels
below the standard. It is typical of swamps to contain low levels of dissolved oxygen and higher
levels of pH, as observed. Therefore, the low dissolved oxygen observed in Prince Georges
Creek, particularly at PG-NC, could be regarded as a natural phenomenon. Compared to last
year, the DO levels within Pages Creek improved slightly while it had slightly decreased in
Futch Creek. Lords Creek was the only creek that did not include a sample below this level.
High levels of Enterococci bacteria persisted within three (3) of the seven (7) watersheds
throughout the study period. Enterococci levels exceeded the State standard in individual
sampling sites within Futch Creek, Smith Creek, Prince Georges Creek, Motts Creek, and Pages
Creek 10%, 23%, 31%, 42%, and 47% of the time, respectively. The sites with the most
frequent high concentrations of Enterococci bacteria were located within Pages Creek at BDDS
and BDUS (the public boat ramp) where ten (10) and seven (7) of the twelve (12) samples
obtained at each sample exceeded the State standard. Collectively, these two sampling sites in
the Bayshore neighborhood exceeded the standard 71% of the time. Samples collected at SC-GR
and PC-BDUS also contained high levels of Enterococci on a consistent basis as nine (9) of the
twelve (12) sampling events exceeded the standard. There was a slight improvement with
bacterial levels between this year’s study and last particularly within two sites- SC-CD and
MOT-ND. SC-CD exceeded the standard ten (10) times last year and only four (4) times this
year. MOT-NC also exceeded the standard ten (10) times last year but improved to only six (6)
exceedences this year. Samples collected from Barnards Creek and Lords Creek demonstrated
the best water quality in terms of bacteria with only one (1) sample from each creek containing
levels of Enterococci above the State.
In general, the water quality ratings ascribed for each creek the same between the 2012-2013
study period and this period were similar with a few exceptions. The dissolved oxygen improved
within Pages Creek from “Poor” to “Good” while in declined from “Good” to “Fair” in Futch
Creek. Meanwhile, the enterococci bacteria within Barnards Creek improved from “Poor” to
“Good”. Aside from these three changes, all other ratings within the creeks remained
unchanged.
An assessment of the past seven years of water quality monitoring has revealed some long term
trends regarding the ratings for dissolved oxygen and enterococci bacteria within each creek. In
53
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
general, the dissolved oxygen within Barnards Creek, Lords Creek, and Smith Creek has been
rated “Good” over time, with the exception of a “Fair” rating within both Lords and Smith Creek
during the 2011-2012 sampling year (Figure 75). Futch Creek has maintained a “Fair” rating for
five of the seven years with one year rated as “Poor” and one as “Good”. Motts Creek has
shown improvement over the past two years while Pages Creek seems to have improved to
“Good” after several years of “Poor” dissolved oxygen. Prince Georges Creek has maintained
"Poor" dissolved oxygen for this long term period with the exception of one “Fair” rating in
2007-2008 (Figure 75).
Figure 75. Long-term dissolved oxygen ratings
The long term trends for enterococci ratings over the past seven years have shown that a number
of creeks have basically maintained “Poor” ratings. These include Motts Creek, Pages Creek,
Prince Georges Creek, and Smith Creek. Barnards Creek and Lords Creek have demonstrated
various conditions over the past seven years while Futch Creek has maintained a “Good” rating
consistently (Figure 76).
Good
Fair
Poor
54
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Figure 76. Long-term Enterococci ratings
Good
Fair
Poor
55
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Ahmed, W., A. Goonetilleke, D. Powell and T. Gardner. 2009. Evaluation of multiple sewage-
associated Bacteroides PCR markers for sewage pollution tracking. Water Research 43(19):4872-
4877.
Bernhard, A.E. and K. G. Field. 2000. A PCR assay to discriminate human and ruminant feces on
the basis of host differences in Bacteroides-Prevotella genes encoding 16S rRNA. Applied and
environmental microbiology. 66(10):4571-4574.
Converse, R.R., J.F. Griffith, and R.T. Noble (2009) Rapid QPCR-based assays for fecal
Bacteroides and Enterococcus speciation as tools for assessing fecal contamination in
recreational waters. J Water Research. 43:4828-4837.
Grizzard, T.J., Randall, C.W., Helsel, D.R., and Hartigan, J.P. 1980. Analysis of non-point
pollution export from small catchments. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 52:
780-790.
Howarth, R.W. and Marino, R. 2006. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in
coastal marine ecosystems: Evolving views over three decades. Limnology and Oceanography,
51: 364-376.
Hume, A. 2008. Determination of Impervious Surface in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Report submitted to New Hanover County. Wilmington, North Carolina.
Jeng, J.G., Bradford, H, and Englande, A.J. 2004. "Comparison of E. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform as indicators for brackish water quality assessment". Water Environmental Research.
76: 245–55.
Kelsey, H., Porter, D.E, Scott, G., Neet, M., and White, D. 2004. Using geographic information
systems and regression analysis to evaluate relationships between land use and fecal coliform
bacterial pollution. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 298:197-209.
Kildare, B.J., C.M. Leutenegger, B.S. McSwain, D.G. Bambic, V.B. Rajal and S. Wuertz. 2007.
16S rRNA-based assays for quantitative detection of universal, human-, cow- and dog-specific
fecal Bacteroidales: a Bayesian approach. Water Research. 41(16):3701–3715.
Kwak, T.J. and Zedler, J.B. 1997. Food web analysis of southern California coastal wetlands
using multiple stable isotopes. Oecologia 110: 262–277.
Mallin, M.A.; Williams, K.E.; Esham, C.E.; and Lowe, P.R., 2000. Effect of human
development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications
10:1047-1056.
Mallin, M.A., Ensign, S.H., McIver, M.R., Shank, G.C., and Fowler, P.K. 2001. Demographic,
landscape, and meteorological factors controlling the microbial pollution of coastal waters.
Hydrobiologia. 460: 185-193.
56
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Mallin, M.A., 2010. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Aquatic Ecologist. Personal
communication regarding findings of water samples obtained within PG-NC.
NC Division of Commerce, Labor, and Economic Analysis Division. 2013. Thrive in North
Carolina, County Demographics Report.
http://accessnc.commerce.state.nc.us/docs/countyProfile/NC/37129.pdf. Last visited June 27,
2013.
Odum, W.E., Smith, T.J., Hoover, J.K., and McIvor, C.C. 1984. The Ecology of Tidal
Freshwater Marshes of the United States East Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-83/17, 177 pp.
Ricks, C., 2011. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Personal communication regarding sewage
spills in New Hanover County.
Schueler, T., 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Water Protection Technology. 1: 100-
111.
Spivey, 2008. The use of PCR and T-RFLP as a means of identifying sources of fecal bacteria
pollution in the tidal creeks of New Hanover County, North Carolina. Masters Thesis.
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. 54pp.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates, Census 2000, 1990 Census.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health effects criteria for fresh recreational
waters. EPA-600/1-84-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-
1986. EPA-440/5/84-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Wade, T. J., Sams, E., Brenner, K. P., Haugland, R., Chern, E. Beach, M., Wymer, L., Rankin,
C. C., Love, D., Li, Q., Noble, R., and A.P. Dufour. 2010. Rapidly measured indicators of
recreational water quality and swimming-associated illness at marine beaches. Journal of
Environmental Health Perspectives. 9:66-80.
APPENDIX A
Photographs of Sampling Sites
Barnards Creek at Carolina Beach Road (BC-CBR)
Futch Creek 4 (FC-4)
Futch Creek 6 (FC-6)
Futch Creek 13 (FC-13)
Futch Creek at Foy Branch (FC-FOY)
Lords Creek at River Road (LC-RR)
Motts Creek at Carolina Beach Road (MOTT-CBR)
Motts Creek at Normandy Drive (MOT-ND)
Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive Upstream (PC-BDUS)
Pages Creek at Bayshore Drive (PC-BDDS)
Pages Creek Mouth (PC-M)
Prince Georges Creek at Castle Hayne Road (PG-CH)
Prince Georges Creek at Marathon Landing (PG-ML)
Prince Georges Creek at North College Road (PG-NC)
Smith Creek at Candlewood Drive (SC-CD)
Smith Creek at Castle Hayne Road (SC-CH)
Smith Creek at 23rd Street (SC-23)
Smith Creek at North Kerr Ave. (SC-NK)
Smith Creek at Gordon Road (SC-GR)
APPENDIX B
Raw Data
Date Site Depth Temp. Cond. Salinity
DO
mg/L DO % pH Turb. Entero. Chl-a
6/10/13 LC-RR 0.1 26.4 9265 5.0 7.3 93% 7.1 17 161 21.0
6/10/13 LC-RR 1.9 26.4 9258 5.0 7.3 93% 7.1 17 N/A N/A
6/10/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 25.7 215 0.1 5.3 65% 7.0 1 2420 8.0
6/10/13 MOT-NB 0.1 25.0 212 0.1 6.0 73% 6.9 3 2420 4.0
6/10/13 BC-CBR 0.1 24.6 171 0.1 6.4 77% 7.1 0 1467 2.0
6/10/13 BC-CBR 1.8 24.4 169 0.1 6.3 75% 7.0 7 N/A N/A
6/11/13 SC-CH 0.1 26.0 198 0.1 4.8 59% 7.0 6 218 3.0
6/11/13 SC-CH 2.4 26.0 198 0.1 4.8 58% 6.9 15 N/A N/A
6/11/13 SC-23 0.1 26.7 319 0.2 4.3 54% 7.1 8 1333 13.0
6/11/13 SC-23 2.0 26.7 324 0.2 4.1 52% 7.0 9 N/A N/A
6/11/13 SC-CD 0.1 23.6 162 0.1 7.2 85% 6.7 2 1300 1.0
6/11/13 SC-NK 0.1 24.2 158 0.1 4.4 53% 6.7 3 1987 17.0
6/11/13 SC-NK 3.0 24.2 158 0.1 4.3 52% 6.7 6 N/A N/A
6/11/13 SC-GR 0.1 22.9 134 0.1 7.3 85% 6.7 2 2420 2.0
6/11/13 PG-ML 0.1 24.7 101 0.1 4.5 54% 6.7 5 2420 4.0
6/11/13 PG-CH 0.1 23.7 146 0.1 4.1 48% 6.5 1 1414 1.0
6/11/13 PG-CH 1.7 23.6 146 0.1 4.0 47% 6.4 3 N/A N/A
6/11/13 PG-NC 0.1 23.7 125 0.1 2.3 27% 6.1 2 345 3.0
6/11/13 PG-NC 3.5 23.6 132 0.1 2.5 30% 6.1 7 N/A N/A
6/12/13 FC-4 0.1 27.3 51799 32.5 6.5 98% 8.1 5 5 6.0
6/12/13 FC-4 2.0 26.9 51594 32.5 6.4 96% 8.1 11 N/A N/A
6/12/13 FC-6 0.1 27.4 51557 32.2 6.3 96% 8.1 6 41 6.0
6/12/13 FC-6 1.5 27.4 51738 32.4 6.3 95% 8.1 7 N/A N/A
6/12/13 FC-13 0.1 27.5 41310 25.0 5.5 80% 7.9 15 474 26.0
6/12/13 FC-13 0.9 27.4 41748 25.4 5.1 74% 7.9 17 N/A N/A
6/12/13 FC-FOY 0.1 27.3 42145 25.8 5.8 84% 8.0 12 226 6.0
6/12/13 FC-FOY 0.9 27.4 45250 27.8 5.7 84% 8.0 22 N/A N/A
6/12/13 PC-M 0.1 27.8 52913 33.5 6.0 88% 8.0 5 10 7.0
6/12/13 PC-M 1.1 26.0 51956 33.6 6.1 89% 8.2 20 N/A N/A
6/12/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 27.6 46873 28.8 4.4 65% 7.7 7 6488 5.0
6/12/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 28.1 41063 24.6 4.7 69% 7.7 21 960 4.0
7/8/13 LC-RR 0.1 27.5 697 0.3 4.6 59% 6.8 27 563 8.0
7/8/13 LC-RR 2.0 27.6 699 0.3 4.6 58% 6.7 32 N/A N/A
7/8/13 BC-CBR 0.1 24.2 213 0.1 5.5 66% 6.9 3 518 1.0
7/8/13 BC-CBR 1.7 24.0 213 0.1 5.3 63% 6.9 13 N/A N/A
7/8/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.1 294 0.1 4.3 53% 5.9 8 504 3.0
7/8/13 MOT-NB 0.1 25.3 306 0.1 4.7 58% 7.0 10 1047 2.0
7/9/13 SC-CH 0.1 26.6 89 0.0 3.0 37% 6.5 5 275 1.0
7/9/13 SC-CH 2.2 26.3 90 0.0 2.9 36% 6.3 6 N/A N/A
7/9/13 SC-23 0.1 28.8 251 0.1 3.7 48% 7.0 5 203 9.0
7/9/13 SC-23 2.2 28.8 252 0.1 3.6 47% 7.0 8 N/A N/A
7/9/13 SC-CD 0.1 24.7 192 0.1 6.8 82% 6.8 5 1987 1.0
7/9/13 SC-NK 0.1 26.8 236 0.1 3.9 49% 6.9 4 518 13.0
7/9/13 SC-NK 3.0 267 235 0.1 3.8 48% 6.9 5 N/A N/A
7/9/13 SC-GR 0.1 23.7 161 0.1 7.0 83% 7.0 5 2420 1.0
7/10/13 FC-4 0.1 27.7 55302 34.6 5.5 85% 8.1 6 1467 4.0
7/10/13 FC-4 1.7 27.5 55242 34.6 5.7 87% 8.1 6 N/A N/A
7/10/13 FC-6 0.1 27.8 55137 34.4 5.2 81% 8.0 7 2367 4.0
7/10/13 FC-6 1.7 27.8 55198 34.4 5.1 80% 8.0 7 N/A N/A
7/10/13 FC-13 0.1 28.0 50454 31.1 4.2 65% 7.9 11 9139 9.0
7/10/13 FC-13 1.1 28.0 50814 31.2 4.2 64% 7.9 0 N/A N/A
7/10/13 FC-FOY 0.1 28.0 50414 31.1 4.2 64% 7.9 13 3300 6.0
7/10/13 FC-FOY 1.1 27.9 51865 32.0 4.3 65% 7.9 26 N/A N/A
7/10/13 PC-M 0.1 27.2 54753 34.5 5.7 87% 8.0 5 161 4.0
7/10/13 PC-BDDS 1.7 27.0 54413 34.5 5.7 86% 8.1 13 N/A N/A
7/10/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 28.1 49292 30.2 4.0 61% 7.7 3 14136 30.0
7/9/13 PG-ML 0.1 25.6 217 0.1 2.9 36% 6.8 7 1414 3.0
7/9/13 PG-CH 0.1 24.1 255 0.1 2.4 29% 6.7 10 2420 1.0
7/9/13 PG-CH 2.0 23.5 267 0.1 2.1 25% 6.6 19 N/A N/A
7/9/13 PG-NC 0.1 24.3 153 0.1 1.2 15% 6.1 21 308 6.0
7/9/13 PG-NC 3.4 22.9 255 0.1 0.2 3% 6.5 27 N/A N/A
7/10/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 26.5 19719 11.4 5.3 73% 7.5 8 19863 4.0
8/7/13 LC-RR 0.1 27.4 18455 10.4 5.3 71% 6.7 12 259 24
8/7/13 LC-RR 1.9 27.4 18435 10.4 5.2 70% 6.7 12 N/A N/A
8/7/13 BC-CBR 0.1 23.3 211 0.1 7.1 83% 7.3 3 373 1
8/7/13 BC-CBR 1.9 22.9 212 0.1 7.0 81% 7.2 12 N/A N/A
8/7/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 24.6 336 0.2 5.3 63% 7.0 9 1047 4
8/7/13 MOT-NB 0.1 24.3 309 0.2 6.5 77% 7.1 11 1300 3
8/8/13 SC-CH 0.1 28.6 5968 3.0 4.1 54% 7.1 3 63 8
8/8/13 SC-CH 2.2 28.2 6584 3.4 4.0 52% 7.0 17 N/A N/A
8/8/13 SC-23 0.1 28.0 1899 0.9 4.7 60% 7.2 8 183 15
8/8/13 SC-23 2.1 28.0 1810 0.9 4.7 60% 7.2 9 N/A N/A
8/8/13 SC-CD 0.1 24.7 136 0.11 7.3 88% 7.0 2 921 1
8/8/13 SC-NK 0.1 25.7 242 0.1 5.0 61% 7.0 8 687 19
8/8/13 SC-NK 2.5 25.7 241 0.1 4.8 59% 7.0 5 N/A N/A
8/8/13 SC-GR 0.1 23.1 316 0.2 4.1 48% 6.7 20 1120 4
8/8/13 PG-ML 0.1 25.6 1857 0.1 3.8 46% 7.0 2 981 5
8/8/13 PG-CH 0.1 23.3 268 0.1 3.2 38% 6.8 9 2420 3
8/8/13 PG-CH 1.8 23.1 268 0.1 3.0 35% 6.8 19 N/A N/A
8/8/13 PG-NC 0.1 23.3 1547 0.1 2.6 31% 6.6 12 199 8
8/8/13 PG-NC 3.4 22.1 183 0.1 0.6 7% 6.4 20 N/A N/A
8/9/13 FC-4 0.1 27.9 55055 34.2 5.7 88% 8.1 4 5 3
8/9/13 FC-4 1.5 27.8 54952 34.2 5.7 87% 8.1 4 N/A N/A
8/9/13 FC-6 0.1 28.47 55558 34.2 5.2 82% 8.0 6 5 5
8/9/13 FC-6 1.1 28.4 55504 34.2 5.2 81% 8.0 6 N/A N/A
8/9/13 FC-13 0.1 28.5 53520 32.7 4.3 66% 7.8 9 10 14
8/9/13 FC-13 0.9 28.5 53712 32.7 4.3 66% 7.9 11 N/A N/A
8/9/13 FC-FOY 0.1 28.4 52127 31.9 4.5 71% 7.9 8 10 6
8/9/13 FC-FOY 1.1 28.5 54642 33.5 4.5 71% 7.9 10 N/A N/A
8/9/13 PC-M 0.1 27.6 54397 34.2 5.9 90% 8.1 4 5 2
8/9/13 PC-M 1.4 27.3 54065 34.0 6.1 92% 8.1 5 N/A N/A
8/9/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 28.6 51687 31.4 5.3 82% 7.8 5 3654 4
8/9/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 28.4 37829 22.4 5.0 73% 7.7 13 546 8
9/3/13 BC-CBR 0.1 24.8 278 0.1 5.3 64% 7.1 3 145 6
9/3/13 BC-CBR 1.5 24.8 222 0.1 5.2 62% 7.0 13 N/A N/A
9/3/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 26.0 287 0.1 5.2 64% 6.8 8 687 3
9/3/13 MOT-NB 0.1 25.7 286 0.1 4.6 56% 6.9 8 867 1
9/3/13 LC-RR 0.1 27.6 13371 7.3 4.4 58% 6.6 14 107 22
9/3/13 LC-RR 1.7 27.6 13443 7.3 4.4 58% 6.6 17 N/A N/A
9/4/13 SC-CH 0.1 27.0 4533 2.3 4.1 52% 7.0 3 63 3
9/4/13 SC-CH 2.3 26.9 5295 2.7 4.0 51% 6.8 24 N/A N/A
9/4/13 SC-23 0.1 27.8 615 0.3 4.8 61% 7.2 4 72 12
9/4/13 SC-23 1.8 27.8 616 0.3 4.8 61% 7.2 4 N/A N/A
9/4/13 SC-CD 0.1 23.5 209 0.1 7.5 88% 6.9 1 2420 1
9/4/13 SC-NK 0.1 26.0 270 0.1 4.3 53% 7.0 1 69 12
9/4/13 SC-NK 2.5 26.1 270 0.1 4.1 50% 7.0 2 N/A N/A
9/4/13 SC-GR 0.1 23.3 482 0.2 1.3 16% 6.5 31 397 1
9/4/13 PG-ML 0.1 25.4 233 0.1 2.7 33% 6.8 0 548 3
9/4/13 PG-CH 0.1 23.6 362 0.2 1.5 18% 6.8 9 580 2
9/4/13 PG-CH 1.7 23.7 364 0.2 1.5 18% 6.7 27 N/A N/A
9/4/13 PG-NC 0.1 23.4 158 0.1 2.1 25% 6.4 10 45 5
9/4/13 PG-NC 3.2 21.0 222 0.1 0.5 6% 6.4 14 N/A N/A
9/5/13 PC-M 0.1 28.5 52570 32.6 6.4 77% 8.0 5 10 3
9/5/13 PC-M 1.5 28.5 52858 32.6 6.4 77% 8.0 6 N/A N/A
9/5/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 27.8 46471 28.7 4.3 69% 7.9 13 20 38
9/5/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 28.1 37394 21.8 3.9 65 7.7 21 20 34
9/11/13 FC-4 0.1 28.7 53804 32.7 6.0 91 8.0 4 391 3
9/11/13 FC-4 1.4 28.7 53800 32.7 6.0 91 8.0 6 N/A N/A
9/11/13 FC-6 0.1 28.7 53682 32.7 5.6 93% 8.0 3 5 3
9/11/13 FC-6 1.3 28.7 52933 32.6 6.0 93% 8.0 4 N/A N/A
9/11/13 FC-13 0.1 29.0 54140 32.8 4.4 63% 8.0 5 10 5
9/11/13 FC-13 1.1 28.8 53287 32.4 4.4 63% 8.0 14 N/A N/A
9/11/13 FC-FOY 0.1 28.9 52516 31.4 4.7 64% 8.0 7 5 3
9/11/13 FC-FOY 1.0 28.8 51098 31.1 4.8 64% 8.0 6 N/A N/A
10/2/13 BC-CBR 0.1 18.8 238 0.1 8.1 86% 8.0 1 75 1
10/2/13 BC-CBR 1.8 18.5 204 0.1 7.2 77% 7.8 13 N/A N/A
10/2/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 20.0 362 0.2 5.2 58% 7.2 13 379 4
10/2/13 MOT-NB 0.1 18.9 333 0.2 6.4 68% 7.3 14 1120 6
10/2/13 LC-RR 0.1 21.2 30701 20.8 5.9 75% 7.1 8 74 7
10/2/13 LC-RR 1.3 21.2 30746 20.8 5.9 75% 7.1 8 N/A N/A
10/3/13 SC-CH 0.1 23.1 20365 12.7 5.2 65% 7.4 5 20 4
10/3/13 SC-CH 2.6 23.0 21178 13.3 5.1 64% 7.3 18 N/A N/A
10/3/13 SC-23 0.1 23.0 12144 7.3 5.7 69% 7.4 8 31 10
10/3/13 SC-23 2.2 23.0 12588 7.5 5.6 68% 7.3 8 N/A N/A
10/3/13 SC-CD 0.1 19.4 202 0.1 8.1 88% 7.2 0 308 1
10/3/13 SC-NK 0.1 20.8 1933 1.1 5.3 60% 7.1 2 36 17
10/3/13 SC-NK 2.1 20.8 1926 0.1 5.3 59% 7.1 2 N/A N/A
10/3/13 SC-GR 0.1 19.0 256 0.1 5.3 57% 7.1 18 30 18
10/3/13 PG-ML 0.1 20.4 241 0.1 3.8 42% 7.5 0 178 2
10/3/13 PG-CH 0.1 18.6 419 0.2 3.1 32% 7.3 4 308 1
10/3/13 PG-CH 1.5 18.5 419 0.2 2.6 27% 7.3 8 N/A N/A
10/3/13 PG-NC 0.1 17.6 152 0.1 1.3 14% 6.8 30 11 4
10/3/13 PG-NC 3.7 17.4 211 0.1 0.5 5% 6.7 31 N/A N/A
10/4/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 23.0 40471 27.1 3.8 52% 7.7 10 24196 5
10/4/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 23.3 47552 32.0 4.7 66% 7.7 4 2187 7
10/4/13 PC-M 0.1 23.6 51369 34.8 6.8 98% 8.0 5 410 4
10/4/13 PC-M 1.6 23.7 51606 34.9 6.7 98% 8.0 9 N/A N/A
10/4/13 FC-4 0.1 23.7 51699 38.1 7.1 101% 8.1 2 5 5
10/4/13 FC-4 1.6 23.8 52085 35.1 7.0 100% 8.1 3 N/A N/A
10/4/13 FC-6 0.1 23.7 51193 34.6 7.0 98% 8.0 3 520 5
10/4/13 FC-6 1.5 23.8 51258 34.6 6.7 96% 8.0 4 N/A N/A
10/4/13 FC-13 0.1 23.8 50571 33.9 5.7 81% 7.9 6 108 4
10/4/13 FC-13 1.0 23.8 50453 33.9 5.7 81% 7.9 6 N/A N/A
10/4/13 FC-FOY 0.1 23.7 50376 33.9 6.2 89% 7.9 7 75 4
10/4/13 FC-FOY 1.1 23.8 50455 34.0 6.1 87% 7.9 6 N/A N/A
11/4/13 BC-CBR 0.1 14.4 278 0.2 7.7 75% 7.9 1 74 2
11/4/13 BC-CBR 1.7 14.3 217 0.1 7.6 74% 7.8 12 N/A N/A
11/4/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 16.1 234 0.1 6.9 69% 74 5 270 5
11/4/13 MOT-NB 0.1 14.3 217 0.1 8.9 88% 7.2 5 687 2
11/4/13 LC-RR 0.1 17.2 30708 22.9 7.6 90% 7.1 4 74 4
11/4/13 LC-RR 1.8 17.6 32459 23.9 7.5 89% 7.2 5 N/A N/A
11/5/13 SC-CH 0.1 18.2 19083 13.2 6.7 76% 7.4 24 20 5
11/5/13 SC-CH 2.9 18.2 19712 13.7 6.6 76% 7.4 62 N/A N/A
11/5/13 SC-23 0.1 17.4 10082 6.8 7.0 76% 7.4 18 10 15
11/5/13 SC-23 2.3 17.4 10201 6.8 6.9 75% 7.4 16 N/A N/A
11/5/13 SC-CD 0.1 14.8 193 0.1 8.8 87% 7.1 2 489 1
11/5/13 SC-NK 0.1 15.4 1560 1.0 6.2 62% 6.9 5 55 11
11/5/13 SC-NK 1.5 15.4 1553 1.0 6.0 60% 6.9 5 N/A N/A
11/5/13 SC-GR 0.1 13.9 185 0.1 6.9 67% 7.3 6 236 12
11/5/13 PG-ML 0.1 14.1 270 0.2 4.7 46% 7.8 2 72 1
11/5/13 PG-CH 0.1 13.4 229 0.1 2.5 24% 7.3 10 77 5
11/5/13 PG-CH 1.5 13.3 224 0.1 2.0 19% 7.2 32 N/A N/A
11/5/13 PG-NC 0.1 12.5 149 0.1 1.4 13% 6.8 11 6 2
11/5/13 PG-NC 3.6 12.3 168 0.1 0.6 6% 6.7 10 N/A N/A
11/6/13 PC-M 0.1 18.3 46150 35.00 8.0 101% 8.1 2 5 3
11/6/13 PC-M 1.1 18.2 46091 35.0 8.1 102% 8.1 2 N/A N/A
11/6/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 17.3 42946 3.0 6.8 86% 7.9 3 120 25
11/6/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 18.0 35998 26.7 6.2 77% 7.8 7 253 4
11/6/13 FC-4 0.1 18.6 46405 34.9 7.5 98% 8.2 2 20 3
11/6/13 FC-4 1.7 18.7 46421 34.9 7.6 99% 8.2 3 N/A N/A
11/6/13 FC-6 0.1 18.4 46266 34.9 7.6 99% 8.2 3 20 3
11/6/13 FC-6 2.1 18.5 46250 34.9 7.6 99% 8.2 3 N/A N/A
11/6/13 FC-13 0.1 17.3 44976 34.8 7.4 95% 8.0 2 5 2
11/6/13 FC-13 1.3 17.4 45080 34.8 7.4 94% 8.1 3 N/A N/A
11/6/13 FC-FOY 0.1 17.6 45508 34.9 7.5 97% 8.1 3 <10 2
11/6/13 FC-FOY 1.1 17.8 45548 34.9 7.5 97% 8.1 2 N/A N/A
12/16/13 BC-CBR 0.1 10.4 218 0.1 8.3 74% 7.4 2 31 1.0
12/16/13 BC-CBR 2.0 9.9 133 0.1 8.0 69% 7.1 10 N/A N/A
12/16/13 LC-RR 0.1 11.1 15667 12.8 9.8 96% 6.4 4 20 3.0
12/16/13 LC-RR 1.6 11.1 15667 12.8 9.7 95% 6.4 4 N/A N/A
12/16/13 MOT-CBR 0.1 11.6 159 0.1 10.5 96% 6.7 2 190 4.0
12/16/13 MOT-NB 0.1 10.1 164 0.1 8.8 78% 6.4 4 140 2.0
12/17/13 SC-CH 0.1 11.3 2707 2.0 9.3 86% 7.3 7 10 1.0
12/17/13 SC-CH 2.7 11.2 3795 2.8 9.0 83% 7.1 17 N/A N/A
12/17/13 SC-23 0.1 11.2 2010 1.4 9.0 83% 7.0 7 63 3.0
12/17/13 SC-23 2.3 11.2 2011 1.4 8.8 81% 7.0 6 N/A N/A
12/17/13 SC-CD 0.1 11.3 163 0.1 9.7 88% 6.7 2 173 1.0
12/17/13 SC-NK 0.1 10.5 455 0.3 9.5 85% 6.6 3 156 3.0
12/17/13 SC-NK 2.5 10.4 470 0.3 9.3 83% 6.6 3 N/A N/A
12/17/13 SC-GR 0.1 11.0 144 0.1 9.0 81% 6.8 9 84 1.0
12/17/13 PG-ML 0.1 9.3 202 0.1 7.8 68% 7.1 2 71 1.0
12/17/13 PG-CH 0.1 7.9 172 0.1 7.9 67% 6.7 3 82 1.0
12/17/13 PG-CH 1.5 7.9 171 0.1 7.3 60% 6.6 3 N/A N/A
12/17/13 PG-NC 0.1 8.1 151 0.1 4.7 39% 6.5 2 11 1.0
12/17/13 PG-NC 3.2 7.9 148 0.1 4.1 35% 6.3 2 N/A N/A
12/18/13 FC-4 0.1 11.7 39612 34.8 7.9 91% 7.5 4 5 2.0
12/18/13 FC-4 1.2 11.7 39686 34.9 7.7 89% 7.5 5 N/A N/A
12/18/13 FC-6 0.1 11.2 38730 34.5 8.2 93% 7.4 2 5 2.0
12/18/13 FC-6 1.4 11.4 39047 34.6 8.0 91% 7.4 4 N/A N/A
12/18/13 FC-13 0.1 10.6 37089 33.4 8.4 93% 7.1 3 10 5.0
12/18/13 FC-13 1.2 10.7 37527 33.6 8.2 92% 7.2 3 N/A N/A
12/18/13 FC-FOY 0.1 10.6 36714 33.2 8.4 93% 7.3 2 5 1.0
12/18/13 FC-FOY 1.1 10.7 37712 33.9 8.1 91% 7.3 12 N/A N/A
12/18/13 PC-M 0.1 111.4 39009 34.6 7.6 87% 7.5 5 5 2.0
12/18/13 PC-M 1.6 11.5 39185 34.6 7.4 85% 7.5 4 N/A N/A
12/18/13 PC-BDDS 0.1 10.8 36172 32.4 8.0 88% 7.3 4 24196 1.0
12/18/13 PC-BDUS 0.1 11.8 25935 21.8 8.0 86% 7.4 8 52 1.0
1/14/14 LC-RR 0.1 10.6 6523 5.1 10.0 93% 7.8 6 20 3.0
1/14/14 LC-RR 1.4 6520 5.1 10.0 9.3 7.8% 7.8 7 N/A N/A
1/14/14 MOT-CBR 0.1 13.6 199 0.1 8.2 79% 7.7 6 649 2.0
1/14/14 MOT-NB 0.1 12.9 225 0.1 7.2 68% 7.6 6 299 2.0
1/14/14 BC-CBR 0.1 13.0 168 0.1 6.4 61% 7.9 1 134 3.0
1/14/14 BC-CBR 1.7 11.1 157 0.1 6.3 58% 7.7 17 N/A N/A
1/15/14 SC-CH 0.1 8.9 190 0.1 9.9 86% 7.9 21 6867 3.0
1/15/14 SC-CH 2.5 8.9 190 0.1 9.8 85% 7.9 33 N/A N/A
1/15/14 SC-23 0.1 10.1 323 0.2 9.2 82% 7.8 7 6131 3.0
1/15/14 SC-23 2.2 10.1 327 0.2 9.1 81% 7.8 8 N/A N/A
1/15/14 SC-CD 0.1 11.5 145 0.1 9.3 85% 7.6 3 345 1.0
1/15/14 SC-NK 0.1 11.4 233 0.2 7.4 68% 7.7 4 2420 6.0
1/15/14 SC-NK 2.4 11.4 232 0.2 7.4 67% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
1/15/14 SC-GR 0.1 11.5 128 0.1 9.0 82% 7.7 5 2420 1.0
1/15/14 PG-ML 0.1 10.1 189 0.1 7.4 66% 7.7 1 65 2.0
1/15/14 PG-CH 0.1 9.1 177 0.1 7.5 65% 7.6 3 2450 2.0
1/15/14 PG-CH 1.9 9.1 176 0.1 7.1 62% 7.6 3 N/A N/A
1/15/14 PG-NC 0.1 9.4 162 0.1 5.4 47% 7.5 2 2420 2.0
1/15/14 PG-NC 3.7 9.3 341 0.2 1.6 14% 7.6 11 N/A N/A
1/16/14 FC-4 0.1 11.6 39974 355.4 8.5 98% 8.4 0 10 2.0
1/16/14 FC-4 1.3 11.7 40338 35.5 8.3 96% 8.4 1 N/A N/A
1/16/14 FC-6 0.1 11.4 39428 35.0 8.3 95% 8.4 0 5 1.0
1/16/14 FC-6 1.2 11.4 39461 35.0 8.2 94% 8.4 0 N/A N/A
1/16/14 FC-13 0.1 11.0 38073 34.1 8.1 92% 8.4 0 41 3.0
1/16/14 FC-13 1.0 11.0 38333 34.2 8.1 91% 8.4 0 N/A N/A
1/16/14 FC-FOY 0.1 11.0 38117 34.0 8.2 92% 8.4 0 10 1.0
1/16/14 FC-FOY 1.0 11.0 38551 34.4 8.1 91% 8.4 0 N/A N/A
1/16/14 PC-M 0.1 11.7 39875 35.2 8.7 97% 8.5 0 5 1.0
1/16/14 PC-M 1.8 11.8 39981 35.2 8.8 98% 8.5 0 N/A N/A
1/16/14 PC-BDDS 0.1 11.5 37458 33.0 8.5 97% 8.4 2 776 1.0
1/16/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 12.1 32213 27.5 8.2 91% 8.4 4 185 1.0
2/13/14 MOT-CBR 0.1 6.2 138 0.1 10.6 86% 5.8 5 228 3.0
2/13/14 MOT-NB 0.1 5.6 132 0.1 10.3 82% 5.9 7 833 2.0
2/13/14 BC-CBR 0.1 6.4 138 0.1 10.7 87% 6.2 1.0 393 3.0
2/13/14 BC-CBR 2.0 6.4 115 0.1 10.3 84% 6.0 21 N/A N/A
2/13/14 LC-RR 0.1 5.9 12837 11.9 10.3 93.4% 6.2 5 84 6.0
2/13/14 LC-RR 1.4 5.9 12832 11.9 10.7 93.1% 6.2 5 N/A N/A
2/13/14 SC-CH 0.1 5.3 6595 5.8 10.8 91% 6.3 5 84 4.0
2/13/14 SC-CH 2.0 6.4 7412 6.4 10.8 91% 6.3 8 N/A N/A
2/13/14 SC-23 0.1 6.0 918 0.5 11.0 89% 6.4 6 121 7.0
2/13/14 SC-23 1.6 6.1 663 0.4 10.8 87% 6.4 7 N/A N/A
2/13/14 SC-CD 0.1 6.7 106 0.1 10.8 88% 6.0 16 146 2.0
2/13/14 SC-NK 0.1 4.2 112 0.1 11.5 88% 5.9 13 6488 4.0
2/13/14 SC-NK 1.3 4.2 111 0.1 11.4 87% 5.9 13 N/A N/A
2/13/14 SC-GR 0.1 6.7 102 0.1 11.2 91% 6.1 12 1036 6.0
2/13/14 PG-ML 0.1 9.1 144 0.1 11.8 90% 6.3 9 446 4.0
2/13/14 PG-CH 0.1 4.2 124 0.1 10.9 83% 6.0 7 2382 5.0
2/13/14 PG-CH 1.5 4.2 124 0.1 10.8 83% 6.0 7 N/A N/A
2/13/14 PG-NC 0.1 4.1 123 0.1 10.9 82% 5.4 6 4884 3.0
2/13/14 PG-NC 3.4 4.2 123 0.1 10.1 77% 5.8 6 N/A N/A
2/17/14 FC-4 0.1 7.5 35531 34.8 10.5 109% 6.8 1 5 2.0
2/17/14 FC-4 2.0 7.5 35639 34.9 10.4 108% 6.8 1 N/A N/A
2/17/14 FC-6 0.1 7.5 35070 34.3 10.4 108% 6.8 1 5.0 1.0
2/17/14 FC-6 1.3 7.5 35071 34.3 10.4 108% 6.8 0 N/A N/A
2/17/14 FC-13 0.1 7.3 34026 33.3 10.1 104% 6.8 0 5 1.0
2/17/14 FC-13 1.0 7.4 34065 33.3 10.1 105% 68 5 N/A /NA
2/17/14 FC-FOY 1.3 7.4 34328 33.4 10.4 107% 6.8 1 N/A N/A
2/17/14 FC-FOY 0.1 7.3 34250 33.5 10.5 108% 6.8 1 5 1.0
2/17/14 PC-M 0.1 7.7 35594 34.6 10.0 107% 6.8 0 5 1.0
2/17/14 PC-M 1.9 7.7 35613 34.7 10.0 107% 6.8 0 N/A N/A
2/17/14 PC-BDDS 0.1 6.7 25345 25.6 9.4 92% 6.8 1 657 19.0
2/17/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 11.6 21418 17.8 8.4 87% 7.0 0 323 5.0
3/12/14 LC-RR 0.1 12.5 4728 3.4 9.4 90% 6.2 11 41 4.0
3/12/14 LC-RR 1.1 12.5 4724 3.4 9.4 90% 6.2 11 N/A N/A
3/12/14 BC-CBR 0.1 15 196 0.1 4.6 45% 6.4 2 31 1.0
3/12/14 BC-CBR 1.8 14.6 184 0.1 4.5 45% 6.3 6 N/A N/A
3/12/14 MOT-CBR 0.1 14.6 260 0.2 7.3 72% 6.0 17 74 2.0
3/12/14 MOT-NB 0.1 14.4 248 0.2 6.9 67% 6.0 8 158 2.0
3/13/14 SC-CH 0.1 10.8 119 0.1 9.7 87% 7.1 9 10 2.0
3/13/14 SC-CH 2.8 10.8 119 0.1 9.5 86% 7.0 9 N/A N/A
3/13/14 SC-23 0.1 12.7 220 0.1 8.6 81% 6.8 14 20 5.0
3/13/14 SC-23 2.2 12.7 229 0.2 8.5 80% 6.8 15 N/A N/A
3/13/14 SC-CD 0.1 11.9 144 0.1 9.4 87% 6.2 4 388 2.0
3/13/14 SC-NK 0.1 14.3 184 0.1 6.3 62% 6.4 6 41 3.0
3/13/14 SC-NK 2.4 14.3 181 0.1 6.3 62% 6.4 6 N/A N/A
3/13/14 SC-GR 0.1 11.9 127 0.1 9.1 84% 6.3 3 218 2.0
3/13/14 PG-ML 0.1 13.4 170 0.1 6.8 65% 6.8 3 20 5.0
3/13/14 PG-CH 0.1 12.1 183 0.1 6.3 59% 6.6 4 41 2.0
3/13/14 PG-CH 1.8 12.1 183 0.1 5.1 55% 6.4 9 N/A N/A
3/13/14 PG-NC 0.1 13.1 153 0.1 4.5 42% 6.3 6 5 2.0
3/13/14 PG-NC 3.4 13.0 162 0.1 3.8 36% 6.3 6 N/A N/A
3/14/14 PC-M 0.1 8.9 38220 36.3 9.2 100% 7.8 1 5 2.0
3/14/14 PC-M 1.5 8.9 38372 36.3 8.8 96% 7.6 3 N/A N/A
3/14/14 PC-BDDS 0.1 10.2 36888 33.6 8.3 93% 7.6 6 5794 1.0
3/14/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 10.7 29828 26.1 7.0 75% 7.5 3 520 1.0
3/14/14 FC-4 0.1 9.3 38580 36.3 8.9 97% 7.8 2 5 1.0
3/14/14 FC-4 1.4 9.2 38721 36.4 8.7 96% 7.8 4 N/A N/A
3/14/14 FC-6 0.1 9.7 38695 36.0 8.5 94% 7.7 1 5 1.0
3/14/14 FC-6 1.1 9.6 38705 36.0 8.4 93% 7.7 2 N/A N/A
3/14/14 FC-13 0.1 9.3 36599 34.1 8.4 91% 7.6 1 10 3.0
3/14/14 FC-13 1.1 9.4 36893 33.4 8.3 9.0% 7.6 6 N/A N/A
3/14/14 FC-FOY 0.1 9.5 36784 34.2 8.4 91% 7.7 0 63 2.0
3/14/14 FC-FOY 1.1 9.5 37740 35.2 8.1 89% 7.7 8
4/17/14 PC-M 0.1 14.2 43320 36.1 8.3 100% 8.3 5 10 3.0
4/17/14 PC-M 1.9 14.2 43325 36.1 8.3 100% 8.3 8 N/A N/A
4/17/14 PC-BDDS 0.1 14.8 42510 34.8 7.3 89% 8.2 4 4611 9.0
4/17/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 15.8 40879 32.5 8.0 98% 8.2 9 86 15.0
4/17/14 FC-4 0.1 13.7 43155 36.4 8.5 103% 8.6 5 20 3.0
4/17/14 FC-4 1.7 13.8 43328 36.5 8.5 103% 8.6 5 N/A N/A
4/17/14 FC-6 0.1 13.7 42912 36.2 8.4 101% 8.6 4 5 3.0
4/17/14 FC-6 1.3 13.6 42980 36.2 8.4 101% 8.6 4 N/A N/A
4/17/14 FC-13 0.1 13.8 42434 35.6 8.5 102% 8.3 2 10 4.0
4/17/14 FC-13 1.5 13.8 42561 35.8 8.5 102% 8.3 6 N/A N/A
4/17/14 FC-FOY 0.1 14.0 42416 35.5 8.3 100% 8.4 2 20 2.0
4/17/14 FC-FOY 1.2 13.8 42631 35.8 8.4 101% 8.4 2 N/A N/A
4/14/14 MOT-CBR 0.1 18.7 325 0.2 5.9 64% 6.7 6 120 5.0
4/14/14 MOT-NB 0.1 18.2 313 0.2 6.8 72% 6.9 9 477 83.0
4/14/14 BC-CBR 0.1 19.2 255 0.1 6.4 70% 7.2 3 52 1.0
4/14/14 BC-CBR 1.8 18.4 227 0.1 3.6 36% 7.1 9 N/A N/A
4/14/14 LC-RR 0.1 19.5 11070 7.1 7.7 87% 6.8 5 10 4.0
4/14/14 LC-RR 1.6 19.5 11072 7.1 7.7 87% 6.8 5 N/A N/A
4/15/14 PG-ML 0.1 21.00 242 0.1 4.3 48% 7.3 1 74 2.0
4/15/14 PG-CH 0.1 19.8 278 0.2 5.5 60% 7.0 3 84 3.0
4/15/14 PG-CH 1.4 19.6 287 0.2 3.8 41% 7.0 27 N/A N/A
4/15/14 PG-NC 0.1 19.3 196 0.1 3.0 33% 6.7 5 41 4.0
4/15/14 PG-NC 3.5 15.2 478 0.3 0.6 6% 7.3 5 N/A N/A
4/15/14 SC-CH 0.1 18.8 1352 0.8 7.6 83% 7.4 24 10 3.0
4/15/14 SC-CH 2.6 18.7 1363 0.8 7.5 81% 7.4 36 N/A N/A
4/15/14 SC-23 0.1 20.1 538 0.3 7.0 79% 7.5 15 10 25.0
4/15/14 SC-23 2.2 20.9 546 0.3 7.0 78% 7.5 17 N/A N/A
4/15/14 SC-CD 0.1 19.7 211 0.1 7.9 8.7% 7.4 2 414 1.0
4/15/14 SC-NK 0.1 21.1 295 0.1 6.6 76% 7.3 8 31 13.0
4/15/14 SC-NK 1.6 21.0 295 0.1 6.6 76% 7.2 10 N/A N/A
4/15/14 SC-GR 0.1 19.0 167 0.1 9.0 96% 7.3 2 292 1.0
5/14/14 PG-ML 0.1 27.5 223 0.1 3.2 39% 7.7 2 109 6.0
5/14/14 PG-CH 0.1 22 365 0.2 3.0 32% 7.3 6 173 23.0
5/14/14 PG-CH 1.8 20.0 445 0.2 2.0 22% 7.3 28 N/A N/A
5/14/14 PG-NC 0.1 21.9 199 0.1 1.9 22% 7.1 23 275 6.0
5/14/14 PG-NC 3.4 16.3 484 0.3 0.6 7% 7.5 44 N/A N/A
5/14/14 SC-CH 0.1 24.8 8201 4.6 5.3 66% 7.5 6 41 4.0
5/14/14 SC-CH 2.5 24.5 8473 4.8 5.4 66% 7.5 26 N/A N/A
5/14/14 SC-23 0.1 26.2 1827 0.9 5.3 65% 7.7 7 51 10.0
5/14/14 SC-23 2.1 26.2 1856 0.9 5.2 64% 7.6 8 N/A N/A
5/14/14 SC-CD 0.1 21.8 229 0.1 8.4 95% 7.5 3 1137 0.0
5/14/14 SC-NK 0.1 25.5 349 0.2 4.7 57% 7.4 3 246 16.0
5/14/14 SC-NK 2.3 25.4 349 0.2 4.4 54% 7.4 3 N/A N/A
5/14/14 SC-GR 0.1 20.0 443 0.2 3.0 33% 7.3 50 173 1.0
5/13/14 LC-RR 0.1 24.5 18991 11.9 11.4 9.5% 8.0 8 327 5.0
5/13/14 LC-RR 2.2 24.5 19002 11.9 7.4 95% 7.8 10 N/A N/A
5/13/14 BC-CBR 0.1 23.3 398 0.2 4.1 48% 8.1 6 84 1.0
5/13/14 BC-CBR 1.1 22.7 251 0.1 3.8 42% 8.0 8 N/A N/A
5/13/14 MOT-CBR 0.1 22 373 0.2 3.4 39% 7.5 21 776 2.0
5/13/14 MOT-NB 0.1 22.4 346 0.2 5.3 61% 7.4 7 N/A N/A
5/15/14 FC-4 0.1 23.0 53756 37.2 6.5 91% 7.7 2 10 1.0
5/15/14 FC-4 1.6 22.9 53728 37.2 6.5 91% 7.8 2 N/A N/A
5/15/14 FC-6 0.1 23.7 54485 37.2 6.5 91% 7.7 3 10 1.0
5/15/14 FC-6 1.4 23.6 54425 37.2 6.5 91% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
5/15/14 FC-13 0.1 24.2 54069 36.4 5.6 83% 7.5 8 5 5
5/15/14 FC-13 1.3 24.2 54167 36.5 5.6 83% 7.5 20 N/A N/A
5/15/14 FC-FOY 0.1 24.2 53811 36.2 6.0 89% 7.6 8 30 2.0
5/15/14 FC-FOY 1.3 24.1 54206 36.6 5.9 87% 7.6 25 N/A N/A
5/15/14 PC-M 0.1 22.7 53219 37.0 6.6 94% 7.7 5 10 1.0
5/15/14 PC-M 1.9 22.6 53151 37.0 6.5 93% 7.7 8 N/A N/A
5/15/14 PC-BDDS 0.1 24.1 40428 26.3 5.2 73% 7.4 27 1722 60.0
5/15/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 24.3 28453 17.8 5.7 76% 7.5 16 933 9.0
5/13/14 MOT-NB 0.1 22.4 346 0.2 5.3 61% 7.4 7 31 3.0
6/13/14 FC-4 0.1 25.9 53366 34.6 4.9 73% 7.8 2 10 2.0
6/13/14 FC-4 1.6 25.5 53135 34.7 5.2 77% 7.9 2 N/A N/A
6/13/14 FC-6 0.1 26.4 53618 34.4 4.1 62% 7.7 4 10 2.0
6/13/14 FC-6 1.7 26.4 53620 34.4 4.1 62% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
6/13/14 FC-13 0.1 26.5 50928 32.4 3.7 55% 7.7 7 161 2.0
6/13/14 FC-13 1.1 26.5 51382 32.6 3.6 53% 7.7 34 N/A N/A
6/13/14 FC-FOY 0.1 26.5 49270 31.9 3.5 52% 7.7 8 197 2.0
6/13/14 FC-FOY 1.1 26.5 52162 33.3 3.7 56% 7.7 17 N/A N/A
6/13/14 PC-BDUS 0.1 25.1 19113 11.3 2.9 38% 7.7 20 5475 2.0
6/13/14 PC-BDDS 0.1 26.4 43627 27.5 4.4 62% 7.6 5 24196 2.0
6/13/14 PC-M 0.1 25.7 52116 33.7 4.6 68% 7.7 2 20 2.0
6/13/14 PC-M 1.5 25.6 52248 33.9 4.6 68% 7.7 4 N/A N/A
6/12/14 PG-ML 0.1 27.1 300 0.1 3.1 38% 8.0 1 249 4.0
6/12/14 PG-CH 0.1 23.8 390 0.2 2.0 24% 7.4 2 109 7.0
6/12/14 PG-CH 1.4 23.0 398 0.2 1.7 20% 7.2 15 N/A N/A
6/12/14 PG-NC 0.1 23.3 203 0.1 1.3 15% 6.6 31 30 14.0
6/12/14 PG-NC 2.8 16.8 458 0.3 0.5 6% 6.9 0 N/A N/A
6/12/14 SC-CH 0.1 27.3 16244 9.1 4.4 59% 7.5 8 62 3.0
6/12/14 SC-CH 2.5 27.1 16371 9.2 4.3 57% 7.4 34 N/A 3.0
6/12/14 SC-23 0.1 28.2 6339 3.2 4.8 63% 7.4 9 63 8.0
6/12/14 SC-23 2.2 28.2 6561 3.3 4.8 63% 7.4 10 N/A N/A
6/12/14 SC-CD 0.1 24.1 223 0.1 7.6 90% 7.2 0 323 1.0
6/12/14 SC-NK 0.1 27.3 683 0.3 4.5 57% 7.1 8 110 14.0
6/12/14 SC-NK 1.7 27.4 679 0.3 4.3 54% 7.1 8 N/A N/A
6/12/14 SC-GR 0.1 21.8 483 0.3 2.8 31% 6.8 12 318 4.0
6/11/14 LC-RR 0.1 27.2 29055 17.1 4.9 68% 7.3 17 5 5.0
6/11/14 LC-RR 1.3 27.2 29023 17.1 4.8 67% 7.3 17 N/A N/A
6/11/14 MOT-CBR 0.1 25.1 314 0.2 3.0 37% 7.5 3 275 4.0
6/11/14 MOT-NB 0.1 25.4 274 0.1 4.2 52% 7.4 3 241 1.0
6/11/14 BC-CBR 0.1 24.7 299 0.1 2.9 35% 8.3 5 84 1.0
6/11/14 BC-CBR 1.7 22.3 259 0.1 1.9 22% 8.1 21 N/A N/A