ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER CAPE FEAR RIVER SYSTEM, 2002-2003

by

Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver, Heather A. Wells,
 Michael S. Williams, Thomas E. Lankford, and James F. Merritt

 

CMS Report Number 03-03
Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Wilmington, N.C. 28409
October 2003

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Summary

        Multiparameter water sampling for the Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP) has been ongoing since June 1995.  Scientists from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) perform the sampling effort.  The LCFRP currently encompasses 35 water sampling stations throughout the Cape Fear, Black, and Northeast Cape Fear River watersheds.  The LCFRP sampling program includes physical, chemical, and biological water quality measurements, analyses of the benthic and epibenthic macroinvertebrate communities, and assessment of the fish communities.  Principal conclusions of the UNCW researchers conducting these analyses are presented below, with emphasis on the period July 2002-June 2003.  The opinions expressed are those of UNCW scientists and do not necessarily reflect viewpoints of individual contributors to the Lower Cape Fear River Program.

        The mainstem lower Cape Fear River is characterized by reasonably turbid water containing moderate to high levels of inorganic nutrients.  It is fed by two large blackwater rivers (the Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers) that have low levels of turbidity, but highly colored water, with less inorganic nutrient content than the mainstem.  While nutrients are reasonably high in the river channels, algal blooms are rare because light is attenuated by water color or turbidity, and flushing is high.  Periodic algal blooms are seen in the tributary stream stations, some of which are impacted by point source discharges.  Below some point sources, nutrient loading can be high and fecal coliform contamination occurs.  Other stream stations drain blackwater swamps or agricultural areas, some of which periodically show elevated pollutant loads or effects.

        During the 2002-2003 sampling period, a prolonged drought that had been in effect for over two years ended.  The summer of 2002 had been characterized by high salinity in the estuary and main river channel; low salinities were found in these locations in spring and early summer 2003.  Whereas annual turbidity means remained below the long-term average in the river and estuary, the ending of the drought did lead to increasing turbidities in the upper estuary.  Low dissolved oxygen remained a major problem in the LCFR basin, with a summer sag in the lower river and upper estuary, and some stream stations (ANC, NC403, and SR) were impacted severely.  Algal blooms were largely absent in the larger streams but several occurred in smaller, nutrient-impacted streams.  Several stream stations, particularly BCRR, BC117, LRC, BRN and HAM showed high fecal coliform counts on a number of occasions.  Chronic or periodic high nutrient levels were found at a number of stations, including ANC, BC117, BCRR, LRC, NC403, PB and SAR.  Rockfish Creek (ROC) is showing increasing trends (and sporadic high levels) of phosphorus and nitrate over the past several years and is a station of increasing concern.  Water column metals concentrations were not problematic during the period 2002-2003.

        This report includes an in-depth look at use support ratings for each subbasin, comparing the results of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's 2000 Basinwide Management Plan with the UNCW-LCFRP's assessments of the 2001-2002 sampling year.  The UNCW-LCFRP utilized definitions for use support that consider a water body to be of poor quality if the water quality standard for a given parameter is in violation > 25% of the time, of fair quality if the standard is in violation between 11 and 25% of the time, and good quality if the standard is violated no more than 10% of the time.  UNCW also considerers nutrient loading in water quality assessments, based on published experimental and field scientific findings.  UNCW found that 97% of the stations sampled showed good water quality in terms of turbidity and chlorophyll a.  However, 33% of the stations had either fair or poor water quality in terms of fecal coliform bacterial contamination, and 60% of the stations were fair to poor in terms of dissolved oxygen concentrations.  In addition, UNCW considered 20% of the stations to be negatively impacted by excessive nutrient loading.

        The UNCW-LCFRP conducted an examination of river and stream biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) over a five-year period in the lower Cape Fear River system, in coastal North Carolina.  Median BOD5 was approximately 1.0 mg/L in the Piedmont-derived sixth order Cape Fear River and slightly lower in the two fifth order blackwater tributaries, the Black and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers.  BOD in the Cape Fear River was most strongly correlated with chlorophyll a, whereas in the two blackwater tributaries BOD was most strongly correlated with phosphorus concentrations and fecal coliform bacterial counts.  This relationship may be a result of nutrient induced increases in heterotrophy, as previous experimental studies have shown that phosphorus additions to blackwater streams lead directly to increased bacterial counts and BOD concentrations.  BOD load as lbs BOD/day was correlated much more strongly with river discharge than BOD concentration in all three rivers, with discharge alone able to explain from 40-80% of BOD load variability, depending upon the system.  A set of second-to-third order rural streams in the Black River basin was also examined.  Median BOD5 concentrations ranged from 0.9-1.2 mg/L in all six tributaries, regardless of land use and watershed size.  BOD load varied directly with stream flow.  In contrast, BOD5 and BOD20 concentrations in three urban streams in Wilmington, N.C. were approximately double those of the rural streams, with much higher storm event maxima in the urban situations. 

            The reintroduction of electroshocking data from this years survey has given us the ability to closely monitor fish species richness and disease incidence.  Species richness in samples collected by this gear has shown declines that give cause for concern.  Trend line analysis shows over a 23% drop and this is excluding a seven-month and a nine-month data gap that would likely have lowered the trend line further due to the time of year in which they occurred.  Although the drought had little, if any effect on overall fish community structure, non-native percentages, or disease incidence, species richness reached record levels in the trawling surveys.  This suggests the drought created a more estuarine environment in our sampling area and more estuarine dependant species were therefore captured. The catches of estuarine dependent species further reinforces the important role the Cape Fear River system plays as habitat for not only resident species but estuarine and marine species.  Drops in disease percentages in the electroshocking and gillnets surveys were mostly driven by the drops in the disease percentage of bowfin.  Although most of the trend analysis showed no discernible patterns in a positive or negative direction, a trend toward decreasing species richness and catch-per-unit-effort in the electroshocking surveys may be developing and should be closely monitored in future surveys.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

Cover Page

1.0 Introduction
Site Description

2.0 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of the Lower Cape Fear River and Estuary

Tables and Figures

3.0 Use Support and Water Quality by Subbasin in the
Middle and Lower Cape Fear River

Select by Subbasins
4.0 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Studies in the Lower Cape Fear River System

Tables and Figures
5.0 Fisheries Studies in the Lower Cape Fear River System, June 2002 - June 2003

Figures


**Any tables or figures not included on this site are available in hard copy from the Center for Marine Science at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington**