1

Little Rock Creek Stream Assessment

By: Blake Johnson
Under the direction of Dr.Teresa Litzenberger
North Carolina State University
Environmental Technology 201
November 15, 2013
Introduction
In coordination of North Carolina State Universitys Environmental
Technology program, the Little Rock Creek of Raleigh, North Carolina was assessed by a
team of students, including myself, under the direction of Teresa Litzenberger. While the
Little Rock Creek may, in length, be little but in importance, be large: it is part of a much
greater picture. Little Rock Creek is part of the Walnut Creek watershed (Stormwater
Utility). The creek is also a member of the Upper Neuse River drainage basin, which
drains into Raleighs main source of drinking water, the Falls Lake Reservoir (About the
Upper Neuse River Basin).
About 30 years ago, a Ward Transformer building in the Upper Neuse River
Basin was found to be leaking hazardous chemicals into a surrounding creek (PCB
Contamination). Of these chemicals, toxic pollutants responsible for human endocrine
disruptions and neurotoxicity that go by the name of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs
for short, were found. Stream water treatment against such chemicals began
approximately 20 years ago, and PCBs remain a problem in the Upper Neuse River
Basin. With that being said, problems in a stream may very well create problems across
the state; the health of one stream no matter now long, is holistic for the health of water
quality as a whole.
Little Rock Creek meanders through southeastern Raleigh with a figure that, to
the best of an attempt to relate a relatable image can be described as a rugged S, a
2
squiggly lightning bolt shape, or the function of x
3
graphed out. The bottom surface
consists of sand layered with small cobbles and some gravel. A lack of large trees and a
light sediment bottom allows for erosion to easily occur within the stream, and so it does,
widening the greatest at moments of curves. Because of this, in wide turns the flow is
slower at the arcs. Additionally, at curves pools are scattered and stream failure is evident
at some points as fresh sand deposits overpower the stream causing for a backup of debris
and, at times, litter.
Flowing through an urban environment, the creek is approximately 3.6 miles
away from the universitys campus (Raleigh, North Carolina). There is a trail that
follows the entirety of the stream and much further beyond as part of the Capital Area
Greenway System, a 110 mile system of mostly paved, connected trails traveling through
the city of Raleigh, with many of which in close proximity to streams or creeks (Capital
Area Greenway Trail System). The stream itself is cumulatively 1.1 miles in length,
passing through Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Bragg St, and Peterson St until it discharges
into the Walnut Creek seven-tenths of a mile south of the intersection between Peterson
St and S State St.
According to Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Rule .0302
contains the classifications for waters located within the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC
02L .0312). However, for Little Rock Creek, this does not seem to be the case; Little
Rock Creek has not yet been classified. Therefore, Rule .0301 is followed, stating that
any unnamed stream that does not fit the exceptions listed, the streams of the Neuse River
Basin are of no exception, shall follow the classification of the stream which it is
tributary (Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to Waters of the Neuse
3
River Basin). That withstanding, until Little Rock Creek is specifically, officially
classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, it will be classified under
the guidelines of Rule .0301 as Class C / Nutrient Sensitive Water. This is so because the
portion of Walnut Creek located within the Neuse River Basin (part of Walnut Creek is
additionally in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin) closest to Little Rock Creek has been
deemed such (15A NCAC 02B .0315). The classifications entail that Little Rock Creek to
be protected for recreational and wildlife use as well as to be safe for incidental human
contact. Additionally, that the water is prone to an imbalance of nutrients and in need of
more nutrient management.
With the stream so close to urban developments, as there is a sizable middle
school in proximately as well as developed neighborhoods, the stream has great potential
to be exposed to nutrients that may very well cause an overabundance of microscopic and
macroscopic vegetation through yard waste such as pesticides running off into the stream
or cut grass blowing into the stream, both of which adding nutrients to the nutrient
sensitive water to potentially harvest algae blooms. Notwithstanding, there is a point
where the stream flows underneath Peterson Street through culverts, increasing the
likelihood to exposure to pollution through motor exhaust. This and the Capital Area
Greenways almost completely adjacent following of the creek and surrounding
tributaries spike the chances of passersby littering into the stream. Indeed, litter was
noticed beginning at the first point of observation to the last from the likes of a
basketball, snack food wrappers, bottles, and even a mattress. It cannot be said that the
trash observed in Little Rock Creek was attributed to any other streams, as no streams are
attribute to the Little Rock Creek.
4
Within a five-minute walk of the merging of the Little Rock Creek and Walnut
Creek, stands a building crafted to optimum environmentally sustainable standards with a
sole purpose of addressing the problems facing wetlands, the Walnut Creek Wetland
Center (Walnut Creek Wetland Center). The center is more than well aware of factors
concerning the well being of the backdoor wetlands, and its team has not been sitting
back watching. Last year, the team developed a variety of plans to not only reduce the
flooding of public streets but to increase the quality of water as well as restore and
stabilize nearby streams (Stormwater Utility). Such efforts are especially needed for
Little Rock Creek as erosion, and other factors that contribute to flooding and stream
stability, are evident.

Assessment & Methodology
Our group observed the Little Rock Creek over the course of several weeks. We
arrived to our first site, WL-3, around 9:00 AM on a partly cloudy day with temperatures
~63 Fahrenheit on the 17
th
of October 2013. On the first day, my group traveled to three
points across the span of the creek conducting Rapid Stream Assessment Technique
assessments to get an idea of the health of the stream before actually administering tests.
5

Figure 1: Little Rock Creek. Regrettably excluding WL-1, which is the culvert after crossing Peterson St
from the South
The RSAT is an approach for measuring observational data in the field that can
indicate a streams condition. The test is administered by ranking various characteristics
of a stream or river based on factors for each category. Fields include channel stability,
channel scouring or sediment deposition, physical instream habitat, water quality,
6
riparian habitat conditions, and biological indicators of macroinvertebrates. For each, a
ranking is given numerically, and then conditionally based on the numerical value. This
can be exclusive to categories, which have varying values between the condition and
numerical value, or inclusive to the testing position as a whole and tallying up the total
points. Ranking for category or whole can be poor, fair, good, or excellent. For
categories: 0-2 is always poor, 3-5 is generally fair, 5-7 is generally good, and excellence
tends to be in the 7-9 ranges. Some categories have more maximum points than others,
such as channel stability; this is because some aspects of a stream are more detrimental
than other. For total points of
an observed location, <16 is
poor, 16-29 is fair, 30-41 is
good, and 42-50 is excellent.
Our first stop, site WL-
3, if following the S idea
mentioned in the introduction,
would be in about the middle of the bottom right dent. From this sight, S State Street can
be seen peeking through some mixed hardwoods. This sight, as for most observed points,
was the victim of erosion. While about 60% of the bank was stable, slumping was steep
(about 4-5 feet above the stream) and fairly common as were tree roots. Additionally, the
bottom was mostly erodible soils and light cobblestone. These factors made it easy to
determine the stream suffered with only fair condition. Channel scouring was not so great
either, as there common sand deposits large enough to the point that one could walk in
the stream and not get wet. A decent mix of pools and riffles and runs were present and
Image 1: WL-3
7
there with some points being slow and shallow as well as plenty some canopy over pools,
so WL-3 offered a fair instream habitat, though because of how shallow it was (less than
a ft.) it is hard for me to imagine sizable fish actually traveling through this. Organisms in
the riparian habitat had the same quality of amenities with mostly wooded canopy with
some gaps from younger trees. The water is mostly clear and offers a slight odor.
Following the trail south, we went to our next point, WL-4. This was the highest
ranked point of the creek we came across. At this point, Little Rock Creek tributes into
Walnut Creek right as the Walnut Creek Trail goes underneath S State St. There had been
modifications to stabilize this point in the stream,
some riprap and netting line the sides of a portion of
the bank to prevent further sloughing, though the bank
was still steep. The flow is more consistent here; with
some knick points and less points of failure. Even
with the most depth of all previous points, large sand
deposits still line near the banks. After a large knick
point, some deeper pools with a toned down flow
occupy a portion of bank. On the sides closer to the
trail and S State St, less canopy is offered. With larger
rocks, greater sedimentation, and accelerated velocity,
the water just deposited from Little Rock Creek is mostly clear with only the exception of
some debris that line the bottom and cloud a minor section of the odorless water though
the depth allows for the best instream habitat in relation to the other sites.
Image 2: WL-4 depositing into Walnut
Creek
8
Working our way back up north from where we came, we visited point WL-2,
which following the S concept could be said to be in
the top-left arc of the S. Out of all points we observed
on the creek, WL-2 was the worse in quality. This site
is heavily eroded, with spacious mounts of sand and
cobblestone that interrupt the flow causing complete
failure at several points. There is very little to no
stream stability besides what limited segment
manages to curve across the banks of the sand mount,
thus sharply eroding the banks of the stream parallel
to the mount. Tree roots cover the banks; a small tree
even grows from a cluster of sand. Despite this, the
clear, odorless water that manages to progress between the sand and bank has great
velocity and riffles though few pools are available for instream organisms, and the ones
which are, are shallow like their jurisdiction. However, at this
mark riparian species attain satisfactory, but not optimum,
commodities as plenty of canopy is provided aside from few
divides.
The final point my team observed was the most upstream
amongst all others, the point as soon as Little Rock Creek flows
underneath Peterson St. Regardless of a mattress being dumped
on the steep banks of the stream, in comparison to other
Image 3: WL-2, observe over
abundance of sediment and a fallen
tree.
Image 4a: WL-1, north of the
Walnut Creek Wetland Center
9
territories this mark is fair. At
this area, the stream is wider
than all others we observed.
However, it maintains greater
depth than all sites but WL-4,
notwithstanding this site, like
the others, includes large rubbles of sediment, exposed tree roots, heavy erosion, and
fallen trees. The water is mostly clear, but does not carry much velocity or offer an
adequate amount of riffles and it produces a slight odor.
On the 31
st
of October, my team and I returned to Little Rock Creek around 9:00
AM once more in order to take water quality samples. The weather was overcast and
~60 Fahrenheit. On site, we tested pH, conductivity (s/cm), dissolved oxygen (mg/L),
turbidity (NTU) and temperature (C). To do so, we used a combination of YSI tools. To
find DO, conductivity, temperature at WL-3 we used YSI Pro2030. To find the same
information at WL-4 and WL-2, we used YSI ProfessonalPlus. Since we tested for
turbidity at WL-2 as well we also used the HACH 2100P Turbiditor in combination of
the YSI 6 XLMV2600. At WL-1 we used the YSI model85 to test DO levels and used the
YSI 600xl in combination of the YSI 650mds to find everything else. Before using the
tools, they were calibrated by Dr. Teresa Litzenberger.
In addition to this, we collected two water samples at each point in sterile, 125
mL, plastic jars, with a duplicate at WL-3, to test for E.coli contamination within the
creek. We also gathered nitrate and nitrite samples to test for nitrogen compounds in the
same manner though one jar for nitrite and another for nitrate. Further samples were
Image 4b: WL-1, north of the Walnut Creek Wetland Center.
10
taken in 40 mL, sterile, glass VOC vials in order to test for Volatile Organic Compounds,
which is testing Dr. Litzenberger conducted. When taking and working with all samples,
latex gloves were worn at all times to avoid contamination of results thus maintain
scientific integrity.
E.coli samples were held at 4 Fahrenheit for cumulatively an hour before
undergoing tests. To tests for E.coli, I individually emptied each the labeled jars to
100ml. Then, I added Colilert substrate to each and calmly shook the mixture until the
substrate had dissolved. After which I poured each sample into a quantitray and fed the
sample with the quantitray into the sealer. When it came out, the samples were placed
into an incubator for 24 hours. At which time Dr. Teresa Litzenberger removed the
samples from the incubator to observe them under fluorescent light to see which cells had
indicated E.coli presence and recorded the data.
To tests for nitrate and nitrite, HACH Water Quality Test Strips for Nitrate and
Nitrite were dipped into our designated samples. The strips changed color indicating the
amount of nitrite and nitrate present, which is then compared to the graph of color options
on the back of the case.
I returned to the stream independently on the 8
th
of November 2013 to look over
my observations and take more detailed notes regarding the characteristics of the stream.

Results and Discussion
Measurements collected on the 31
st
of October 2013 from cumulatively 9:00 AM
to 10:40 AM are shown below.

11
RSAT Evaluation Category Verbal And Numerical Ranking of Cites
WL-1 WL-2 WL-3 WL-4
Channel Stability 2 0 3 4
Channel Scouring/Deposition 2 2 1 4
Physical Instream Habitat 5 3 4 5
Water Quality 3 3 4 5
Riparian Habitat Conditions 4 5 4 4
Biological Indicator 2 1 1 7
Total Numeric Score 18 14 17 29
Condition Fair Poor Fair Fair
Table 1: RSAT Evaluations


Site Date pH Conductivity Dissolve
d
Oxygen
(mg/L)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Temperature
(C)
Nitrates
(mg/L)
Nitrites
(mg/L)
E.coli
(MPN/100 ml)
WL-1 10/31/13 6.9 0.307 mS/cm 7.49 <10 15.09 2.0 0.0 436
WL-2 10/31/13 6.83 219.1 S/cm 8.22 4.09 14.9 2.0 0.0 547.5
WL-3 10/31/13 6.7 152.4 S/cm 8.20 14.7 2.0 0.0 601.5
(DUP)403.4
WL-4 10/31/13 6.91 223.6 S/cm 8.37 14.8 2.0 0.0 517.2
WL-1 10/31/12 5.7 0.199 mS/cm 9.4 3.1 10.4 461
WL-2 10/31/12 6.6 0.192 mS/cm 10.2 2.8 10 345
WL-3 10/31/12 6.5 0.13 mS/cm 9.1 4.6 10.6 387
WL-4 10/31/12 6.8 0.194 mS/cm 9.2 <10 10.6 45
Table 2: Samples Taken between this year and last year.
12

The pH for all of the four cites is within healthy range for life, 6 9, and falls within
NCDENR guidelines for Class C waters (Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of N.C. 15A NCAC 2B .0300.). If the creek
were to fall below optimum pH standards, aquatic life would be stressed and the water
would be deemed too acidic.
Water has the ability to hold an electrical current through conductivity though
water is rarely tested in mind to see how much of an electrical current it can hold, more
so its mineral abundance as conductivity is a proportional indicator of dissolved solids or
inorganic substances such as phosphates and sodium that can be potentially harmful to an
environment. Looking at table 2, it can be seen that WL-1 had such a high level of
conductivity that it went from s to ms. This could be due to the amount of impervious
surfaces and urban development nearby; WL-1 and WL-4 have the highest amounts of
conductivity and are the closets to urban development out of all points tested.45% of the
area surrounding the creek are impervious surfaces, so it is likely runoff from pesticides
or home products got into the water. This can be dangerous if it continues to increase as
the nutrients will cause an overabundance in plant growth resulting in water too basic for
aquatic life as the rapid plant growth absorbs too much carbon in the water during
photosynthesis. While conductivity levels are still within legal range, 50-400 s/cm, they
should be monitored closely because they are approaching the limit.
Dissolved oxygen levels throughout the entire Little Rock Creek are much too
high. The optimal levels of dissolved oxygen for aquatic life dwindle around 5 mg/L. If
value lays between 2-5 mg/L, aquatic life is stressed, and when levels are below 2 mg/L
13
fish start to die off. However, at this point, the water is oversaturated with dissolved
oxygen and fish are not adjusted to living with an overbalance of dissolved oxygen to
water. This can also relate to the conductivity. Since the conductivity in the stream is
high, perhaps it is causing and overgrowth of plants and algae and causing a fall in
dissolved oxygen levels. Little Rock Creek is a Nutrient Sensitive Water and given the
correlations, it may very well be on its way to the eutrophication.
Nitrogen is a large contributor to eutrophication. Like phosphates and other
minerals, it accelerates the growth of plant life. While eutrophication may very well be a
threat to this stream, nitrogen does not seem to be where to point fingers. From the points
where we tested for nitrite and nitrate, nitrogen does not seem to be very active. Nitrite
was not detected through sampling; nitrate was but at a low amount. North Carolina
Division of Water Quality standards has the limit set to 10 mg/L.
Turbidity appeared to stay low throughout the whole creek. Though two areas
were tested, and there were definitely portions of the stream with slight cloudiness, I
mostly observed clear waters through my trek. For the first two points, results read well
below the North Carolina Division of Water Quality standards of at most 50 NTU (15A
NCAC 2B .0300.). Perhaps though it would be better if the water exemplified more
turbidity, at least for this phase where eutrophication may be approaching. That way it
would block plants from photosynthesizing as much and balance the dissolved oxygen
level.
E.coli is exposed to environments through animal waste. With trails connecting
throughout the whole city, it is likely that someone walked their dog through Little Rock
Trail and the dog decided it would hop in the stream and take care of business. While
14
E.coli is something totally undesirable, it is not of large concern at the moment given its
occurrence is mostly always incidental or temporary. Nevertheless, E.coli, or any fecal
coliform for that matter, by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, shall not
exceed a geometric mean of 200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive
samples examined during any 30 day period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 20
percent of the samples examined during such period. (15A NCAC 02B .0211). In that
case, all of the samples for E.coli are showing an abundance of coliform and more testing
needs to be conducted following the guidelines put in place for fecal coliform.

Table 3: Relationship between the conductivity levels of this year and the conductivity levels of last year.






0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
m
S
/
c
m
)

Conductivity
WL-1
WL-2
WL-3
WL-4
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
D
O

(
m
g
/
L
)

Dissolved Oxygen
WL-1
WL-2
WL-3
WL-4
Table 4: Relationship between the DO levels of this year and the DO levels of last year.
15
Conclusion
The assessment of Little Rock Creek shows that the creek is facing several
concerns, ranging from erosion to potential eutrophication. With the creek being located
in the middle of a large city, and being connected to so many public walkways and trails,
it is easy to point the finger at suburban advancement as reason for its downfall. The
spreading of impervious surfaces around the streams increase the likelihood that nutrients
will be taken in by the stream, thus raising its conductivity, then oversaturating its
dissolved oxygen through overabundance of photosynthesis which will then crash the pH
levels as well. In the areas that would bring about this downward spiral to eventual death
of all stream life, namely alterations in conductivity and dissolved oxygen in turn, a raise
from last years levels can be noted in tables 3 and 4. Understandably, there will be a
increase in dissolved oxygen as colder weather approaches since dissolved oxygen and
temperature have an inverse relationship, but a seasonal change cannot account for the
increase by the year.
With plans on expanding the Greenway another 4.5 miles, it is hard to say what
the future holds for Little Rock Creek ("Walnut Creek Trail Will Extend Greenways in
Raleigh from Umstead to Neuse."). While something as a Greenway builds appreciation
for nature in some, it exposes nature to habits of others as well see urban streams become
victims of neglect. The fermentation of the Walnut Creek Wetland Centers plan to
restore and stabilize streams, as well as reduce flood plains, should greatly help terminate
a great deal of run off making its way into the volatile, nutrient sensitive stream, Little
Rock Creek.

16
References:
15A NCAC 02B .0315. United States. Environmental Management Commission. North Caroline
Department of Environment & Natural Resources. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to Waters of the Neuse River Basin. Environmental Management Commission, 15 Jan.
2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
<http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?bajuuid=a2efae1a-06a0-43dc-b6b9-
f0c3b955ce94&groupId=38364>.

15A NCAC 02L .0312. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. "North Carolina
Administrative Code." Title 15A. Environmental Management Commission, 1 Jan. 2010. Web. 14
Nov. 2013. <http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=285750&name=DLFE-
14969.pdf>.

15A NCAC 2B .0300. United States. Division of Water Quality. North Caroline Department of
Environment & Natural Resources. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Surface Waters and Wetlands of N.C. 15A NCAC 2B .0300. Environmental Management
Commission, 1 May 2007. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
<http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=b399d1e0-0a9e-4dcc-9605-
a673d8a5c6df&groupId=38364>.

"Capital Area Greenway Trail System." The Official City of Raleigh Portal. City of Raleigh. Web. 14 Nov.
2013.
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/arts/content/PRecDesignDevelop/Articles/CapitalAreaGreenwayTrailS
ystem.html>.

"PCB Contamination." Neuse River. Neuse RiverKeeper Foundation, 7 Apr. 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 201.
<http://www.neuseriver.org/pcbs.html>.

17
Raleigh, North Carolina. Map. Google Maps. Google, 14 November 2013. Web. 14 November 2013.

Siceloff, Bruce. "Walnut Creek Trail Will Extend Greenways in Raleigh from Umstead to
Neuse." RALEIGH: Walnut Creek Trail Will Extend Greenways in Raleigh from Umstead to
Neuse. Newsobserver, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/22/2772005/walnut-creek-trail-will-extend.html>.

Stormwater Utility. Walnut Creek Watershed Master Planning Project. Digital image. The Official City of
Raleigh Portal. City of Raleigh. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/PWksStormwater/Articles/WalnutCreekWatershedMast
erPlanningProject.html>.

Upper Neuse River Basin Association. "About the Upper Neuse River Basin." UNRBA Home. Upper Neuse
River Basin Association. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. <http://unrba.org/about-unrb>.

"Walnut Creek Wetland Center." City of Raleigh | Arts & Parks. City of Raleigh, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/arts/content/PRecRecreation/Articles/WalnutCreekWetlandCenter.htm
l>.