ROA 2001 Final Plan Print Job

ROANOKE RIVER BASINWIDE
WATER QUALITY PLAN

July 2001

Prepared by:

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

[phone] ext. 583

This document was approved and endorsed by the NC Environmental Management
Commission on July 12, 2001 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality in
carrying out its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities in the Roanoke River basin.
This plan is the first five-year update to the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission in September 1996.

Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................xiv
Section A - General Basinwide Information...................................................................................1
Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning.....................................................2
1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?.............................................................. 2
1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning............................................................... 2
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan.................................................................. 4
1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning........................................................... 4
1.5 How to Get Involved.................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Other References.......................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations................................................... 6
Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Basin Overview ..................................................................................8
2.1 General Overview........................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin.................................... 12
2.3 Surface Water Hydrology.......................................................................................... 13
2.4 Land Cover................................................................................................................. 15
2.5 Population and Growth Trends.................................................................................. 18
2.6 Natural Resources...................................................................................................... 23
2.6.1 Public Lands in the Roanoke River Basin.................................................... 23
2.6.2 Ecological Significance of the Roanoke River Basin................................... 25
2.6.3 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species................................. 27
2.6.4 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Roanoke River Basin................. 27
2.7 Permitted Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Facilities .................................... 29
2.7.1 Wastewater Discharges in the Roanoke River Basin ................................... 29
2.7.2 Stormwater Discharges in the Roanoke River Basin.................................... 30
2.8 Animal Operations..................................................................................................... 32
2.9 Water Quantity Issues................................................................................................ 35
2.9.1 Local Water Supply Planning....................................................................... 35
2.9.2 Water Withdrawals....................................................................................... 36
2.9.3 Interbasin Transfers...................................................................................... 37
2.9.4 Minimum Streamflow................................................................................... 38
2.10 Physical Impacts to Wetlands and Streams............................................................... 40
Chapter 3 - Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin.....................42
Table of Contents ii
3.1 General Sources of Pollution..................................................................................... 42
3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards.................................... 43
3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Roanoke River Basin................. 49
3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring........................................................ 49
3.3.2 Fish Assessments.......................................................................................... 51
3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring........................................................................ 54
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program.......................................................................... 55
3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System........................................................................ 55
3.4 Other Water Quality Research................................................................................... 58
3.5 Use Support Summary............................................................................................... 60
3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support.......................................................................... 60
3.5.2 Comparison of Use Support Ratings to Streams on the Section 303(d)
List................................................................................................................ 61
3.5.3 Use Support Ratings for the Roanoke River Basin ...................................... 61
Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River
Basin..........................................................................................................................69
4.1 Overview....................................................................................................................69
4.2 Habitat Degradation................................................................................................... 69
4.2.1 Sedimentation............................................................................................... 69
4.2.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation......................................................................... 72
4.2.3 Channelization.............................................................................................. 73
4.2.4 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation................................. 73
4.3 Urban Runoff............................................................................................................. 74
4.3.1 Urbanization.................................................................................................. 74
4.3.2 Stormwater Regulations................................................................................ 75
4.3.3 Recommendations for Reducing Urban Runoff........................................... 75
4.4 Turbidity in the Dan River Watershed....................................................................... 76
4.4.1 Instream Mining Operations......................................................................... 76
4.4.2 Recommendations......................................................................................... 78
4.5 Dissolved Oxygen in the Lower Roanoke River Basin............................................. 78
4.5.1 Discharges to Zero Flow Streams................................................................. 78
4.5.2 Modeling Dissolved Oxygen in the Roanoke River..................................... 79
4.5.3 Other Dissolved Oxygen Studies.................................................................. 79
4.5.4 Recommendations......................................................................................... 80
4.6 Major Studies Related to Water Quality.................................................................... 80
4.6.1 EPA/Weyerhaeuser Dioxin Contamination Studies..................................... 81
4.6.2 FERC Relicensing of Hydropower Projects................................................. 81
4.6.3 USCOE Section 216 Study........................................................................... 81
4.6.4 Recommendations......................................................................................... 82
4.7 Protecting Headwaters............................................................................................... 82
4.8 Biological Community Assessment Issues................................................................ 82
4.8.1 Draft Criteria for Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Swamp
Streams.......................................................................................................... 82
Table of Contents iii
4.8.2 Draft Criteria for Assessing Fish Communities in Non-Wadeable
Streams.......................................................................................................... 83
4.8.3 Fish Consumption Advisories....................................................................... 83
4.8.4 Recommendations for Biological Community Assessment......................... 84
4.9 Effects of Hurricanes on Water Quality.................................................................... 84
4.9.1 Contaminants................................................................................................ 85
4.9.2 De-snagging.................................................................................................. 85
4.9.3 Bank Failure.................................................................................................. 86
4.9.4 Recommendations......................................................................................... 86
4.10 Priority Issues for the Next Five Years...................................................................... 87
4.10.1 Strategies for Restoring and Protecting Impaired Waters............................ 87
4.10.2 Addressing Waters on the State’s 303(d) List.............................................. 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section B - Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin.....................................................89
Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01
Includes a portion of the Dan River, Town Fork and Snow Creeks..........................90
1.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................................ 90
1.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters................................ 94
1.2.1 Belews Lake.................................................................................................. 94
1.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters....................................... 94
1.3.1 Town Fork Creek.......................................................................................... 94
1.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................... 95
1.5 Other Issues and Recommendations.......................................................................... 95
1.5.1 Snow Creek................................................................................................... 95
1.5.2 Dan River...................................................................................................... 96
1.5.3 Projected Population Growth........................................................................ 96
1.5.4 NPDES Discharges....................................................................................... 96
Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
Includes a portion of the Dan and Mayo Rivers........................................................97
2.1 Water Quality Overview............................................................................................ 97
2.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 100
2.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 100
2.3.1 Dan River.................................................................................................... 100
2.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 101
2.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 101
2.5.1 Mayo River................................................................................................. 101
2.5.2 Projected Population Growth...................................................................... 102
2.5.3 NPDES Discharges..................................................................................... 102
Table of Contents iv
Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03
Includes a portion of the Dan and Smith Rivers......................................................103
3.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 103
3.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 106
3.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 107
3.3.1 Smith River................................................................................................. 107
3.3.2 Dan River.................................................................................................... 108
3.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 108
3.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 108
3.5.1 Phase II Stormwater Requirements ............................................................ 108
3.5.2 NPDES Discharges..................................................................................... 109
Chapter 4 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04
Includes a portion of the Dan River and Country Line Creek.................................110
4.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 110
4.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 113
4.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 113
4.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 113
4.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 113
4.5.1 Country Line Creek .................................................................................... 114
4.5.2 Dan River.................................................................................................... 114
4.5.3 Projected Population Growth...................................................................... 115
Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05
Includes Hyco Lake, Marlowe Creek and Mayo Reservoir.....................................116
5.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 116
5.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 119
5.2.1 Marlowe Creek ........................................................................................... 119
5.2.2 Hyco Lake................................................................................................... 120
5.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 121
5.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 121
5.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 121
5.5.1 Hyco Creek................................................................................................. 122
5.5.2 Projected Population Growth...................................................................... 122
Chapter 6 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06
Includes a portion of Kerr Reservoir and Nutbush Creek........................................123
6.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 123
6.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 127
6.2.1 Nutbush Creek ............................................................................................ 127
Table of Contents v
6.2.2 Anderson Swamp Creek ............................................................................. 127
6.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 128
6.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 128
6.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 128
6.5.1 Projected Population Growth...................................................................... 128
6.5.2 Phase II Stormwater Requirements ............................................................ 129
Chapter 7 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
Includes Lake Gaston and Smith, Hawtree and Sixpound Creeks...........................130
7.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 130
7.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 133
7.2.1 Lake Gaston................................................................................................ 133
7.2.2 Smith Creek................................................................................................ 134
7.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 135
7.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 135
7.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 135
7.5.1 Lake Gaston................................................................................................ 135
7.5.2 Sixpound Creek........................................................................................... 136
Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08
Includes Roanoke Rapids Lake and 55 miles of the Roanoke River.......................137
8.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 137
8.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 141
8.2.1 Roanoke Rapids Lake................................................................................. 141
8.2.2 Quankey Creek ........................................................................................... 142
8.2.3 Conoconnora Swamp.................................................................................. 143
8.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 143
8.3.1 Roanoke River ............................................................................................ 143
8.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 144
8.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 144
8.5.1 NPDES Discharges..................................................................................... 144
8.5.2 Eroding Streambanks.................................................................................. 145
8.5.3 Phase II Stormwater Requirements ............................................................ 145
8.5.4 Chockoyette Creek...................................................................................... 145
Chapter 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09
Includes the lowest portion of the Roanoke River and tributaries...........................146
9.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 146
9.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 150
9.2.1 Welch Creek ............................................................................................... 150
Roanoke River ............................................................................................ 150
Albemarle Sound........................................................................................ 150
Table of Contents vi
9.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 150
9.3.1 Roanoke River ............................................................................................ 151
9.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 151
9.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 151
9.5.1 Hardison Mill Creek................................................................................... 151
Deep Run Swamp ....................................................................................... 151
Chapter 10 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10
Includes the Cashie River, Roquist Creek and tributaries.......................................152
10.1 Water Quality Overview.......................................................................................... 152
10.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters.............................. 155
10.2.1 Cashie River................................................................................................ 155
10.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters..................................... 155
10.3.1 Cashie River................................................................................................ 156
10.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters .................................................................................. 156
10.5 Other Issues and Recommendations........................................................................ 156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section C - Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives..........................................................157
Chapter 1 - Current Water Quality Initiatives ............................................................................158
1.1 Workshop Summaries.............................................................................................. 158
1.2 Federal Initiatives .................................................................................................... 159
1.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program.................................................... 159
1.2.2 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)... 159
1.2.3 US Fish and Wildlife Service - Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge......................................................................................................... 160
1.3 State Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 161
1.3.1 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program.......................................... 161
1.3.2 NC Wetlands Restoration Program ............................................................ 163
1.3.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund........................................................ 164
1.3.4 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program.......................................................... 165
1.3.5 Coastal Habitat Protection Plans ................................................................ 166
1.3.6 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality......................................... 166
1.3.7 Partnership for the Sounds.......................................................................... 166
1.4 Local Initiatives....................................................................................................... 167
1.4.1 Town of Windsor........................................................................................ 167
1.5 Regional Organizations............................................................................................ 167
1.5.1 Roanoke River Basin Association.............................................................. 167
1.5.2 The Nature Conservancy ............................................................................ 168
1.5.3 Piedmont Land Conservancy...................................................................... 170
1.6 Corporate Initiatives ................................................................................................ 171
Table of Contents vii
1.6.1 Georgia-Pacific Corporation....................................................................... 171
1.7 Citizen Efforts.......................................................................................................... 172
1.7.1 Rockingham County Watershed Preservation Coalition, Inc..................... 172
1.7.2 Roanoke River Partners.............................................................................. 172
Chapter 2 - Future Water Quality Initiatives..............................................................................174
2.1 Overall DWQ Goals for the Future.......................................................................... 174
2.2 DWQ Compliance and Enforcement Policy Revisions........................................... 177
Appendices viii
APPENDICES
I NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits in the Roanoke River Basin
II Water Quality Data Collected by DWQ
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections
• Fish Community Collections
• Fish Tissue Assessments
• Lake Assessments
III Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings
IV Section 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology
V Explanation of Box Plots
VI Roanoke River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts
VII Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
List of Figures ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (1999 to 2003)........................................................2
Figure A-2 Water Quality Section Organization Structure........................................................6
Figure A-3 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices...........................................................7
Figure A-4 General Map of the Entire Roanoke River Basin....................................................9
Figure A-5 General Map of the Western Portion of the Roanoke River Basin in North
Carolina.................................................................................................................10
Figure A-6 General Map of the Eastern Portion of the Roanoke River Basin in North
Carolina.................................................................................................................11
Figure A-7 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1997 for the Roanoke River Basin................16
Figure A-8 Percentages within Major Land Cover Categories in the Roanoke River Basin...18
Figure A-9 1998 Population Density by County for the Roanoke River Basin.......................20
Figure A-10 Projected Population Growth (1998-2018) by County for the Roanoke River
Basin in North Carolina.........................................................................................21
Figure A-11 Population Data for Selected Municipalities in the North Carolina Portion of
the Roanoke River Basin.......................................................................................22
Figure A-12 Public Lands and Significant Natural Heritage Areas of the Roanoke River
Basin......................................................................................................................24
Figure A-13 Location of NPDES Permitted Discharges in the Roanoke River Basin..............31
Figure A-14 Estimated Self-Supplied Water Use in the Roanoke River Basin (USGS)...........35
Figure A-15 Water Supply Watersheds and Designated Trout Waters in the Western Portion
of the Roanoke River Basin ..................................................................................47
Figure A-16 Water Supply Watersheds and CAMA Coastal Counties in the Eastern Portion
of the Roanoke River Basin ..................................................................................48
Figure A-17 Bioclassifications for 35 Roanoke River Basin Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sites
Sampled by DWQ in 1999....................................................................................51
Figure A-18 Fish Tissue Samples Exceeding Consumption Criteria at Six Sites Sampled by
DWQ in 1994 and 1999 ........................................................................................53
Figure A-19 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Roanoke River
Basin......................................................................................................................54
Figure A-20 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations at Ambient Monitoring Stations in the
Roanoke River Basin (1980-1999)........................................................................57
Figure A-21 Use Support Ratings for the Western Portion of the Roanoke River Basin..........67
Figure A-22 Use Support Ratings for the Eastern Portion of the Roanoke River Basin...........68
Figure A-23 Permitted Instream Mine Sites in the Dan River Watershed (DLR, June 2001)...77
Figure B-1 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-01....................................................91
Figure B-2 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-02....................................................98
Figure B-3 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-03..................................................104
Figure B-4 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-04..................................................111
Figure B-5 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-05..................................................117
Figure B-6 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-06..................................................124
Figure B-7 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-07..................................................131
Figure B-8 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-08..................................................138
Figure B-9 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-09..................................................147
List of Figures x
Figure B-10 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-02-10..................................................153
Figure C-1 Percent of Total Attendance by Various Interests at DWQ Water Quality
Workshops in the Roanoke River Basin (2000)..................................................158
Figure C-2 Agriculture Cost Share Program Dollars Expended (1995-1999) in Counties in
the Roanoke River Basin.....................................................................................165
Figure C-3 Land in Conservation Ownership in the Roanoke River Basin (December 2000)
.............................................................................................................................169
List of Tables xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for
Waters in the Roanoke River Basin (1999)..........................................................xvi
Table 2 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Roanoke River Basin (1999)...............................................................................xvii
Table 3 Primary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Roanoke River Basin (1999)...............................................................................xvii
Table 4 Water Supply Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999).............................................................................................xviii
Table 5 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Roanoke River Basin (as of 1999).........xix
Table A-1 Schedule for Second Cycle of Basinwide Planning (1998 to 2003).......................3
Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Water Quality
Plan..........................................................................................................................3
Table A-3 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Roanoke River Basin...........12
Table A-4 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Roanoke River Basin..........................................13
Table A-5 Statistics for Major Lakes (Entire Size Calculations) in the Roanoke River
Basin......................................................................................................................14
Table A-6 Estimated Land Cover Acreage for the Roanoke River Basin - 1982 vs. 1997....16
Table A-7 Description of Land Cover Types (USDA-NRCS 1997 NRI)..............................17
Table A-8 Description of CGIA Land Cover Categories.......................................................18
Table A-9 Roanoke River Subbasin Population (1970, 1980, 1990), Percent Population
Change and Land Area Summaries.......................................................................19
Table A-10 Population and Percent Change for Municipalities Greater Than 2,000 Located
Wholly or Partly in the Basin as of March 2001...................................................22
Table A-11 Past, Projected and Change in Population (2000 to 2020) by County as of
March 2001 ...........................................................................................................23
Table A-12 Rare and Threatened Aquatic Species in the Roanoke River Basin......................27
Table A-13 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows.......................................29
Table A-14 Registered Animal Operations in the Roanoke River Basin (as of 1/20/2000).....34
Table A-15 Estimated Populations of Swine, Dairy and Poultry in the Roanoke River
Basin (1998 and 1994)..........................................................................................34
Table A-16 Registered Water Withdrawals in the Roanoke River Basin (August 2000)........36
Table A-17 Interbasin Transfers in the Roanoke River Basin (1997)......................................38
Table A-18 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Roanoke River Basin................................39
Table A-19 Flow Augmentation...............................................................................................40
Table A-20 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications....................................43
Table A-21 Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Roanoke River Basin .....50
Table A-22 Summary of NCIBI Categories for All Freshwater Fish Community Sites
(using the most recent rating for each site) in the Roanoke River Basin..............52
Table A-23 Ambient Monitoring System Stations within the Roanoke River Basin...............56
Table A-24 USGS Continuous Monitoring Station Daily Average Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Data Summary for the Roanoke River Basin (1/98-8/99).....................................59
List of Tables xii
Table A-25 USGS Continuous Monitoring Station Instantaneous Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Data Summary for the Roanoke River Basin (1/98-8/99).....................................59
Table A-26 Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Ratings for Monitored and
Evaluated Waters Listed by Subbasin in Miles (1995-1999)................................62
Table A-27 Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for
Waters in the Roanoke River Basin (1999)...........................................................62
Table A-28 Fish Consumption Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters Listed by
Subbasin in Miles (1995-1999).............................................................................63
Table A-29 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Roanoke River Basin (1999).................................................................................63
Table A-30 Primary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the
Roanoke River Basin (1999).................................................................................64
Table A-31 Water Supply Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)................................................................................................64
Table A-32 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Roanoke River Basin (as of 2000)..........66
Table B-1 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999-2000) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01.............................................92
Table B-2 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-01.......................................................................................93
Table B-3 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01.........................................93
Table B-4 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02......................................................99
Table B-5 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02.......................................100
Table B-6 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03....................................................105
Table B-7 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03.......................................106
Table B-8 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04....................................................112
Table B-9 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-04.....................................................................................112
Table B-10 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04.......................................113
Table B-11 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05....................................................118
Table B-12 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-05.....................................................................................119
Table B-13 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05.......................................119
Table B-14 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06....................................................125
Table B-15 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-06.....................................................................................126
Table B-16 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06.......................................126
List of Tables xiii
Table B-17 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07....................................................132
Table B-18 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-07.....................................................................................133
Table B-19 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07.......................................133
Table B-20 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08....................................................139
Table B-21 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-08.....................................................................................140
Table B-22 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08.......................................141
Table B-23 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09....................................................148
Table B-24 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09.......................................149
Table B-25 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10....................................................154
Table B-26 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10.......................................155
Table C-1 Wetlands Restoration Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2000)...................164
Table C-2 Projects in the Roanoke River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (as of 7/00)........................................................................................164
Executive Summary xiv
Executive Summary
North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management
Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are
prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the seventeen major river
basins in the state. Each basinwide plan is revised at five-year intervals. While these plans are
prepared by the DWQ, their implementation and the protection of water quality entails the
coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments and stakeholders in the state. The first
basinwide plan for the Roanoke River basin was completed in 1996.
This document is the first five-year update of the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
The format of this plan was revised in response to comments received during the first planning
cycle. DWQ replaced much of the general information in the first plan with more detailed
information specific to the Roanoke River basin. A greater emphasis was placed on identifying
causes and sources of pollution for individual streams in order to facilitate local restoration
efforts.
DWQ seriously considered comments from three public workshops and four public meetings
held in the basin during plan development. Many changes were made to the draft as a result of
public review. This input will help guide continuing DWQ activities in the basin.
Goals of the Basinwide Approach
The goals of DWQ’s basinwide program are to:
• identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters;
• identify and protect high value resource waters;
• protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth;
• develop appropriate management strategies to protect and restore water quality;
• assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers; and
• improve public awareness and involvement in the management of the state’s surface waters.
Roanoke River Basin Overview
The Roanoke River begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern Virginia and flows in a
generally southeastern direction for 400 miles before emptying into the Albemarle Sound in
eastern North Carolina. By the time it reaches the fall line near Roanoke Rapids, it has captured
water from nearly 8,000 square miles of land. From Roanoke Rapids to the coast, the river
drains another 2,000 square miles, carrying more water than any other river in North Carolina.
The North Carolina portion of the basin (roughly 36 percent of the entire watershed) is composed
of two major parts: the Dan River and its tributaries in the western section; and the Roanoke
River from Virginia to the Sound in the eastern section. The Roanoke River enters North
Executive Summary xv
Carolina through John H. Kerr Reservoir and then flows into Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids
Lake before regaining its riverine form.
The upper Dan River is classified as trout waters and part of the area is also designated a State
Water Trail by the NC Division of Parks and Recreation. The lower portion of the basin contains
the largest intact and least disturbed bottomland hardwood and cypress-tupelo ecosystems on the
Atlantic Coast of North America. This area is important habitat for anadromous fish, including
striped bass, as well as black bear, bobcat, large populations of wild turkey, 14 species of
waterfowl, and 220 additional bird species.
Sixty percent of the land in the basin is forested and about twenty-two percent is in cultivated
cropland. Cotton, peanuts, tobacco and soybeans are among the most common crops grown.
Only six percent of the land falls into the urban/built-up category. Despite the large amount of
cultivated cropland and the relatively small amount of urban area, the basin has experienced a
significant decrease (-105,300 acres) in the former and increase (+77,700 acres) in the latter over
the past fifteen years.
There are 15 counties and 42 municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin. In
1990, the estimated population of the basin was 263,691 people. The most populated areas are
located north of the Winston-Salem/Greensboro area and around the larger municipalities in the
basin, such as Roanoke Rapids, Eden, Williamston and Plymouth. Population in Stokes and
Granville counties is projected to increase 25-30 percent from 1998 to 2018. Population in many
other counties along the North Carolina/Virginia border is projected to increase 15 to 20 percent
over the same twenty-year period.
There are 11 major reservoirs in the North Carolina portion of the basin. Most of them are
located in the upper portion of the basin on tributaries of the Dan and Roanoke Rivers (notably
Belews Lake, Hyco Lake and Mayo Reservoir). Three reservoirs, Kerr, Gaston and Roanoke
Rapids, are impoundments of the Roanoke River mainstem. They are managed by Dominion
and the US Army Corps of Engineers for electrical energy production and flood control. Flow
from these reservoirs directly influences the quality of water in the lower Roanoke River.
Assessment of Water Quality in the Roanoke River Basin
Surface waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a
water supports its designated uses (use support status) is an important method of interpreting
water quality data and assessing water quality. Waters are rated fully supporting (FS), partially
supporting (PS) or not supporting (NS). The terms refer to whether the classified uses of the
water (i.e., aquatic life protection, recreation and water supply) are being met. For example,
waters classified for aquatic life protection and secondary recreation (Class C for freshwater or
SC for saltwater) are rated FS if data used to determine use support did not exceed specific
criteria. However, if these criteria were exceeded, then the waters would be rated as PS or NS,
depending on the degree of degradation. Waters rated PS or NS are considered to be impaired.
Waters lacking data, or having inconclusive data, are listed as not rated (NR).
Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk through several use support categories. Six categories
Executive Summary xvi
are used to assess water quality under this approach: aquatic life/secondary recreation, fish
consumption, shellfish harvesting, primary recreation, water supply and "other" uses. Each of
these categories is related to the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams. A
single water could have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the
multiple use support categories. For many waters, a use support category will not be applicable
(N/A) to the best use classification of that water (e.g., drinking water supply is not the best use of
a Class C water). The current method of determining use support differs from that done prior to
2000; in that, there is no longer an overall use support rating for a water.
The aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category is applied to all waters in North
Carolina. Approximately 51,405 acres of lakes were monitored in 1999. Only Roanoke Rapids
Lake (4,893 acres) is partially supporting the aquatic life/secondary recreation use support
category. All other lakes are fully supporting this category. Approximately 29 percent of total
stream miles (638 miles) in the Roanoke River basin were monitored for the protection of aquatic
life/secondary recreation by DWQ during this basinwide cycle. Impaired waters accounted for
2.6 percent of the total stream miles (monitored and evaluated) and 8.9 percent of monitored
stream miles. Habitat degradation, from a variety of sources, was the primary cause of
impairment.
Aquatic life in many swamp streams in the lower portion for the Roanoke River basin was
monitored during this basinwide cycle, but the aquatic life/secondary recreation category for
these streams is not rated. Currently, DWQ has draft criteria for evaluating swamp streams based
on benthic macroinvertebrate data; however, there has been insufficient sampling of reference
sites to assign bioclassifications and use the data for use support. A summary of current aquatic
life/secondary recreation use support ratings for monitored and evaluated streams in the Roanoke
River basin is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for Waters
in the Roanoke River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
Use Support Ratings Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 1113.7 50.3% 357.0 56.0%
Impaired 56.7 2.6% 56.7 8.9%
Partially Supporting 48.7 2.2% 48.7 7.6%
Not Supporting 8.0 0.4% 8.0 1.3%
Not Rated 1042.6 47.1% 223.9 35.1%
TOTAL 2213.0 637.6
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
Like the aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category, the fish consumption use support
category also applies to all waters in the state. Approximately 14 percent of stream miles (308.0
miles) and more than 83 percent of lake acres (42,880 acres) in the basin were monitored for the
fish consumption category during this basinwide cycle. Fish consumption use support ratings are
Executive Summary xvii
based on fish consumption advisories issued by the NC Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). Currently, there is a statewide advisory limiting consumption of bowfin due
to excessive mercury concentrations. Because of this advisory, all waters in the state are
considered partially supporting the fish consumption use. However, many waters across the state
do not contain bowfin. Samples collected by DWQ in 1999 from some waters in the basin,
including the Dan River, Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston, revealed concentrations of metals and
PCBs in other fish species well below federal and state consumption criteria.
Table 2 presents a summary of current fish consumption use support ratings for monitored and
evaluated streams in the Roanoke River basin.
Table 2 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**Fish Consumption
Use Support Ratings Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 0.0 0.0
Impaired 2213.0 100% 308.0 100%
Partially Supporting 2199.7 99.4% 294.7 95.7%
Not Supporting 13.3 0.6% 13.3 4.3%
Not Rated 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
TOTAL 2213.0 308.0
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
There are 120.2 stream miles currently classified for primary recreation (Class B) in the Roanoke
River basin. Approximately 15 percent were monitored by DWQ over the past five years, and all
are fully supporting the primary recreation use. A basinwide summary of current primary
recreation use support ratings is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Primary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**Primary Recreation
Use Support Ratings Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 18.5 15.4% 18.5 100%
Impaired 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Not Rated 101.7 84.6% 0.0 0%
TOTAL 120.2 18.5
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
Approximately 270 stream miles are currently classified for water supply (WS-I through WS-V)
in the Roanoke River basin. All were monitored within the past five years and all are fully
Executive Summary xviii
supporting the water supply use. A basinwide summary of current water supply use support
ratings is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Water Supply Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**Water Supply
Use Support Ratings Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 270.4 100% 270.4 100%
Impaired 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Not Rated 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
TOTAL 270.4 270.4
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
All lakes that were assessed by DWQ are fully supporting both the primary recreation and water
supply use support categories.
Recommended Management Strategies for Restoring Impaired Waters
The long-range mission of basinwide planning is to provide a means of addressing the complex
problem of planning for increased development and economic growth while maintaining,
protecting and enhancing water quality and intended uses of the Roanoke River basin’s surface
waters.
Within this basinwide plan, DWQ presents management strategies and recommendations for
those waters considered to be impaired or that exhibit some notable water quality problem.
Table 5 presents impaired waters by subbasin, the potential sources of impairment and
summaries of the recommended management strategies.
Major water quality problems in the basin include habitat degradation and turbidity (affecting
aquatic life) and high levels of selenium, mercury and dioxin in fish tissue (affecting fish
consumption). Habitat degradation, including sedimentation, streambed scour and streambank
erosion, is primarily attributed to nonpoint source pollution (NPS). Sources of nonpoint source
pollution include runoff from construction sites, agricultural lands and urban areas, and
hydromodification. High levels of selenium and dioxin are attributed to historical point source
pollution, and high levels of mercury are likely from atmospheric sources.
For streams degraded by point source pollution, the plan presents a management strategy to
reduce the impacts from that pollutant source. The task of quantifying nonpoint sources of
pollution and developing management strategies for these impaired waters is very resource
intensive. This task is overwhelming, given the current limited resources of DWQ, other
agencies (e.g., Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments.
Executive Summary xix
Table 5 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Roanoke River Basin (as of 1999)*
Subbasin Name of
Water
Miles or
Acres
Use Support
Rating –
Category
Potential
Pollution
Sources+
Management Strategy or
Recommendation
03-02-01 Town Fork
Creek
8.0
miles
NS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
NP Local initiatives are needed to address nonpoint
source pollution in the watershed.
03-02-02
03-02-03
Dan River 14.2
miles
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
NP, P DWQ will work with DLR to evaluate turbidity
contributions of instream mining operations.
Local initiatives are needed to address nonpoint
source pollution in the watershed.
03-02-03 Smith
River
5.4
miles
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
NP, P DWQ will work with appropriate agencies to
address flow fluctuation issues. Local actions
needed to control stormwater.
03-02-05 Hyco Lake 3,750
acres
PS – Fish
Consumption
P DWQ will continue to monitor selenium
concentrations in fish tissue and further adjust
permit limits, if necessary.
03-02-05 Marlowe
Creek
10.9
miles
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
P, NP DWQ will work with Cogentrix to improve its
discharge and the Town of Roxboro. Local
actions needed to control stormwater.
03-02-06 Nutbush
Creek
4.6
miles
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
P, NP DWQ will work with the City of Henderson to
improve the WWTP discharge. Local actions
needed to control stormwater.
03-02-07 Smith
Creek
10.4
miles
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
NP Local initiatives are needed to address nonpoint
source pollution in the watershed.
03-02-08 Quankey
Creek
3.4
miles
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
P, NP DWQ will work with the Town of Halifax to
improve the WWTP discharge. DWQ will
continue to monitor this stream.
03-02-08 Roanoke
Rapids Lake
4,893
acres
PS – Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
NP DWQ will work with appropriate agencies and
citizens to control aquatic weeds. Local actions
needed to reduce nutrients and for a boater
education program.
03-02-08
03-02-09
Roanoke
River
137.8
miles
PS – Fish
Consumption
NP, P DWQ will continue to monitor mercury and
dioxin in fish tissue and work with point sources
as needed to achieve reductions.
03-02-09 Albemarle
Sound
2,586
acres
PS – Fish
Consumption
NP, P DWQ will continue to monitor mercury and
dioxin in fish tissue.
03-02-09 Welch Creek 13.3
miles
NS – Fish
Consumption
NP, P DWQ will continue to monitor mercury and
dioxin in fish tissue. Source of dioxin has been
removed.
03-02-10 Cashie River 54.6
miles
PS – Fish
Consumption
NP DWQ will continue to monitor mercury in fish
tissue.
Key: PS = Partially Supporting NP = Nonpoint Sources
NS = Not Supporting P = Point Sources
+ = Only limited progress towards developing and implementing nonpoint source reduction strategies for these
impaired waters can be expected without additional resources.
* = These waters are currently, or will be placed, on the 303(d) list, and a TMDL and/or management strategy will be
developed to address causes and sources of impairment.
DWQ plans to further evaluate impaired waters in the Roanoke River basin in conjunction with
other agencies that deal with nonpoint source pollution issues and develop management
Executive Summary xx
strategies for a portion of these impaired waters for the next Roanoke River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan (2006).
Addressing Waters on the State’s 303(d) List
For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a DWQ priority. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states
to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. The
waters in the Roanoke River basin that are on this list are discussed in the individual subbasin
descriptions in Section B. States are also required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed waters to address impairment. EPA issued
guidance in August 1997 that called for states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs for
all waters on the 303(d) list within 8-13 years.
There are approximately 2,387 impaired stream miles on the draft 2000 303(d) list in NC. The
rigorous and demanding task of developing TMDLs for each listed water during a 13-year time
frame will require the focus of many resources. It will be a priority for North Carolina’s water
quality programs over the next several years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters.
Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements
To achieve the goal of restoring impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to work
more closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The
costs of restoration will be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration
efforts. These programs include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the NC Agricultural
Cost Share Program, the Wetlands Restoration Program and the federally funded Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program.
With increased development occurring, there will be significant challenges ahead in balancing
economic growth with the protection of water quality in this basin. Point source impacts on
surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning process.
Nonpoint sources of pollution can be identified through the basinwide plan, but actions to
address these impacts must be taken at the local level. Such actions should include:
development and enforcement of local erosion control ordinances; requirement of stormwater
best management practices for existing and new development; development and enforcement of
buffer ordinances; and land use planning that assesses impacts on natural resources. This
basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that are underway
within the basin. These actions provide a foundation on which future initiatives can be built.
Section A: General Basinwide Information 1
Section A
General Basinwide Information
Section A: Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 2
Chapter 1 -
Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning
1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?
Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory, watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are
prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the seventeen major river
basins in the state, as shown in Figure A-1 and Table A-1. Preparation of an individual
basinwide water quality plan is a five-year process, which is broken down into three major
phases as presented in Table A-2. While these plans are prepared by the Division of Water
Quality, their implementation and the protection of water quality entails the coordinated efforts
of many agencies, local governments and stakeholder groups in the state. The first cycle of plans
was completed in 1998, but each plan is updated at five-year intervals.
Roanoke
Basinwide Planning Schedule for NC’s Major River Basins (1999 to 2003)
New Roanoke Chowan Pasquotank
Watauga
French Broad
Little Tennessee
Savannah
Hiwassee
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Broad
Catawba
Lumber
Yadkin-
Pee Dee
Cape Fear
White Oak
Neuse
Tar-
Pamlico
Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (1999 to 2003)
1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning
The goals of basinwide planning are to:
• identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters;
• identify and protect high value resource waters;
• protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth;
• develop appropriate management strategies to protect and restore water quality;
• assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers; and
• improve public awareness and involvement in the management of the state’s surface waters.
Section A: Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 3
Table A-1 Schedule for Second Cycle of Basinwide Planning (1998 to 2003)
Basin
DWQ
Biological
Data
Collection
River Basin
Public
Workshops
Public
Mtgs. and
Draft Out
For Review
Final Plan
Receives
EMC
Approval
Begin
NPDES
Permit
Issuance
Neuse Summer 2000 6/2001 4/2002 7/2002 1/2003
Lumber Summer 2001 12/2002 9/2003 12/2003 7/2004
Tar-Pamlico Summer 97 6/1998 4/1999 7/1999 1/2000
Catawba Summer 97 2/1999 10/1999 12/1999 3/2000
French Broad Summer 97 5/1999 2/2000 5/2000 8/2000
New Summer 98 6/1999 4/2000 7/2000 11/2000
Cape Fear Summer 98 7/1999 4/2000 7/2000 12/2000
Roanoke Summer 99 4/2000 2/2001 7/2001 1/2002
White Oak Summer 99 10/2000 7/2001 9/2001 6/2002
Savannah Summer 99 10/2000 12/2001 3/2002 8/2002
Watauga Summer 99 10/2000 12/2001 2/2002 9/2002
Little Tennessee Summer 99 3/2001 12/2001 4/2002 10/2002
Hiwassee Summer 99 10/2000 12/2001 3/2002 8/2002
Chowan Summer 2000 3/2001 1/2002 5/2002 11/2002
Pasquotank Summer 2000 3/2001 1/2002 5/2002 12/2002
Broad Summer 2000 11/2001 9/2002 12/2002 7/2003
Yadkin Pee-Dee Summer 2001 4/2002 12/2002 3/2003 9/2003
Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during the first cycle (1993 to 1998).
Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Water Quality Plan
Years 1 - 2
Water Quality Data Collection and
Identification of Goals and Issues
• Identify sampling needs
• Conduct biological monitoring activities
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies to continue to
implement goals within current basinwide plan
Years 2 - 3
Data Analysis and
Public Workshops
• Gather and analyze data from sampling activities
• Develop use support ratings
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Conduct public workshops to establish goals and objectives and identify
and prioritize issues for the next basin cycle
• Develop preliminary pollution control strategies
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies
Years 3 - 5
Preparation of Draft Basinwide
Plan, Public Review,
Approval of Plan,
Issue NPDES Permits and
Begin Implementation of Plan
• Develop draft basinwide plan based on water quality data, use support
ratings, and recommended pollution control strategies
• Circulate draft basinwide plan for review and present draft plan at
public meetings
• Revise plan after public review period
• Submit plan to Environmental Management Commission for approval
• Issue NPDES permits
• Coordinate with other agencies and local interest groups to prioritize
implementation actions
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
Section A: Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 4
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan
The second cycle of basinwide plans uses a different format from the earlier basinwide plans.
Each plan is subdivided into three major sections. The intent of the format change is to make the
plans easier to read and understand, but still comprehensive in content.
Section A: Basinwide Information
• Introduces the basinwide planning approach used by the state.
• Provides an overview of the river basin including: hydrology, land use, local government
jurisdictions, population and growth trends, natural resources, wastewater discharges,
animal operations and water usage.
• Presents general water quality information including summaries of water quality monitoring
programs and use support ratings in the basin.
Section B: Subbasin Information
• Summarizes recommendations from first basin plan, achievements made, what wasn’t
achieved and why, current priority issues and concerns, and goals and recommendations for
the next five years by subbasin.
Section C: Current and Future Initiatives
• Presents current and future water quality initiatives and success stories by federal, state and
local agencies, and corporate, citizen and academic efforts.
• Describes DWQ goals and initiatives beyond the five-year planning cycle for the basin.
1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning
Several benefits of basinwide planning and management to water quality include:
• Improved efficiency. The state’s efforts and resources are focused on one river basin at a
time.
• Increased effectiveness. The basinwide approach is in agreement with basic ecological
principles.
• Better consistency and equability. By clearly defining the program’s long-term goals and
approaches, basinwide plans encourage consistent decision-making on permits and water
quality improvement strategies.
• Increased public participation in the state’s water quality protection programs. The
basinwide plans are an educational tool for increasing public involvement and awareness of
water quality issues.
• Increased integration of point and nonpoint source pollution assessment and controls. Once
waste loadings from both point and nonpoint sources are established, management strategies
can be developed to ensure compliance with water quality standards.
Section A: Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 5
1.5 How to Get Involved
To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and other local stakeholders to participate in the planning process. DWQ offers three
opportunities for the public to participate in the planning process:
• Public workshops: Held prior to writing the basinwide plans. DWQ staff present
information about basinwide planning and the water quality of the basin. Participants then
break into smaller groups where they can ask questions, share their concerns, and discuss
potential solutions to water quality issues in the basin.
• Public meetings: Held after the draft basinwide plan has been approved by the Water Quality
Committee of the Environmental Management Commission. DWQ staff present more
detailed information about the draft basinwide plan and its major recommendations. Then,
the public is invited to comment and ask questions.
• Public Comment Period: Held after the draft plan has been approved by the Water Quality
Committee of the Environmental Management Commission. The comment period is at least
thirty days in length from the date of the first public meeting.
Citizens seeking involvement in efforts to restore and protect water quality can call the DWQ
Planning Branch at [phone] and ask to speak to the basin planner for your river basin.
1.6 Other References
There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about
basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality:
• Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report. May 2000. This technical report presents
physical, chemical and biological data collected in the Roanoke River basin. 150 pages.
• Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. September 1996. This first
basinwide plan for the Roanoke River basin presents water quality data, information and
recommended management strategies for the first five-year cycle. 280 pages.
• A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in North Carolina. August 2000. This
document includes general information about water quality issues and programs to address
these issues. It is intended to be an informational document on water quality. 156 pages.
• NC Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Roanoke River Basin.
August 1998. DWQ NC Wetlands Restoration Program. 75 pages.
• North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program
Description. Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. DWQ Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
• NC Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/. Click on
Water Quality Section and then, under Programs, click on Basinwide Planning Program.
• NC Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/.
Anyone interested in receiving these documents can contact the
DWQ Planning Branch at [phone] or by internet:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/
Section A: Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 6
1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations
The major activities coordinated by DWQ through basinwide planning are listed in Figure A-2.
Information on the location, address and phone numbers for each branch and regional office are
also shown in Figure A-2 and Figure A-3. Additional information can be found on the Division
of Water Quality website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/.
Environmental Sciences Branch
(Phone [phone])
• Biological Monitoring
• Special Chemical Monitoring
• Fish Tissue, Fish Community Studies
• Effluent Toxicity Testing
• Lake Assessments
• Ambient Monitoring
• Wetlands 401 Certifications
• Water Quality Standards/Classifications
• Nonpoint Source Program Planning
• Basinwide Planning, Use Support
• Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuarine Program
• Modeling/TMDL Development
• Local Government Assistance
Planning Branch
(Phone [phone], ext. 558 or 360)
Point Source Branch
(Phone [phone], ext. 520)
Non-Discharge Branch
(Phone [phone], ext. 556 or 574)
• Non-Discharge Permitting (spray irrigation,
sludge applications, animal waste recycling)
• Wetlands/401 Certifications
• Non-Discharge Compliance/Enforcement
• Operator Certification Training
• NPDES Permits
• Stormwater and General Permits
• Point Source Compliance/Enforcement
• Pretreatment
Regional Offices: Asheville, Raleigh,
Fayetteville, Wilmington, Mooresville,
Washington, Winston-Salem
(See Regional Office map for phone nos.)
• Wetland Reviews, Ambient Monitoring Program
• Permit Reviews, Facility Inspections
• Pretreatment Program Support
• Response to Emergencies/Complaints
• Provides Information to Public
WATER QUALITY SECTION
(Chief)
Figure A-2 Water Quality Section Organization Structure
Se
c
t
i
o
n

A
:

C
h
a
p
t
e
r

1

–

I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

B
a
s
i
n
w
i
d
e

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

7
PL
E
A
S
E

I
N
S
E
R
T

C
O
L
O
R

M
A
P

(
F
I
G

A
-
3
)

H
E
R
E
!
!
Fi
g
u
r
e

A
-
3

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

O
f
f
i
c
e
s
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 8
Chapter 2 -
Roanoke River Basin Overview
2.1 General Overview
The Roanoke River begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern Virginia and flows in a
generally southeastern direction for 400 miles before emptying into the Albemarle Sound in
eastern North Carolina (Figure A-4). By the time it reaches the fall line near Roanoke Rapids,
the river has captured water from nearly 8,000 square miles of land. From Roanoke Rapids to
the coast, the river drains another 2,000 square miles and carries more water than any other river
in North Carolina. In the lower portion of the basin, the river carved a floodplain up to five miles
wide, where radio carbon-dating of sediment indicates
that deeper soils washed down from the piedmont over
200 years ago as settlers began to clear the land.
The North Carolina portion of the Roanoke basin is
composed of two major parts: the Dan River and its
tributaries in the western section (Figure A-5); and the
Roanoke River from Virginia to the Sound in the
eastern section (Figure A-6). The Roanoke River
enters North Carolina through John H. Kerr Reservoir
and then flows into Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids
Lake before regaining its riverine form.
There are 15 counties and 42 municipalities located
wholly or partially within the basin. The most populated areas are located northeast of the
Greensboro/ Winston-Salem/High Point area and around the larger municipalities in the basin
such as Roanoke Rapids, Eden, Williamston and Plymouth. The overall population density is
107 persons per square mile versus a statewide average of 139 persons per square mile.
Sixty percent of the land in the basin is forested and about twenty-two percent is in cultivated
cropland. Tobacco, peanuts, cotton and soybeans are among the most common crops grown.
Only six percent of the land falls into the urban/built-up category. Despite the large amount of
cultivated cropland and the relatively small amount of urban area, the basin has seen a significant
decrease (-105,300 acres) in cultivated cropland and increase (+77,700 acres) in built-up areas
over the past fifteen years (USDA, 1999).
The upper Dan River is classified as trout waters, and part of the area is also designated a State
Water Trail by the NC Division of Parks and Recreation. The lower portion of the basin contains
some of the largest intact and least disturbed bottomland hardwood and cypress-tupelo
ecosystems on the Atlantic Coast of North America. It is also important habitat for anadromous
fish, including striped bass, as well as black bear, bobcat, large populations of wild turkey, 14
species of waterfowl, and 220 additional species of birds.
Roanoke River Basin Statistics
(NC Portion)
Total Area: 3,503 sq. miles
Stream Miles: 2,213
No. of Counties: 15
No. of Municipalities: 42
No. of Subbasins: 10
Population (2000): 335,194*
Estimated Pop. (2020): 356,722*
% Increase (2000-2020): 6.4%
Pop. Density (1990): 107 persons/sq. mi.
* Based on % of county land area estimated
to be within the basin (Table A-11).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 9
Figure A-4 General Map of the Entire Roanoke River Basin
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 12
2.2 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin
The Roanoke River basin encompasses all or portions of fifteen counties and forty-two
municipalities. Table A-3 provides a listing of these municipalities, along with the appropriate
regional planning jurisdiction (Council of Governments), and an estimation, provided by the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, of the percentage of each county’s area that lies
within the basin. Seventeen municipalities are located in more than one major river basin.
Table A-3 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Roanoke River Basin
County % of County
in basin
Region Municipalities
Bertie 70% Q Askewville, Aulander*
Kelford, Lewiston-Woodville
Roxobel, Winsdor
Caswell 90% G Milton
Yanceyville
Forsyth 21% I Kernersville* (♦), Rural Hall*
Walkertown*
Granville 33% K Stovall
Guilford <2% G Kernersville* (♦), Stokesdale*
Halifax 40% L Halifax, Hobgood*
Littleton*, Roanoke Rapids
Scotland Neck*, Weldon
Martin 75% Q Hamilton, Hassell
Jamesville, Oak City
Williamston
Northampton 35% L Garysburg, Gaston*
Jackson*, Rich Square*
Orange 2% J None
Person 60% K Roxboro*
Rockingham 81% G Eden, Madison
Mayodan, Reidsville*
Stoneville, Wentworth
Stokes 85% I Danbury
Walnut Cove
Surry 3% I None
Vance 52% K Henderson*
Middleburg*
Warren 38% K Macon*
Norlina*
Washington 13% R Plymouth
* Located in more than one major river basin.
♦Located in more than one county.
Note: Counties adjacent to and sharing a border with a river basin are not included as part of that basin if only a trace amount of the county (<2%) is
located in that basin, unless a municipality is located in that county. (Note: Guilford County is included because of the municipalities,
Kernersville and Stokesdale.)
Region Name Location
G Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Greensboro
I Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments Winston-Salem
J Triangle J Council of Governments Research Triangle Park
K Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments Henderson
L Regional L Council of Governments Rocky Mount
Q Mid-East Commission Washington
R Albemarle Regional Planning and Development Commission Hertford
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 13
2.3 Surface Water Hydrology
Most federal government agencies, including the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the US
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), use a system of defining watersheds that is
different from that used by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and many other state agencies
in North Carolina. Under the federal system, the Roanoke River basin is made up of five
hydrologic areas referred to as hydrologic units. These include the Dan River in North Carolina,
Country Line Creek and Hyco Reservoir, Kerr Reservoir and tributaries, Lake Gaston and Smith
Creek, and the Roanoke and Cashie Rivers. Each hydrologic unit is defined by an 8-digit
number. DWQ has a two-tiered system in which the state is subdivided into 17 river basins with
each basin further subdivided into subbasins. Table A-4 compares the two systems. The
Roanoke River basin is subdivided by DWQ into ten subbasins. Maps of each subbasin are
included in Section B.
Table A-4 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Roanoke River Basin
Watershed Name
and Major Tributaries
USGS 8-digit
Hydrologic Units
DWQ Subbasin
6-digit Codes
Dan River (NC Portion)
Town Fork, Snow, Wolf Island and Hogans Creeks
Smith and Mayo Rivers and Belews Lake
03010103 03-02-01
03-02-02
03-02-03
Country Line Creek and Hyco Reservoir
Country Line, Hyco and Marlowe Creeks
Hyco and Mayo Reservoirs
03010104 03-02-04
03-02-05
Kerr Reservoir and tributaries
Grassy, Island and Nutbush Creeks
03010102 03-02-06
Lake Gaston and Smith Creek 03010106 03-02-07
Roanoke and Cashie Rivers
Roanoke Rapids Lake and Roquist Creek
Quankey, Conoho, Hardison Mill and Welch Creeks
Conconnara, Kehukee and Connaritsa Swamps
03010107 03-02-08
03-02-09
03-02-10
The entire Roanoke River basin is approximately 9,776 square miles in size. In the North
Carolina portion (roughly 36 percent of the entire watershed), 2,212 miles of freshwater streams
drain 3,503 square miles of terrain. The upper portion of the basin in North Carolina lies
primarily in the Piedmont Physiographic Region. This region is characterized by rolling hills
and geologic formations consisting of crystalline or sedimentary rocks. Because of the moderate
topography, more streams drain a smaller amount of land, increasing the drainage density. The
drainage density in this portion of the basin is 0.97-0.74 compared to 0.62-0.51 in the lower
portion of the basin.
Areas with high drainage density are associated with high flood peaks, high sediment production,
relatively low suitability for traditional agriculture, and high development costs for the
construction of buildings and the installation of roads and bridges. Within the North Carolina
portion of the Roanoke River basin, subbasin 03-02-01 has the highest drainage density, while
subbasin 03-02-09 has the lowest.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 14
The lower portion of the basin lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Region. The geology of
this area consists of alternating layers of sand, silt, clay and limestone. In this portion of the
basin, the land is relatively flat. The slope dips downward at a rate of only a few feet per mile.
A smaller number of streams drain a large area of land on the Coastal Plain. In addition to low
drainage density, the lower portion of the basin also has the lowest potential for sustaining base
flow in streams. The low flow frequency, measured by a 7Q10 (annual minimum 7-day
consecutive low flow, which on average, will be exceeded 9 out of 10 years) flow calculation, is
zero for all but the largest drainages. This very low flow over the warmest months of the year
limits streams’ ability to maintain high dissolved oxygen levels (increased temperature depletes
dissolved oxygen while decreased velocity inhibits reaeration). The capacity for assimilating
oxygen-consuming wastes is also limited under these conditions. DWQ limits discharges
containing oxygen-consuming wastes into these low base flow streams (refer to Chapter 4 of this
section for further information).
Hydrologic Features
There are 11 major reservoirs in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin. Most of
them are located in the upper portion of the basin on tributaries of the Dan and Roanoke Rivers.
The three largest reservoirs, Kerr, Gaston and Roanoke Rapids, are impoundments of the
Roanoke mainstem. They are managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Dominion
(formerly North Carolina Power) for electrical energy production and flood control. Flow from
these reservoirs influences the quality of water in the lower Roanoke River. In addition to
general protection of aquatic life and secondary recreation, seven lakes are classified for primary
recreation and nine are designated drinking water supplies (Table A-5).
Table A-5 Statistics for Major Lakes (Entire Size Calculations) in the Roanoke River Basin
Subbasin/Lake County Classification*
Surface
Area (Ac)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Volume
(x 106 m3)
Watershed
(mi2)
03-02-01
Hanging Rock Lake Stokes B 12 2 0.003 1.1
Kernersville Res. Forsyth WS-IV, CA 45 16 0.4 5.3
Belews Lake Forsyth/Stokes/
Rockingham/Guilford
WS-IV, B, C 4,030 49 228 46
03-02-04
Farmer Lake Caswell WS-II, CA 368 20 6.5 48
03-02-05
Hyco Lake Person/Caswell WS-V, B 3,750 20 99 188
Lake Roxboro Person WS-II, B 195 20 10.8 24
Roxboro Lake Person WS-II, CA 212 12 0.3 196
Mayo Res. Person WS-V, B 2,800 30 105 51
03-02-06
John H. Kerr Res.Warren/Vance/
Granville
B, C 48,999 35 448 7,610
03-02-07
Lake Gaston Warren/Halifax/
Northampton
WS-V, WS-IV,
B, CA
20,299 20 512 8,239
03-02-08
Roanoke Rapids Res. Northampton/ Halifax WS-IV, B, CA 4,893 16 96 8,294
* An index for DWQ freshwater classifications can be found in Part 3.2 of this section (Table A-20).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 15
The lower Roanoke River basin contains extensive wetland communities also. More than
150,000 acres of bottomland hardwood and swamp forest communities provide valuable
functions in terms of hydrology and water quality including water, nutrient and sediment
retention, bank stabilization, and water purification and pollutant removal (especially for
nutrients). Refer to Part 2.6 of this chapter for further information about these natural resources.
2.4 Land Cover
Land cover information in this section is from the most current National Resources Inventory
(NRI), as developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, NRI,
Updated June 2001). The NRI is a statistically-based longitudinal survey that has been designed
and implemented to inventory land cover types and acreages. The NRI provides results that are
nationally and temporally consistent for four points in time -- 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997.
In general, NRI protocols and definitions remain fixed for each inventory year. However, part of
the inventory process includes reviewing previously recorded data when determinations are made
for the new inventory year. For those cases where a protocol or definition needs to be modified,
all historical data must be edited and reviewed on a point-by-point basis to make sure that data
for all years are consistent and properly calibrated. The following excerpt from the Summary
Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory provides guidance for use and interpretation of
current NRI data:
The 1997 NRI database has been designed for use in detecting significant changes in resource
conditions relative to the years 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. All comparisons for two points in
time should be made using the new 1997 NRI database. Comparisons made using data previously
published for the 1982, 1987 or 1992 NRI may provide erroneous results because of changes in
statistical estimation protocols, and because all data collected prior to 1997 were simultaneously
reviewed (edited) as 1997 NRI data were collected.
Table A-6 summarizes acreage and percentage of land cover from the 1997 NRI for the North
Carolina portion of the basin and for the major watersheds within the basin, as defined by the
USGS 8-digit hydrologic units. Data from 1982 are also provided for a comparison of change
over fifteen years. During this period, the amount of cultivated cropland in the basin decreased
significantly (-105,300 acres), while the amount of uncultivated cropland almost doubled
(+21,600 acres). Land in the urban/built-up category increased 132.8 percent or 77,700 acres.
Land in the "Other" category also increased over the 15-year time frame (+1,300 acres). Figure
A-7 presents these land cover changes. Descriptions of land cover types identified by the NRI
are found in Table A-7.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 16
Table A-6 Land Cover in the Roanoke River Basin by Major Watershed - 1982 vs. 1997
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, Updated June 2001)
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS*
Upper Lower Middle Roanoke Lower %
Dan Dan Roanoke Rapids Roanoke 1997 TOTALS 1982 TOTALS change
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres % of Acres % of since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 77.2 13.9 57.5 12.1 22.3 11.3 21.0 12.4 198.7 24.4 376.7 17.0 482.0 21.8 -21.8
Uncult. Crop 29.0 5.2 10.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 5.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 46.7 2.1 25.1 1.1 86.1
Pasture 27.8 5.0 28.1 5.9 15.2 7.7 4.0 2.4 11.7 1.4 86.8 3.9 110.2 5.0 -21.2
Forest 318.0 57.3 329.0 69.0 108.0 54.6 89.2 52.8 517.0 63.4 1361.2 61.5 1363.3 61.5 -0.2
Urban & Built-Up 58.8 10.6 19.0 4.0 8.5 4.3 15.8 9.4 34.1 4.2 136.2 6.1 58.5 2.6 132.8
Federal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.8 20.2 0.9 16.9 0.8 19.5
Other 44.4 8.0 33.4 7.0 27.7 14.0 33.4 19.8 48.3 5.9 187.2 8.5 159.0 7.2 17.7
Totals 555.2 477.1 197.9 168.8 816.0 2215.0 2215.0
% of Total Basin 25.1 21.5 8.9 7.6 36.8 100.0 100.0
SUBBASINS 03-02-01 03-02-02 03-02-03 03-02-04 03-02-06 03-02-07 03-02-08 03-02-09
03-02-03 03-02-05 03-02-06 03-02-08 03-02-10
8-Digit 03010103 03010104 03010102 03010106 03010107
Hydraulic Units
* Watershed areas as defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin numbers used by DWQ.
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
Land Use Type
Ch
a
n
g
e

i
n

A
c
r
e
s

(
1
0
0
0
s
)
Cult. Crop
-21.8%
Uncult. Crop
86.1%
Pasture
-21.2%
Forest
-0.2%
Urban/Built-up
132.8%
Federal
19.5%
Other
17.7%
Figure A-7 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1997 for the Roanoke River Basin
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, Updated June 2001)
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 17
Table A-7 Description of Land Cover Types
Type Description
Cultivated Cropland Harvestable crops including row crops, small-grain and hay crops, nursery and orchard
crops, and other specialty crops.
Uncultivated Cropland Summer fallow or other cropland not planted.
Pastureland Includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes and/or forbs, regardless of
whether or not it is being grazed by livestock.
Forestland At least 10 percent stocked (a canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 percent or
greater) by single-stemmed trees of any size which will be at least 4 meters at maturity,
and land bearing evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover. The minimum area for
classification of forestland is 1 acre, and the area must be at least 1,000 feet wide.
Urban and Built-up
Areas
Includes airports, playgrounds with permanent structures, cemeteries, public
administration sites, commercial sites, railroad yards, construction sites, residences, golf
courses, sanitary landfills, industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, institutional sites,
water control structure spillways and parking lots. Includes highways, railroads and
other transportation facilities if surrounded by other urban and built-up areas. Tracts of
less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and built-up lands.
Other Rural Transportation: Consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated rights-
of-way outside urban and built-up areas; private roads to farmsteads; logging roads; and
other private roads (but not field lanes).
Small Water Areas: Waterbodies less than 40 acres; streams less than 0.5 miles wide.
Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40 acres
and rivers greater than 0.5 miles in width.
Minor Land: Lands that do not fall into one of the other categories.
The North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database contains land cover information for the
Roanoke River basin based on satellite imagery from 1993-1995. The state’s Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) developed 24 categories of statewide land cover
information. For the purposes of this report, those categories have been condensed into five
broader categories as described in Table A-8. An important distinction between this land cover
dataset and that of the NRI is that there is no actual groundtruthing of the satellite-generated data.
Figure A-8 provides an illustration of the relative amount of land area that falls into each major
cover type for the Roanoke River basin. Section B of this plan provides land cover data specific
to each subbasin.
Unfortunately, due to differences in the system of categorizing various land cover classes, it is
not currently possible to establish trends in land cover changes by comparing this data set to
previously attained land cover data. However, it is anticipated that comparisons will be possible
with future satellite data since a strong consensus-based effort was made to develop the
classification system that was used with the 1993-1995 data.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 18
Table A-8 Description of CGIA Land Cover Categories
Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Urban Greater than 50% coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area) and
municipal areas.
Cultivated Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern.
Pasture/Managed Herbaceous Areas used for the production of grass and other forage crops and other
managed areas such as golf courses and cemeteries. Also includes upland
herbaceous areas not characteristic of riverine and estuarine environments.
Forest/Wetland Includes salt and freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, shrublands and all
kinds of forested areas (such as needleleaf evergreens, deciduous hardwoods).
Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt
adjacent to tidal waters and lakes.
Roanoke River Basin Satellite-Generated
Land Cover (1993-1995)
Forest/
Wetland
73%
Cultivated
12%
Pasture/Managed
Herbaceous
11%
Water
3%
Urban
1%
Figure A-8 Percentages within Major Land Cover Categories in the Roanoke River Basin
2.5 Population and Growth Trends
Population
The Roanoke River basin in North Carolina has an estimated population of 263,691 based on
1990 census data. Table A-9 presents census data for 1970, 1980 and 1990. It also includes
population densities (persons/square mile) based on land area for each subbasin. Most of the
basin’s population (56 percent) is located in subbasins 03-02-09 (Martin, part of Bertie, and
Washington counties), 03-02-01 (Stokes and Forsyth counties), and 03-02-08 (Halifax and
Northampton counties). These three subbasins contain approximately 148,055 people.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 19
Table A-9 Roanoke River Subbasin Population (1970, 1980, 1990), Percent Population
Change and Land Area Summaries
POPULATION 1 POPULATION DENSITY 2 LAND AND WATER AREAS 3
(Number of Persons) (Persons/Square Mile) Total Land and Water Area Land Area Water Area
SUBBASIN 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 (Acres) (Sq. Miles) (Sq. Miles) (Sq. Miles)
03-02-01 29,829 47,011 45,777 67 106 103 289,919 453 445 8
03-02-02 18,910 20,957 19,588 83 92 86 147,839 231 229 2
03-02-03 11,103 11,980 11,695 33 36 35 217,599 340 335 5
03-02-04 26,709 27,971 27,208 113 119 115 152,959 239 236 3
03-02-05 6,747 10,175 9,903 21 32 31 215,679 337 322 15
03-02-06 20,311 22,904 21,604 69 78 73 210,559 329 295 34
03-02-07 6,676 6,681 8,338 38 38 48 124,800 195 174 21
03-02-08 41,640 42,627 43,392 88 90 91 328,319 513 473 40
03-02-09 48,718 58,768 58,886 112 135 135 357,758 559 435 124
03-02-10 14,982 15,859 17,300 52 55 60 196,479 307 290 17
TOTALS 225,625 264,933 263,691 70 82 82 2,241,910 3,503 3,234 269
1 Population estimated based on US Census data and percentage of census block that falls within the subbasin.
2 Population density based on land area only. Large wetlands (swamps) not included in area used to calculate density.
3 Information generated by the NC Center for Geographic Information Analysis, August 2000.
In using these data, it should be noted that some of the population figures are estimates because
the census block group boundaries do not generally coincide with subbasin boundaries. The
census data are collected within boundaries such as counties and municipalities. By contrast, the
subbasin lines are drawn along natural drainage divides separating watersheds. Therefore, where
a census block group straddles a subbasin line, the percentage of the population that is located in
the subbasin is estimated, assuming that population density is evenly distributed throughout a
census block group. This is not always the case; however, the level of error associated with this
method is not expected to be significant for the purposes of this document. It is also important to
note that the census block groups change every ten years so comparisons between years must be
considered approximate. Figure A-9 displays estimated 1998 population density information by
county.
Growth Trends
Population in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin overall decreased slightly
(1,242 people) between 1980 and 1990. Figure A-10 presents projected population growth by
county (1998-2018) for the Roanoke River basin in North Carolina. Stokes and Granville
counties are growing the fastest, with projections indicating a 20-40 percent increase in
population. Almost all of Stokes County is contained within the basin, but only 33 percent of
Granville County falls within the boundary.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 22
Table A-10 presents population data for municipalities with populations greater than 2,000
persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. Figure A-11 graphically depicts population
data for selected municipalities in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin.
Table A-10 Population and Percent Change for Municipalities Greater Than 2,000 Located
Wholly or Partly in the Basin as of March 2001 (NC Municipal Population, 2000)
Municipality County Apr-80 Apr-90 Apr-2000
Percent Change
(1980-90)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Eden Rockingham 15,672 15,238 15,908 -2.8 4.4
Henderson Vance 13,522 15,655 16,095 15.8 2.8
Kernersville Forsyth/Guilford 5,875 10,899 17,126 85.5 57.1
Madison Rockingham 2,806 2,371 2,262 -15.5 -4.6
Mayodan Rockingham 2,627 2,471 2,417 -5.9 -2.2
Plymouth Washington 4,571 4,328 4,107 -5.3 -5.1
Reidsville Rockingham 12,492 12,183 14,485 -2.5 18.9
Roanoke Rapids Halifax 14,702 15,722 16,957 6.9 7.9
Roxboro Person 7,532 7,332 8,696 -2.7 18.6
Rural Hall Forsyth 1,336 1,652 2,464 23.7 49.2
Scotland Neck Halifax 2,834 2,575 2,362 -9.1 -8.3
Stokesdale Guilford 1,973 2,134 3,297 8.2 54.5
Walkertown Forsyth 1,321 1,200 4,009 -9.2 234.1
Williamston Martin 6,159 5,503 5,843 -10.7 6.2
Windsor Bertie 2,126 2,209 2,283 3.9 3.3
Yanceyville Caswell 1,869 1,973 2,091 5.6 6.0
• - The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Ed
e
n
Hen
de
r
s
on
M
a
d
i
s
o
n
M
a
y
o
d
an
Pl
y
m
o
u
t
h
Ro
a
n
o
k
e
Ra
p
ids
Ro
x
bor
o
Sc
o
tlan
d

N
ec
k
W
illia
m
s
t
o
n
W
i
ndso
r
Yan
ce
yvil
le
1980
1990
2000
Figure A-11 Population Data for Selected Municipalities in the North Carolina Portion of the
Roanoke River Basin
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 23
Table A-11 shows the projected percent change in growth between 1990 and 2020 for counties
within the basin. Since river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these
numbers are not directly applicable to the Roanoke River basin. They are instead presented as an
estimate of possible countywide population changes.
Table A-11 Past, Projected and Change in Population (2000 to 2020) by County as of March
2001 (Source: Office of State Planning, 2001)
County 2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated
Population Change
2000-2020
Bertie 13,841 13,218 -623
Caswell 21,151 21,444 293
Forsyth 64,274 71,939 7,665
Granville 16,004 18,303 2,299
Halifax 22,948 21,450 -1,498
Martin 19,195 18,547 -648
Northampton 7,730 6,761 -969
Orange * 2,365 2,956 591
Person 21,374 23,149 1,775
Rockingham 74,462 75,411 949
Stokes 38,004 48,378 10,374
Surry * 2,137 2,316 179
Vance 22,336 24,138 1,802
Warren 7,589 7,312 -277
Washington 1,784 1,400 -384
Subtotal 335,194 356,722 21,528
* Less than 5% of the county is in this basin.
Note: Values have been adjusted based on the percent of county (>2%) located in the
Roanoke River basin (Table A-3).
2.6 Natural Resources
2.6.1 Public Lands in the Roanoke River Basin
Figure A-12 shows public lands and significant natural heritage areas in the Roanoke River
basin. Hanging Rock State Park is situated among the Sauratown Mountains, an isolated group
of low elevation mountains. The most prominent feature of the park is its series of steep,
quartzite-capped ridges dissected by Cascade and Indian Creeks. Three rare caddisflies (aquatic
insects indicative of good water quality) are found in Cascade Creek within the park. Several
rare fish species, some of which are found nowhere else in North Carolina, have been observed
in a section of the Dan River which flows through the park. Refer to Part 2.6.4 for a listing of
rare species.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 24
Figure A-12 Public Lands and Significant Natural Heritage Areas of the Roanoke River Basin
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 25
The Caswell Game Land protects much of one of the most extensive and high quality tracts of
mature piedmont second-growth upland hardwood forest in the state. Country Line Creek flows
through part of the game lands.
In the eastern portion of the basin, the Roanoke River floodplain contains the largest intact and
least disturbed bottomland hardwood and cypress-tupelo ecosystems on the Atlantic Coast of
North America. In 1990, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission began acquiring property within the floodplain. Together, the Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge and the Roanoke River Wetlands Game Land now protect over 28,000
acres. In addition, The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit conservation group, has a cooperative
agreement to manage and protect about 21,000 acres of land, owned by Georgia-Pacific, within
the floodplain. Refer to the following sections for more information regarding the extent of its
ecological significance.
2.6.2 Ecological Significance of the Roanoke River Basin
Several important aquatic habitats are located in the Roanoke River basin. The section of the
Dan River in Rockingham County (mentioned above) harbors several rare fish species, primarily
the riverweed darter, bigeye jumprock and Roanoke hog sucker. The Mayo River, a
south-flowing river tributary of the Dan River, is home to some of these same rare fish. A
section of Aarons Creek in Granville County supports rare freshwater mussels including the
Atlantic Pigtoe and Brook Floater; and Country Line Creek, in Caswell County, also contains an
assemblage of rare mussel species, in addition to the riverweed darter.
Wetlands
Wetlands are transitional areas between land and water, such as swamps and marshes. Some are
connected to streams; and others, such as low lying pine plantations and pocosins, are not.
Wetlands provide a variety of benefits to society and are very important in watershed planning
because of the functions they perform. Wetlands provide retention of flood waters to protect
property values; streambank stabilization to prevent erosion and downstream sedimentation;
water purification and pollutant removal (especially for nitrogen and phosphorus); habitat for
aquatic life, and wildlife and endangered species protection. These values vary greatly with
wetland type. Wetlands adjacent to intermittent and permanent streams are most important to
protecting water quality in those streams, as well as downstream lakes and estuaries. However,
wetlands located landward or away from streams also have important water storage capacity and
pollutant removal potential.
Over the years, approximately half of North Carolina’s wetlands have been lost to development,
farming and forestry practices. Wetlands now only cover about 25 percent of the state’s land
area. The lower Roanoke River floodplain contains perhaps some of the best remaining forested
wetland communities known to exist in the southeastern United States. The floodplain extends
about 130 miles along the lower Roanoke River and varies in width from three to five miles.
Surveys have documented 214 species of birds in the floodplain, including 88 resident breeding
species (55 resident and 33 neotropical). This is the highest density of nesting birds anywhere in
the state. Fourteen species of migratory waterfowl also use the wetlands in winter. Wildlife
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 26
officials have estimated as many as 2,500 nesting pairs of waterbirds on Conine Island near
Williamston (NCWRC, November 1999).
Fisheries
The Roanoke River from the Roanoke Rapids dam downstream to the Albemarle Sound serves as
an important spawning and nursery area for several species of anadromous fish. Anadromous
fish are those that spend most of their adult lives in the ocean but migrate upstream into fresh
waters to spawn. Each of these species has specific flow and water quality requirements
necessary for successful spawning. In the Roanoke River, anadromous fish include striped bass,
American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring and alewife. The upper portions of the Roanoke
River also historically functioned as a spawning area for Atlantic sturgeon (a state and federally
listed species of special concern) and possibly shortnose sturgeon (a federally listed endangered
species). Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon have recently been collected in the western Albemarle
Sound. Although these fish have not yet been collected from the Roanoke River, biologists
suspect that the river provides the spawning and nursery area for these fish.
Anadromous fishes in the Roanoke River basin form the basis for recreational and commercial
fisheries that are important on a local, state and coast-wide basis. Because these fishes are
migratory and move across state jurisdictional lines, they are also regulated by federal agencies
including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Fishery Management Plans for anadromous fish
implemented by these entities require that states develop and implement measures to protect
critical spawning and nursery area habitats.
To address the critical nature of maintaining flow and water quality for anadromous fishes in the
upper reaches of Roanoke River, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
designated the portion of Roanoke River from the Roanoke Rapids dam downstream to the US
Highway 258 bridge as an Inland Primary Nursery Area (15A NCAC 10C .0500). The Fisheries
Reform Act of 1997 requires that the Marine Fisheries Commission, the Environmental
Management Commission and the Coastal Resources Commission prepare comprehensive
management plans for critical fisheries habitats. The Roanoke River plan will be developed
within the next five-year basinwide planning cycle. In the interim, the Marine Fisheries
Commission is considering designation of that portion of Roanoke River downstream of the US
Highway 258 bridge as an Anadromous Fish Spawning and Nursery Area, pursuant to the
Commission’s statutory authority.
The Roanoke River also supports significant recreational and subsistence fisheries for resident
fish species. Largemouth bass are sought by tournament anglers who travel to the Roanoke
River from across the state and from other states. Largemouth bass thrive in the river as a result
of the abundance of juvenile shad and herring. Tournament fishing on the Roanoke River occurs
nearly every weekend, boosting local economies. The Roanoke River is also very popular for its
bluegill, redear sunfish, crappie, white perch, yellow perch and catfish angling. Most anglers
seeking these species eat their catch, and many residents of counties adjacent to the Roanoke
River regularly supplement their diets with fish caught from it.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 27
2.6.3 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species
Table A-12 Rare and Threatened Aquatic Species in the Roanoke River Basin
(NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, June 2000)
Major
Taxon
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status
fish Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti E
fish Cutlips minnow Exoglossum maxillingua E
fish Rustyside sucker Thoburnia hamiltoni E
fish Riverweed darter Etheostoma podostemone SC
fish Bigeye jumprock Scartomyzon ariommus SC
fish Roanoke hog sucker Hypentelium roanokense SR
fish Carolina darter Etheostoma collis SC
aq insect Caddisfly Diplectrona metaqui SR
aq insect Caddisfly Psilotreta labida SR
aq insect Caddisfly Psilotreta frontalis SR
aq insect Caddisfly Diplectrona metaqui SR
aq insect Caddisfly Micrasema sprulesi SR
aq insect Caddisfly Ceraclea mentiea SR
aq insect Mayfly Ephemerella berneri SR
mollusk Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis E
mollusk James spinymussel Pleurobema collina E
mollusk Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T
mollusk Squawfoot Strophitus undulatus T
mollusk Notched rainbow Villosa constricta SR
mollusk Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T
salamander Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum SC
2.6.4 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Roanoke River Basin
Occoneechee Neck Floodplain Forest
The privately-owned Occoneechee Neck Floodplain Forest contains some of the best remaining
examples of mature floodplain forest along the upper Roanoke River valley. This area also
contains several large beaver ponds, some of the oldest in the Roanoke floodplain and excellent
examples of this community type.
Buzzard Point/Ventosa Plantation
Partly within the Roanoke River Wetland Game Land, the Buzzard Point/Ventosa Plantation is a
large expanse of river floodplain with some of the best examples of typical bottomland and
Rare Species Listing Criteria
E = Endangered (those species in danger of becoming extinct)
T = Threatened (considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future)
SR = Significantly Rare (those whose numbers are small and whose populations need monitoring)
SC = Species of Special Concern
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 28
swamp communities in the Roanoke system. Characteristics include levee forests, backswamps,
alluvial flats, sloughs, low and high ridges, and beaver ponds.
Broadneck Swamp
Part of the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge, Broadneck Swamp contains one of the best
mature natural levee forest communities in the Roanoke floodplain. A rare population of
Virginia bluebells has been observed on the levees. Additionally, the area contains the largest
swamp forest in the upper and middle portions of the floodplain of the Roanoke River. Bald
cypress and water tupelo dominate the backwater swamp canopy and are associated with an
understory of Carolina water ash. The swamp supports the second largest inland heron rookery
in North Carolina and provides important nesting and wintering habitat for ducks.
Conoho Neck Swamp
Conoho Neck Swamp is located along the lower reaches of Conoho Creek, within the floodplain
of the Roanoke River, and is protected as part of the Roanoke River Wetland Game Land. It is a
classic example of a "backswamp", a swamp formed by the natural levees along the main
channel of the river, which act as berms or dams, impeding drainage and holding water in during
the winter and spring months. The deeply flooded cypress-gum swamp forest is the dominant
natural community on this site and is influenced by both the blackwater Conoho Creek and
brownwater Roanoke River. Also found here is a fine example of a "yazoo" tributary, formed
when a tributary is deflected by the levee bordering the river and is forced to run parallel to the
mainstem of the river for some distance.
Devil’s Gut
Located in the lower floodplain of the Roanoke River, Devil’s Gut contains diverse alluvial
features such as filled river channels, point bars and natural levees. Long, narrow sand or loamy
ridges with levee forests of laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, willow oak and water oak alternate
with parallel bands of bald cypress-water tupelo sloughs form a ridge and swale topography. An
old growth (up to 160-year-old trees) loblolly pine/American beech community, located on
higher slopes in the southeastern section of this site, supports the only known stand of American
beech in the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Broad Creek Neck
Broad Creek Neck contains the largest expanse of contiguous cypress-water tupelo swamp forest
in the Roanoke River floodplain and probably in North Carolina. It also supports extensive river
frontage and several distributary streams, cypress-gum flats and tidally-influenced blackwater
stream/bayou communities. A portion of the natural area is within the Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge.
Roanoke River Delta Islands
This community consists of a series of islands and distributary channels at the mount of the
Roanoke River. An extensive tract of mature bald cypress/water/tupelo/Carolina water ash
swamp forest is second in size only to the nearby Broad Creek Neck. It supports a high density
of wildlife, including black bear, waterfowl and nesting neo-tropical songbirds. It also protects
important aquatic habitat for a diversity of fish. Much of the natural area is within the Roanoke
River National Wildlife Refuge.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 29
Roquist Pocosin
A large example of a rare non-riverine wetland in the Roanoke River basin is the privately-
owned Roquist Pocosin. The canopy contains trees averaging 17 inches in diameter, with trees
24-30 inches in diameter common. The forest is dominated by swamp black gum and red maple
with abundant remnant cypress. On the north side is a small but excellent quality non-riverine,
wet hardwood forest.
2.7 Permitted Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Facilities
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe,
ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are
broadly referred to as ’point sources’. Wastewater point
source discharges include municipal (city and county)
and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools,
commercial offices, residential subdivisions and
individual homes. Stormwater point source discharges
include stormwater collection systems for municipalities which serve populations greater than
100,000 and stormwater discharges associated with certain industrial activities. Point source
dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program,
which is delegated to DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.7.1 Wastewater Discharges in the Roanoke River Basin
Currently, there are 88 permitted wastewater discharges in the Roanoke River basin. Table A-13
provides summary information (by type and subbasin) about the discharges. Various types of
dischargers listed in the table are described in the inset box. A list of all facilities can be found in
Appendix I.
Table A-13 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows
Roanoke River Subbasin
Facility Categories 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 TOTAL
Total Facilities 23 9 18 3 7 4 0 11 9 4 88
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.3 4.1 19.8 0.5 26.03 4.2 0.0 41.7 87.5 1.3 186.3
Major Discharges 1140310431 18
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.0 3.0 19.2 0.0 26.02 4.1 0.0 40.5 86.0 1.15 180.05
Minor Discharges 22 8 14 3 4 3 0 7 6 3 70
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.15 6.3
100% Domestic Waste 18 4 9 1 2 2 0 5 3 2 46
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.3 0.8 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.4 2.2 1.3 6.1
Municipal Facilities 2321110442 20
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.6 4.02 14.0 0.5 5.0 4.1 0.0 9.8 3.03 1.3 42.3
Nonmunicipal Facilities 21 6 16 2 6 3 0 7 5 2 68
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.7 0.07 5.8 0.03 21.03 0.01 0.0 31.9 84.5 0.0 144.06
The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:
* oxygen-consuming wastes,
*nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 30
The majority of NPDES permitted
discharges in the Roanoke River basin are
from wastewater treatment plants serving
communities and schools. Many of them
are small facilities with less than one
million gallons of flow per day. However,
there are a few larger discharges in the basin
as well. Facilities, large or small, where
recent data show problems with a discharge
are listed and discussed in each subbasin
chapter in Section B.
Figure A-13 shows the location of major
and minor permitted wastewater discharges
within the basin. The number of sites on the
map depicting major discharges differs from
the number of major facilities listed in Table
A-13. Since some major facilities have
more than one outfall point, each outfall
received a symbol on the map.
2.7.2 Stormwater Discharges in the Roanoke River Basin
Amendments were made to the Clean Water
Act in 1990 and most recently in 1999
pertaining to permit requirements for
stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activities and municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4s). DWQ
administers these regulations in North Carolina
through the state’s NPDES stormwater
program. The goal of the DWQ stormwater
discharge permitting regulations is to prevent
pollution via stormwater runoff by controlling
the source(s) of pollutants.
The municipal permitting requirements are
designed to lead into the formation of
comprehensive stormwater management
programs for municipal areas. No
municipalities in the Roanoke River basin
were required to obtain a NPDES permit for
stormwater sewer systems under the Phase I
rules (population >100,000). Additionally, no municipalities in the basin are automatically
required (US Census designated Urban Areas) to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit under the
Phase II rules. However, Eden, Reidsville, Henderson and Roanoke Rapids will be considered
for inclusion under the Phase II rules because of a population greater than 10,000 and/or a
Types of Wastewater Discharges:
Major Facilities: Wastewater Treatment Plants with
flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day); and some
industrial facilities (depending on flow and potential
impacts to public health and water quality).
Minor Facilities: Facilities not defined as Major.
100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat
domestic-type waste (from toilets, sinks, washers).
Municipal Facilities: Facilities serving
municipalities. Can treat waste from homes and
industries.
Industrial Facilities: Facilities with wastewater from
industrial processes such as textiles, mining, seafood
processing, glass-making and power generation.
Other Facilities: This category includes a variety of
facilities such as schools, nursing homes,
groundwater remediation projects, water treatment
plants and non-process industrial wastewater.
EPA Stormwater Rules
Phase I – December 1990
Requires a NPDES permit for municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving
populations of 100,000 or more.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for ten
categories of industry.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
construction sites that are 5 acres or more.
Phase II – December 1999
Requires a NPDES permit for some municipal
storm sewer systems serving populations
under 100,000, located in urbanized areas.
Provides a "no stormwater exposure"
exemption to industrial facilities covered
under Phase I.
Requires a NPDES stormwater permit for
construction sites that are 1-5 acres.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 32
population density greater than 1000 persons per square mile. DWQ is currently developing
criteria that will be used to determine whether these and other municipalities should be required
to obtain a NPDES permit.
Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in categories ranging from sawmills and
landfills to manufacturing plants and hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities.
Stormwater permits are granted in the form of general permits (which cover a wide variety of
more common activities) or individual permits. Excluding construction stormwater general
permits, there are 132 general stormwater permits and 9 individual permits active within the
Roanoke River basin. Individual permit holders are presented in Appendix I.
The primary concern with runoff from industrial facilities is the contamination of stormwater
from contact with exposed materials. Poor housekeeping can lead to significant contributions of
sediment and other water quality pollutants. To address these issues, each NPDES stormwater
permitted facility must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) that addresses
the facility’s potential impacts on water quality. Facilities identified as having significant
potential to impact water quality may also be required to conduct analytical monitoring to
characterize pollutants in stormwater discharges.
The state stormwater management rules (15A NCAC 2H .1000) regulate development activities
in 20 coastal counties and on lands statewide that drain to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
and/or High Quality Waters (HQW). Under this program, development is permitted as either low
density or high density. Low density limits the impervious, or built upon, area on a project and
allows natural infiltration and attenuation of stormwater runoff. High density requires
installation and maintenance of structural best management practices to control and treat
stormwater runoff from the site. Surface waters in the Roanoke River basin where development
activities are regulated under these special rules are presented on Figures A-14 and A-15 (Part
3.2).
2.8 Animal Operations
In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission adopted a rule modification (15A NCAC
2H.0217) establishing procedures for managing and reusing animal wastes from intensive
livestock operations. The rule applies to new, expanding or existing feedlots with animal waste
management systems designed to serve animal populations of at least the following size: 100
head of cattle, 75 horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep or 30,000 birds (chickens and turkeys) with a
liquid waste system. Within the past five years there have been several additional pieces of
legislation enacted that affect animal operations in North Carolina (see text box).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 33
Table A-14 summarizes, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total number
of animals, total acres in operation, and total steady state live weight as of January 2000. These
numbers reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent
the total number of animals in each subbasin.
The largest subbasin, 03-07-08, contains the largest number of registered animal operations with
four cattle operations, one poultry operation and fourteen swine operations. Overall the majority
of registered animal operations are found in the lower portion of the basin. Registered animal
operations where recent data show problems are discussed in the appropriate subbasin chapter in
Section B.
Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is the result, in pounds, after a conversion factor has been
applied to the number (head count) of swine, cattle or poultry on a farm. The conversion factors,
which come from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) guidelines, vary depending on the type of animals on the farm and the type of
operation (for example, there are five types of hog farms). Since the amount of waste produced
varies by hog size, SSLW is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.
Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-1999)
1995 –Senate Bill 974 requires owners of swine facilities with 250 or more animals to hire a certified
operator. Operators are required to attend a six-hour training course and pass an examination for
certification. Senate Bill 1080 established buffer requirements for swine houses, lagoons and land
application areas for farms sited after October 1, 1995.
1996 –Senate Bill 1217 required all facilities (above threshold populations) to obtain coverage under a
general permit, beginning in January 1997, for all new and expanding facilities. DWQ was directed
to conduct annual inspections of all animal waste management facilities. Poultry facilities with
30,000+ birds and a liquid waste management system were required to hire a certified operator by
January 1997 and facilities with dry litter animal waste management systems were required to
develop an animal waste management plan by January 1998. The plan must address three specific
items: 1) periodic testing of soils where waste is applied; 2) development of waste utilization plans;
and 3) completion and maintenance of records on-site for three years. Additionally, anyone wishing
to construct a new, or expand an existing, swine farm must notify all adjoining property owners.
1997 –House Bill 515 placed a moratorium on new or existing swine farm operations and allows counties to
adopt zoning ordinances for swine farms with a design capacity of 600,000 pounds (SSLW) or more.
In addition, owners of potential new and expanding operations are required to notify the county
(manager or chair of commission) and local health department, as well as adjoining landowners.
DENR was required to develop and adopt economically feasible odor control standards by 3/1/99.
1998 –House Bill 1480 extended the moratorium on construction or expansion of swine farms. The bill also
requires owners of swine operations to register with DWQ any contractual relationship with an
integrator.
1999 –House Bill 1160 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms,
required DENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons, and requires owners/operators of an
animal waste treatment system to notify the public in the event of a discharge to surface waters of the
state of 1,000 gallons or more of untreated wastewater.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 34
Table A-14 Registered Animal Operations in the Roanoke River Basin (January, 2000)
Cattle Poultry Swine
Total Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight
03-02-01 2 365 511,000 -- -- -- 1 3,200 417,600
03-02-02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 4,000 522,000
03-02-03 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1,800 243,000
03-02-04 2 325 455,000 -- -- -- 2 7,325 1,190,680
03-02-05 2 240 336,000 -- -- -- 4 5,000 708,500
03-02-06 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 13,756 1,940,810
03-02-07 3 700 980,000 -- -- -- 3 13,875 2,002,750
03-02-08 4 1,205 1,192,000 1 60,000 240,000 14 55,935 7,075,415
03-02-09 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 16,363 2,252,480
03-06-10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 13,150 2,277,580
TOTALS 13 2,835 3,474,000 1 60,000 240,000 36 134,404 18,630,815
Information on animal capacity by subbasin (Table A-15) was provided by the USDA. Two
percent of the state’s total capacity for swine and poultry is found in the Roanoke River basin;
however, the basin contains three percent of the state capacity for dairy, with the highest
concentrations located in subbasins 03-02-07 and 03-02-01. Overall, swine and poultry
production in the basin increased over the past five years by 48 and 9 percent, respectively, while
dairy production decreased 18 percent.
Table A-15 Estimated Populations of Swine, Dairy and Poultry in the Roanoke River Basin
(1998 and 1994)
Subbasin
Total Swine
Capacity
Swine
Change
Total Dairy
Capacity
Dairy
Change
Poultry
Capacity
Poultry
Change
1998 1994 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%) 1998 1994 94-98 (%)
03-02-01 411 957 -57 731 901 -19 43,750 23,650 85
03-02-02 1,710 9 100+ 119 119 0 71,000 0 100+
03-02-03 3,892 3,742 4 136 323 -58 22,415 280 100+
03-02-04 1,564 1,579 -1 265 581 -54 25,400 0 100+
03-02-05 4,183 4,482 -7 130 130 0 76,200 0 100+
03-02-06 448 1,485 -70 453 621 -27 38,000 48,000 -21
03-02-07 11,281 13,876 -19 845 630 34 418,861 431,200 -3
03-02-08 78,909 42,003 88 230 230 0 381,500 316,500 21
03-02-09 33,441 27,320 22 0 0 0 1,348,800 1,056,200 28
03-02-10 16,970 7,627 100+ 0 0 0 2,839,500 2,945,500 -4
TOTALS 152,809 103,080 48 2,909 3,535 -18 5,265,426 4,821,330 9
% of State Total 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3%
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 35
2.9 Water Quantity Issues
2.9.1 Local Water Supply Planning
The North Carolina General Assembly mandated a local and state water supply planning process
in 1989 to assure that communities have an adequate supply of potable water for future needs.
Under this statute, all units of local government that provide, or plan to provide, public water
supply service are required to prepare a Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) and to update that plan
at least every five years. The information presented in a LWSP is an assessment of a water
system’s present and future water needs and its ability to meet those needs.
Surface water is used to meet the majority of overall water needs in the North Carolina portion of
the Roanoke River basin (approximately 56 percent of estimated total water use). In 1997, 43
public water systems used water from the basin providing 30.7 million gallons of water per day
to 114,000 people in the basin. Water demand from these public systems is projected to increase
55 percent by 2020. Seven of the 43 systems (1.8 percent) reported that available supply was not
adequate to meet estimated demand through 2020, and seventeen other systems (40 percent)
report that by 2020 demand levels will exceed 80 percent of available supply.
In addition, water supply systems in other river basins are looking toward the Roanoke River
basin for a water source. In 1995, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia obtained the right to
withdraw up to 60 million gallons of water per day from Lake Gaston. In 1998, following a very
involved and contested Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval process, water
withdrawal began. Urban areas within North Carolina have also discussed obtaining a permit to
withdraw water from the Roanoke River basin.
Not everyone gets water from public water supply systems. Many households and some
commercial and industrial operations supply their own water from both surface and groundwater
sources in the basin. The US Geological Survey estimates that self-supplied users, excluding
power-generating facilities, account for 58 percent of the total water used in the Roanoke River
basin. Water used for industrial and irrigation purposes comprises the majority of self-supplied
water use in the basin (Figure A-14).
Self-supplied Water Usage in the
Roanoke River Basin
Industrial
36%
Irrigation
32%
Domestic
19%
Livestock
11%
Commercial
2%
Figure A-14 Estimated Self-Supplied Water Use in the Roanoke River Basin (USGS)
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 36
The State Water Supply Plan is a compilation of over 500 LWSPs developed by local
government water systems in North Carolina. More detailed information is available in the plan
about water supply and water usage in the Roanoke River basin. This draft plan is available
online at the Division of Water Resources website at http://www.dwr.ehnr.state.nc.us or by calling
[phone].
2.9.2 Water Withdrawals
Prior to 1999, North Carolina required water users to register their water withdrawals with the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) only if the amount was 1,000,000 gallons or more of
surface or ground water per day. In 1999, the registration threshold for all water users except
agriculture was lowered to 100,000 gallons per day. Table A-16 presents registered withdrawals.
Table A-16 Registered Water Withdrawals in the Roanoke River Basin (August 2000)
County
1999
Average
(MGD)
1999
Maximum
(MGD)
Source
of
Withdrawal
Facility
Stokes
Rockingham
1170 1459 Belews Lake Duke Power Company
Stokes 0.0011 0.0241 Roanoke River RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company
Stokes 0.036 0.054 Roanoke River RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company
Rockingham 216.9 279.9 Dan River Duke Power Company
Rockingham Inactive Inactive Pit Vulcan Materials Company
Caswell 0.008 0.016 Pit Vulcan Materials Company
Person 1060 1102 Hyco Reservoir Carolina Power & Light Company
Person 5.138 7.551 Mayo Reservoir Carolina Power & Light Company
Vance 0.028 0.04 Pit Vulcan Materials Company
Halifax 26.13 34.52 Roanoke River Champion International Corporation
Halifax 1.8 3.6 Roanoke River NC Dept. of Corrections, Caledonia Prison
Northampton 0.02 0.48 Groundwater Henry B. Long, Inc.
Northampton -- 3.89 Pond William R. Johnston
Bertie 1 1.872 Cashie River H & H Farms
Bertie 4.6 5 Roanoke River Ward Farms
Bertie 1.512 1.512 Cashie River Ted Winslow
Bertie 5.56 8.3 Roanoke River Gillam Farming, Inc./Gillam Outlaw Farms
Bertie 1.388 1.388 Cashie River Hyman Ferry Farms, Inc. and Ted Winslow
Bertie -- 2.16 Groundwater and pond Brinkley Farms, Inc.
Bertie -- 0.9 Pond Brinkley Farms, Inc.
Bertie 2.46 3.59 Groundwater Perdue Farms, Inc.
Martin 2.2 2.4 Roanoke River C. Wesley Copeland, Jr.
Martin 2.5 2.5 Roanoke River Fate B. Everett, Jr.
Martin 65.2 79.1 Roanoke River &
Warren Neck Creek
Weyerhaeuser Plymouth Plant
Martin 1.00 6.22 Groundwater Weyerhaeuser Plymouth Plant
Martin -- 0.144 Groundwater Woodridge Timber, Inc.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 37
There are 26 registered water withdrawals in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River
basin. Sixteen of these (62 percent) are surface water withdrawals. Excluding public water
systems or power generating facilities, there is a cumulative permitted capacity to withdraw
147.8 million gallons of surface water per day.
Consumption of water from the Roanoke River basin through direct withdrawals, along with
interbasin transfers (discussed in the following section) and floodplain exchange (discussed in
Chapter 4), has the potential to affect the salinity of the lower Roanoke River. Consideration of
the cumulative effects of saltwater intrusion on the lower Roanoke River should be considered
when additional water withdrawals are proposed.
2.9.3 Interbasin Transfers
In addition to water withdrawals (discussed above), water users in North Carolina are also
required to register surface water transfers with the Division of Water Resources if the amount is
100,000 gallons per day or more. In addition, persons wishing to transfer two million gallons per
day (MGD) or more, or increase an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, must first obtain a
certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (G.S. 143-215.22I). The river
basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled Major River
Basins and Sub-Basins in North Carolina, on file in the Office of the Secretary of State. These
boundaries differ slightly from the 17 major river basins delineated by DWQ.
In determining whether a certificate should be issued, the state must determine that the overall
benefits of a transfer outweigh the potential impacts. Factors used to determine whether a
certificate should be issued include:
• the necessity, reasonableness and beneficial effects of the transfer;
• the detrimental effects on the source and receiving basins, including effects on water supply
needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power
generation, navigation and recreation;
• the cumulative effect of existing transfers or water uses in the source basin;
• reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer; and
• any other facts and circumstances necessary to evaluate the transfer request.
A provision of the interbasin transfer law requires that an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy
Act as supporting documentation for a transfer petition.
Currently, there are no certified interbasin transfers in the Roanoke River basin. However, Kerr
Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) was allowed to continue transferring up to 10 MGD out
of the Roanoke River basin under the new law without having to undergo the certification
process. The system only currently transfers about 5.5 MGD into the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
KLRWS has indicated that it will exceed its 10 MGD capacity before 2010 and will be required
to obtain a certificate in order to increase the transfer amount. The Town of Henderson, which is
a partner in KLRWS, has contracted to sell a maximum of 3 MGD to Franklin. This transaction
will be a transfer from the Roanoke River basin into the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 38
Table A-17 lists eight known potential transfers involving the North Carolina portion of the
Roanoke River basin (not required to be certified). Approximately 3.41 MGD is transferred out
of the basin and a relatively small unknown quantity is transferred into the basin for an estimated
net loss of water. Please note that all local water systems are now required to report existing and
anticipated interbasin transfers as part of the Local Water Supply Planning process. This
information will be available for future updates of this basinwide plan and will allow for a better
assessment of cumulative impacts.
Table A-17 Interbasin Transfers in the Roanoke River Basin (1997)
Supplying
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated Transfer
(MGD)
Kerr Lake Regional WS Henderson Roanoke Tar-Pamlico 0.06
Kerr Lake Regional WS Oxford Roanoke Tar-Pamlico 2.0
Kerr Lake Regional WS Warren County Roanoke Tar-Pamlico 1.3
Henderson Franklin Roanoke Tar-Pamlico 3.0 (proposed)
Roanoke Rapids Northampton-Gaston Roanoke Chowan 0.05
Roxboro Roxboro Roanoke Tar-Pamlico Unknown
Winston-Salem Winston-Salem Yadkin-Pee Dee Roanoke Unknown
Reidsville Reidsville Cape Fear Roanoke Unknown
King King Yadkin-Pee Dee Roanoke Unknown
The most significant interbasin transfer in the Roanoke River basin is not reflected in Table A-17
because it takes place primarily in the State of Virginia. In 1995, the City of Virginia Beach
obtained the right to withdraw up to 60 MGD from Lake Gaston. Between January 1998 and
April 2000, withdrawals ranged from 44.8 MGD to 0.6 MGD. The average withdrawal during
1999 was 17 MGD.
2.9.4 Minimum Streamflow
One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows
below dams. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying mandatory minimum
releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the length of a stream
affected by an impoundment. The Division of Water Resources, in conjunction with the Wildlife
Resources Commission, recommends conditions relating to release of flows to satisfy minimum
instream flow requirements. The permits are issued by the Division of Land Resources. Table
A-18 summarizes minimum flow requirements in the Roanoke River basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 39
Table A-18 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Roanoke River Basin
Name Location Waterbody
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
Min.
Release
(cu.ft/sec)
Dams associated with Power Production
Roanoke Rapids Dam Near the NC/VA state line at
Roanoke Rapids, NC
Roanoke River 8,371 1000-2000
1
Hyco Reservoir Afterbay Near the NC/VA state line
north of Roxboro, NC
Hyco River 202 10
2
Pinnacles Dam Near Meadow of Dan, VA Dan River 32.9 30 or
inflow3
Avalon Dam* 1.5 miles NE of the Town of
Mayodan, NC
Mayo River 310 79 or
inflow3
Mayo Dam* At the Town of Mayodan, NC Mayo River 312 85 or
inflow3
Other Impoundments
Fullers Creek Reservoir Near the Town of
Yanceyville in NC
Fullers Creek 1.71 0.3
* Project is not yet complete.
Notes
1 Roanoke Rapids and Gaston are operated in coordination with peak flow releases from Kerr Reservoir
upstream. The minimum flow requirements are at times not sufficient for successful spawning of striped
bass; therefore, flow regimes vary between April 1 and June 15 (Table A-19).
2 Under severe hydrologic conditions (water level below 375 feet), minimum flow requirement drops to 2 cfs.
3 If inflow is less than the specified minimum release, the release must be equal to the inflow. In other words,
the project must operate in a run-of-river mode (i.e., instantaneous inflow equals instantaneous outflow) until
the inflow becomes greater than the specified minimum release.
Flow Augmentation to Support Fish Communities
Striped bass, American shad, hickory shad and other anadromous fish migrate up the Roanoke
River each spring to spawn. These species support recreational and commercial fisheries that are
economically important on a local, statewide and an Atlantic coast-wide basis (refer to Part 2.6.2
of this section for more information). These migratory species need flowing water to create
suitable habitat for successful spawning and/or to keep their eggs suspended. The minimum flow
requirements shown in Table A-18 are insufficient for these species to successfully reproduce.
An agreement, entered into by Dominion (formerly North Carolina Power), the US Army Corps
of Engineers and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), establishes a plan for the
springtime storage of water in John H. Kerr Reservoir and flow releases through Lake Gaston
and Roanoke Rapids Lake.
The original agreement between these three parties was signed in 1971, but it only addressed
minimum flows during the spawning season. In 1987, a multiagency team known as the
Roanoke River Water Flow Committee analyzed flow data for the river and recommended the
current flow regime (Table A-19) (Manooch, 1989; Rulifson, 1991). The rationale for the
recommended flows was to provide flow conditions that would mimic pre-impoundment flows.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 40
Table A-19 Flow Augmentation Regime
Dates Target Average Daily
Flow (cfs)
Lower Limit
(cfs)
Upper Limit
(cfs)
April 1-15 8,500 6,600 13,700
April 16-30 7,800 5,800 11,000
May 1-15 6,500 4,700 9,500
May 16-31 5,900 4,400 9,500
June 1-15 5,300 4,000 9,500
In 1989, the WRC requested an amendment of the flow agreement based upon the
recommendations of the Flow Committee. As part of this amendment, Dominion agreed to cease
hydropower peaking operations during the spawning period. Since implementation, striped bass
have successfully reproduced to the extent that the population has been declared "recovered" by
federal regulatory agencies. Hickory shad populations have increased beyond historical levels as
well. Because state and federal resource agencies believe that flow management has been critical
to the viability of these fish populations, the three-party agreement was extended indefinitely in
2001.
Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
The license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to Dominion
(formerly North Carolina Power) for the operation of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston
Hydropower Project expired on January 31, 2001. The relicensing process began in early 1995
and includes an assessment of how current and future project operations will affect
environmental resources in the Roanoke River basin. Several studies related to instream flow
and water quality are at various stages of completion. Three technical work groups, including a
water quality subcommittee, are analyzing the results of these studies. Refer to Chapter 4, Part
4.6.2 for further information.
The Pinnacles Hydro-Electric Project is also undergoing relicensing at this time. It is owned by
the City of Danville, but is located on the headwaters of the Dan River near Meadow of Dan,
Virginia. The project consists of two impoundments: Talbott and Townes Reservoirs. Talbott is
used as storage and supplies water to Townes downstream. From Townes Reservoir, water
bypasses a stretch of the Dan River channel to the powerhouse where water is returned to the
river. Changes in the flow regimes or general operation of this project have the potential to
impact water quality in the North Carolina portion of the Dan River.
2.10 Physical Impacts to Wetlands and Streams
DWQ has issued approvals for wetland filling activities since the mid-1980s; however, in 1989,
the Environmental Management Commission directed DWQ to begin reviewing wetland fill and
stream alteration activities using a review sequence of (1) avoidance, (2) minimization and (3)
mitigation of wetland impacts. Rules finalized in 1996, required that wetland values, such as
Section A: Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Basin Overview 41
whether or not the wetland is providing significant uses or whether the filling activity would
remove or degrade those uses, be considered. The rules also specify wetland and stream
mitigation ratios and type and location of projects to make the mitigation process more
predictable and manageable for the regulated community. DWQ’s emphasis continues to be on
water quality and the essential role that wetlands play in maintaining water quality. The issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification by DWQ is required before the US Army Corps of
Engineers can issue a Section 404 Permit authorizing the fill or alteration of wetlands and/or
streams in North Carolina.
Despite efforts to protect and restore wetland and stream functions on the part of DWQ and many
other agencies and organizations in North Carolina, there is still an annual net loss of wetlands
and streams statewide. DWQ and Division of Land Resources (DLR) regulate construction
activities near streams and wetlands. These regulatory programs ensure that construction
projects cause minimal damage to these resources and that unavoidable impacts are addressed
through mitigation projects. Restoration projects are also funded through the Wetland
Restoration Program (WRP), Section 319 Program, Clean Water Management Trust Fund and
Division of Water Resources Grant Program that can help offset stream and wetland impacts.
DWQ tracks wetland and stream losses that are authorized through the issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification. In addition to the permitted wetland and stream impacts that are tracked by
DWQ, an unknown amount of permanent wetland and stream losses also occurs. Projects that
affect less than one-third of an acre of wetland or less than 150 linear feet of stream are not
required to receive written confirmation from DWQ, and therefore, might not be reported. The
magnitude of unauthorized impacts to wetlands and streams is not known.
Over the past five years (1995-1999), DWQ issued permits for approximately 76 acres of
wetland fill activities and alteration activities that affected at least 1,804 linear feet of stream in
the Roanoke River basin. A significant percentage of stream impacts statewide are associated
with highway construction projects.
In June 1998, a federal court declared that the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Tulloch Rule,
which prohibited the ditching and draining of wetlands, was illegal. As a result, during FY 1999-
2000, approximately 9,220 acres of wetlands on about 80 sites (mostly in southeastern NC) were
ditched and drained. This activity stopped in March 1999 when DWQ began to enforce its
wetland standards. DWQ, EPA and DLR have spent an extensive amount of time visiting each
of these sites to check for compliance with environmental rules. Most of these wetlands were
slated to be restored by December 2000.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 42
Chapter 3 -
Summary of Water Quality Information for the
Roanoke River Basin
3.1 General Sources of Pollution
Human activities can negatively impact
surface water quality, even when the
activity is far removed from the
waterbody. With proper management
of wastes and land use activities, these
impacts can be minimized. Pollutants
that enter waters can be grouped into
two general categories: point sources
and nonpoint sources.
Point sources are typically piped discharges and are controlled through regulatory programs
administered by the state. All regulated point source discharges in North Carolina must apply for
and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the state.
Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land
use activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are
typically carried to waters by rainfall, runoff or
snowmelt. Sediment and nutrients are most often
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Other
pollutants associated with nonpoint source
pollution include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance
that may be washed off the ground or deposited
from the atmosphere into surface waters.
Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution sources are diffuse in nature and occur
intermittently, depending on rainfall events and land disturbance. Given the diffuse nature of
nonpoint source pollution, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify nonpoint contributions
to water quality degradation in a given watershed. While nonpoint source pollution control often
relies on voluntary actions, the state has many programs designed to reduce nonpoint source
pollution.
Every person living in or visiting a watershed contributes
to impacts on water quality. Therefore, each individual
should be aware of these contributions and take actions to
reduce them.
Point Sources
Piped discharges from:
• Municipal wastewater treatment plants
• Industrial facilities
• Small package treatment plants
• Large urban and industrial stormwater systems
Nonpoint Sources
• Construction activities
• Roads, parking lots and roof tops
• Agriculture
• Failing septic systems and straight pipes
• Timber havesting
• Hydrologic modifications
Cumulative Effects
While any one activity may not have a
dramatic effect on water quality, the
cumulative effect of land use activities
in a watershed can have a severe and
long-lasting impact.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 43
3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards
North Carolina’s Water Quality Standards program adopted classifications and water quality
standards for all the state’s river basins by 1963. The program remains consistent with the
Federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. Water quality classifications and standards have
also been modified to promote protection of surface water supply watersheds, high quality
waters, and the protection of unique and special pristine waters with outstanding resource values.
Statewide Classifications
All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best
uses of that water. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a
supplemental classification. Most supplemental classifications have been developed to provide
special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Table A-20 briefly describes the
best uses of each classification. A full description is available in the document titled:
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Information, including a database of North Carolina’s stream classifications, is also available on
DWQ’s website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.
Table A-20 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications
PRIMARY FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER CLASSIFICATIONS*
Class Best Uses
C and SC Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation.
B and SB Primary recreation and Class C uses.
SA Waters classified for commercial shellfish harvesting.
WS Water Supply watershed. There are five WS classes ranging from WS-I through WS-V. WS
classifications are assigned to watersheds based on land use characteristics of the area. Each water
supply classification has a set of management strategies to protect the surface water supply. WS-I
provides the highest level of protection and WS-IV provides the least protection. A Critical Area
(CA) designation is also listed for watershed areas within a half-mile and draining to the water
supply intake or reservoir where an intake is located.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses
Sw Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters that will naturally be more acidic (have lower pH values) and
have lower levels of dissolved oxygen.
Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout.
HQW High Quality Waters: Waters possessing special qualities including excellent water quality, Native
or Special Native Trout Waters, Critical Habitat areas, or WS-I and WS-II water supplies.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters: Unique and special surface waters which are unimpacted by
pollution and have some outstanding resource values.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
* Primary classifications beginning with a "S" are assigned to saltwaters.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 44
Statewide Water Quality Standards
Each primary and supplemental classification is assigned a set of water quality standards that
establish the level of water quality that must be maintained in the waterbody to support the uses
associated with each classification. Some of the standards, particularly for HQW and ORW
waters, outline protective management strategies aimed at controlling point and nonpoint source
pollution. These strategies are discussed briefly below. The standards for C and SC waters
establish the basic protection level for all state surface waters. With the exception of Sw, all of
the other primary and supplemental classifications have more stringent standards than for C and
SC, and therefore, require higher levels of protection.
Some of North Carolina’s surface waters are relatively unaffected by pollution sources and have
water quality higher than the standards that are applied to the majority of the waters of the state.
In addition, some waters provide habitat for sensitive biota such as trout, juvenile fish, or rare
and endangered aquatic species.
Trout Waters
Different water quality standards for some parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, temperature
and turbidity, have been developed to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout. These water quality standards result in more restrictive limits for
wastewater discharges to trout waters (Tr). There are no watershed development restrictions
associated with the Tr classification. However, the NC Division of Land Resources does require
a 25-foot vegetated buffer between Tr waters and graded construction sites.
A state fishery management classification, Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters, is
administered by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. It provides for public access to
streams for fishing and regulates fishing activities (seasons, size limits, creel limits, and bait and
lure restrictions). Although many of these waters are also classified Tr by DWQ, this is not the
same classification.
High Quality Waters
Special HQW protection management
strategies are intended to prevent
degradation of water quality below
present levels from both point and
nonpoint sources. HQW requirements
for new wastewater discharge facilities
and facilities which expand beyond
their currently permitted loadings
address oxygen-consuming wastes,
total suspended solids, disinfection,
emergency requirements, volume,
nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters)
and toxic substances.
Criteria for HQW Classification
• Waters rated as Excellent based on DWQ’s
chemical and/or biological sampling.
• Streams designated as native and special native
trout waters or primary nursery areas by the
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).
• Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I and WS-II are
HQW by definition, but these waters are not
specifically assigned the HQW classification
because the standards for WS-I and WS-II waters
are sometimes more stringent than those classified
HQW.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 45
For nonpoint source pollution, development activities which require a Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Plan in accordance with rules established by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission
or an approved local erosion and sedimentation control program, and which drain to and are
within one mile of HQWs, are required to control runoff from the development using either a low
density or high density option. The low density option requires a 30-foot vegetated buffer
between development activities and the stream; whereas, the high density option requires
structural stormwater controls. In addition, the Division of Land Resources requires more
stringent erosion controls for land-disturbing projects within one mile and draining to HQWs.
Outstanding Resource Waters
A small percentage of North Carolina’s surface waters have excellent water quality (rated based
on biological and chemical sampling as with HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource.
The requirements for ORW waters are more
stringent than those for HQWs. Special
protection measures that apply to North
Carolina ORWs are set forth in 15A NCAC 2B
.0225. At a minimum, no new discharges or
expansions are permitted, and a 30-foot
vegetated buffer or stormwater controls for
new developments are required. In some
circumstances, the unique characteristics of the
waters and resources that are to be protected
require that a specialized (or customized)
ORW management strategy be developed.
Water Supply Watersheds
The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program is to provide an opportunity for
communities to work with the state to strengthen protection of their water supplies. There are
five water supply classifications (WS-I to WS-V) that are defined according to the amount and
types of permitted point source discharges, as well as requirements to control nonpoint sources of
pollution (Table A-20). Watersheds draining to waters classified WS carry some restrictions on
point source discharges and on many land use activities including urban development,
agriculture, forestry and highway sediment control. Minimum requirements for WS-I to WS-IV
include a 30-foot undisturbed vegetated buffer. The WS-I and WS-II classifications are HQW by
definition because requirements for these levels of water supply protection are at least as
stringent as for HQWs.
Classifications and Standards in the Roanoke River Basin
The waters of the Roanoke River basin have a variety of surface water quality classifications
applied to them. Water supply watersheds range from WS-II to WS-IV. There are currently no
designated High Quality Waters in the basin and only two small segments of Outstanding
Resource Waters which are discussed in the following section. Several miles of stream,
including the Dan River mainstem, in the upper portion of the Dan River watershed are classified
The ORW rule defines outstanding resource
values as including one or more of the
following:
• an outstanding fisheries resource;
• a high level of water-based recreation;
• a special designation such as National Wild
and Scenic River or a National Wildlife
Refuge;
• within a state or national park or forest; or
• a special ecological or scientific significance.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 46
Trout Waters. Portions of the Roanoke River basin that contain these special classifications are
shown on Figures A-15 and A-16.
Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the Roanoke River Basin
In August of 1998, a portion of two streams, Cascade and Indian Creeks, inside the Hanging
Rock State Park were reclassified Outstanding Resource Waters. In addition to excellent water
quality found in both streams, rare benthic macroinvertebrate species were found in both Cascade
Creek and an unnamed tributary. Both streams were also found to be "important components of
a state park" that have "special ecological significance" in the area.
Parts of some streams located in the lower portion of the Roanoke River basin may qualify for
the Outstanding Resource Waters designation and/or a special set of management strategies
based on their ecological and scientific significance, their presence as part of a National Wildlife
Refuge, and their unique recreational value. Management strategies associated with these
reclassifications would take into account natural variations in these complex swamp stream
systems. Citizens, organizations or local governments can recommend waters for reclassification
at any time, and DWQ will consider them for these protective classifications.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 49
3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Roanoke River
Basin
Staff in the Environmental Sciences Branch and
Regional Offices of DWQ collect a variety of
biological, chemical and physical data. The
following discussion contains a brief introduction
to each program, followed by a summary of water
quality data in the Roanoke River basin for that
program. For more detailed information on
sampling and assessment of streams in this basin,
refer to the Basinwide Assessment Report for the
Roanoke River basin, available from the
Environmental Sciences Branch website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. These organisms are primarily aquatic insect larvae. The use of benthos
data has proven to be a reliable monitoring tool, as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
subtle changes in water quality. Since macroinvertebrates have life cycles of six months to over
one year, the effects of short-term pollution (such as a spill) will generally not be overcome until
the following generation appears. The benthic community also integrates the effects of a wide
array of potential pollutant mixtures.
Criteria have been developed to assign a bioclassification to each benthic sample based on the
number of different species present in the pollution intolerant groups of Ephemeroptera
(Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies), commonly referred to as EPTs,
and a Biotic Index value, which gives an indication of overall community pollution tolerance.
Different benthic macroinvertebrate criteria have been developed for different ecoregions
(mountains, piedmont and coastal plain) within North Carolina. Bioclassifications fall into five
categories ranging from Poor to Excellent.
Extensive evaluation of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina suggests that current
coastal plain criteria are not appropriate for assessing the condition of water quality in these
special systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen,
lower pH, and sometimes very complex braided channels and dark-colored water. DWQ is
working to refine biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign bioclassifications to
these streams. Refer to Chapter 4 of this section for more detailed information.
Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Appendix II lists all the benthic macroinvertebrate collections in the Roanoke River basin
between 1983 and 1999, giving site location, collection date, taxa richness, biotic index values
DWQ monitoring programs for the
Roanoke River Basin include:
• benthic macroinvertebrates
(Section 3.3.1)
• fish assessments
(Section 3.3.2)
• aquatic toxicity monitoring
(Section 3.3.3)
• lakes assessment
(Section 3.3.4)
• ambient monitoring system
(Section 3.3.5)
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 50
and bioclassifications. Benthic macroinvertebrates have been collected at 79 sites in the
Roanoke River basin since 1983. Table A-21 lists the most recent ratings since 1983, by
subbasin, for all 79 benthos sites. Most of the streams listed as "Not Rated" are swamp streams
in subbasins 03-02-08, 03-02-09 and 03-02-10. Benthos sampling may slightly overestimate the
proportion of Fair and Poor sites, as DWQ special studies often have the greatest sampling
intensity (number of sites/stream) in areas where it is believed that water quality problems exist.
Table A-21 Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Roanoke River Basin
Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Total
03-02-01 3 7 7 2 1 0 20
03-02-02 0 2 3 0 0 0 5
03-02-03 1 4 0 2 0 0 7
03-02-04 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
03-02-05 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
03-02-06 0 0 2 3 0 2 7
03-02-07 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
03-02-08 0 3 0 3 0 5 11
03-02-09 0 0 2 0 0 10 12
03-02-10 0 0 0 0 0 8 8
Total (#) 4 17 16 13 1 28 79
Total (%) 5% 22% 20% 16% 2% 35%100%
Sampling was hampered by extremes in streamflows in 1999. Many streams ceased flowing
during the summer drought, while other sites could not be sampled because of high flow events.
Therefore, only 35 sites were sampled during 1999 basinwide surveys or special studies. For the
1999 collections, Figure A-17 presents the following bioclassifications: Excellent – 0, Good – 6
(17%), Good-Fair – 5 (14%), Fair – 7 (20%), Poor – 0, Not Rated – 17 (49%).
Long-term trends (>5 years of data) in water quality were evaluated at six sites in the Roanoke
River basin. None of the sites showed a decline in water quality. One site showed positive
changes related to improvements in wastewater treatment. Subbasin chapters in Section B
contain more specific information regarding these streams.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 51
1999 Benthic Sampling Results
Good
17%Not Rated
49%
Fair
20%
Good-Fair
14%
Figure A-17 Bioclassifications for 35 Roanoke River Basin Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sites
Sampled by DWQ in 1999
3.3.2 Fish Assessments
Historical studies of fish communities in the Roanoke River basin were conducted primarily by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in the 1960s and late 1970s.
Approximately 102 species have been collected from the Roanoke River basin in North Carolina.
Several streams were sampled by DWQ during the last basinwide planning cycle (1994), and two
samples were collected in 1999. Scores are assigned to these samples using the North Carolina
Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of twelve
parameters or metrics. Each metric is designed to contribute unique information to the overall
assessment. The scores for all metrics are then summed to obtain the overall NCIBI score.
Appendix II contains more information regarding the NCIBI.
During the late 1990s, application of the NCIBI has been restricted to wadeable streams that can
be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using backpack electrofishers and following the DWQ
Standard Operating Procedures (NCDEHNR, 1997). Work began in 1998 to develop a fish
community boat sampling method that could be used in non-wadeable coastal plain streams.
Plans are to sample 10-15 reference sites with the boat method once it is finalized. As with other
biological monitoring programs, many years of reference site data will be needed before solid
criteria can be developed to evaluate biological integrity of large streams and rivers using the fish
community assessment. Refer to Chapter 4 of this section for further information.
Overview of Fish Community Data
Appendix II lists all of the fish community collections in the Roanoke River basin between 1990
and 1999, giving site location, collection date and NCIBI rating. Fish community samples have
been collected at 16 sites in the Roanoke River basin since 1990. Table A-22 lists the most
recent ratings since 1990, by subbasin, for all fish community sites.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 52
Table A-22 Summary of NCIBI Categories for All Freshwater Fish Community Sites (using
the most recent rating for each site) in the Roanoke River Basin
Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Total
03-02-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-02-02 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
03-02-03 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
03-02-04 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
03-02-05 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
03-02-06 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
03-02-07 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
03-02-08 0 1 1 0 0 2 4
03-02-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-02-10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total (#) 2 5 6 0 0 3 16
Total (%) 13% 31% 37% 0% 0% 19%100%
No basinwide fish community surveys were conducted during 1999 because of ongoing special
studies and additional reference site sampling. Only 2 sites were sampled in 1999: Grassy Creek
received a Good NCIBI score and Island Creek received an Excellent score.
Roanoke River Basin Fish Kills
DWQ has only systematically tracked reported fish kill events across the state since 1996. From
1994 to 1999, DWQ field investigators reported five fish kill events in the Roanoke River basin.
Fish kills occurred on the Roanoke River from Roanoke Rapids to Jamesville and along the
Cashie River near Windsor and Sans Souci. Mortality estimates ranged from 30 to more than
10,000 fish per event.
Two of these fish kills were extensive and occurred in the Roanoke River between July 25 and
August 2, 1995 as a result of operations at the Roanoke Rapids dam. The first kill occurred
directly below the dam after spillway gates were closed leaving fish stranded in isolated pools
where water temperature increased rapidly. The second kill began after water release rates from
the dam were rapidly curtailed causing waters which had inundated thousands of acres of
wetlands adjacent the Roanoke River, and which had become anoxic, to empty into the river.
This fish kill occurred over approximately 76 miles and killed an estimated 7,000 striped bass as
well as approximately 16,000 other species. Dissolved oxygen in the kill area ranged from 0.4 to
2.0 mg/l (Kornegay and Jones, 1995).
The magnitude of these events led Dominion (formerly North Carolina Power) to implement, in
cooperation with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
a plan to incrementally "step down" flood control flow reductions (refer to Part 2.9.4 of this
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 53
section for more information). Since the plan was put into effect, no additional fish kills have
been reported related to reduction of water releases. Fish kills were also reported following
Hurricane Fran and Hurricane Bonnie in 1996 and 1998, respectively.
Overview of Fish Tissue Sampling
Fish tissue surveys were conducted by DWQ at eight stations within the basin from 1994 to
1999. These surveys were conducted as part of special mercury contamination assessments in
the eastern part of the state and during routine basinwide assessments.
The majority of fish tissue samples collected from the Roanoke River basin in 1994 and 1999
contained metal and organic contaminants at undetectable levels or at levels less than the EPA,
Food and Drug Administration, and State of North Carolina consumption criteria. Figure A-18
shows the number of fish tissue samples that exceeded one or more of these consumption criteria.
Only six sites are represented on the figure because none of the samples collected from the Dan
River at Eden or from Lake Gaston exceeded any consumption criteria. More detailed
information regarding these sampling events and streams can be found in the appropriate
subbasin chapter in Section B.
8
18
9
70
28
54
0
20
40
60
80
Ke
r
r

L
a
k
e
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R

-
We
l
d
o
n
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R

-
Sc
o
t
l
a
n
d
Ne
c
k
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R

-
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
s
t
o
n
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R

-
Pl
y
m
o
u
t
h
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
Sa
m
p
l
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

(
%
)
Figure A-18 Fish Tissue Samples Exceeding Consumption Criteria at Six Sites Sampled by
DWQ in 1994 and 1999
Elevated mercury concentrations were most often detected in largemouth bass and bowfin.
These two species are at the top of the food chain and are most often associated with mercury
bioaccumulation in fish tissue in North Carolina. More than 50 percent of samples collected
from the Roanoke River at Williamston and the Cashie River at Windsor contained mercury
concentrations exceeding the state criteria. Presently, the only consumption advisory for
mercury-contaminated fish in the Roanoke River basin is the statewide advisory for bowfin.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 54
No samples from the above referenced eight stations contained concentrations greater than
consumption criteria of any other metals of concern (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, selenium and zinc). Samples collected by Duke Power Company and Carolina Power &
Light Company in Belews Lake and Hyco Reservoir, respectively, have shown high
concentrations of selenium. However, contamination levels have declined in recent years. More
information regarding causes and sources of the selenium, as well as recommended management
strategies for these waters, can be found in Section B.
Weyerhaeuser Company monitors dioxin levels in fish tissue in the lower Roanoke River and
Welch Creek. Fish consumption advisories for almost all species of fish due to dioxin
contamination are in effect in these waters, as well as the western portion of Albemarle Sound,
although levels of dioxin have also been declining in recent years. Refer to Chapter 9 of Section
B for more information regarding these waters.
3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
Acute and/or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine toxicity of discharges to sensitive
aquatic species (usually fathead minnows or the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia). Results of
these tests have been shown by several researchers to be predictive of discharge effects on
receiving stream populations. Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity by
their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. Other facilities may be tested by DWQ’s
Aquatic Toxicology laboratory.
The Aquatic Toxicology Unit maintains a compliance summary (Figure A-19) for all facilities
required to perform tests and provides a monthly update of this information to regional offices
and DWQ administration. Ambient toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality
relative to other stream sites and/or a point source discharge.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
No. Facilities Compliance
Figure A-19 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Roanoke River Basin
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 55
Twenty-nine NPDES permits in the Roanoke River basin currently require whole effluent
toxicity (WET) testing. Twenty-seven permits have a WET limit; the other two facilities have
episodic discharges and their permits specify monitoring but with no limit.
The number of facilities required to monitor whole effluent toxicity has increased steadily since
1987, the first year that whole effluent toxicity limits were written into permits in North
Carolina. The compliance rate has risen as well. Since 1993, the compliance rate has stabilized
at approximately 90-95 percent. Facilities with toxicity problems during the most recent two-
year review period are discussed in the subbasin chapters in Section B
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program
Eleven lakes in the Roanoke River basin were sampled as part of the Lakes Assessment Program
in summer of 1999. These data are used to determine the trophic state of each lake, a relative
measure of nutrient enrichment and biological productivity. Five lakes (Hanging Rock, Belews
Lake, Hyco Lake, Mayo Reservoir and Lake Gaston) exhibited low biological productivity. The
North Carolina portion of John H. Kerr Reservoir and Roanoke Rapids Lake demonstrated
moderate biological productivity. The remaining four lakes (Kernersville Reservoir, Farmer
Lake, Lake Roxboro and Roxboro Lake) were found to be very biologically productive. Lakes
for which one or more uses are impaired are listed in Part 3.5.3 of this section (Table A-31) and
are discussed in the appropriate subbasin chapter in Section B.
3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine sample
stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data.
North Carolina has 21 stations in the Roanoke River basin listed in Table A-23 and shown on
individual subbasin maps in Section B. These stations are sampled monthly for 27 parameters.
Overall, measurements of water quality parameters in the Roanoke River basin showed few
temporal patterns. An exception is the site located on Nutbush Creek, where water quality
improved greatly during the mid-1980s as improvements to the Town of Henderson’s WWTP
were put into place. At other sites, distinct spatial differences occurred depending upon whether
or not the sites were located upstream or downstream of wastewater dischargers.
Fecal coliform bacteria are widely used as an indicator of the potential presence of pathogens
typically associated with the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. The water quality
standard for fecal coliform bacteria is based on a geometric mean of 200 colonies/100ml. Fecal
coliform bacteria concentrations, represented by geometric means, showed few temporal
patterns. The only ambient monitoring station with a geometric mean greater than 200
colonies/100 ml for this five-year assessment period was Marlowe Creek (N4400000). Most
stations in the basin (67 percent) had geometric means of less than 100 colonies/100ml.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 56
Table A-23 Ambient Monitoring System Stations within the Roanoke River Basin
Subbasin/
Station code Station County Classification*
03-02-01
N0150000 Dan River at NC Hwy 704, near Francisco Stokes C Tr
03-02-02
N1400000 Mayo River at SR 1358, near Price Rockingham WS-IV
03-02-03
N2300000 Dan River at SR 2150, near Wentworth Rockingham WS-IV
N2450000 Smith River at NC Hwy 14, at Eden Rockingham WS-IV
N3000000 Dan River at SR 1716, near Mayfield Rockingham C
03-02-04
N3500000 Dan River at NC Hwy 62 at NC-VA state line Caswell C
03-02-05
N4110000 Hyco Creek at US Hwy 158, near Leasburg Caswell C
N4250000 Hyco River below afterbay dam, near McGhees Mill Person C
N4400000 Marlowe Creek at SR 1322, near Woodsdale Person C
N4510000 Hyco River at US Hwy 501, near Denniston, VA Halifax Virginia
N4590000 Mayo Creek at SR 1501, near Bethel Hill Person C
03-02-06
N5000000 Nutbush Creek at SR 1317, near Henderson Vance C
03-02-07
N6400000 Smith Creek at US 1, near Paschall Warren C
03-02-08
N7300000 Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids Halifax C
N8200000 Roanoke River near Scotland Neck Halifax C
N8300000 Roanoke River at NC Hwy 11 Martin C
03-02-09
N8550000 Roanoke River at Williamston Martin C
N9250000 Roanoke River near Plymouth Martin C Sw
N9600000 Roanoke River at Sans Souci Bertie C Sw
N9700000 Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay) near Black Walnut Bertie B Sw
03-02-10
N8950000 Cashie River at SR 1219, near Lewiston Bertie C Sw
* An index for DWQ freshwater classifications can be found in Part 3.2 of this section (Table A-20).
Elevated turbidity measurements were observed often in streams in the Dan River subbasins over
the past five years. The turbidity standard for trout waters (10 NTU) was exceeded in 35 percent
of 54 samples collected from the upper Dan River (N0150000) near Fransico. The turbidity
standard (50 NTU) was exceeded at the Dan River near Wentworth station (N2300000) in 18
percent of 55 samples between 1995 and 1999. Concentrations in this segment of the Dan River
ranged from 2.6 to 200 NTU, compared with 1.4 to 90 NTU near Francisco upstream. The
turbidity water quality standard was only exceeded in 9 percent of samples at the downstream
station near Mayfield (N3000000). More information regarding causes and sources of turbidity,
as well as recommended management strategies for the Dan River, can be found in Section B.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 57
Figure A-20 depicts nearly 20 years of dissolved oxygen data collected from DWQ Ambient
Monitoring Stations in the Roanoke River basin. (Appendix V contains an explanation of box
plots.) Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were low at the Smith Creek station in the Dan
River watershed. Approximately 25 percent of measurements were less than the 5.0 mg/l water
quality standard between September 1994 and August 1999. The stream at this sampling
location is slow moving, a factor which could contribute to these sample results. In the eastern
portion of the basin, the Cashie River exhibited very low DO concentrations; however, the
monitoring site is located in swamp waters where DO is naturally lower.
Figure A-20 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations at Ambient Monitoring Stations in the
Roanoke River Basin (1980-1999)
Dissolved oxygen fell below the water quality standard in less than seven percent of samples
collected between September 1994 and August 1999 from any station on the Roanoke River
mainstem. DWQ Ambient Monitoring System data showed no significant difference between
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 58
DO data collected above (N9250000) and below (N9600000) Plymouth over the same five-year
period.
Copper and iron were the only two metals that often exceed their action levels. Iron is a common
element in clay soils; therefore, elevated concentrations may reflect the geochemistry of the
watershed. In general, elevated concentrations of copper were found at sites located downstream
of wastewater discharges.
3.4 Other Water Quality Research
North Carolina actively solicits "existing and
readily available" data and information for each
basin as part of the basinwide planning process.
Data meeting DWQ quality assurance objectives
are used in making use support determinations.
Data and information indicating possible water
quality problems are investigated further. Both
quantitative and qualitative information are
accepted during the solicitation period. High levels
of confidence must be present in order for outside
quantitative information to carry the same weight as
information collected from within DWQ. This is
particularly the case when considering waters for
the 303(d) list. Methodology for soliciting and
evaluating outside data is presented in North
Carolina’s Draft 2000 § 303(d) List (DENR-DWQ,
October 2000). The next data solicitation period
for the Roanoke River is planned for fall 2003.
Continuous monitoring data (dissolved oxygen and temperature) were submitted by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service from five US Geological Survey stations on the Roanoke River: Halifax
(station #0208062765); Oak City (station #02081022); Grabtown (station #0208102855);
Jamesville (station #02081094); and Westover (station #020811450). Data are collected from
each of these stations at 15-minute intervals. Data summarized below are from January 1, 1998
(when the stations were put into operation) through August 31, 1999. August 31, 1999 is the end
of the five-year window for data collected during this five-year planning cycle and reported in
this plan.
The dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard for Class C waters is "not less than a daily
average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l". Swamp
waters (Class C Sw) "may have lower values if caused by natural conditions" (DENR, August
2000). Table A-24 presents the number of samples representing daily averages and the number
and percent of samples less than the 5.0 mg/l DO standard for each monitoring station. Table A-
25 presents the number of samples representing instantaneous measurements and the number and
percent of samples less than the 4.0 mg/l DO standard for each monitoring station.
DWQ data solicitation includes
the following:
• Information, letters and photographs
regarding the uses of surface waters for
boating, drinking water, swimming,
aesthetics and fishing.
• Raw data submitted electronically and
accompanied by documentation of
quality assurance methods used to collect
and analyze the samples. Maps showing
sampling locations must also be included.
• Summary reports and memos, including
distribution statistics and accompanied
by documentation of quality assurance
methods used to collect and analyze the
data.
• Contact information must accompany all
data and information submitted.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 59
Table A-24 USGS Continuous Monitoring Station Daily Average Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Data Summary for the Roanoke River Basin (1/98-8/99)
USGS Station
Name
Stream
Class
Water
Quality
Standard
Number of
Samples
Number of
Samples DO
<5.0 mg/l
% of total
Samples DO
<5.0 mg/l
Halifax C 5.0 mg/l 512 0 --
Oak City C 5.0 mg/l 389 0 --
Grabtown C 5.0 mg/l 494 0 --
Jamesville C 5.0 mg/l 524 30 5.7%
Westover C Sw 5.0 mg/l* 501 107 21.4%
* Swamp waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions.
Table A-25 USGS Continuous Monitoring Station Instantaneous Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Data Summary for the Roanoke River Basin (1/98-8/99)
USGS Station
Name
Stream
Class
Water
Quality
Standard
Number of
Samples
Number of
Samples DO
<4.0 mg/l
% of total
Samples DO
<4.0 mg/l
Halifax C 4.0 mg/l 48,790 0 --
Oak City C 4.0 mg/l 36,852 0 --
Grabtown C 4.0 mg/l 47,068 0 --
Jamesville C 4.0 mg/l 49,966 561 1.1%
Westover C Sw 4.0 mg/l* 47,575 5,077 10.7%
* Swamp waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions.
Although, according to a strict interpretation, the data presented above show numerous violations
of the water quality standards for dissolved oxygen at the Jamesville monitoring station, this
station is located a short distance upstream of the boundary between the Class C and Class C Sw
portions of the Roanoke River. It is possible that some "swamp stream" characteristics are being
observed at this location.
Additional DWQ analyses show that an increase in temperature does not always accompany a
decrease in DO at the Oak City, Grabtown and Jamesville stations. Therefore, there are factors
other than temperature influencing DO concentrations at these stations. Refer to Chapter 4 of
this section for a discussion of studies designed to provide further information about dissolved
oxygen in the lower Roanoke River.
Water quality monitoring data for Nutbush Creek and the Nutbush Creek Arm of Kerr Reservoir
were submitted by the City of Henderson in hardcopy form only. Unfortunately, due to staff
time constraints, DWQ is unable to use raw data that is not submitted electronically.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 60
3.5 Use Support Summary
3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support
Waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a water
supports its uses (use support status) is an important method of interpreting water quality data
and assessing water quality. Surface waters are rated fully supporting (FS), partially supporting
(PS) or not supporting (NS). The terms refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as
water supply, aquatic life protection and recreation) are being met.
For example, waters classified for fishing and secondary
contact recreation (Class C for freshwater) are rated as fully
supporting if data used to determine use support did not
exceed specific criteria. However, if these criteria were
exceeded, then the waters would be rated as PS or NS,
depending on the degree of degradation. Waters rated PS or
NS are considered to be impaired. Waters lacking data, or
having inconclusive data, are listed as not rated (NR).
Historically, the non-impaired category was subdivided into
fully supporting and fully supporting but threatened (ST). ST
was used to identify waters that were fully supporting but had
some notable water quality concerns and could represent
constant, degrading or improving conditions. North
Carolina’s past use of ST was very different from that of the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which uses it to identify waters that demonstrate
declining water quality (EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water
Quality Assessments [305(b) Reports] and Electronic Updates, 1997). Given the difference
between the EPA and North Carolina definitions of ST and the resulting confusion that arises
from this difference, North Carolina no longer subdivides the non-impaired category. However,
these waters and the specific water quality concerns remain identified in the subbasin chapters in
Section B so that data, management and the need to address the identified concerns are not lost.
Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River basin, an approach to assess ecosystem health and
human health risk is applied to use support categories. Six categories are used to assess this
approach: aquatic life and secondary recreation, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting, primary
recreation, water supply and "other" uses. Each of these categories relates to the primary
classifications applied to NC rivers and streams. A single water could have more than one use
support rating corresponding to one or more of the multiple use support categories, as shown in
Table A-31. For many waters, a use support category will not be applicable (NA) to the best use
classification of that water (e.g., drinking water supply is not the best use of a Class C water).
This method of determining use support differs from that done prior to 2000; in that, there is no
longer an overall use support rating for a water. For more detailed information regarding use
support methodology, refer to Appendix III.
Use support ratings for
surface waters:
• fully supporting (FS)
• partially supporting (PS)
• not supporting (NS)
• not rated (NR)
Impaired waters categories:
• partially supporting
• not supporting
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 61
3.5.2 Comparison of Use Support Ratings to Streams on the Section 303(d) List
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters not meeting standards.
EPA must then provide review and approval of the listed waters. A list of waters not meeting
standards is submitted to EPA biennially. Waters placed on this list, termed the 303(d) list,
require the establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) intended to guide the
restoration of water quality. See Appendix IV for a description of 303(d) listing methodology.
Waters are placed on North Carolina’s 303(d) list primarily due to a partially or not supporting
use support rating. These use support ratings are based on biological and chemical data and, for
some categories, human health advisories. When the state water quality standard is exceeded,
then this constituent is listed as the problem parameter. TMDLs must be developed for problem
parameters on the 303(d) list. Other strategies may be implemented to restore water quality;
however, the waterbody must remain on the 303(d) list until improvement has been realized
based on either biological bioclassifications or water quality standards.
The 303(d) list and accompanying data are updated as the basinwide plans are revised. In some
cases, the new data will demonstrate water quality improvement and waters may receive a better
use support rating. These waters may be removed from the 303(d) list since water quality
improvement has been attained. In other cases, the new data will show a stable or decreasing
trend in overall water quality resulting in the same, or lower, use support rating. Attention
remains focused on these waters until water quality standards are being met.
3.5.3 Use Support Ratings for the Roanoke River Basin
Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
The aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category is applied to all waters in North
Carolina. Therefore, this category is applied to the total number of stream miles (2213.0) in the
North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin. Table A-26 presents use support ratings by
subbasin for both monitored and evaluated streams in the aquatic life/secondary recreation
category. A basinwide summary of current aquatic life/secondary recreation use support ratings
is presented in Table A-27.
Approximately 29 percent of stream miles (638) were monitored for the protection of aquatic life
and secondary recreation by DWQ during this basinwide planning cycle. All waters rated
impaired in the aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category were monitored within the
past five years. Impaired waters accounted for 2.6 percent of the total stream miles and 8.9
percent of monitored stream miles.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 62
Table A-26 Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Ratings for Monitored and
Evaluated Waters Listed by Subbasin in Miles (1995-1999)
Subbasin Fully
Supporting
Partially
Supporting
Not
Supporting
Not
Rated Total
03-02-01 276.5 0 8.0 148.9 433.4
03-02-02 76.4 0 0 55.6 132.0
03-02-03 154.6 19.5 0 68.8 242.9
03-02-04 112.0 0 0 39.6 151.6
03-02-05 84.8 10.8 0 99.3 194.9
03-02-06 127.0 4.6 0 53.0 184.6
03-02-07 41.7 10.4 0 49.4 101.5
03-02-08 167.9 3.4 0 180.6 351.9
03-02-09 72.8 0 0 198.3 271.1
03-02-10 0 0 0 149.1 149.1
TOTAL 1113.7 48.7 8.0 1042.6 2213.0
Percent 50.3% 2.2% 0.4% 47.1% 100%
Table A-27 Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for Waters
in the Roanoke River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
Use Support Ratings Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 1113.7 50.3% 357.0 56.0%
Impaired 56.7 2.6% 56.7 8.9%
Partially Supporting 48.7 2.2% 48.7 7.6%
Not Supporting 8.0 0.4% 8.0 1.3%
Not Rated 1042.6 47.1% 223.9 35.1%
TOTAL 2213.0 637.6
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
Fish Consumption
Like the aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category, the fish consumption use support
category is also applied to all waters in the state. Approximately 14 percent of stream miles
(308.0 miles) in the Roanoke River basin were monitored for the fish consumption category
during this basinwide cycle. Fish consumption use support ratings are based on fish
consumption advisories issued by the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Currently, there is a statewide advisory limiting consumption of bowfin due to elevated mercury
concentrations. Because of this advisory, all waters in the state are considered partially
supporting the fish consumption use. However, samples collected by DWQ in 1999 from some
waters in the basin, including the Dan River, Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston (where bowfin are
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 63
not typically found), revealed concentrations of metals and PCBs below federal and state
consumption criteria.
Table A-28 presents use support ratings by subbasin for monitored streams in the fish
consumption use support category. A basinwide summary of current fish consumption use
support ratings is presented in Table A-29.
Table A-28 Fish Consumption Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters Listed by Subbasin
in Miles (1995-1999)
Subbasin Fully
Supporting
Partially
Supporting
Not
Supporting
Not
Rated Total
03-02-011,2 0 55.8 0 0 55.8
03-02-021 09.30 09.3
03-02-031 0 14.8 0 0 14.8
03-02-041 07.50 07.5
03-02-053 00.20 00.2
03-02-064 05.10 05.1
03-02-074 05.40 05.4
03-02-08 0 123.7 0 0 123.7
03-02-09 0 25.3 13.3 0 38.6
03-02-10 0 47.6 0 0 47.6
TOTAL 0 294.7 13.3 0 308.0
Percent 0% 95.7% 4.3% 0% 100%
1 Analysis of fish tissue samples, collected by DWQ in 1999 from the Dan River, did not reveal elevated concentrations of
any metals, including mercury, in any species of fish collected.
2 Belews Lake (4,030 acres) is also included in the monitored waters in this subbasin.
3 Hyco Lake (3,750 acres) is also included in the monitored waters in this subbasin.
4 Analysis of fish tissues samples, collected by DWQ in 1999 from Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston, did not reveal elevated
concentrations of any metals or PCBs in any species of fish collected.
Table A-29 Fish Consumption Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**
Fish Consumption
Use Support Ratings
Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 0.0 0.0
Impaired 2213.0 100% 308.0 100%
Partially Supporting 2199.7 99.4% 294.7 95.7%
Not Supporting 13.3 0.6% 13.3 4.3%
Not Rated 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 2213.0 308.0
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 64
Primary Recreation
There are 120.2 stream miles currently classified for primary recreation in the Roanoke River
basin. Approximately 15 percent were monitored by DWQ over the past five years; all are fully
supporting the primary recreation use. Monitored waters include Hyco Lake, Kerr Reservoir and
Lake Gaston. A basinwide summary of current primary recreation use support ratings is
presented in Table A-30.
Table A-30 Primary Recreation Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**
Primary Recreation
Use Support Ratings
Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 18.5 15.4% 18.5 100%
Impaired 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 101.7 84.6% 0.0
TOTAL 120.2 18.5
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
Water Supply
There are 270.4 stream miles currently classified for water supply in the Roanoke River basin.
All were monitored within the past five years; all are fully supporting the water supply use.
Monitored waters include Belews Lake, Hyco Lake, Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston. A
basinwide summary of current water supply use support ratings is presented in Table A-31.
Table A-31 Water Supply Use Support Summary Information for Waters in the Roanoke
River Basin (1999)
Monitored and
Evaluated Streams*
Monitored
Streams Only**Water Supply
Use Support Ratings Miles % Miles %
Fully Supporting 270.4 100% 270.4 100%
Impaired 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 270.4 270.4
* = Percent based on total of all streams, both monitored and evaluated. ** = Percent based on total of all monitored streams.
Impaired Waters
Table A-32 presents impaired waters (in all categories), listed by subbasin, in the Roanoke River
basin that were monitored by DWQ within the last five years. Ratings for each applicable use
support category are shown, even though only one use may be impaired. Impaired ratings are
shown in bold followed by the number of miles (streams and rivers) or acres (lakes) where the
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 65
corresponding use is impaired. Descriptions of impaired segments, as well as problem
parameters, are outlined in Appendix III. Management strategies for each water are discussed in
detail in the appropriate subbasin chapter.
Color maps showing current use support ratings for the Roanoke River basin are presented in
Figures A-21 and A-22. Only waters where fish tissue has been monitored during this basinwide
cycle are shown as impaired for fish consumption on the maps. When use support ratings have
been assigned to more than one category for a particular water, the rating that represents the most
severe impairment is shown on the map (e.g., Hyco Lake is fully supporting aquatic
life/secondary recreation, but is partially supporting fish consumption. The lake is shown on
Figure A-21 as partially supporting.)
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 66
Table A-32 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Roanoke River Basin (as of 2000)
1
Use Support Categories/Rating– Impaired Miles (or Acres)
Impaired Water Subbasin Chapter in
Section B Classification2 Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
Fish
Consumption
Primary
Recreation
Water
Supply
Potential
Sources
Town Fork Creek 03-02-01 1 C NS – 8.0 mi *N/A N/A NP, P
Dan River 03-02-03
03-02-04
2 & 3 C PS – 14.2 mi 3 N/A N/A NP, P
Smith River 03-02-03 3 C WS-IV PS – 5.4 mi *N/A FS P
Hyco Lake 03-02-05 5 B WS-V FS PS – 3,750 ac FS FS P
Marlowe Creek 03-02-05 5 C PS – 10.9 mi *N/A N/A NP, P
Nutbush Creek 03-02-06 6 C PS – 4.6 mi *N/A N/A NP, P
Smith Creek 03-02-07 7 C PS – 10.4 mi *N/A N/A NP
Quankey Creek 03-02-08 8 C PS – 3.4 mi *N/A N/A NP, P
Roanoke Rapids Lake 03-02-08 8 B WS-IV CA PS – 4,893 ac * FS FS NP
Roanoke River 03-02-08
03-02-09
8 & 9 C
C Sw
FS PS – 137.8 mi N/A N/A NP, P
Albemarle Sound 03-02-09 9 B Sw FS PS – 2,586 ac FS N/A NP. P
Welch Creek 03-02-09 9 C Sw NR NS – 13.3 mi N/A N/A P
Cashie River 03-02-10 10 C Sw
B Sw
NR PS – 54.6 mi FS N/A NP
*These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. However, they were not monitored for the fish consumption category during this
basinwide cycle. Refer to Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information.
Notes
1 These waters are currently, or will be placed, on the 303(d) list, and a TMDL and/or management strategy will be developed to address causes and sources of impairment.
Refer to Appendix IV for further information regarding 303(d) listing methodology.
2 An index for DWQ freshwater classifications can be found in Part 3.2 of this section (Table A-20).
3 Analysis of fish tissues samples, collected by DWQ in 1999 from the Dan River, did not reveal elevated concentrations of any metals in any species of fish collected.
FS Fully Supporting NR Not Rated P Point Sources
PS Partially Supporting N/A Not Applicable NP Nonpoint Sources
NS Not Supporting
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 67
Figure A-21 Use Support Ratings for the Western Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
INSERT COLOR MAP…..Figure A-21
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Roanoke River Basin 68
Figure A-22 Use Support Ratings for the Eastern Portion of the Roanoke River Basin
INSERT COLOR MAP…..Figure A-22
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 69
Chapter 4 -
Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds
in the Roanoke River Basin
4.1 Overview
This chapter discusses water quality issues that relate to multiple watersheds within the basin.
Habitat degradation, including sedimentation, which results from a variety of activities in the
watershed, is the most prevalent water quality problem in the Roanoke River basin. Other issues
related to water quality include fish tissue contamination, population growth and urbanization.
There are also a wide variety of concerns related to water quantity and flow management.
4.2 Habitat Degradation
Instream habitat degradation is identified in the use support summary (Appendix III) where there
is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative change in aquatic habitat. This term
includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or
riffles, lack of woody material, and streambed scour. Good instream habitat is necessary for
aquatic life to survive and reproduce. Streams that typically show signs of habitat degradation
are in watersheds that have a large amount of land-disturbing activities (construction, mining,
timber harvest and agricultural activities) or a large percentage of impervious surfaces. A
watershed in which most of the riparian vegetation has been removed from streams or
channelization has occurred also exhibits instream habitat degradation. Streams that receive a
discharge quantity that is much greater than the natural flow in the stream often have degraded
habitat as well.
Determining the cause and quantifying amounts of habitat degradation is very difficult in most
cases. To assess instream habitat degradation in most streams would require extensive technical
and monetary resources and perhaps even more resources to restore the stream. DWQ is working
to develop a reliable habitat assessment methodology.
Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address this issue, local efforts are needed to
prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been impaired by
activities that cause habitat degradation. As point sources become less of a source of water
quality impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation will need
to be addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.
4.2.1 Sedimentation
Introduction
Soil erosion, transport and redeposition are among the most essential natural processes occurring
in watersheds. However, land-disturbing activities such as the construction of roads and
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 70
buildings, crop production, livestock grazing, mining and timber harvesting can accelerate
erosion rates by causing more soil than usual to be detached and moved by water. If best
management practices (BMPs) are not used effectively, accelerated erosion can strip the land of
its topsoil, decreasing soil productivity, and causing sedimentation in streams and rivers (DENR-
DLR, 1998).
Sedimentation is the process by which eroded
soil is deposited into waters. Sediment that
accumulates on the bottom of streams and rivers
smothers fish habitat vital to reproduction and
impacts aquatic insects that fish feed upon.
Sediment filling rivers and streams decreases
their storage volume and increases the frequency
of floods (DENR-DLR, 1998).
Suspended sediment can decrease primary productivity (photosynthesis) by shading sunlight
from aquatic plants, affecting the overall productivity of a stream system. Suspended sediment
also has several effects on various fish species including avoidance and redistribution, reduced
feeding efficiency, and therefore, reduced growth by some species, respiratory impairment,
reduced tolerance to diseases and toxicants, and increased physiological stress (Roell, June
1999). Suspended sediment also increases the cost of treating municipal drinking water.
During 1999 basinwide monitoring, DWQ aquatic biologists reported streambank erosion and
sedimentation throughout the Dan River portions of the basin that were moderate to severe.
Some streams are currently considered biologically impaired due to habitat degradation related in
part to these impacts. Even in streams that were not listed as impaired, lower bioclassification
ratings were assigned because of sedimentation; bottom substrate was embedded by silt and/or
pools were partially filled with sediment. Unstable and/or undercut (eroding) streambanks were
also noted in explanation of lower ratings for the Roanoke River (DENR-DWQ, May 2000).
Additionally, one section of the Dan River is impaired by excess turbidity, due in large part to
suspended sediment.
Land Clearing Activities
Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using
appropriate BMPs. In fact, substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to
minimize the (1) amount and (2) time the land is exposed. Land clearing activities that
contribute to sedimentation in the Roanoke River basin include: construction of homes and
subdivisions as well as commercial and public buildings; plowing soil to plant crops; site
preparation and harvest on timberlands; and road projects.
DWQ’s role in sediment control is to work cooperatively with those agencies that administer
sediment control programs in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and protect
water quality. Where programs are not effective, as evidenced by a violation of instream water
quality standards, and where DWQ can identify a source, then appropriate enforcement action
can be taken. Generally, this would entail requiring the landowner or responsible party to install
acceptable BMPs.
Major Causes of Sedimentation in the
Roanoke River Basin
• Land clearing activities (construction
and preparing land for planting crops)
• Streambank erosion
• Channelization
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 71
As a result of new stormwater rules enacted by EPA in 1999, construction or land development
activities that disturb one acre or more are required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit (refer
to Part 2.7.2 of this section for more information). An erosion and sediment control plan must
also be developed for these sites under the state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA)
administered by the NC Division of Land Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre are
required to use BMPs, but a plan is not required.
Forestry activities in North Carolina are subject to
regulation under the SPCA. However, a forestry
operation in the Roanoke River basin may be
exempt from the permitting requirements if
compliance with performance standards outlined in
Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water
Quality (15NCAC 1I .201-.209) and General
Statutes regarding stream obstruction (77-13 and
77-14) are maintained. Forestry activities in the
adjacent Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River basins must
also adhere to the riparian buffer protection rules
(15A NCAC 2B .0233 and 15A NCAC 2B .0259),
established by DWQ to improve water quality in
those particular basins. Extensive information
regarding these performance standards and rules as
they apply to forestry operations can be found on
the NC Division of Forest Resources website at
http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/managing/water_qual.htm.
For agricultural activities which are not subject to the SPCA, sediment controls are carried out on
a voluntary basis through programs administered by several different agencies (see Appendix VI
for further information).
New Rules Regarding Sediment Control
The Division of Land Resources (DLR) has the primary responsibility for assuring that erosion is
minimized and sedimentation is reduced. In February 1999, the NC Sedimentation Control
Commission adopted significant changes for strengthening the Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program. The following rule changes were filed as temporary rules, subject to approval
by the Rules Review Commission and the NC General Assembly:
• Allows state and local erosion and sediment control programs to require a pre-construction
conference when one is deemed necessary.
• Reduces the number of days allowed for establishment of ground cover from 30 working
days to 15 working days and from 120 calendar days to 90 calendar days. (Stabilization must
now be complete in 15 working days or 90 calendar days, whichever period is shorter.)
• Provides that no person may initiate a land-disturbing activity until notifying the agency that
issued the plan approval of the date the activity will begin.
• Allows assessment penalties for significant violations upon initial issuance of a Notice of
Violation (NOV).
Some Best Management Practices
Agriculture
• No till or conservation tillage practices
• Strip cropping and contour farming
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers
Construction
• Using phased grading/seeding plans
• Limiting time of exposure
• Planting temporary ground cover
• Using sediment basins and traps
Forestry
• Controlling runoff from logging roads
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 72
Additionally, during its 1999 session, the NC General Assembly passed House Bill 1098 to
strengthen the Sediment Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA). The bill made the following
changes to the Act:
• Increases the maximum civil penalty for violating the SPCA from $500 to $5000 per day.
• Provides that a person may be assessed a civil penalty from the date a violation is detected if
the deadline stated in the Notice of Violation is not met.
• Provides that approval of an erosion control plan is conditioned on compliance with federal
and state water quality laws, regulations and rules.
• Provides that any erosion control plan that involves using ditches for the purpose of de-
watering or lowering the water table must be forwarded to the Director of DWQ.
• Amends the General Statutes governing licensing of general contractors to provide that the
State Licensing Board for General Contractors shall test applicants’ knowledge of
requirements of the SPCA and rules adopted pursuant to the Act.
• Removes a cap on the percentage of administrative costs that may be recovered through plan
review fees.
For information on North Carolina’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program or to report
erosion and sedimentation problems, visit the new website at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/ or you
may call the NC Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section at [phone].
4.2.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation
During 1999 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic communities
at numerous sites throughout the Roanoke River basin in association with narrow or nonexistent
zones of native riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation loss was common in rural and
residential areas, as well as in urban watersheds (DENR-DWQ, May 2000).
Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as rip-rap)
along the bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation
eliminates habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for a variety of fish. Rocks lining
a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water temperatures as
well as the higher levels of dissolved oxygen cooler water provides. Trees, shrubs and other
native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing streambank
vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that aquatic insects
and fish need to survive (WNCT, 1999).
Livestock grazing with unlimited access to the stream channel and banks can cause severe
streambank erosion resulting in degraded water quality. Although they often make up a small
percentage of grazing areas by surface area, riparian zones (vegetated stream corridors) are
particularly attractive to cattle that prefer the cooler environment and lush vegetation found
beside rivers and streams. This concentration of livestock can result in increased sedimentation
of streams due to "hoof shear", trampling of bank vegetation, and down-cutting by the
destabilized stream. Despite livestock’s preference for frequent water access, farm veterinarians
have reported that cows are healthier when stream access is limited (EPA, 1999).
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 73
Probably the best-known and most widely used category of BMPs is the retention of naturally
vegetated buffer strips along streams. Streamside buffers serve many functions including
nutrient filtering, bank stabilization, reduction of soil and land loss, moderating water
temperature (which helps maintain higher levels of dissolved oxygen, and hence, a more suitable
fish environment), and providing wildlife habitat and corridors for movement (EPA, 1999).
4.2.3 Channelization
Channelization refers to the physical alteration of
naturally occurring stream and riverbeds. Typical
modifications are described in the text box. Although
increased flooding, bank erosion and channel instability
often occur in downstream areas after channelization
has occurred; flood control, reduce erosion, increase
usable land area, increase navigability and more
efficient drainage are frequently cited as the objectives
of channelization projects (McGarvey, 1996).
Direct or immediate biological effects of channelization
include injury and mortality of benthic
macroinvertebrates, fish, shellfish/mussels and other
wildlife populations, as well as habitat loss. Indirect biological effects include changes in
benthic macroinvertebrate, fish and wildlife community structures, favoring species that are more
tolerant of or better adapted to the altered habitat (McGarvey, 1996).
Restoration or recovery of channelized streams may occur through natural processes or
artificially induced ones. In general, streams that have not been excessively stressed by the
channelization process can be expected to return to their original forms. However, streams that
have been extensively altered may establish a new, artificial equilibrium (especially when the
channelized streambed has been hardened). In such cases, the stream may enter a vicious cycle
of erosion and continuous down cutting. Once the benefits of a channelization project become
outweighed by the costs, both in money and environmental integrity, channel restoration efforts
are likely to be taken (McGarvey, 1996).
Channelization of streams within the continental United States is extensive and promises to
become even more so as urban development continues. Overall estimates of lost or altered
riparian habitats within US streams are as high as 70 percent. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature
of stream ecosystems makes it difficult (if not impossible) to quantitatively predict the effects of
channelization (McGarvey, 1996). Channelization has occurred historically throughout the
Roanoke River basin and continues to occur in some watersheds, especially in small headwater
streams.
4.2.4 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation
DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with DLR and other agencies that administer sediment
control and instream mining programs in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs
and to take appropriate enforcement action when necessary to protect or restore water quality.
Typical Channel Modifications
• Removal of any obstructions,
natural or artificial, that inhibit a
stream’s capacity to convey
water (clearing and snagging).
• Widening, deepening or
straightening of the channel to
maximize conveyance of water.
• Lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 74
However, more voluntary implementation of BMPs is needed for activities that are not subject to
these rules in order to substantially reduce the amount of widespread sedimentation present in the
Roanoke River basin. Public education is needed basinwide to educate landowners about the
value of riparian vegetation along small tributaries and the impacts of sedimentation to aquatic
life.
Funding is available for cost sharing with local governments that set up new erosion and
sedimentation control programs or conduct their own training workshops. The Sediment Control
Commission will provide 40% of the cost of starting a new local erosion and sedimentation
control program for up to 18 months. Two municipalities or a municipality and county can
develop a program together and split the match. It is recommended that local governments draft
and implement local erosion and sedimentation control programs.
Funding is also available through numerous federal and state programs for farmers to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams (refer to Section C, Part 1.4.3). EPA’s Catalog of
Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines some of
these and other programs aimed at protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling
the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at [phone] or visit
the website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html. Local contacts for various
state and local agencies are listed in Appendix VI.
4.3 Urban Runoff
Runoff from built-up (developed) areas carries a wide variety of contaminants to streams
including sediment, oil and grease from roads and parking lots, street litter, and pollutants from
the atmosphere. Generally, there are also a larger number of point source discharges in these
areas. Cumulative impacts from habitat and floodplain alterations, point and nonpoint source
pollution can cause severe impairment to streams.
Projected population growth over the next ten years (1998-2018) for the Roanoke River basin
shows a 2-10 percent increase for Rockingham and Caswell counties, 10-20 percent increase for
Vance, Person, Guilford and Forsyth counties, and a 20-30 percent increase for Stokes and
Granville counties. As populations expand, so do developed areas. Some local governments in
the Roanoke River basin have prioritized water quality planning; however, proactive planning
efforts at the local level are needed across the entire western portion of the basin in order to
assure that development is done in a manner that minimizes impacts to water quality. A lack of
good environmental planning was identified by participants at the public workshops as a threat to
water quality in the Roanoke River basin.
4.3.1 Urbanization
Urbanization often has greater hydrologic effects than any other land use, as native watershed
vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved roads, buildings, parking
lots, and residential homes and yards. Urbanization results in increased surface runoff and
correspondingly earlier and higher peak flows after storms. Flooding frequency is also increased.
These effects are compounded when small streams are channelized (straightened) or piped and
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 75
storm sewer systems are installed to increase transport of drainage waters downstream. Bank
scour from these frequent high flow events tends to enlarge streams and increase suspended
sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of habitat in streams leading to degradation of
benthic macroinvertebrate populations and loss of fisheries (EPA, 1999).
In and around municipalities in the Roanoke River basin, 1999 DWQ biological assessments
revealed that streams are being impacted by urban stormwater runoff. Most of the impacts are in
terms of habitat degradation (see Part 4.2 of this section), but runoff from developed and
developing areas can also carry toxic pollutants to a stream (DENR-DWQ, May 2000).
The presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands in urban areas can lessen these impacts
and restoration of these watershed features should be considered where feasible; however, the
amount of impervious cover should be limited as much as possible. Wide streets, huge cul-de-
sacs, long driveways and sidewalks lining both sides of the street are all features of urban
development that create excess impervious cover and consume natural areas.
4.3.2 Stormwater Regulations
DWQ administers a number of programs aimed at controlling stormwater runoff in the Roanoke
River basin. These include: 1) programs for the control of development activities within
designated water supply (WS) watersheds and in the "coastal" counties as defined by the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA); 2) NPDES stormwater permit requirements for industrial
activities and municipalities; and 3) NPDES stormwater permit requirements for construction
activities on five acres of land or more. For more detailed information on current and proposed
stormwater rules, refer to Part 2.7.2 of this section.
4.3.3 Recommendations for Reducing Urban Runoff
Proactive planning efforts at the local level
are needed to assure that development is done
in a manner that minimizes impacts to water
quality. These planning efforts must find a
balance among water quality protection,
natural resource management and economic
growth. Growth management requires
planning for the needs of future population
increases as well as developing and enforcing
environmental protection measures. These
actions are critical to water quality
management and the quality of life for the
residents of the basin.
Public education is needed in the Roanoke
River basin in order for citizens to understand
the value of urban planning and stormwater
management. Action should be taken by county governments and municipalities to plan for new
development in urban and rural areas. For more detailed information regarding
Planning Recommendations
for New Development
• Minimize number and width of residential
streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas (angled
parking and narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways, parking lot
islands and highway dividers to increase
infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer zones along
streams and tributaries.
• Minimize floodplain development.
• Protect and restore wetland/bog areas.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 76
recommendations for new development found in the text box, refer to EPA’s website at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection.
4.4 Turbidity in the Dan River Watershed
As was discussed in Part 4.2.1 of this section, excess sediment in streams is detrimental to fish
and other aquatic life. The impact of suspended sediment, a large component of turbidity (see
Glossary in Appendix VII), depends on both the concentration and duration. For example,
suspended sediments may be present at high concentrations for short periods of time or at low
concentrations for extended periods of time. The greatest impacts to fish populations are
observed when suspended sediment is present in high concentrations for extended periods.
The turbidity water quality standard for Class C waters is 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units
(NTU). Trout waters have a more stringent water quality standard of 10 NTU. The water quality
standards also indicate that "if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background
conditions, the existing turbidity level cannot be increased". Elevated turbidity measurements
were observed often in streams in the Dan River subbasins over the past five years. Refer to Part
3.3.5 for a discussion of ambient monitoring data in the Dan River watershed.
4.4.1 Instream Mining Operations
Construction sand and gravel were produced by an estimated 4,000 companies from 6,100
operations in 50 states in 2000. Overall production increased 5.4 percent in that year. It is
estimated that production will increase again by 2.6 percent in 2001. Uses include concrete
aggregates, road base, covering and stabilization, construction fill, concrete products (such as
bricks, blocks and pipes), plaster, snow and ice control, railroad ballast, roofing granules and
filtration. The most important commercial sources of sand and gravel nationwide have been
river floodplains, river channels and glacial deposits (USGS, January 2001). Mining of sand and
gravel occurs in two major forms: instream mining and land mining, which include floodplain
excavations that often involve a connecting outlet to a stream (Meador, 1998)
The composition of the streambed and banks is an important facet of stream character,
influencing channel form and hydraulics, erosion rates, sediment supply and other parameters.
Channel bed and bank materials determine the extent of sediment transport and provide the
means of dissipating energy in a stream or river. For a stream to be stable it must be able to
consistently transport its sediment load, both in size and type, associated with local deposition
and scour. Channel instability occurs when the scouring process leads to degradation (deepening
or lowering of channel elevation) or excess sediment results in aggradation (filling or raising of
channel elevation) (Rosgen, 1996).
In addition to physical stream changes, sedimentation and increased turbidity also can accrue
from mining activities, wash-water discharge, and storm runoff from active or abandoned mining
sites. Other effects may include higher stream temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen,
lowering of the water table, and decreased wetted periods in riparian wetlands. Expansion of a
mine site or mining at a new site is often preceded by riparian forest clearing, which can affect
instream habitat and contribute to bank instability (Meador, 1998).
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 77
The Division of Land Resources’ (DLR)
Mining Program "provide(s) for the mining of
mineral resources while ensuring the
usefulness, productivity and scenic value of all
lands and waters" in North Carolina. DLR
issues permits for two types of instream mining
which are described in the text box: sand
dipping (DP) and sand dredging (DR). Figure
A-23 presents permitted instream mining sites
in the North Carolina portion of the Dan River
watershed. There are four permitted sand
dredging operations and two permitted sand
dipping operations in a 35-mile stretch of the
Dan River between Walnut Cove and Eden.
Figure A-23 Permitted Instream Mine Sites in the Dan River Watershed (DLR, June 2001)
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has identified 10 aquatic species that are
endangered, threatened or of special concern (refer to Table A-12 in Part 2.6.3) in the North
Carolina portion of the Dan River watershed: seven species of fish, two mussels and one
salamander. Because of these sensitive species, DLR may restrict instream mining operations
during the fishes’ spawning season in the Dan River. Additionally, river access for sand dipping
operations is restricted to specific, size-limited points along the river. Operations that had
removed large amounts of riparian vegetation were required to restore streambanks and
reestablish an appropriate vegetated buffer. The buffer must be maintained throughout the life of
the permit.
Two Types of Instream Mining Permits
Sand Dipping – Removes sand from the river
bottom through the use of a dragline (a crane with a
bucket) that sits on the riverbank. There is potential
for large amounts of vegetation to be removed from
the riverbank with this type of mining operation.
Sand Dredging – Hydraulically removes sand from
the river bottom through the use of a floating dredge
and a suction pump.
Processing typically includes screening and grading
sand in wash water (usually stream water), and
discharging the wash water into settling pits before
releasing it back into the stream (Meador, 1998)
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 78
Typically, instream mining permits for sand dipping operations are issued for 5 years and sand
dredging operations are permitted for 10 years. However, because WRC, DLR and DWQ are
continuing to collect more data and learn more about the effects of operations on aquatic life and
water quality in the Dan River, shorter term permits may be required. One new permit for
instream mining operations in the Dan River has been denied.
4.4.2 Recommendations
DWQ will work with DLR to evaluate and reduce turbidity from permitted instream mining
operations in the Dan River. As permits are renewed, monitoring upstream and downstream of
mining operations and instream BMPs (such as those used by the NC Department of
Transportation during bridge construction) could be required. In addition, DWQ will notify local
agencies of water quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further
monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding.
4.5 Dissolved Oxygen in the Lower Roanoke River Basin
Maintaining an adequate amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) is critical to the survival of aquatic
life and to the general health of surface waters. A number of factors influence DO concentrations
including water temperature, depth and turbulence. Additionally, in the Roanoke River basin, a
large floodplain drainage system and flow management from upstream impoundments also
influence DO. The dissolved oxygen water quality standard for Class C waters is "not less than a
daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l".
Swamp waters (Class C Sw) "may have lower values if caused by natural conditions" (DENR,
August 2000).
Oxygen-consuming wastes such as decomposing organic matter and some chemicals can reduce
dissolved oxygen levels in surface water through biological activity and chemical reactions.
NPDES permits for wastewater discharges set limits on certain parameters in order to control the
effects that oxygen depletion can have in receiving waters. This section discusses discharges of
oxygen-consuming wastes in the Roanoke River basin and studies that have been, or are
currently being, conducted to better understand dissolved oxygen in the Roanoke River
mainstem.
For more information about oxygen-consuming wastes and what DWQ does to limit water
quality impacts from these wastes, refer to A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in
North Carolina. This document is available online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ or by calling
[phone].
4.5.1 Discharges to Zero Flow Streams
Because of the nature of the coastal plain region of the state (refer to Part 2.3 of Section A),
streams in the lower portion of the Roanoke River basin have a low potential for sustaining base
flow. This low flow frequency, measured by a 7Q10 (annual minimum 7-day consecutive low
flow, which on average, will be exceeded 9 out of 10 years) flow calculation, is zero for all but
the largest watersheds. This very low flow over the hottest several months of the year limits
streams’ ability to maintain high dissolved oxygen levels (temperature increases depleting
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 79
dissolved oxygen while velocity decreases so there is little reaeration). The capacity for streams
to assimilate oxygen-consuming wastes is also limited under these conditions. DWQ developed
regulations for evaluating discharges to such waters.
In 1980, a study was performed on zero flow streams (7Q10 = 0 cfs and 30Q2 = 0 cfs) to
determine the effect of wastewater discharges. The study concluded that:
• Steady-state models do not apply to zero flow streams, particularly those receiving waste
from small discharges.
• The pool/riffle configuration of these small streams results in violations of the DO standard
even when wastewater is well treated.
• Small streams receiving wastes from schools, mobile home parks, subdivisions, etc. flow
through populated areas where children have easy access to streams.
• Noxious conditions were found in the low flow streams that were part of the study.
As a result of the study, regulations [15A NCAC 2B .0206 (d)] were developed that prohibit new
or expanded discharges of oxygen-consuming wastes to zero flow streams. Existing facilities
discharging to zero flow streams were evaluated for alternatives to discharge. Many facilities
found alternatives to a surface water discharge, and some built new treatment plants to meet
advanced tertiary limits for BOD5 and NH3-N.
This policy typically covers small discharges such as schools, mobile home parks, subdivisions
and rest homes, which discharge to zero flow streams in headwater areas. Such discharges
generally do not cause significant water quality problems in the mainstem of the Roanoke River
or larger tributaries, but they can cause localized problems in the zero flow receiving streams.
The results of the 1980 study were extrapolated to facilities discharging to low flow streams
(those with a 7Q10 = 0, but with a 30Q2 > 0) since similar adverse impacts are expected in these
waters. Regulations [15A NCAC 2B .0206 (d)] were developed to set effluent limitations for
new and expanding discharges to 5 mg/l BOD5, 2 mg/l NH3-N and 6 mg/l dissolved oxygen
(DO) unless it is determined that these limitations will not protect water quality standards.
4.5.2 Modeling Dissolved Oxygen in the Roanoke River
In 1995, DWQ developed a field-calibrated, steady-state model for dissolved oxygen in
approximately 74 miles of the Roanoke River, which extends from the NC 48 bridge at Roanoke
Rapids to the Wildlife Resources Commission boat ramp at Hamilton. At existing permitted
loads during low flow conditions, the predicted minimum dissolved oxygen level is
approximately 6.0 mg/l. Currently, DWQ does not have the proper modeling tool in place to
determine the potential impacts of new or expanding discharges of oxygen-consuming wastes on
the lower Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound (see Recommendations).
4.5.3 Other Dissolved Oxygen Studies
Five US Geological Survey (USGS) continuous monitoring stations measure dissolved oxygen
and temperature along the Roanoke River at 15-minute intervals. Data collection began in 1998
and continues into 2001. These stations were being funded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service;
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 80
however, Dominion is funding their operation for several months in 2001. Refer to Part 3.4 for
further information and a partial data summary.
In 1996 and 1997, personnel from the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge monitored the
Roanoke River and its tributaries from Indian Creek to Coniott Creek for dissolved oxygen (DO)
and pH. DO concentrations less than 2.0 mg/l were documented in Coniott Creek from April to
November 1996. In 1997, DO concentrations of less than 2.0 mg/l were recorded only in July.
Black Gut showed DO concentrations less than 2.0 mg/l from August to October 1996. At other
locations there were sporadic low DO events, but none were longer than two weeks duration
(DENR-DWQ, May 2000). DWQ has no means for determining whether these particular data
represent natural conditions or impacts from man-induced changes in the watershed; and
therefore, this information is simply reported. These data were not used as a basis for use
support determinations.
Studies to determine impacts of Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Project operations on
DO concentrations in the Roanoke River mainstem and tributaries are being conducted by
Dominion, in cooperation with DWQ and other federal and state natural resource agencies, as
part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) hydropower dam relicensing
process (refer to Part 4.6.2 below for further information). Section 401 of the federal Clean
Water Act states that no federal agency can issue any license or permit to conduct any activity
that may result in a discharge to navigable waters, unless the state in which the discharge may
occur certifies that the discharge will not result in a violation of any state water quality or related
standards. The water quality studies currently being conducted will provide DWQ with the data
needed to make this determination.
4.5.4 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to evaluate proposed discharges of oxygen-consuming wastes on a case-by-
case basis. For discharges above the WRC boat ramp at Hamilton, the model will be re-
evaluated, including the proposed discharge, to determine the impact of oxygen-consuming
waste on the Roanoke River. If a discharge is proposed below the boat ramp at Hamilton, or if
the model predicts a potential impact from a proposed discharge above the boat ramp at
Hamilton, the Division will require the applicant to meet Best Available Technology (BAT)
limits or to provide/fund a multi-dimensional estuary model.
DWQ will ensure through the 401 Water Quality Certification process that Roanoke Rapids and
Gaston Hydropower Project operations will not result in violations of water quality standards.
4.6 Major Studies Related to Water Quality
Several large studies are being conducted in the Roanoke River basin that could impact water
quality. Current work includes: EPA/Weyerhaeuser Company Dioxin Contamination Studies,
FERC Relicensing of Hydropower Projects and the US Army Corps of Engineers Section 216
study. This section discusses the nature of these studies.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 81
4.6.1 EPA/Weyerhaeuser Dioxin Contamination Studies
The EPA and Weyerhaeuser are conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for
the Weyerhaeuser Company-Plymouth Facility (Washington County). The work addresses
dioxin contamination of Welch Creek (refer to Section B, Part 9.2.1 for more information), as
well as potential contaminant sources on the property (i.e., the former chlorine plant and on-site
landfill). Related studies are being conducted by the EPA (alone) on the extent of dioxin
contamination in the lower Roanoke River and western Albemarle Sound. Biological effects of
that contamination will also be evaluated.
4.6.2 FERC Relicensing of Hydropower Projects
The license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to Dominion
(formerly North Carolina Power Company) for the operation of the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston
Hydroelectric Project expired on January 31, 2001. The relicensing process began in early 1995
and will include an assessment of how current and future project operations may affect
environmental resources in the Roanoke River basin. Several studies related to instream flow are
at various stages of completion. Additionally, studies to determine impacts of project operations
on DO concentrations in the Roanoke River mainstem and tributaries are being conducted by
Dominion, in cooperation with DWQ and other federal and state natural resource agencies.
Three technical work groups, including a water quality subcommittee, are analyzing the results
of these studies. The next Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan will summarize relevant
data collected during this process.
The Pinnacles Hydro-Electric Project is also undergoing relicensing at this time. It is owned by
the City of Danville, but is located on the headwaters of the Dan River near Meadow of Dan,
Virginia. The project consists of two impoundments: Talbott and Townes Reservoirs. Talbott is
used as storage and supplies water to Townes downstream. From Townes Reservoir, water
bypasses a stretch of the Dan River channel to the powerhouse where water is returned to the
river. Changes in the flow regimes or general operation of this project have the potential to
impact water quality in the North Carolina portion of the Dan River.
4.6.3 USCOE Section 216 Study
The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is conducting a Section 216 Study to investigate the
operations of Kerr Dam and Reservoir and the impact of those operations, both from an
environmental and a hydrologic perspective. The Section 216 Study is a multiyear process and
will involve four stages: 1) Reconnaissance Phase; 2) Feasibility Study; 3) Planning,
Engineering and Design; and 4) Construction.
Currently, the Section 216 Study for Kerr is in the Reconnaissance Phase. During the
Reconnaissance Phase, the Corps determines concerns of basin stakeholders regarding dam and
reservoir operations and prepares a report summarizing these areas of concern. The Feasibility
Study is typically a three-year study of the basin and the impacts caused by dam and reservoir
operations, during which data are collected and analyzed. During Planning, Engineering and
Design, plans are made for things such as wetland restoration, buffers, changes in turbines, etc.
The Construction Phase is the final implementation phase of the project.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 82
4.6.4 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to follow these studies and provide assistance and input as is appropriate.
Any results that become available over the next five-year basinwide planning cycle will be
discussed in the revised Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (2006).
4.7 Protecting Headwaters
Many streams in a given river basin are only small trickles of water that emerge from the ground.
A larger stream is formed at the confluence of these trickles. This constant merging eventually
forms a large stream or river. Most monitoring of fresh surface waters evaluates these larger
streams. The many miles of small trickles, collectively known as headwaters, are not directly
monitored and in many instances are not even indicated on maps. However, impairment of
headwater streams can (and does) impact the larger stream or river.
Headwater areas are found from the mountains to the coast along all river systems and drain all
of the land in a river basin. Because of the small size of headwater streams, they are often
overlooked during land use activities that impact water quality. All landowners can participate in
the protection of headwaters by keeping small tributaries in mind when making land use
management decisions on the areas they control. This includes activities such as retaining
vegetated stream buffers and excluding cattle from streams. Local rural and urban planning
initiatives should also consider impacts to headwater streams when land is being developed.
On a larger scale, many streams in the NC portion of the Dan River watershed are part of the
headwaters of the Roanoke River basin. They are important as sources of water for downstream
water supplies and as food production sources for downstream aquatic life. For a more detailed
description of watershed hydrology, please refer to EPA’s Watershed Academy website at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/watershedmgt/principle1.html.
4.8 Biological Community Assessment Issues
DWQ strives to properly evaluate the health of biological communities throughout the state.
Swamp stream systems, non-wadeable waters and coldwater fisheries have presented unique
challenges. This section discusses some of these challenges. This section also discusses the
accumulation of contaminants in fish tissues and how waters with consumption advisories are
assessed by DWQ.
4.8.1 Draft Criteria for Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Swamp Streams
Extensive evaluation, conducted by DWQ, of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina
suggests that different criteria must be used to assess the condition of water quality in these
systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen and lower
pH. Sometimes they also have very complex braided channels and dark-colored water. Since
1995, benthos swamp sampling methods have been used at over 100 sites in the coastal plain of
North Carolina, including more than 20 reference sites. In 1999, 16 sites on swamp streams in
the Roanoke River basin were sampled by DWQ. Preliminary investigations indicate that there
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 83
are at least four unique swamp ecoregions in the NC coastal plain. The lowest "natural" diversity
has been found in low-gradient streams (especially in the outer coastal plain east of the Suffolk
Scarp) and in areas with poorly drained soils.
DWQ has developed draft biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign
bioclassifications to these streams (as is currently done for other streams and rivers across the
state). However, validation of the swamp criteria will require collecting data for several years
from swamp stream reference sites. The criteria will remain in draft form until DWQ is better
able to evaluate such things as: year-to-year variation at reference swamp sites, effects of flow
interruption, variation among reference swamp sites, and the effect of small changes in pH on the
benthos community. Other factors, such as whether the habitat evaluation can be improved and
the role fisheries data should play in the evaluation, must also be resolved. While it may be
difficult to assign use support ratings to these swamp streams, these data can be used to evaluate
changes in a particular stream between dates or to evaluate effects of different land uses on water
quality within a relatively uniform ecoregion.
4.8.2 Draft Criteria for Assessing Fish Communities in Non-Wadeable Streams
In the past, most fish communities were sampled by DWQ and scores were assigned using the
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of
twelve parameters or metrics. Each metric is designed to contribute unique information to the
overall assessment. The scores for all metrics are then summed to obtain the overall NCIBI
score. [Appendix II contains more information regarding the NCIBI.]
However, during the late 1990s, application of the NCIBI was restricted to wadeable streams that
can be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using backpack electrofishers and following the DWQ
Standard Operating Procedures (NCDEHNR, 1997). Work began in 1998 to develop a fish
community boat sampling method that could be used in non-wadeable coastal plain streams.
Plans are to sample 10-15 reference sites with the boat method once it is finalized. As with the
benthos in swamp streams, several years of reference site data will be needed before criteria can
be developed with confidence to evaluate the biological integrity of large streams and rivers, like
the Roanoke River, using the fish community.
4.8.3 Fish Consumption Advisories
The NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch has developed guidelines to advise people as to safe levels of fish
consumption. DWQ considers uses of waters with a consumption advisory for one or more
species of fish to be impaired. Currently, there are several different fish consumption advisories
in the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin. In the western portion of the Roanoke
River basin, Hyco Lake has a limited consumption advisory due to selenium contamination, and
a portion of the Dan River in Virginia has an advisory because of elevated levels of
polychlorinated biphenols (an organic compound abbreviated PCB). The lower Roanoke River,
Welch Creek and a portion of the Albemarle Sound, in the eastern portion of the basin, have
limited consumption advisories due to high levels of dioxin in fish tissue. The reasons for these
advisories and actions taken by DWQ and others to reduce or eliminate the source of selenium
and dioxin are discussed in detail in the appropriate subbasin chapter in Section B.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 84
Additionally, in 1997, DHHS issued a statewide fish consumption advisory due to elevated levels
of mercury in bowfin (also known as blackfish). As a result of this advisory, DWQ considers all
waters in the Roanoke River basin to be partially supporting the fish consumption use. (Refer to
Appendix III for more information regarding use support ratings and assessment methodology.)
DWQ has sampled fish tissue from a variety of species at eight locations in the Roanoke River
basin. Mercury levels in bowfin from both the Roanoke and Cashie Rivers exceed the North
Carolina action level for mercury in fish.
The presence and accumulation of mercury in North Carolina’s aquatic environment is similar to
contamination observed throughout the country. Mercury has a complex life in the environment,
moving from the atmosphere to soil, to surface water and into biological organisms. Mercury
circulates in the environment as a result of natural and human (anthropogenic) activities. A
dominant pathway of mercury in the environment is through the atmosphere. Mercury that has
been emitted from industrial and municipal stacks into the ambient air can circulate across the
globe. At any point, mercury may then be deposited onto land and water. Once in the water,
mercury can accumulate in fish tissue and humans. Mercury is also commonly found in
wastewater. However, mercury in wastewater is typically not at levels that could be solely
responsible for elevated levels in fish.
For more information regarding fish consumption advisories, visit the NC Department of Health
and Human Services website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html or call [phone].
4.8.4 Recommendations for Biological Community Assessment
DWQ will continue to monitor concentrations of various contaminants in fish tissue across the
state (in cooperation with several NPDES permitted dischargers) and will work to identify and
reduce wastewater contributions of mercury to surface waters. The Division of Air Quality
(DAQ) evaluates mercury levels in rainwater on a regular basis through the EPA Mercury
Deposition Network. EPA continues to focus on nationwide mercury reductions from stack
emissions and through pollution prevention efforts. Given the global scale of mercury cycling, it
may be difficult for state and federal agencies to recognize significant reductions of mercury in
fish over the short-term. Governmental and scientific agencies and organizations will continue
efforts to reduce mercury cycling on a national and global scale.
DWQ will also continue to work to prepare and improve biological monitoring criteria.
4.9 Effects of Hurricanes on Water Quality
The Roanoke River basin in North Carolina is periodically subjected to hurricanes and tropical
storms. Aquatic ecosystems and water quality can, and do, recover from the wind damage and
extensive flooding that result from these storms. However, human activities in hurricane-prone
areas can greatly increase the extent and severity of water quality and ecosystem impacts, as well
as the system’s recovery time.
In September 1999, Hurricane Floyd made landfall in North Carolina only a few days after
Hurricane/Tropical Storm Dennis, made two passes across the eastern part of the state. Wind
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 85
damage was not as severe as what has occurred during these types of storms in the past; however,
flooding in eastern North Carolina was higher and more extensive than any ever recorded. Many
towns and homes were completely inundated, and in some areas because of extended rainfall
after Floyd, flooding continued for weeks. Bridges and buildings were washed downstream,
animal waste lagoons breached, and wastewater treatment plants were inundated. Floyd resulted
in more fatalities than any hurricane to strike the United States since 1972. More than 50 people
in North Carolina were killed and thousands were left homeless (Bales, 2000).
4.9.1 Contaminants
Floods can transport large amounts of materials from the land into surface waters, inundate areas
that are contaminated with various substances, flood wastewater treatment facilities that may be
located in or near the floodplain, and result in the failure of animal waste lagoons. The large
volume of water transported during the Hurricane Floyd flooding demonstrated that even low
concentrations of pollutants can result in the transport of an extremely large mass of these
materials through watersheds and into the estuaries of eastern North Carolina. Pollutants that can
be carried into waters during large floods include excess nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and
organic carbon), bacteria and other pathogens, pesticides and fuels, and sediment. As a result of
contamination by these pollutants, dissolved oxygen can be depleted, causing stress (or death) to
fish and other aquatic life. Salt concentrations in the estuaries can also be affected by the large
volume of freshwater flowing into the system within a short period of time.
Although the Roanoke River basin comprises almost 33 percent of the total Albemarle-Pamlico
Sound drainage area, freshwater inflow from this basin accounted for only about 10 percent of
the total inflow to the sound following the 1999 hurricanes because of (1) the presence of a large
flood-control reservoir at the lower end of the basin and (2) the paths of the hurricanes avoided
much of the basin. On the other hand, the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico basins, which together
compose about 31 percent of the Pamlico Sound drainage area, contributed 44 percent of the
inflow to the sound in September and more than 50 percent of the inflow in October. This is
particularly important because both of these rivers are known to carry relatively high loads of
nutrients and other contaminants. Even though flooding was not as severe in the Roanoke River
basin compared to the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins, the previously recorded maximum
water level on the Cashie River was exceeded by seven feet during Hurricane Floyd, and the
flood recurrence interval was greater than 500 years (Bales, 2000).
4.9.2 De-snagging
Emergency de-snagging (removal of piles of woody debris from stream and river channels)
began after the storm as part of Natural Resources Conservation Services’ (NRCS) Emergency
Watershed Protection (EWP) program. NRCS intends for this activity to be used only to prevent
imminent flooding around bridges and economic loss of property. Therefore, much of the
NRCS-supervised de-snagging operations affected only the areas in streams and rivers
immediately upstream and downstream of road crossings. NRCS also intends to remove only
debris that was deposited during the storm, leaving in place snags that predated the event such as
those associated with beavers. However, there were difficulties assessing snag origins and ages
because most of the de-snagging projects did not start until almost a year after the storm.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 86
In addition to the EWP program, funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) was also made available to some local governments for additional de-snagging
activities. There was no requirement associated with this funding that the operations be
monitored to prevent excessive or improper removal of woody debris. Several stream segments
and wetland areas in non-emergency situations were completely cleared of debris and snags and,
in some cases, relocated and channelized using this funding.
Woody debris is the predominant habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates in larger, slower-moving
coastal stream and wetland systems. Therefore, removal of these snags removes most of the
habitat available for aquatic life. If care is not taken in properly removing woody debris, the
streambanks and streambed can be altered as well as causing moderate to severe habitat
degradation. Although no de-snagging activities have been reported or observed in the Roanoke
River basin following Hurricane Floyd, it is important for citizens to be aware of water quality
concerns associated with this activity.
4.9.3 Bank Failure
There are many places along the Roanoke River where large portions of the riverbank fell as a
result of high flows during and following Hurricane Floyd. When these banks began to fail, tons
of sediment were washed into the river along with trees and other debris. The portion of river
near Hamilton seems to be the area with the most damage; however, smaller sections of severe
erosion are scattered along the entire length of river from Weldon to Jamesville. Preventing
further erosion and land loss near Hamilton will require a large expenditure of time and
resources.
4.9.4 Recommendations
Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected prior to the hurricanes in coastal river basins were from
summer or winter collections, with little fall sampling available for comparisons. It is not yet
possible to conduct a detailed analysis of post-hurricane samples at many stream sites, because
some normal seasonal differences would be present in fall samples. However, some sampling of
reference swamp streams was conducted by DWQ in November 1999. These collections did not
indicate any significant damage from Hurricane Floyd (DENR-DWQ, December 1999). The
next Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan will summarize data collected in the basin
over the next five-year (2000-2004) cycle.
DWQ is aware of the need to remove obstructions to water flow, including snags, in the vicinity
of bridges or other structures in emergency situations because of safety concerns and to reduce
economic loss in the event of natural disasters. However, the NRCS should reevaluate allowing
de-snagging after the immediate emergency situation has passed. The method in which snags are
removed, the amount of debris that is removed, and the sites selected could all be approached,
during a non-emergency situation, in such a manner as to reduce impacts to the stream channel
and aquatic communities. Local governments that receive additional funding for this type of
activity should also take water quality into consideration.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 87
4.10 Priority Issues for the Next Five Years
Clean water is crucial to the health, economic and ecological well-being of the state. Tourism,
water supplies, recreation and a high quality of life for residents are dependent on the water
resources within any given river basin. Water quality problems are varied and complex.
Inevitably, water quality impairment is due to human activities within the watershed. Solving
these problems and protecting the surface water quality of the basin in the face of continued
growth and development will be a major challenge. Looking to the future, water quality in this
basin will depend on the manner in which growth and development occur.
The long-range mission of basinwide management is to provide a means of addressing the
complex problem of planning for increased development and economic growth while protecting
and/or restoring the quality and intended uses of the Roanoke River basin’s surface waters. In
striving towards its mission, DWQ’s highest priority near-term goals are to:
• identify and restore impaired waters in the basin;
• identify and protect high value resource waters and biological communities of special
importance; and
• protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth.
4.10.1 Strategies for Restoring and Protecting Impaired Waters
Impaired waters are those waters identified in Section A, Chapter 3 as partially supporting (PS)
or not supporting (NS) their designated uses based on DWQ assessments of monitoring data.
These waters are summarized by subbasin in Table A-31 and indicated on Figures A-21 and A-
22. The impaired waters are also discussed individually in the subbasin chapters in Section B.
These waters are impaired, at least in part, due to nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution. The tasks
of identifying nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for these
impaired waters are very resource intensive. Accomplishing these tasks is overwhelming, given
the current limited resources of DWQ, other agencies (e.g., Division of Land Resources, Division
of Soil and Water Conservation, Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments.
Therefore, only limited progress towards restoring NPS impaired waters can be expected during
this five-year cycle unless substantial resources are put toward solving NPS problems.
DWQ plans to further evaluate the impaired waters in the Roanoke River basin in conjunction
with other NPS agencies and develop management strategies for a portion of these impaired
waters for the next Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 303(d) (see below).
4.10.2 Addressing Waters on the State’s Section 303(d) List
For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a priority. The waters in the Roanoke River basin that are on this list are
presented in the individual subbasin descriptions in Section B. For information on listing
requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section A: Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Roanoke River Basin 88
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a 303(d) list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. States are also required to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed
waters to address impairment. In the last few years, the TMDL program has received a great deal
of attention as the result of a number of lawsuits filed across the country against EPA. These
lawsuits argue that TMDLs have not adequately been developed for specific impaired waters. As
a result of these lawsuits, EPA issued a guidance memorandum in August 1997 that called for
states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list. The
schedules for TMDL development, according to this EPA memo, are to span 8-13 years.
There are approximately 2,387 impaired stream miles on the 2000 303(d) list in NC. The
rigorous and demanding task of developing TMDLs for each of these waters during an 8 to 13-
year time frame will require the focus of much of the water quality program’s resources.
Therefore, it will be a priority for North Carolina’s water quality programs over the next several
years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters.
Section B: Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin 89
Section B
Water Quality Data
and
Information by Subbasin
Section B: Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 90
Chapter 1 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01
Includes a portion of the Dan River, Town Fork and Snow Creeks
1.1 Water Quality Overview
Although the headwaters of the Dan River are in Virginia,
this North Carolina subbasin contains a large portion of
the upper reaches that flow through moderately steep
terrain including the towns of Danbury and Walnut Cove.
Waters include Snow Creek, North and South Double
Creeks, Town Fork Creek and Belews Lake. A map of
this subbasin including water quality sampling locations is
presented in Figure B-1.
Bioclassifications for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-1. Use support ratings for each applicable
category in this subbasin are summarized in Tables B-2
and B-3. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and more information about use support
ratings.
As a result of moderately steep slopes throughout the area,
streams in this subbasin, as well as major sections of the
Dan River, are deeply entrenched, suggesting the effects of long-term erosion. Soil erosion rates
as high as 21 tons/acre/yr have been documented for cultivated cropland in the upper Dan River
watershed, compared to 7.3 tons/acre/yr in the nearby upper Tar River basin (USDA, 1992).
Most of the land in this portion of the basin is forested (73 percent), but a significant portion is
also in use as cultivated cropland and pasture (25 percent). The estimated subbasin population,
based on the 1990 census, is 45,777. Stokes County is projected to receive the largest population
increase of the sixteen counties in the Roanoke River basin (NC portion). From 1998 to 2018,
estimated population growth for Stokes County is 28 percent and Forsyth County is 16 percent.
There are 23 NPDES permitted dischargers in the subbasin, most of which are small wastewater
treatment plants serving schools or subdivisions. Four of these small wastewater treatment
plants had problems with elevated BOD and ammonia in their discharges. The largest discharge
is from the Town of Walnut Cove’s WWTP to Town Fork Creek. Duke Power Company’s
Belews Creek Steam Station discharges cooling water to Belews Lake and ash pond basin
effluent to the Dan River. Five dischargers, including the steam station, are required to monitor
their effluent’s toxicity: Kobe Copper Products, two Stokes County high schools, and Rayco
Utilities. There were no indications of toxicity problems in 1999, and substantial improvements
in effluent toxicity were observed relative to earlier data.
Subbasin 03-02-01 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 453 mi
2
Land area: 445 mi
2
Water area: 8 mi
2
Population
1990 Est. Pop.: 45,777 people
Pop. Density: 103 persons/mi2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 72.8
Water: 1.9
Urban: 0.6
Cultivated Crop: 2.9
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 21.8
Section B: Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 92
Table B-1 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999-2000) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01
Site Stream County Road Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1* Dan River Stokes NC 704 Good
B-2 Dan River Stokes SR 1695 Good
B-3 North Double Creek Stokes SR 1504 Good-Fair
B-12 Snow Creek (1999) Stokes SR 1673 Fair
B-12 Snow Creek (2000) Stokes SR 1673 Good
Ambient Monitoring
N0150000 Dan River Stokes NC 704 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Benthic macroinvertebrates in this subbasin were sampled under extreme low flow conditions in
1999. For larger streams affected by nonpoint source pollution, a sharp decline in flow may
result in a higher bioclassification; smaller streams, however, might be adversely affected by
extremely low flow.
No sample was collected at Town Fork Creek in 1999 due to inaccessibility, but a special study
was conducted in the watershed in 1995. Two sites in the middle portion of Town Fork Creek
(see Figure B-1) received Good-Fair bioclassifications, but the upstream portion received a Poor
bioclassification. The aquatic life/secondary recreation uses in the upper part of Town Fork
Creek are impaired. This portion is discussed further in Part 1.3.1 of this chapter. Neatman
Creek was also sampled as part of the study and the benthic community received a Good
bioclassification.
Good benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications have been recorded since 1983 from the two
Dan River sampling locations, but more variable results have been observed at tributary sites.
Historically, the only Excellent bioclassifications were from small headwater tributaries in
Hanging Rock State Park which are classified High Quality Waters.
Snow Creek received the lowest bioclassification (Fair) of the four sites sampled in 1999. Snow
and North Double Creeks both drain agricultural areas, and their bioclassifications have
fluctuated between Fair and Good-Fair. Because of this fluctuation, Snow Creek was sampled
again by DWQ in August 2000. The benthic community received a Good bioclassification at the
time of this collection. Part 1.5.1 contains more details about impacts observed at Snow Creek.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from the Dan River a few miles above Danbury.
This site is located well into North Carolina, but above any major tributaries in order to monitor
the condition of the river as it flows in from Virginia. These data have indicated good water
quality, with the exception of turbidity and total suspended solids. The Dan River at this location
is protected for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout (Tr) making the water quality
Section B: Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 93
standard for turbidity, among other parameters, more restrictive. This turbidity standard was
exceeded in 35 percent of samples collected from 1995 to 1999, at times reaching levels seven
and eight times the standard. For more information regarding general water quality issues in the
Dan River watershed, including sedimentation, refer to Section A, Chapter 4.
Three lakes in this subbasin were monitored in 1999: Hanging Rock Lake, Kernersville
Reservoir and Belews Lake. Hanging Rock and Belews Lakes are oligotrophic lakes with no
indications of water quality problems. Kernersville Lake’s status changed from mesotrophic in
1994 to eutrophic in 1999, reflecting high nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. In 1999,
chlorophyll a concentrations were greater than the state standard; however, no algal blooms have
been reported.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams and lakes in this subbasin,
refer to the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000),
available from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by
calling [phone].
Table B-2 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-01
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
4,087 0 0 4,087
Fish Consumption3 04,03004,030
Primary Recreation 4,042 0 0 4,042
Water Supply 4,075 0 0 4,075
Table B-3 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
2 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
288.1 0 8.0 137.3 433.4
Fish Consumption3 0 55.8 0 0 55.8
Primary Recreation 0 0 0 11.3 11.3
Water Supply 45.2 0 0 0 45.2
1 Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not
additive because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
2 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information. Fish tissue monitoring in the Dan River is discussed
in Chapter 3 of this section.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 94
1.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River
Basinwide Plan identified one impaired water in this subbasin: Belews Lake. This lake is no
longer impaired and is discussed in further detail below.
1.2.1 Belews Lake (4,030 acres)
1996 Recommendation(s)
Belews Lake was constructed by Duke Power Company in 1973 to provide a source of cooling
water for the Belews Creek Steam Station. Water was used to wash out ash residue, routed to a
settling pond, and then discharged into the lake. In 1978, it was determined that this practice
resulted in the accumulation of high concentrations of selenium in fish tissue. The 1996 plan
reported a fish consumption advisory for selenium contamination in common carp, redear sunfish
and crappie, which resulted in a rating of partially supporting for the lake. In 1984, the Belews
Creek Steam Station upgraded their ash disposal system and rerouted the discharge into the Dan
River. The current NPDES permit contains a protective selenium limitation. Therefore, the only
recommendation given in the 1996 plan was to monitor selenium concentrations in water quality
and fish tissue in the lake and the Dan River.
Status of Progress
Belews Lake was most recently sampled by DWQ during the summer of 1999. Surface water
selenium concentrations were less than the laboratory detection limit. Concentrations in benthic
macroinvertebrates have declined, but are still at levels higher than those observed in benthic
macroinvertebrates found in uncontaminated waters. Selenium concentrations in fish tissue have
declined to levels considered safe for human consumption by the Department of Health and
Human Services. The consumption advisory was lifted in August 2000. Chapter 3 of this
section discusses recent fish tissue monitoring in the Dan River below Belews Lake (near Eden).
1.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
Town Fork Creek, from its source to Timmons Creek, is an additional stream segment rated
impaired (not supporting) based on recent DWQ monitoring (1995-1999). This section outlines
the potential causes and sources of impairment and provides recommendations for improving
water quality.
1.3.1 Town Fork Creek (8.0 miles from source to Timmons Creek)
Current Status
During a special study conducted by DWQ in 1995, the upper section of Town Fork Creek
received a Poor benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassification. As a result, the referenced portion
of the stream is rated not supporting aquatic life due to severe habitat degradation and possible
organic enrichment. The stream is impounded above the sample location, and the drainage area
supports a mixture of agricultural and residential land uses. There is one small permitted
Section B: Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 95
discharge on an unnamed tributary higher up in the watershed, but records do not indicate any
problems at the facility.
2001 Recommendation(s)
More field investigation is needed in order to determine the actual sources of pollution in this
watershed. DWQ will further investigate the one permitted facility to ensure compliance.
However, identification and reduction of nonpoint sources of pollution that contribute to habitat
degradation will likely result in significant improvement for the aquatic community at this
location. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information about habitat degradation.
1.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Belews Lake (discussed above) is the only water listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. A
portion of Town Fork Creek, discussed above, will likely be added to the list in 2002. Refer to
Appendix IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
1.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality
issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration
efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
1.5.1 Snow Creek
Snow Creek has been sampled by DWQ on three occasions, each time producing a different
bioclassification. These changes appear to be related to both varying flow conditions and land
use activities in the watershed. In August 1994, the benthic community received a Good-Fair
bioclassification. The site was sampled under normal flow conditions, although flow records
from nearby Hyco Creek suggest that at least two high flow events had occurred prior to DWQ’s
sample date. It is likely that some scouring of the streambed occurred during those high flow
events impacting the benthic macroinvertebrate community.
In August 1999, flow was extremely low and the benthic community received a Fair
bioclassification. Floating algal mats were observed along the edges of the stream suggesting
nutrient enrichment. Samples were collected just after construction of a new bridge which may
have created a localized impact on part of the stream. DWQ sampled Snow Creek again in
August 2000 and the benthic community received a Good bioclassification. This year
represented optimal flow conditions that were reflected in the species diversity and abundance.
Although aquatic life in this stream is not considered impaired, there are nonpoint source
pollution impacts present in the watershed. Sedimentation, infrequent riffle areas and a
Section B: Chapter 1 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 96
significant lack of riparian vegetation have been observed. Identification and reduction of
nonpoint sources of pollution that contribute to habitat degradation are needed in order to insure
a healthy aquatic community in the future. For general recommendations on habitat degradation
and best management practices, please refer to Section A, Chapter 4.
1.5.2 Dan River
As was mentioned previously, the Dan River from the Virginia state line to the confluence with
Big Creek is protected for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. Trout (as well as other
aquatic life) are sensitive to turbidity in streams and rivers. The turbidity standard at a DWQ
ambient monitoring station above Danbury was exceeded in 35 percent of samples collected
from 1995 to 1999, at times reaching levels seven and eight times the standard. Aquatic life in
the Dan River is currently not considered to be impaired because the benthic community was
assigned a Good bioclassification in 1999. However, high levels of turbidity over a sustained
period of time have the potential to negatively impact aquatic communities.
It has come to the attention of DWQ that all-terrain vehicle use occurs in portions of the Dan
River. Disturbing channel substrate with any type of heavy equipment or vehicles destroys
instream habitat. In flowing water, this type of disturbance also creates turbidity and adds to
suspended sediment concentrations. Public education about impacts of all-terrain vehicles on the
river and riparian areas is needed in this subbasin.
1.5.3 Projected Population Growth
Stokes County is projected to receive the largest population increase of the sixteen counties in
the Roanoke River basin (NC portion). From 1998 to 2018, estimated population growth for
Stokes County is 28 percent and Forsyth County is 16 percent. Growth management within the
next five years will be imperative in order to maintain good water quality in this subbasin.
Growth management can be defined as the application of strategies and practices that help
achieve sustainable development in harmony with the conservation of environmental qualities
and features of an area. On a local level, growth management often involves planning and
development review requirements that are designed to maintain or improve water quality.
1.5.4 NPDES Discharges
As was mentioned in this chapter’s overview, four facilities experienced problems complying
with NPDES permit limits over the most recent two-year review period. The Town of
Walkertown and the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utility Commission are planning to
construct sewer lines in order to connect both Walkertown Middle and Elementary Schools into
the Winston-Salem WWTP. It is estimated that this connection will be completed in 2003,
eliminating these two discharges.
Two small "package plant" wastewater treatment facilities also had occasional, fairly short-term
violations of ammonia limits: Greystone Subdivision and Cain’s Way Mobile Home Park. The
Greystone Subdivision WWTP is in need of major improvements to allow it to meet the
restrictive ammonia limits consistently. Flow-splitting between the two clarifiers at the plant
often causes excessive flows to be routed through only one unit.
Section B: Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 97
Chapter 2 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
Includes a portion of the Dan and Mayo Rivers
2.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains a ten-mile segment of the Dan
River and the Mayo River in Stokes and Rockingham
counties. Mayodan, Madison and Stoneville are the
largest towns. Other streams include Big and Little
Beaver Island Creeks, Hogans Creek and Jacobs Creek.
A map of this subbasin including water quality sampling
locations is presented in Figure B-2.
Bioclassifications for the 1999 sample locations are
presented in Table B-4. Use support ratings for each
applicable category in this subbasin are summarized in
Table B-5. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and further information about use
support ratings.
Most of the land in this portion of the basin is forested (76
percent), but a significant portion is also in use as
cultivated cropland and pasture (22 percent). The
estimated subbasin population, based on the 1990 census, is 19,588. Population is expected to
increase by 28 percent in Stokes County and three percent in Rockingham County over a twenty-
year period (1998 to 2018).
There are nine NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin, most of which are small
wastewater treatment plants serving residential areas. One of these small wastewater treatment
plants had problems with elevated BOD and ammonia in its discharge. The largest discharge is
from the Town of Mayodan’s WWTP to the Mayo River. Two facilities in this subbasin are
required to monitor their effluent’s toxicity: Mayodan WWTP and Stoneville WWTP. There
were no indications of toxicity problems during the most recent review period.
Benthic macroinvertebrates in this subbasin were sampled under extreme low flow conditions in
1999. For larger streams affected by nonpoint source pollution, a sharp decline in flow may
result in a higher bioclassification; smaller streams, however, might be adversely affected by
extremely low flow.
Subbasin 03-02-02 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 231 mi
2
Land area: 229 mi
2
Water area: 2 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 19,588 people
Pop. Density: 86 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 76.1
Surface Water: 0.8
Urban: 1.3
Cultivated Crop: 3.6
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 18.2
Section B: Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 99
Table B-4 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
Site Stream County Road Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1* Mayo River Rockingham SR 1358 Good
B-5* Mayo River Rockingham SR 2177 Good-Fair
Ambient Monitoring
N1400000 Mayo River Rockingham SR 1358 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from two locations on the Mayo River in 1999. The
most upstream location (near the NC/VA state line) has consistently received Good
bioclassifications over five collections since 1986. The most downstream location (near the
confluence with the Dan River), however, received a Good-Fair bioclassification in 1999,
indicating a decline in water quality as the river flows through North Carolina. Water quality in
the Mayo River is discussed further in Part 2.5 of this chapter.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from the Mayo River near the North
Carolina/Virginia state line. These data have indicated good water quality with few violations of
water quality standards. Although the geometric mean of fecal coliform bacteria samples was
below the 200 colonies/100ml reference level, this station had elevated levels of fecal coliform
compared to other monitoring locations in the Roanoke River basin. Turbidity was also slightly
elevated.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Section B: Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 100
Table B-5 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
1 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
2
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
85.5 0 0 45.8 131.3
Fish Consumption3 09.30 09.3
Primary Recreation 0 0 0 11.3 11.3
Water Supply 00000
1 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
2 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information. Fish tissue monitoring in the Dan River is discussed
in Chapter 3 of this section.
2.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each waterbody. The 1996 Roanoke River
Basinwide Plan did not identify any impaired stream segments in this subbasin.
2.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
The Dan River, from the confluence with Jacobs Creek to a point just downstream of Matrimony
Creek in subbasin 03-02-03, is rated partially supporting based on recent DWQ monitoring
(1995-1999). This section outlines the potential causes and sources of impairment and provides
recommendations for improving water quality.
2.3.1 Dan River (14.2 miles from Jacobs Creek to Matrimony Creek)
Current Status
The turbidity standard (50 NTU) was exceeded at the Dan River near Wentworth (N2300000)
ambient monitoring station in 18 percent of 55 samples collected from 1995 to 1999. Results of
data collected from this station are discussed more thoroughly in Section A, Chapter 3. All
particles in the water that may scatter or absorb light, including suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves, contribute to turbidity. Therefore, all
types of nonpoint source pollution have the potential to increase turbidity concentrations.
Construction in the Madison/Mayodan area, agricultural activities, suspended sediment loading
from upstream in both the Dan and the Mayo Rivers, as well as permitted instream mining
operations are all potential sources.
Section B: Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 101
2001 Recommendations
DWQ will work with the Division of Land Resources to evaluate and reduce turbidity from
permitted instream mining operations in the Dan River. As permits are renewed, monitoring
upstream and downstream of mining operations and instream BMPs (such as those used by the
NC Department of Transportation during bridge construction) could be required. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4 for further discussion and recommendations about instream mining
operations and other potential sources of nonpoint source pollution in the watershed. In addition,
DWQ will notify local agencies of water quality concerns regarding these waters and work with
them to conduct further monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding.
2.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, no waterbodies are listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. A
portion of the Dan River, discussed above, will likely be added to the list in 2002. Refer to
Appendix IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
2.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality
issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration
efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
2.5.1 Mayo River
As was noted in the overview of monitoring data, a decline in biological integrity was observed
in the Mayo River between the upper sampling station near the NC/VA state line and the lower
sampling station near the confluence with the Dan River at Mayodan. The lower site declined to
Good-Fair under low flow conditions in 1999. Two of the most common pollutants in runoff
associated with livestock grazing in riparian areas (with direct access to streams) are bacteria and
sediment. Failing septic systems and problems with wastewater treatment plants can also cause
high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
There are several discharges between the two Mayo River monitoring stations; however, records
did not indicate significant compliance or toxicity problems with these discharges over the past
five years. There is one permitted instream mining operation in this section of the Mayo River.
Urban/construction and agricultural runoff are likely contributing to this decline in water quality
as well. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Mayo River. Section A, Chapter 4
contains general recommendations for development, construction, stormwater and agricultural
best management practices, as well as instream mining activities.
Section B: Chapter 2 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 102
2.5.2 Projected Population Growth
Stokes County is projected to receive the largest population increase of the sixteen counties in
the NC portion of the Roanoke River basin. From 1998 to 2018, the estimated population
growth for Stokes County is 28 percent and Rockingham County is three percent. Growth
management within the next five years will be imperative, especially in and around urbanizing
areas, in order to maintain good water quality in this subbasin. Growth management can be
defined as the application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in
harmony with the conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. On a local
level, growth management often involves planning and development review requirements that
are designed to maintain or improve water quality. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more
information about urbanization and development and recommendations to minimize impacts to
water quality.
2.5.3 NPDES Discharges
As was mentioned in this chapter’s overview, one facility experienced problems complying with
NPDES permit limits over the most recent two-year review period: Bethany Elementary School.
Rockingham County upgraded the WWTP at Bethany Elementary in 1998 to a recirculating sand
filter system with ultraviolet disinfection. This facility is currently in full compliance (Russell,
June 7, 2001).
Section B: Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 103
Chapter 3 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03
Includes a portion of the Dan and Smith Rivers
3.1 Water Quality Overview
Approximately 25-river miles of the Dan River (before it
flows back into Virginia) are contained in this subbasin.
Also included is the lower portion of the Smith River after
it flows into North Carolina. Most of the Smith River
watershed is in Virginia, and river flow in North Carolina
is regulated by dams upstream. Other streams in this
subbasin include Buffalo, Rock House, Matrimony, Wolf
Island and Hogans Creeks. The Town of Wentworth and
the cities of Eden and Reidsville are the only
municipalities. A map of this subbasin including water
quality sampling locations is presented in Figure B-3.
Bioclassifications for the 1999 sample locations are
presented in Table B-6. Use support ratings for each
applicable category in this subbasin are summarized in
Table B-7. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and more information about use support
ratings.
The population, based on 1990 census data, is 11,695 people with a low population density of
only 35 persons per square mile. Only two percent of the subbasin is urban/built-up area. The
land is characteristic of the piedmont. The rolling hills are dominated by forest (74 percent) and
agricultural activities (23 percent).
There are 17 NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin. The largest facilities discharge to
the Dan River, including Fieldcrest/Cannon, Miller Brewing Company and two WWTPs in Eden,
one of which is permitted to discharge up to 13.5 MGD. Three small wastewater treatment
plants had problems with elevated BOD and ammonia in their discharges. The Smith River has
been affected in the past by upstream discharges in Virginia, notably the Town of Martinsville’s
WWTP. Four facilities are required to monitor their effluent’s toxicity: Duke Power’s Dan
River Station, Miller Brewing Company, and both Eden WWTP discharges. All discharges
passed toxicity tests in 1999.
Extremes in flow conditions made it difficult to collect samples at most sites in this subbasin in
1999. Most tributary sites had no flow during drought conditions in mid-August, and high flows
near the end of August caused the cancellation of sampling at other sites. Therefore, current
benthic macroinvertebrate data are available only from the Smith River.
Subbasin 03-02-03 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 340 mi
2
Land area: 335 mi
2
Water area: 5 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 11,695 people
Pop. Density: 35 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 74.0
Surface Water: 1.2
Urban: 2.1
Cultivated Crop: 3.3
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 19.4
Section B: Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 105
Table B-6 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03
Site Stream County Road Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-4* Smith River Rockingham NC 14 Fair
Fish Tissue
FT-1 Dan River Rockingham Near Eden N/A
Ambient Monitoring
N2300000 Dan River Rockingham SR 2150 N/A
N2450000 Smith River Rockingham NC 14 at Eden N/A
N3000000 Dan River Rockingham SR 1716 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Benthic macroinvertebrates samples have been collected at this site on the Smith River five times
since 1984. Bioclassifications have been mostly Fair (Appendix III). Aquatic life in this stream
is considered impaired, and the stream is discussed further in Part 3.3 of this chapter.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were also collected from three sites on a small, unnamed
tributary to Hogans Creek in November 1996 and June 1998 as part of a special study. This
small stream is located in Pittsylvannia County (Virginia) and northern Caswell County (North
Carolina). These samples were intended to document conditions prior to stream restoration. The
existing stream was channelized (straightened) in the 1950s and was severely entrenched. A new
stream channel was constructed in 1999 with normal bends and riffle/pool sequences, and the
sites will be sampled again to determine improvements in the biological community.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from two sites on the Dan River (near
Wentworth and near Mayfield) and from the Smith River at Eden. The Dan River stations
monitor the influences of the Smith River and discharges near the Town of Eden. There were
few violations of water quality standards at either site, with the exception of turbidity. The
turbidity standard (50 NTU) was exceeded at the Dan River near Wentworth (N2300000) station
in 18 percent of 55 samples between 1995 and 1999. Concentrations in this segment of the Dan
River ranged from 2.6 to 200 NTU, compared with a range of 1.4 to 90 NTU near Francisco
upstream. The turbidity water quality standard was only exceeded in nine percent of samples at
the downstream station near Mayfield (N3000000).
The Smith River ambient monitoring station is located near the Virginia/North Carolina state
line. Historically, the Town of Martinsville, Virginia’s WWTP was responsible for elevated
concentrations of chloride and total dissolved solids in the Smith River, but problems have not
been observed for either parameter within the last five years.
Section B: Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 106
Nineteen fish tissue samples (largemouth bass, sunfish and suckers) were collected during
August 1999 and analyzed for metal contaminants. All concentrations were below state and
federal criteria for consumption. Duke Power Company also monitors selenium in fish tissue in
the Dan River near Eden to assess impacts from the Belews Creek Steam Station discharge (refer
to Section B, Chapter 1). The most recent data, collected in 1998, showed selenium
concentrations ranging from 0.10 to 1.03 µg/g (DPC, 1999). These concentrations were much
less than the state’s advisory criterion of 5µg/g for selenium.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) has done extensive fish tissue
monitoring in the Dan River for organic compounds called Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
High levels of PCBs have been detected in several fish species collected in the South Boston,
Virginia area (refer to Chapter 4 of this section for details). Low levels have also been detected
in fish tissue collected from the Dan River below Danville, Virginia (downstream of the NC/VA
state line near Eden). However, a series of dams minimizes upstream migration of these fish into
the portion of the Dan River in North Carolina located within this subbasin. Concentrations of
PCBs in fish tissue are well below the PCB consumption criteria in fish collected from the Dan
River upstream of the NC/VA state line above Eden (VADEQ, March 2001).
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Table B-7 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
1 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
2
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
169.5 5.2 0 68.2 242.9
Fish Consumption3 0 14.8 0 0 14.8
Primary Recreation 0005.75.7
Water Supply 69.7 0 0 0 69.7
1 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
2 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information. Fish tissue monitoring in the Dan River is discussed
above.
3.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River
Basinwide Plan did not identify any impaired stream segments in this subbasin.
Section B: Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 107
3.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
The North Carolina portion of the Smith River is rated impaired based on recent DWQ
monitoring (1995-1999). This section outlines the potential causes and sources of impairment
and provides recommendations for improving water quality.
3.3.1 Smith River (5.4 miles from North Carolina/Virginia state line to the Dan River)
Current Status
As a result of sampling in 1994 and 1999, the benthic community in the Smith River near Eden
was assigned a Fair bioclassification. This lowest segment of the river is only partially
supporting the aquatic life/secondary recreation designated use. Habitat degradation was
documented on both sampling dates, including sedimentation and streambed scour likely
resulting from large fluctuations in flow.
Flow in the river is regulated by two dams (Philpott Reservoir and Martinsville Reservoir)
upstream in Virginia, and USGS records indicate extreme daily fluctuations (DENR-DWQ, May
2000). Philpott Reservoir, located 43 miles upstream of Eden, NC, has an instream minimum
flow requirement designed to protect aquatic life; and the Martinsville Reservoir, located
approximately 20 miles upstream of Eden, does not. Fifteen miles of the Smith River in Virginia
below the Town of Martinsville are considered partially supporting the aquatic life designated
use by the State of Virginia for habitat degradation (VADEQ, 1998).
Historically, the Smith River has also been characterized by high conductivity and discolored
water, indicating problems from a point source upstream. The source of these problems was the
Town of Martinsville, Virginia’s WWTP. The plant receives wastewater from several textile
mills and, until the mid-1990s, was not able to adequately treat it. Thanks in part to citizens of
Rockingham County, NC and DWQ staff reporting problems to authorities in Virginia, the
quality of the discharge from Martinsville’s WWTP has improved drastically since 1997. There
were few permit violations in 1998 and 1999. Recently, one of the larger mills discontinued
operation in the Smith River watershed, and the WWTP discharge is expected to continue to
improve (Willis, July 20, 2000).
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ will work with the NC Division of Water Resources, the State of Virginia’s Department of
Environmental Quality and the Town of Martinsville, Virginia to address flow fluctuation issues.
However, nonpoint source pollution in the North Carolina portion of the watershed may also
contribute to further degradation of habitat and water quality downstream. It is imperative that,
in addition to citizens’ and municipalities’ actions in the State of Virginia, citizens and
municipalities in the State of North Carolina implement best management practices as well. Of
particular concern are urban areas and construction stormwater activities in and around the City
of Eden. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for further information.
Section B: Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 108
3.3.2 Dan River (14.2 miles from Jacobs Creek to Matrimony Creek)
Current Status
As was discussed in the previous section, the water quality standard for turbidity was exceeded at
the Dan River near Wentworth ambient monitoring station in 18 percent of 55 samples collected
from 1995 to 1999. Therefore, this section of the Dan River is partially supporting the aquatic
life/secondary recreation use support category. All particles in the water that may scatter or
absorb light, including suspended sediment, aquatic organisms and organic particles such as
pieces of leaves, contribute to turbidity. Therefore, all types of nonpoint source pollution have
the potential to increase turbidity. Construction in the Madison/Mayodan area, agricultural
activities, loading from upstream in both the Dan and the Mayo Rivers, as well as permitted
instream mining operations are all potential sources.
2001 Recommendations
DWQ will work with the NC Division of Land Resources to evaluate and reduce turbidity from
permitted instream mining operations in the Dan River. As permits are renewed, monitoring
upstream and downstream of mining operations and instream BMPs (such as those used by the
NC Department of Transportation during bridge construction) could be required. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4 for further discussion and recommendations about instream mining
operations and other potential sources of nonpoint source pollution in the watershed. In addition,
DWQ will notify local agencies of water quality concerns regarding these waters and work with
them to conduct further monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding.
3.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, no waters are listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. The Smith
River and a portion of the Dan River, from Jacobs Creek to Matrimony Creek, will likely be
added to the list in 2002. Refer to Appendix IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) list
and listing requirements.
3.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
There are no additional issues for specific surface waters in this subbasin; however, recent DWQ
monitoring revealed habitat degradation impacts to aquatic life resulting from nonpoint source
pollution. Although no action is required, voluntary implementation of BMPs is encouraged and
continued monitoring is recommended. Section A, Chapter 4 contains general information and
recommendations about habitat degradation and other water quality problems that affect more
than one watershed in the basin. Additionally, education on local water quality issues is always a
useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint
source program descriptions and agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
3.5.1 Phase II Stormwater Requirements
Amendments were made to the Clean Water Act in 1990 (Phase I) and most recently in 1999
(Phase II) pertaining to permit requirements for stormwater discharges associated with storm
sewer systems. Part of Phase II requires some municipal storm sewer systems serving
Section B: Chapter 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 109
populations under 100,000, which are located in larger urbanized areas and/or that have a high
population density to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. The municipal permitting
requirements are designed to lead into the formation of comprehensive stormwater management
programs for municipal areas. The cities of Eden and Reidsville will be considered for inclusion
under the Phase II rules because of a population greater than 10,000 and/or a population density
greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. DWQ is currently developing criteria that will be
used to determine whether these and other municipalities will be required to obtain a NPDES
permit. Refer to Section A, Part 2.7.2 for further information.
3.5.2 NPDES Discharges
As was mentioned in this chapter’s overview, three facilities experienced problems complying
with NPDES permit limits over the most recent two-year review period: Happy Home and
Sadler Elementary School WWTPs and the Betsy Jeff Penn 4-H Education WWTP. Betsy Jeff
Penn 4-H Education’s WWTP was upgraded to include ultraviolet disinfection. This WWTP
serves a 4-H camp, and the discharge is difficult to manage because of the large increase in
volume that occurs during the summer months.
Rockingham County built a new school to replace both Sadler and Happy Home Elementary
Schools. The new facility began sending waste to the Eden WWTP in October 2000, and the two
smaller discharges were eliminated.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 110
Chapter 4 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04
Includes a portion of the Dan River and Country Line Creek
4.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains a short reach of the Dan River
(approximately 8 river miles) and three larger tributaries:
Country Line, Moon and Rattlesnake Creeks. The Dan
River flows into North Carolina, after passing through
Danville, Virginia, and then back out of North Carolina
for a final time before merging with the Roanoke River to
form the headwaters of the John H. Kerr Reservoir.
Yanceyville and Milton are the only towns within the
subbasin. A map including water quality sampling
locations is presented as Figure B-4.
Bioclassifications for sample locations are presented in
Table B-8. Use support ratings for each applicable
category in this subbasin are summarized in Tables B-9
and B-10. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and further information about use
support ratings.
Land within this subbasin is mostly low rolling hills, characteristic of the piedmont. Land use is
dominated by forest and agricultural activities, although residential development is increasing.
The estimated subbasin population, based on the 1990 census, is 27,208. The population of
Caswell County is expected to increase six percent from 1998 to 2018. Yanceyville’s population
has more than doubled over the past ten years and is expected to continue growing.
This subbasin contains three permitted dischargers. The largest facility is Yanceyville’s WWTP,
which discharges to Country Line Creek. This is also the only facility required to monitor its
effluent’s toxicity. No significant compliance or toxicity problems were noted during the most
recent review period.
Farmer Lake is the only lake routinely monitored in this subbasin. It is a 368-acre water supply
reservoir built in 1983 by the Town of Yanceyville and located in the Country Line Creek
watershed. All designated uses are currently fully supported in the lake.
During the dry summer of 1999, many streams in this subbasin had little or no visible flow.
Country Line Creek was one such stream where no benthic sample could be collected. However,
the low flow conditions did make it possible to collect benthic samples for the first time from the
Dan River near Milton.
Subbasin 03-02-04 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 239 mi
2
Land area: 236 mi
2
Water area: 3 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 27, 208 people
Pop. Density: 115 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 75.9
Surface Water: 1.0
Urban: 0.5
Cultivated Cropland: 2.3
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 20.4
Section B: Chapter 4 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 112
Table B-8 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04
Site Stream County Location Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1 Dan River Caswell NC 57 Good
Ambient Monitoring
N3500000 Dan River Caswell NC/VA state line N/A
Benthic macroinvertebrate collections in 1999 from the Dan River at Milton produced a Good
bioclassification, with few differences between the community observed here and the upstream
site near Mayfield (subbasin 03-02-03). Water chemistry is recorded monthly from the Dan
River at Milton as well. Good water quality conditions have been recorded at this site with very
few violations of water quality standards.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Table B-9 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-04
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
368 0 0 0 368
Fish Consumption3 0 368 0 0 0
Primary Recreation 00000
Water Supply 368 0 0 0 368
1 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information. Fish tissue monitoring in the Dan River in Chapter 3
of this section.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 113
Table B-10 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
2 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
112.0 0 0 39.6 151.6
Fish Consumption3 07.50 07.5
Primary Recreation 0 0 0 17.2 17.2
Water Supply 24.5 0 0 0 24.5
1 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
2 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information. Fish tissue monitoring in the Dan River in Chapter 3
of this section.
4.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River
Basinwide Plan did not identify any impaired stream segments in this subbasin. However, the
plan did mention habitat degradation in the Country Line Creek watershed. Please refer to Part
4.5.1 of this chapter for more detailed information.
4.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
No stream segments are rated impaired based on recent DWQ monitoring (1995-1999); however,
as mentioned previously, some impacts to water quality were observed. Refer to Part 4.5 of this
chapter for further discussion of potential water quality problems.
4.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
No waters in this subbasin are listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. Refer to Appendix IV
for more information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
4.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality
Section B: Chapter 4 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 114
issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration
efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
4.5.1 Country Line Creek
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Country Line Creek was sampled at Milton near
the NC/VA state line in 1994. The stream received a bioclassification of Good-Fair, indicating
some impacts to water quality were present, but the biological community was not considered
impaired. As was mentioned previously in this chapter, the flow was too low in the stream for it
to be sampled in 1999; and therefore, the stream is currently not rated. The 1996 basin plan
mentioned higher turbidity and nutrient levels in the upstream arm of Farmer Lake near
Yanceyville. Additionally, moderate sedimentation and elevated levels of turbidity have been
observed by DWQ staff in the stream both above and below Farmer Lake.
Many new homes and subdivisions are being built throughout the upper portion of the watershed,
northeast of Greensboro. However, there is still a substantial amount of pastureland in the
watershed as well. BMPs should be carefully installed and maintained in this area during
construction because of the moderate slopes and high erosion potential of soils in this area.
Agricultural BMPs for controlling sediment should also be installed to protect aquatic life in the
Country Line Creek watershed. Section A, Chapter 4 discusses habitat degradation, including
sedimentation, and provides general recommendations.
Some requirements have been put into place recently by Caswell County, as part of a Water
Supply Watershed Ordinance, that will reduce sediment and nutrient inputs and protect the upper
portion of Country Line Creek, Hostler Branch and Farmer Lake from further water quality
degradation. These measures include: 1) an increase in minimum residential lot sizes within the
watershed’s Critical Area from one acre to three acres per lot; and 2) a requirement, as a
condition to development along Country Line Creek and Hostler Branch, of an 80-foot vegetated
buffer.
4.5.2 Dan River
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently issued a health advisory for
fish consumption for a 42-mile stretch of the Dan River from Kerr Reservoir at Staunton River
State Park to southwestern Halifax County where the river crosses into North Carolina, north of
Virginia Route 62. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been detected in seven fish species
collected in the South Boston, Virginia area. Flathead and channel catfish were the only species
determined to have levels of PCBs in the tissue above 60 parts per billion, the DEQ level of
concern. The advisory cautions people to eat no more than two eight-ounce meals a month of
flathead and channel catfish taken from the advisory area. Pregnant women and children are
advised not to eat any of these fish (VADEQ, March 2001).
DWQ has not analyzed the PCB content of fish tissue in the Dan River in North Carolina.
Although data do not indicate a problem in the North Carolina portion of river upstream of
Danville, Virginia (refer to Chapter 3 of this section for details), it is likely that the portion of the
Dan River contained within this subbasin does contain fish with elevated PCB concentrations.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 115
DWQ is expanding laboratory facilities in order to conduct additional fish tissue analyses in the
future.
4.5.3 Projected Population Growth
The population of Caswell County is expected to increase six percent over the next fifteen years.
Yanceyville’s population has more than doubled over the past ten years and is expected to
continue growing. Growth management within the next five years will be imperative in order to
maintain good water quality in this subbasin. Growth management can be defined as the
application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with
the conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. On a local level, growth
management often involves planning and development review requirements that are designed to
maintain or improve water quality. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information about
urbanization and development and recommendations to minimize impacts to water quality.
Section B: Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 116
Chapter 5 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05
Includes Hyco Lake, Marlowe Creek and Mayo Reservoir
5.1 Water Quality Overview
The Hyco River watershed in North Carolina, including
Hyco and South Hyco Creeks and Hyco Lake, as well as
Mayo Creek and the Mayo Reservoir watershed are
contained in this subbasin. Other waters include Storys
and Marlowe Creeks, Lake Roxboro and Roxboro Lake.
Roxboro is the only municipality. All major streams
flow generally northward into Virginia. A map of this
subbasin including water quality sampling locations is
presented in Figure B-5.
Bioclassifications for sample locations are presented in
Table B-11. Use support ratings for each applicable
category in this subbasin are summarized in Tables B-12
and B-13. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and further information about use
support ratings.
Land within this subbasin is mostly low rolling hills,
characteristic of the piedmont. Land use is dominated by forest (71 percent) and agricultural
activities (22 percent), although residential development is increasing. The estimated subbasin
population, based on the 1990 census, is 9,903. The population of Person County is projected to
increase 14 percent and Caswell County six percent over a twenty-year period (1998-2018).
There are 7 permitted dischargers. The Town of Roxboro WWTP is the largest. During dry
months, this discharge is more than 99 percent of total flow in Marlowe Creek. Carolina Power
and Light Company’s (CP&L) Roxboro and Mayo generating plants discharge tens of millions of
gallons per day of cooling water to Hyco Lake and Mayo Reservoir. These two discharges, as
well as the Roxboro WWTP and Cogentrix, are required to monitor their effluent’s toxicity.
Historically, the Roxboro WWTP had toxicity problems, but most of the problems with the
discharge have been resolved. Cogentrix, however, also discharging in the Marlowe Creek
watershed, failed the majority of toxicity tests over the past five years.
Four lakes in this subbasin are monitored by DWQ: Hyco Lake, Lake Roxboro, Roxboro Lake
and Mayo Reservoir. All four lakes are fully supporting the aquatic life and secondary recreation
designated use. Hyco Lake is also fully supporting its primary recreation use, but is only
partially supporting the fish consumption use. This lake is discussed further in Part 5.2.2.
Subbasin 03-02-05 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 337 mi
2
Land area: 322 mi
2
Water area: 15 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 9,903 people
Pop. Density: 31 person/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 71.9
Surface Water: 4.5
Urban: 1.3
Cultivated Crop: 2.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 19.8
Section B: Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 118
Table B-11 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05
Site Stream County Location Bioclassifcation
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-2* Marlowe Creek Person SR 1322 Fair
Ambient Monitoring
N4110000 Hyco Creek Caswell US 158 N/A
N4250000 Hyco River Person Mcghees Mill N/A
N4510000 Hyco River Halifax, VA US 501 N/A
N4400000 Marlowe Creek Person SR 1322 N/A
N4590000 Mayo Creek Person SR 1501 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Observations during the very dry summer of 1999 indicated that many streams in this subbasin
stopped flowing. Seasonally intermittent low flow may limit the diversity of the fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate communities.
The bioclassification for Marlowe Creek improved from Poor in 1994 to Fair in 1999. This
change coincided with a significant reduction in Roxboro WWTP’s effluent toxicity. However,
the aquatic life/secondary recreation designated use is still impaired in this stream. Marlowe
Creek is discussed in detail in the following sections.
Historically, Hyco Creek received a Good-Fair bioclassification under low flow and normal flow
conditions, but declined to a Fair bioclassification under high flow conditions. This pattern
suggests nonpoint source impacts to this stream. No sample was collected in 1999 because no
flowing water was observed in the creek during the sampling period. Hyco Creek is discussed
further in Part 5.5 of this chapter.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from five sites in this subbasin: Hyco Creek;
Hyco River near McGhees Mill; Hyco River near Denniston, Virginia; Marlowe Creek; and
Mayo Creek. The Marlowe Creek site is downstream of the Roxboro WWTP. Results at this
location showed elevated nitrate, phosphorus and copper concentrations. Data from all other
locations do not indicate any water quality problems. For further information about ambient
monitoring station data, refer to Section A, Chapter 3.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Section B: Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 119
Table B-12 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-05
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
6,957 0 0 6,957
Fish Consumption 03,75003,750
Primary Recreation 6,745 0 0 6,745
Water Supply 6,957 0 0 6,957
Table B-13 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
2 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
84.8 10.8 0 99.3 194.9
Fish Consumption3 00.20 00.2
Primary Recreation 0 0 0 11.3 11.3
Water Supply 47.3 0 0 0 47.3
1 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
2 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information.
5.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each waterbody. The 1996 Roanoke River
basin plan identified one impaired stream in this subbasin: Marlowe Creek from its source in
Roxboro to the confluence with Storys Creek. This stream is discussed below.
5.2.1 Marlowe Creek (10.8 miles from source to Storys Creek)
1996 Recommendation(s)
Historically, the discharge from the Roxboro WWTP was not in compliance with permit limits
and repeatedly failed toxicity tests. During dry months, the discharge is more than 99 percent of
the flow in Marlowe Creek, so there is essentially no dilution from upstream. The first basin
plan listed the stream as partially supporting because of elevated copper concentrations and
recommended that improvements be made to the Roxboro WWTP. It was also recommended
that other sources of nonpoint source pollution in the watershed be identified and addressed.
Section B: Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 120
Status of Progress
Benthic macroinvertebrates in Marlowe Creek again received a Fair bioclassification in 1999, so
the stream remains impaired. Compliance and toxicity problems with Roxboro’s WWTP
discharge have been resolved. However, Cogentrix, a power generating facility that discharges
to Mitchell Creek (a tributary to Marlowe Creek) upstream of DWQ’s sampling location,
experienced toxicity problems over the two-year review period. The facility paid almost $6,000
in fines and conducted a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE). The TRE helped determine that
the composition of a chemical used in the steam generation process had been changed by the
vendor without notice. Compliance with toxicity tests was expected by the end of 2000.
There are collection system overflows in the Town of Roxboro that likely impact aquatic
communities downstream, however, not to the extent that the discharge problems did. In
addition, the headwaters of Marlowe Creek were historically channelized around the Town of
Roxboro. Most of the stormwater runoff from this urban area flows into Marlowe Creek. There
is significant sedimentation over the entire length of the stream which likely resulted from
streambank erosion, scouring, runoff from urban areas and construction sites, and agricultural
activities (in the lower portion of the watershed).
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ will continue to work with the Town of Roxboro’s WWTP and Cogentrix to correct
remaining problems at these facilities and Roxboro’s collection system. However, it is possible
that aquatic life will remain impaired because of significant habitat degradation in the stream.
The Town of Roxboro should begin to install urban stormwater controls and best management
practices to prevent further degradation by runoff from urban areas and construction sites. DWQ
will continue to monitor the stream and work with local NPS agencies to restore water quality.
5.2.2 Hyco Lake (3,750 acres)
1996 Recommendation(s)
The 1996 basin plan identified Hyco Lake as partially supporting the fish consumption use
support category due to an advisory related to elevated levels of selenium. High selenium
concentrations in this lake, like Belews Lake, are associated with runoff from coal ash ponds
(refer to Chapter 1, Part 1.2.1 of this section for more detailed information). Carolina Power &
Light Company switched to a dry ash disposal system in 1990, significantly reducing selenium
concentrations in their discharge (to meet lower permit limits). DWQ required long-term
monitoring of the lake in order to evaluate the effect of new permit limits. The consumption
advisory was partially lifted in 1995, and the recommendation was to continue to monitor the
decline of selenium in fish tissue until the advisory is lifted completely.
Status of Progress
Hyco Lake was most recently sampled by DWQ during the summer of 1999. All selenium
concentrations were less than the laboratory detection level (<5.0 µg/l) with the exception of one
location in June. Monitoring by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) in 1997 and 1998
also noted that selenium concentrations in surface waters were less than laboratory detection
levels. A shift in the fish community from undesirable, selenium-tolerant species such as satinfin
shiner and green sunfish to a bluegill-dominated community was first observed in 1994. CP&L
fish community data demonstrated that largemouth bass and bluegill catch rates met expectations
Section B: Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 121
for a piedmont reservoir in 1997 and 1998. The data also indicated that successful reproduction
of these sport species was occurring in the lake.
The consumption of fish from the lake remains under an advisory due to elevated selenium levels
from the coal ash pond discharge. Mean selenium concentrations in green sunfish and white
catfish have been less than EPA consumption criteria of 5µg/g since the fall of 1996. In 2000,
these two fish were removed from the consumption advisory. However, a limited advisory
remains in effect for common carp, and the fish consumption designated use for Hyco Lake
remains impaired.
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ, in cooperation with Carolina Power & Light Company, will continue to monitor Hyco
Lake and the permitted discharge to insure a continued decline in selenium concentrations.
DWQ will work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services to lift the advisory
when there is no longer a risk to human health from consumption of fish from Hyco Lake. For
more information regarding fish consumption advisories, contact the Division of Public Health at
[phone] or visit the website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html.
5.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
No stream segments were rated as impaired based on recent DWQ monitoring (1995-1999);
however, as mentioned previously, some impacts to water quality were observed. Refer to Part
5.5 of this chapter, as well as Section A, Chapter 4 for further discussion of potential water
quality problems in this portion of the basin.
5.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Two waters in this subbasin are currently listed on Part I of the state’s year 2000 303(d) list:
Marlowe Creek and Hyco Lake. Copper is currently listed as a cause of impairment for Marlowe
Creek, while Hyco Lake’s impairment is due to levels of selenium in fish tissue that exceed
consumption criteria. TMDLs are required for both of these waters; however, in both cases the
majority, if not all, of the listed pollutants (copper and selenium) come from point sources.
These two lakes are discussed in detail above. Refer to Appendix IV for more information on the
state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
5.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality
issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration
efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
Section B: Chapter 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 122
5.5.1 Hyco Creek
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Hyco Creek was sampled in 1994. The stream
received a Fair bioclassification indicating impacts to water quality were present. As was
mentioned previously in this chapter, the flow was too low in the stream for it to be sampled in
1999; and therefore, the stream is currently not rated.
Analyses of ambient monitoring data show elevated turbidity, iron and fecal coliform
concentrations over the past five years. The turbidity reference level was exceeded in 10 percent
of samples collected from Hyco Creek, and lake assessment data showed high turbidity and
nutrient levels in the Hyco Creek arm of Hyco Lake. Shoreline development, as well as
residential development along US Highway 158, has increased in recent years. Iron
concentrations exceeded reference levels in 63 percent of samples. However, samples from
Hyco Creek passed instream chronic toxicity tests conducted by DWQ in 2000.
Although the geometric mean of fecal coliform samples did not exceed the 200 colonies/100ml
water quality standard, concentrations were as high as 15,000 colonies/100ml in some samples.
This stream feeds the westernmost arm of Hyco Lake, which is classified by DWQ for primary
recreation. Fecal coliform concentrations in the main body of the lake did not exceed the
standard in 1999.
BMPs should be carefully installed and maintained in this area during construction because of
the high erosion potential of local soils. Agricultural and forestry BMPs for controlling sediment
should also be installed to protect aquatic life in the Hyco Creek watershed. Measures should be
put in place now to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs and to protect this stream (and the lake)
from further water quality degradation. Section A, Chapter 4 discusses habitat degradation,
including sedimentation, and provides general recommendations.
5.5.2 Projected Population Growth
The population of Person County is projected to increase 14 percent and Caswell County six
percent over a twenty-year period (1998-2018). Growth management within the next five years
will be imperative in order to maintain good water quality in this subbasin. Growth management
can be defined as the application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable
development in harmony with the conservation of environmental qualities and features of an
area. On a local level, growth management often involves planning and development review
requirements that are designed to maintain or improve water quality. Refer to Section A,
Chapter 4 for more information about minimizing impacts to water quality from development.
Section B: Chapter 6 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 123
Chapter 6 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06
Includes a portion of Kerr Reservoir and Nutbush Creek
6.1 Water Quality Overview
John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Lake) straddles the North
Carolina/Virginia state line at the border of Granville and
Vance counties. This subbasin contains many small to
medium-sized tributaries of John H. Kerr Reservoir that
generally flow northward to Virginia. These tributaries
include Aarons Creek, Grassy Creek, Island Creek and
Nutbush Creek. A large portion of Henderson and the
Town of Stovall are the major municipal areas. A map of
this subbasin including water quality sampling locations is
presented in Figure B-6.
Bioclassifications for these sample sites are presented in
Table B-14. Use support ratings for each applicable
category in this subbasin are summarized in Tables B-15
and B-16. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of
monitored waters and further information about use
support ratings.
This land is characterized by low rolling hills and low gradient streams. Seventy-five percent of
the land is forested. Row crops and pasture are the most prevalent agricultural land uses (18
percent). Several registered animal operations are also located in this subbasin. Over six percent
of the area is surface water reflecting in part the nearly 21,700 acres of the Nutbush Creek Arm
of Kerr Reservoir. The estimated subbasin population, based on the 1990 census, is 21,604. The
population of Granville County is expected to increase 25 percent and Vance County 11 percent
between 1998 and 2018.
There are only four NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin. The Henderson WWTP is
the largest discharge. During dry months, this discharge is more than 97 percent of the total flow
in Nutbush Creek. This facility is required to monitor its effluent’s toxicity. Toxicity problems
with this discharge have been identified and are discussed further in the following sections. The
wastewater discharge in the Gills Creek/Island Creek watershed from a Granville County school
near Stovall exceeded permit limits for ammonia in 1999. However, the school hooked into a
new spray irrigation system in Stovall and the discharge has since been eliminated.
The Nutbush Creek Arm of Kerr Reservoir is monitored by DWQ. This portion of the lake is
currently fully supporting aquatic life/secondary recreation and primary recreation.
Subbasin 03-02-06 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 329 mi
2
Land area: 295 mi
2
Water area: 34 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 21,604 people
Pop. Density: 73 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 75.0
Surface Water: 6.4
Urban: 1.1
Cultivated Crop: 8.6
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 9.0
Section B: Chapter 6 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 125
Table B-14 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06
Site Stream County Location Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-5* Nutbush Creek Vance SR 1317 Fair
Fish Community
F-1 Grassy Creek Granville SR 1300 Good
F-2 Island Creek Granville SR 1445 Excellent
Fish Tissue
FT-2 Kerr Reservoir Vance Near NC/VA line N/A
Ambient Monitoring
N5000000 Nutbush Creek Vance SR 1317 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Observations during the very dry summer of 1999 indicated that many streams in this subbasin
stopped flowing during the severe drought conditions. This seasonal intermittent flow may limit
the diversity of fish and macroinvertebrate communities. The only stream sampled in this
subbasin in 1999 for benthic macroinvertebrates was Nutbush Creek. Nutbush Creek improved
over a ten-year period from Poor in 1983 to Fair in 1994, but the biological community again
received a Fair bioclassification based on the most recent DWQ sampling. This stream is
impaired and is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Grassy and Island Creeks were sampled as potential fish community regional reference sites in
1999. The fish communities of both streams were also sampled in 1994. Grassy Creek
maintained a Good bioclassification and Island Creek improved to Excellent. The fish
community of Island Creek was very diverse; 24 species were observed (DENR-DWQ, April 3,
2001). Refer to Appendix II for fish community data.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from Nutbush Creek near Henderson,
downstream of the WWTP. During this monitoring cycle, most conventional water quality
parameters did not show any violations of water quality standards. Long-term monitoring at this
site has shown an increase in dissolved oxygen and declines in fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity,
nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. These positive water quality changes are likely the
result of improvements at the Henderson WWTP that began in 1988.
Thirty-six fish tissue samples were collected from Kerr Reservoir during January and May 1999
and analyzed for PCBs (19 striped bass) and metal contaminants (17 largemouth bass, sunfish
and catfish). The PCB analyses were performed at the request of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC). WRC was concerned about PCB concentrations in striped bass
in the North Carolina portion of the reservoir after detectable concentrations were measured in
Section B: Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 126
the Virginia portion of the reservoir. Only two of nineteen striped bass samples contained PCBs
at concentrations greater than the EPA screening value of 0.01 µg/g (Appendix II).
Only one of seventeen largemouth bass, catfish and sunfish samples had mercury concentrations
exceeding the EPA screening value of 0.6 µg/g. All other metals concentrations were less than
the federal and state screening criteria. DWQ works closely with the NC Department of Health
and Human Services to make citizens aware of any risk to human health from consumption of
fish. Currently, there is no fish consumption advisory specifically for Kerr Reservoir in North
Carolina.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Table B-15 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-06
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
21,700 0 0 21,700
Fish Consumption3 0 21,700 0 21,700
Primary Recreation 21,700 0 0 21,700
Water Supply 0000
Table B-16 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
2 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
127.0 4.6 0 53.0 184.6
Fish Consumption 00000
Primary Recreation 4.1 0 0 28.2 32.3
Water Supply 4.7 0 0 0 4.7
1 Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not
additive because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
2 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information.
Section B: Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 127
6.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River basin
plan identified two impaired streams in this subbasin: Nutbush and Anderson Swamp Creeks.
This stream is discussed below.
6.2.1 Nutbush Creek (4.6 miles from source to Crooked Run)
1996 Recommendation(s)
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled intensively in the Nutbush Creek watershed in 1994
and rated Fair at all locations, including one site above the Henderson WWTP. The Henderson
WWTP had significant problems with toxicity in their discharge, resulting from industries in
Henderson that were sending inadequately pretreated waste to the facility. The recommendations
in the 1996 basin plan were to monitor improvements to Henderson WWTP and investigate
extent of other nonpoint source pollution problems.
Status of Progress
Aquatic life in Nutbush Creek again received a Fair bioclassification in 1999 and is only partially
supporting the aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category. The Henderson WWTP
discharge continues to have toxicity problems, although the town has made substantial progress
in identifying which industries may be the sources of these problems. Some collection system
problems have also been identified, and the town is actively working to correct them.
In addition, the headwaters of Nutbush Creek and several tributaries originate in the Town of
Henderson. Most of the stormwater runoff from this urban area flows into the Nutbush Creek
arm of Kerr Reservoir. There is significant sedimentation over the entire length of the creek,
which likely resulted from streambank erosion, scouring, runoff from urban areas and
construction sites, and agricultural activities (in the lower portion of the watershed).
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ will continue to work with the Town of Henderson’s WWTP to correct remaining
problems from their discharge and collection system. However, it is likely that aquatic life will
remain impaired because of habitat degradation in the stream. Urban stormwater issues need to
be addressed by the Town of Henderson. Best management practices to prevent further
degradation by runoff from urban areas and construction sites should be installed. DWQ will
continue to monitor the stream and work with local agencies to restore water quality.
6.2.2 Anderson Swamp Creek (4.0 miles from source to 0.6 miles upstream of SR 1374)
1996 Recommendation(s)
Anderson Swamp Creek was rated as impaired during the last basin cycle by using benthic
macroinvertebrate data that resulted in a Fair bioclassification. An unnamed tributary below the
Vulcan Materials-Greystone Quarry was also rated impaired based on a Poor benthic
Section B: Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 128
macroinvertebrate bioclassification. The recommendation was to identify and address
sedimentation in the watershed.
Status of Progress
In 1999, DWQ biologists determined that both of these streams are too small to rate using current
benthic macroinvertebrate criteria, and the streams were not resampled during this basinwide
cycle. The benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassification in this particular stream will remain not
rated unless assessment criteria for small streams (<1.0 meter wide) are developed. This stream
is not currently considered impaired. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for a more detailed
discussion of habitat degradation.
6.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
No stream segments were rated as impaired based on recent DWQ monitoring (1995-1999);
however, as mentioned previously, some impacts to water quality were observed. Refer to Part
6.5 of this chapter, as well as Section A, Chapter 4 for further discussion of potential water
quality problems.
6.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, Nutbush Creek is listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. The
stream is a biologically impaired water, and pollution sources are both point and nonpoint.
Nutbush Creek is discussed in detail above. Refer to Appendix IV for more information on the
state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
6.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. Additionally, education on local water
quality issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote
restoration efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
6.5.1 Projected Population Growth
The population of Granville County is projected to increase 25 percent and Vance County 11
percent over a twenty-year period (1998-2018). Growth management within the next five years
will be imperative in order to maintain good water quality in this subbasin. Growth management
can be defined as the application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable
development in harmony with the conservation of environmental qualities and features of an
area. On a local level, growth management often involves planning and development review
requirements that are designed to maintain or improve water quality. Refer to Section A,
Chapter 4 for more information about minimizing impacts to water quality from development.
Section B: Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 129
Local Programs
Vance and Granville counties both have planning departments with full-time planning staff.
Vance County, in particular, has taken pro-active steps toward minimizing water quality impacts
during development. Additionally, the City of Henderson adopted a local sediment-erosion
control ordinance in order to minimize water quality impacts from construction activities. These
local governments are commended for their planning initiatives. These programs should be
supported, expanded and improved in the future.
6.5.2 Phase II Stormwater Requirements
Amendments were made to the Clean Water Act in 1990 (Phase I) and most recently in 1999
(Phase II) pertaining to permit requirements for stormwater discharges associated with storm
sewer systems. Part of Phase II requires some municipal storm sewer systems serving
populations under 100,000, which are located in larger urbanized areas and/or that have a high
population density to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. The municipal permitting
requirements are designed to lead into the formation of comprehensive stormwater management
programs for municipal areas. The Town of Henderson will be considered for inclusion under
the Phase II rules because of a population greater than 10,000 and/or a population density greater
than 1000 persons per square mile. DWQ is currently developing criteria that will be used to
determine whether this and other municipalities will be required to obtain a NPDES permit.
Refer to Section A, Part 2.7.2 for further information.
Section B: Chapter 7 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 130
Chapter 7 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
Includes Lake Gaston and Smith, Hawtree and Sixpound Creeks
7.1 Water Quality Overview
Lake Gaston and its tributary streams make up this
subbasin. Streams flow generally northward into Virginia
or Lake Gaston in North Carolina. The towns of Norlina,
Macon and Littleton straddle the Roanoke/Tar-Pamlico
basin divide and are the only municipal areas. A map of
this subbasin including water quality sampling locations is
presented in Figure B-7.
Bioclassifications for sites that were sampled during this
basinwide planning period are presented in Table B-17.
Use support ratings for each applicable category in this
subbasin are summarized in Tables B-18 and B-19. Refer
to Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters
and further information about use support ratings.
Seventy-five percent of the land in this subbasin is
forested. Land use is a combination of agricultural
activities, primarily in the western portion of the subbasin,
and residential development around the lake in the eastern portion. Several registered animal
operations are located in this subbasin. Nearly 11 percent of the area is surface water reflecting
13,400 acres of Lake Gaston. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers.
More so than Kerr Reservoir upstream, Lake Gaston straddles the North Carolina/Virginia state
line. The lake was constructed in 1963 by Virginia Electric and Power Company (currently
Dominion) for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power. However, the lake is also used
extensively for recreation. Many residential developments, campgrounds, golf courses, marinas
and swimming beaches are located along the shoreline. Lake Gaston was sampled by DWQ in
1999. Currently, the lake is fully supporting aquatic life and secondary recreation and primary
recreation. However, the lake assessment did reveal some impacts to water quality which are
discussed in detail in Part 7.5 of this chapter.
Observations during the very dry summer of 1999 indicated that many streams in this subbasin
stopped flowing. Seasonally intermittent low flow may limit the diversity of the fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate communities.
Subbasin 03-02-07 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 195 mi
2
Land area: 174 mi
2
Water area: 21 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 8,338 people
Pop. Density: 48 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 75.1
Surface Water: 10.9
Urban: 0.1
Cultivated Crop: 7.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6.4
Section B: Chapter 7 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 132
Table B-17 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
Site Stream County Location Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1* Smith Creek Warren US 1 Fair
B-2* Sixpound Creek Warren SR 1306 Good-Fair
Fish Tissue
FT-3 Lake Gaston Northampton SR 1214 N/A
Ambient Monitoring
N6400000 Smith Creek Warren US 1 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix III.
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys conducted on Smith Creek produced a Fair bioclassification
while Sixpound Creek received a Good-Fair. Both sites indicated slight water quality
improvements during the low flow and drought-like conditions in the summer of 1999 compared
to samples collected after high flows in 1994. This improvement during low flow indicates that
nonpoint source pollution problems may be affecting water quality. During high flow, sediment
is carried into stream channels, "scouring" the streambed and removing macroinvertebrate
habitat. Despite the slight flow-related improvement between the 1994 and 1999 samples,
aquatic life in Smith Creek is impaired. This stream is discussed in more detail in following
sections. No other streams in this subbasin were sampled.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from Smith Creek near the North
Carolina/Virginia state line. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were lower here than at any other
tributary site in the Roanoke River basin. Approximately 25 percent of samples were less than
the standard of 5.0 mg/l. A steady increase in conductivity values has been observed at this site
over the past ten years as well. Refer to Part 7.2.2 for more detailed information and
recommendations for Smith Creek.
During July 1999, 20 fish tissue samples (bluegill, largemouth bass, channel catfish and yellow
perch) were collected from Lake Gaston in Northampton County. All metals concentrations
were below federal and state criteria for consumption (Appendix II).
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Section B: Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 133
Table B-18 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-07
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
13,400 0 0 13,400
Fish Consumption3 0 13,400 0 13,400
Primary Recreation 13,400 0 0 13,400
Water Supply 13,400 0 0 13,400
Table B-19 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
2 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
1
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
41.7 10.4 0 49.4 101.5
Fish Consumption3 05.40 05.4
Primary Recreation 5.4 0 0 0.6 6.0
Water Supply 11.6 0 0 0 11.6
1 Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not
additive because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
2 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information.
7.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River basin
plan identified two impaired waters in this subbasin: Lake Gaston and Smith Creek. These
waters are discussed below.
7.2.1 Lake Gaston (13,400 acres)
1996 Recommendation(s)
In 1996, Lake Gaston was partially supporting designated uses due to an infestation of aquatic
plants. The lake was described as having "prolific growths of aquatic macrophytes", especially
Hydrilla, that hindered secondary recreation activities such as boating and water-skiing on large
portions of the lake. Nutrient levels were moderate, and the recommendation was to assess the
need for a nonpoint source pollution nutrient management plan.
Section B: Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 134
Status of Progress
Between 1995 and 1999, the surface area of Lake Gaston affected by aquatic macrophytes
decreased. The Lake Gaston Weed Council, in cooperation with the NC Division of Water
Resources, managed to keep the aquatic weeds under control through application of aquatic
herbicides and the introduction of grass carp. Since almost all of the affected waters were
available for recreation during this basinwide cycle, the lake is currently considered to be fully
supporting all designated uses, including secondary recreation. However, moderate levels of
nutrients and low dissolved oxygen concentrations were observed during DWQ’s 1999 lake
monitoring, and water quality in the lake is further discussed in Part 7.5.1 of this chapter.
7.2.2 Smith Creek (10.4 miles from source to NC/VA state line)
1996 Recommendation(s)
Smith Creek was rated as impaired during the last basin cycle by using benthic macroinvertebrate
data that resulted in a Fair bioclassification. The recommendations were to continue to monitor
water quality in the creek and to identify and address sources of sedimentation in the watershed,
as resources allowed.
Status of Progress
The benthic macroinvertebrate community in Smith Creek again received a Fair bioclassification
in 1999 primarily because of habitat degradation. The streambed was almost entirely sand, and
the water was turbid at the sampling site in 1999. Median dissolved oxygen concentrations were
lower in Smith Creek than at any other tributary site in the basin. Approximately 25 percent of
observations were less than the water quality standard of 5.0 mg/l.
Additionally, iron concentrations in Smith Creek are very high. Almost 86 percent of more than
50 samples within the past five years exceeded the water quality standard. Over the last fifteen
years, a steady increase in conductivity has also been observed. Water samples from Smith
Creek did pass a 7-day chronic toxicity test conducted by DWQ in 2000. However, of the eight
toxicity tests conducted in the Roanoke River basin, water from Smith Creek exhibited the
largest deviation from control samples. Smith Creek remains impaired (partially supporting the
aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category).
2001 Recommendation(s)
There are no NPDES permitted dischargers in the Smith Creek watershed; therefore most, if not
all, impacts to this stream are from nonpoint sources of pollution. DWQ will continue to work
cooperatively with agencies that administer sediment control programs in order to maximize
effectiveness of these programs and to take appropriate enforcement action to protect or restore
water quality. However, more voluntary implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands is
needed in order to substantially improve water quality in this watershed. Funding is available
through numerous federal and state agencies for farmers to restore and/or protect water quality
on their land. Local contacts for some of these agencies are listed in Appendix VI. Refer also to
Section A, Chapter 4 for more information.
Section B: Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 135
7.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
No stream segments were rated as impaired based on recent DWQ monitoring (1995-1999);
however, as mentioned previously, some impacts to water quality were observed. Refer to Part
7.5 of this chapter, as well as Section A, Chapter 4 for further discussion of potential water
quality problems in this portion of the basin.
7.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, Smith Creek is listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. The stream
is biologically impaired, and pollution sources are primarily agricultural. Smith Creek is
discussed in detail above. Refer to Appendix IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) list
and listing requirements.
7.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality
issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration
efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
7.5.1 Lake Gaston
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the lake are influenced by deep water releases from Kerr
Reservoir upstream. In summer, the surface dissolved oxygen is often less than the water quality
standard of 5.0 mg/l. The most upstream station in Lake Gaston (in Virginia) has consistently
lower dissolved oxygen than the other three sampling sites. In 1999, the first of seven new
turbines was modified at Kerr Dam, upstream of Lake Gaston. These modifications are designed
to increase downstream dissolved oxygen; however, effects of this increase were not yet
observed by DWQ monitoring staff in summer of 1999. Completion of the turbine aeration
project is expected in spring of 2000 (DENR-DWQ, May 2000).
Levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in Lake Gaston are still considered moderate. Concentrations
are highest in the North Carolina portion of the lake. Increases in nitrogen and/or phosphorus
inputs could lead to algae blooms and violations of the chlorophyll a standard in the future.
Measures should be put in place now to reduce nutrient loads to the reservoir in runoff from
residential lawns, impervious surfaces, golf courses and agricultural lands.
Although DWQ’s assessment of the secondary recreation category for Lake Gaston led to a fully
supporting rating for the 1995-1999 review period, DWQ remains concerned about excessive
growth of aquatic plants in the lake and will continue to support the work of the Lake Gaston
Section B: Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 136
Weed Council and DWR in order to ensure that designated uses of the lake remain unimpaired.
DWQ will assess the lake again in 2004.
Dominion’s Shoreline Management Plan
Dominion (formerly NC Power), in consultation with participants of the relicensing Shoreline
Management Technical Work Group, has developed and implemented a Shoreline Management
Plan (SMP). The SMP includes measures designed to reduce nutrient loads through the
protection of riparian buffers around Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake. Components of
the SMP include: reducing clearing of shoreline vegetation, encouraging replanting of native
species in areas where vegetation has been cleared, protecting emergent macrophytes, prohibiting
the use of commercial fertilizers, and identifying and protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
7.5.2 Sixpound Creek
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Sixpound Creek received a Fair bioclassification in
1994 when flow in the stream was high and Good-Fair in 1999 during low flow. These results
indicate impacts to water quality are present and are primarily a result of nonpoint source
pollution. However, impacts were not as detrimental to the aquatic community as those in Smith
Creek, which is impaired and discussed in previous sections.
Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural and residential with large amounts of open
(not forested) land. DWQ will plan sample this stream again during the next basinwide cycle;
however, BMPs to address nonpoint source pollution problems should be put in place now to
prevent further degradation and potential impairment of water quality. (Refer to Section C and
Appendix VI for nonpoint source pollution program and contact information).
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 137
Chapter 8 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08
Includes Roanoke Rapids Lake and 55 miles of the Roanoke River
8.1 Water Quality Overview
The upper portion of this subbasin, including Roanoke
Rapids Lake, lies within the piedmont region, while the
middle and lower portions are in the coastal plain. The
coastal plain portion includes approximately 50 miles of
the Roanoke River. The major tributaries in this subbasin
are Chockoyette, Quankey, Occoneechee and Bridgers
Creeks; and Conoconnara, Kehuku, Gumberry and
Cypress Swamps. Municipalities include Gaston,
Roanoke Rapids, Weldon, Garysburg and Halifax, as well
as portions of Scotland Neck, Rich Square and Lewiston-
Woodville. A map of this subbasin including water
quality sampling locations is presented in Figure B-8.
Bioclassifications for sample sites in this subbasin are
presented in Table B-20. Use support ratings for each
applicable category in this subbasin are summarized in
Table B-21 and B-22. Refer to Appendix III for a
complete listing of monitored waters and further
information about use support ratings.
With the exception of the Gaston, Roanoke Rapids and Weldon urban area, most of the land in
this subbasin is forested (65 percent) or in agriculture (30 percent). The majority of the
agricultural land is cultivated cropland (cotton, peanuts, tobacco and soybeans), but there are
many animal operations in the area as well.
There are eleven NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin. The largest facilities are
Champion International, Perdue Farms and the Roanoke Rapids, Weldon and NC Department of
Correction’s (DOC) Caledonia Prison WWTPs. All of these facilities discharge directly into the
Roanoke River. DOC’s Caledonia facility has significant compliance problems with BOD, fecal
coliform and total suspended solids. This facility is discussed further in Part 8.5.1.
Seven facilities are required to perform toxicity tests on their discharge. Toxicity problems were
observed at the Town of Halifax WWTP (discharges into Quankey Creek) and the Panda-
Rosemary Corporation facility (discharges into Chockoyotte Creek) over the past two years.
Subbasin 03-02-08 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 513 mi
2
Land area: 473 mi
2
Water area: 40 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 43,392 people
Pop. Density: 91 persons/mi2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 65.2
Surface Water: 2.8
Urban: 1.5
Cultivated Crop: 28.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 2.0
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 139
Table B-20 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08
Site Stream County Location Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1 Deep Creek Halifax Weldon Not Rated
B-3 Roanoke River Halifax Halifax Good
B-4* Roanoke River Halifax Scotland Neck Good
B-5 Quankey Creek Halifax NC 903 Not Rated
B-6* Quankey Creek Halifax NC 561 Fair
B-9 Occoneechee Creek Northampton SR 1126 Not Rated
B-10 Conoconnara Swamp Halifax NC 561 Not Rated
B-11 Kehukee Swamp Halifax SR 1804 Not Rated
Fish Tissue
FT-4 Roanoke River Halifax Weldon N/A
FT-5 Roanoke River Halifax Scotland Neck N/A
Ambient Monitoring
N7300000 Roanoke River Halifax Roanoke Rapids N/A
N8200000 Roanoke River Halifax Scotland Neck N/A
N8300000 Roanoke River Martin NC 11 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Extensive evaluation, conducted by DWQ, of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina
suggests that different criteria should be used to assess the condition of water quality in these
systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen, lower pH,
and sometimes very complex braided channels and dark-colored water. DWQ has developed
draft biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign bioclassifications to these streams
(as is currently done for other streams and rivers across the state). However, DWQ believes that
there has been insufficient sampling of reference swamp streams to assign bioclassifications to
them and use them for use support determinations in the Roanoke River basin at this time. DWQ
continues to work toward preparing these criteria for future use.
The Roanoke River at Halifax was sampled for the first time in 1999 and received a Good
bioclassification for benthic macroinvertebrates. The Roanoke River at Scotland Neck
maintained a Good bioclassification as well. In 1994, the river also received a Good benthic
bioclassification below Weldon.
The biological community in the lower portion of Quankey Creek, below the Town of Halifax
WWTP, received a Fair bioclassification in both 1992 and 1999. The upper portion is swampy,
and the site was not rated; but no potential impacts to water quality were observed. The lower
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 140
section of Quankey Creek is only partially supporting aquatic life/secondary recreation and is
discussed in more detail in the following sections. Deep Creek, Occoneechee Creek,
Conoconnara Swamp and Kehukee Swamp were not rated using macroinvertebrate data because
of their swampy nature. However, some habitat degradation was noted at each site. Please refer
to Section A, Chapter 4 for further discussion of habitat degradation in the Roanoke River basin.
Fish community data were collected and a mussel survey was conducted in 1995 and 1996 by
Dominion (formerly North Carolina Power Company) as part of its relicensing efforts for the
Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids hydroelectric project. Eight of the fifteen mussel species that
had been historically documented or believed to be present in the lower Roanoke River were
collected from a single 10-mile stretch (DENR-DWQ, May 2000).
Fish tissue samples were collected by DWQ from two sites on the Roanoke River in 1995 and
1999. Six bowfin samples from the river at Weldon had mercury concentrations greater than the
EPA screening value. Metals concentrations in 21 samples of other fish species were less than
federal and state criteria for fish consumption. At Scotland Neck, 23 fish were tested for
mercury contamination. One largemouth bass and one bowfin had concentrations greater than
EPA consumption criteria.
Roanoke Rapids Lake was the only lake monitored in this subbasin. The lake has extensive
growths of nuisance aquatic macrophytes. More than 30 percent of the lake’s surface area is
covered with Hydrilla (DENR-DWQ, May 2000). Other species are also present in the lake.
Secondary recreation activities, such as boating and water-skiing, are impaired in this lake, and
the lake is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from three sites on the Roanoke River in this
subbasin: at Roanoke Rapids, near Scotland Neck and just above Hamilton. Although there was
no indication of substantial water quality problems, total suspended solids and nitrate nitrogen
concentrations increased in a downstream manner from Roanoke Rapids to Hamilton.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Table B-21 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored Lakes (acres) in Roanoke
River Subbasin 03-02-08
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS Total
2
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
04,89304,893
Fish Consumption3 04,89304,893
Primary Recreation 4,893 0 0 4,893
Water Supply 4,893 0 0 4,893
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 141
Table B-22 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
1 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
2
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
167.9 3.4 0 180.6 351.9
Fish Consumption 0 123.7 0 0 123.7
Primary Recreation 00000
Water Supply 20.5 0 0 0 20.5
1 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
2 Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not
additive because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
3 These waters are impaired because of a statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin. Refer to
Section A, Part 4.8.4 for further information.
8.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River basin
plan identified three impaired waters in this subbasin. Roanoke Rapids Lake, Quankey Creek
and Conoconnora Swamp are discussed below.
8.2.1 Roanoke Rapids Lake (4,893 acres)
1996 Recommendation(s)
In 1996, Roanoke Rapids Lake was partially supporting designated uses due to infestation of
invasive aquatic plants. The lake was described as having prolific growths of aquatic
macrophytes, especially Hydrilla, that hindered secondary recreation activities such as boating
and water-skiing on large portions of the lake. Nutrient levels were moderate and the
recommendation, as in the case of Lake Gaston (subbasin 03-02-07), was to assess the need for a
nonpoint source pollution nutrient management plan.
Status of Progress
In recent years, there has been an increase in invasive aquatic macrophytes in Roanoke Rapids
Lake. More than 30 percent of the surface area is affected by these nuisance plants (DENR-
DWQ, May 2000). Moderate levels of nutrients were again observed during DWQ’s 1999 lake
monitoring; however, studies have shown that the most prevalent plant, Hydrilla, does not
respond to nutrient reduction. Secondary recreation remains impaired (partially supporting) in
this lake. Citizens have formed the Roanoke Rapids Lake Management Council to work toward
reducing aquatic weeds in the lake.
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 142
2001 Recommendations
DWQ will work the Roanoke Rapids Lake Management Council and DWR to reduce aquatic
weeds. Water quality could also benefit from nutrient reduction in this lake. Additionally, a
public education campaign is recommended so that introduction of additional aquatic
macrophytes from boats that have been in other waters is minimized. Refer to Section C for
information about funding sources that are available for water quality improvements and
education in impaired waters.
8.2.2 Quankey Creek (19.4 miles from source to the Roanoke River)
1996 Recommendation(s)
Two sites, above and below the Town of Halifax WWTP, were sampled during the last basin
cycle at the lower end of Quankey Creek. The biological community at both sites received a Fair
bioclassification. The 1996 recommendation was to evaluate impacts from a rest area along I-95
upstream.
Status of Progress
In 1999, two sites, downstream of I-95 and downstream of the Town of Halifax WWTP, were
sampled by DWQ. The biological community below the Halifax WWTP again received a
bioclassification of Fair. This facility has experienced compliance problems over the past decade
and failed 25 percent of whole effluent toxicity tests between 1997 and 1999. Conductivity was
117 umhos (compared to 70 umhos upstream), reflecting the influence of the point source
discharge. However, there is significant habitat degradation caused by channel alterations
contributing to impairment of aquatic life (partially supporting) in the lower section of Quankey
Creek.
The benthic community at the upstream site (that was chosen to evaluate the effects of the I-95
rest area) was not rated because the site exhibited swamp characteristics. However, the site
received the highest habitat quality score of any tributary sampled in the coastal plain area of the
basin. A large number of insects were collected as well as a good variety of pollution intolerant
species. There was no indication of water quality impacts at this location. Based on this
additional monitoring effort, the number of impaired stream miles has been reduced from 19.4 to
3.4 (from the confluence with Little Quankey Creek to the mouth at Roanoke River).
2001 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with the Town of Halifax to resolve problems with the WWTP
discharge. The town received a grant in March 2000 to begin addressing the most critical
maintenance problems at the facility, but more funding is needed to complete collection system
rehabilitation and construction of new sewer lines to eliminate failing septic systems in the Town
of Halifax. Refer to Part 8.5.1 for further details about NPDES discharges in this subbasin.
Additionally, DWQ will continue to monitor Quankey Creek and, as resources allow, sample
Little Quankey Creek during the next basinwide sampling to assess its contribution to degraded
water quality in this watershed.
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 143
8.2.3 Conoconnora Swamp (17.7 miles from source to the Roanoke River)
1996 Recommendation(s)
This stream was rated as impaired during the last basin cycle by using fish community data that
resulted in a Fair bioclassification. The recommendation was to evaluate the contribution of
agricultural runoff in the watershed and implement best management practices as necessary.
Status of Progress
Fish community data was not collected from this stream during this basin cycle. The benthic
macroinvertebrate community was not rated and will remain not rated until assessment criteria
can be used with confidence (refer to previous sections). While aquatic life/secondary recreation
in this stream is not currently considered impaired, lower total numbers and diversity of pollution
intolerant species of aquatic insects were observed during the 1999 sampling.
8.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
The majority of the lower Roanoke River in North Carolina was rated as impaired based on fish
consumption advisories and recent DWQ fish tissue monitoring (1995-1999). This section
outlines the potential causes and sources of impairment and provides recommendations for
improving water quality.
8.3.1 Roanoke River (128.5 miles from the Roanoke Rapids dam to Williamston)
Current Status
The Roanoke River, from the Roanoke Rapids dam to the Albemarle Sound, is impaired because
of fish consumption advisories. In this particular section of the river, from the dam to
Williamston, the only advisory is due to elevated levels of mercury in bowfin (blackfish).
Bowfin with levels of mercury that exceed consumption criteria were collected by DWQ in the
Roanoke River near Weldon and Williamston in 1995 and 1999. Because of this advisory, this
portion of the river is only partially supporting the fish consumption category. (Note: This is not
a new advisory, but improved use support methodology now bases impairment for the fish
consumption use support category on fish consumption advisories. See Appendix III for more
information regarding use support ratings.)
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ will continue to monitor fish tissue in the Roanoke River and will work to identify sources
of mercury. Given the global scale of mercury cycling, it may be difficult for DWQ to recognize
significant reductions of mercury in fish over the short-term. The NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has established a Mercury Task Force that includes
staff from DWQ, Division of Air Quality, Hazardous Waste, Pollution Prevention and Wildlife
Resources. In addition, DWQ has established an internal Water Quality Section Work Group to
stay abreast of mercury issues. Section A, Part 4.8 provides more details about mercury in the
environment.
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 144
8.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, two waters are listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list: Roanoke
Rapids Lake and Quankey Creek. Roanoke Rapids Lake is listed on Part I of the 2000 303(d) list
requiring DWQ to develop a TMDL/management strategy. Quankey Creek is biologically
impaired. Both waters are discussed in more detail in the previous sections. The Roanoke River,
along with all other waters in the basin, will likely be added to the list in 2002 based on the
statewide bowfin consumption advisory. Refer to Appendix IV for more information on the
state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
8.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality
issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration
efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
Although aquatic communities in the section of Roanoke River contained in this subbasin are
currently in good condition, there are several discharges and other impacts in this portion that are
likely contributing to a decline in water quality downstream. These impacts are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
8.5.1 NPDES Discharges
As was mentioned in this chapter’s overview, the NC Department of Correction’s (DOC)
Caledonia Prison WWTP discharge, which is permitted to release 0.8 million gallons per day to
the Roanoke River, continued to experience compliance problems over the past five years.
Parameters that exceed permitted limits include BOD, fecal coliform and total suspended solids.
DWQ has been working with DOC for the past eight years to correct problems with this
discharge. Almost $8,000 in civil penalties have been assessed dating back to June 1993. DOC
has plans to build a new constructed wetlands treatment system by December 2002. Final
compliance with permit limits for this new discharge is required by July 2003.
The Town of Halifax’s WWTP discharge, permitted to release up to 0.7 MGD to Quankey Creek
just upstream of the Roanoke River, continued to experience both compliance (BOD and total
suspended solids) and toxicity problems over the past five years. DWQ has been working with
the town for more than a decade to resolve problems with this deteriorating facility. More than
$8,000 in civil penalties have been assessed dating back to June 1991. The town received a grant
in March 2000 to begin addressing the most critical maintenance problems at the facility, but
more funding is needed to complete collection system rehabilitation and construction of new
sewer lines to eliminate failing septic systems in the Town of Halifax.
Section B: Chapter 8 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 145
8.5.2 Eroding Streambanks
There are several large areas along the Roanoke River, as well as smaller tributaries where the
banks are eroding. In some areas, this erosion is severe, contributing large amounts of
sedimentation to the Roanoke River. One landowner, with several hundred feet of riverbank, has
agreed to work with the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program’s (APNEP) Roanoke
Regional Council to provide alternative water sources and fence livestock out of the Roanoke
River. That project will serve as a demonstration site, once it is complete. Refer to Part 1.2.2 of
Section C for details about the Roanoke Regional Council.
The DOC Caledonia facility is a prison farm, and cattle at this facility have had access to the
Roanoke riverbank for several hundred feet. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation has
been working with DOC to select and implement BMPs at this facility, including cattle exclusion
and bank stabilization.
Section A, Chapter 4 discusses sedimentation, streambank erosion and best management
practices for controlling them. Appendix VI contains descriptions of and contact information for
nonpoint source pollution programs in North Carolina.
8.5.3 Phase II Stormwater Requirements
Amendments were made to the Clean Water Act in 1990 (Phase I) and most recently in 1999
(Phase II) pertaining to permit requirements for stormwater discharges associated with storm
sewer systems. Part of Phase II requires some municipal storm sewer systems serving
populations under 100,000, which are located in larger urbanized areas and/or that have a high
population density to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. The municipal permitting
requirements are designed to lead into the formation of comprehensive stormwater management
programs for municipal areas. Roanoke Rapids will be considered for inclusion under the Phase
II rules because of a population greater than 10,000 and/or a population density greater than
1,000 persons per square mile. DWQ is currently developing criteria that will be used to
determine whether this and other municipalities will be required to obtain a NPDES permit.
Refer to Section A, Part 2.7.2 for further information.
8.5.4 Chockoyette Creek
This stream flows through and around Roanoke Rapids and Weldon in the northwestern portion
of this subbasin. The stream is currently impacted by collection system overflows in Roanoke
Rapids, but there is also potential for serious habitat degradation to occur as this urban area
continues to grow. Roanoke Rapids is diligently working to correct the wastewater collection
system problems, which essentially amounts to a complete replacement. DWQ will continue to
work with the city over the next five years toward completion of this task. DWQ will also plan
to sample this stream during this basinwide cycle, as resources allow.
Stormwater issues need to be addressed by Roanoke Rapids, Gaston and Weldon. This urban
area is not automatically covered by the EPA’s Phase II stormwater rules, based on total
population and density (see part 8.5.3). However, these municipalities could begin to develop a
stormwater program that addresses stormwater runoff.
Section B: Chapter 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 146
Chapter 9 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09
Includes the lowest portion of the Roanoke River and tributaries
9.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains the lower 83 miles of the Roanoke
River and tributaries including Conoho, Indian, Hardison
Mill, Welch and Conaby Creeks. Municipalities include
Hamilton, Williamston, Jamesville and Plymouth. A map
of this subbasin including water quality sampling
locations is presented in Figure B-9.
Bioclassifications for sample sites in this subbasin are
presented in Table B-23. Use support ratings for each
applicable category in this subbasin are summarized in
Table B-24. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing
of monitored waters and further information about use
support ratings.
This subbasin is located entirely within the coastal plain
of North Carolina. Most of the land is forested (71
percent), but a significant amount is also used for
agriculture (25 percent).
The lower Roanoke River is bordered by extensive floodplain forests. These "backswamps" are
inundated during high flows when the river is full. Then, when the river level drops, water
returns to the main channel through only a few connections, called "guts". Through the collected
efforts of The Nature Conservancy, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, more than 34,000 acres of the floodplain have been brought into
conservation ownership. With an additional 21,000 acres of Georgia-Pacific timberland under
conservation management, an almost continuous corridor stretching from Hamilton to the Sound
has been preserved (see Section C for more information).
There are nine NPDES permitted dischargers in the subbasin. The largest discharge is 82.5
MGD from Weyerhaeuser Company. Others include the Williamston WWTP and the Plymouth
WWTP. All of three these discharges flow directly into the Roanoke River. The only facility in
significant noncompliance during this review period was the Williamston WWTP. Four facilities
are required to perform toxicity tests on their effluent. In the past, Liberty Fabrics has had the
most problems, failing 42 percent of its tests. However, in 1999, none of these facilities failed a
test.
Subbasin 03-02-09 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 559 mi
2
Land area: 435 mi
2
Water area: 124 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 58,886 people
Pop. Density: 135 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 71.5
Surface Water: 2.4
Urban: 0.6
Cultivated Crop: 24.8
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 0.8
Section B: Chapter 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 148
Table B-23 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09
Site Stream County Location Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1* Roanoke River Martin NC 125/903 Good-Fair
B-2* Roanoke River Martin Williamston Good-Fair
B-4* Conoho Creek Martin NC125/903 Not Rated
B-5 Conoho Creek Martin SR 1417 Not Rated
B-6 Hardison Mill Creek Martin NC 171 Not Rated
B-7 Hardison Mill Creek Martin SR 1528 Not Rated
B-8 Deep Run Swamp Martin NC 171 Not Rated
B-9 Welch Creek Martin SR 1522 Not Rated
B-10* Roanoke River Martin NC 45 Not Rated
Fish Tissue
FT-6 Roanoke River Martin Williamston N/A
FT-7 Roanoke River Martin Near Plymouth N/A
Ambient Monitoring
N8550000 Roanoke River Martin Williamston N/A
N9250000 Roanoke River Martin Above Plymouth N/A
N9600000 Roanoke River Bertie Below Plymouth N/A
N9700000 Albemarle Sound Bertie Batchelor Bay N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Extensive evaluation, conducted by DWQ, of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina
suggests that different criteria should be used to assess the condition of water quality in these
systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen, lower pH,
and sometimes very complex braided channels and dark-colored water. DWQ has developed
draft biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign bioclassifications to these streams
(as is currently done for other streams and rivers across the state). However, DWQ believes that
there has been insufficient sampling of reference swamp streams to assign these
bioclassifications and use them for use support determinations in the Roanoke River basin.
DWQ continues to work toward preparing these criteria for future use.
Based on benthic macroinvertebrate data, the biological community in the Roanoke River has
been assigned Good-Fair bioclassifications from the upper end of this subbasin to below
Williamston. These data represent a slight decline compared to communities observed upstream.
The lowest section of the river, above and below Plymouth, has experienced a mild temporary
estuarine influence in some years, but is still regarded as a lower coastal plain freshwater river.
Section B: Chapter 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 149
Macroinvertebrate data from the river below Plymouth has suggested good water quality in this
section of the river, even though no bioclassification can be assigned.
All the tributaries in this subbasin are swampy and may experience periods of very little or no
flow. The lower portion of Conoho Creek was found to represent nearly natural swamp
conditions, while the upper portion of Conoho Creek, the upper and lower portions of Hardison
Mill Creek, and Welch Creek suggested water quality or habitat problems. The most severe
problems were observed in Deep Run Swamp, an area of intensive agricultural land use. These
streams are discussed in more detail in Part 9.5.1 and 9.5.2.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from sites on the Roanoke River near
Williamston and above and below Plymouth. These data have not indicated any major water
quality problems in these areas, with the exception of elevated ammonia nitrogen concentrations
below Plymouth (median = 0.075 mg/l).
Fish tissue samples were collected by DWQ from two sites on the Roanoke River in 1995 and
1999. Eight bowfin from the river near Williamston had mercury concentrations greater than
FDA consumption criteria in 1995. In 1999, 15 of 24 samples (63 percent) of bowfin,
largemouth bass and white catfish had mercury concentrations greater than EPA and FDA
criteria (0.6 and 1.0 µg/g, respectively). Mercury concentrations were somewhat lower near
Plymouth: four of seven (57 percent) bowfin collected in 1995 had high mercury concentrations.
In 1999, four (three largemouth bass and one chain pickerel) out of 22 samples (18 percent) had
concentrations which exceeded consumption criteria. The Roanoke River and Welch Creek are
impaired because of fish consumption advisories and are discussed in following sections.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Table B-24 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
1 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
2
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
72.8 0 0 198.3 271.1
Fish Consumption 0 25.3 13.3 0 38.6
Primary Recreation 0 0 0 11.3 11.3
Water Supply 00000
1 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
2 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
Section B: Chapter 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 150
9.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River basin
plan identified two impaired streams and a portion of the Albemarle Sound in this subbasin.
These waters are discussed below.
9.2.1 Welch Creek (13.3 miles from source to Roanoke River)
Roanoke River (28.5 miles from Williamston to the Albemarle Sound)
Albemarle Sound (2,586 acres from Bull Bay to Harvey Point)
1996 Recommendation(s)
The 1996 basin plan listed Welch Creek and the Roanoke River from Williamston down to and
including the Albemarle Sound as partially supporting due to a fish consumption advisory for
dioxin. Weyerhaeuser Company operates a facility at the mouth of Welch Creek and originally it
discharged directly to the stream. In the 1980s, it was recognized that dioxin, a carcinogenic by-
product of the chlorine bleaching process, was accumulating in fish tissue. In 1988,
improvements were made and the discharge was relocated to the Roanoke River. Weyerhaeuser
is required by DWQ to provide extensive monitoring in the Roanoke River. The
recommendation was to review this data to monitor the decline of dioxin in fish tissue.
Status of Progress
These waters remain impaired (Welch Creek – not supporting; Roanoke River and Albemarle
Sound – partially supporting) because of fish consumption advisories for dioxin. No fish should
be consumed from Welch Creek. Data collected by Weyerhaeuser Company indicate a decline in
dioxin concentrations. Shellfish are not covered by this advisory.
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ, in cooperation with Weyerhaeuser Company, will continue to monitor the lower Roanoke
River and Welch Creek and will work closely with the Department of Health and Human
Services’ Division of Public Health to lift the advisory when there is no longer a risk to human
health from consumption of fish. For more information regarding fish consumption advisories,
call [phone] or visit the NC DHHS Division of Public Health website at
http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html.
9.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
The majority of the lower Roanoke River in North Carolina was rated as impaired based on fish
consumption advisories. This section outlines the potential causes and sources of impairment
and provides recommendations for improving water quality.
Section B: Chapter 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 151
9.3.1 Roanoke River (138.7 miles from the Roanoke Rapids dam to the Albemarle Sound)
Current Status
The Roanoke River, from the Roanoke Rapids dam to the Albemarle Sound, is impaired because
of a statewide fish consumption advisory due to high levels of mercury in bowfin (blackfish).
Bowfin with levels of mercury that exceed consumption criteria were collected by DWQ in the
Roanoke River near Williamston and Plymouth in 1995 and 1999. Because of these advisories,
this portion of the river is only partially supporting the fish consumption use support category.
(Note: This is not a new advisory, but improved use support methodology now bases
impairment for the fish consumption use support category on fish consumption advisories.)
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ will continue to monitor fish tissue in the Roanoke River and will work to identify sources
of mercury. Given the global scale of mercury cycling, it may be difficult for DWQ to recognize
significant reductions of mercury in fish over the short-term. The NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has established a Mercury Task Force that includes
staff from DWQ, Division of Air Quality, Hazardous Waste, Pollution Prevention and Wildlife
Resources. In addition, DWQ has established an internal Water Quality Section Work Group to
stay abreast of mercury issues. Section A, Part 4.8 provides more details about mercury.
9.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, there are no waters listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list. The
Roanoke River and Welch Creek, along with all other waters in the basin, will be added to the
state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2002 based on fish consumption advisories. Refer to
Appendix IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
9.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are fully supporting designated uses (or not rated)
based on recent DWQ monitoring; however, data revealed some impacts to water quality.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies of water
quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to
locate sources of water quality protection funding. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are
listed in Appendix VI.
9.5.1 Hardison Mill Creek
Deep Run Swamp
As was mentioned previously, the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of these two streams
were sampled, but not rated by DWQ, in 1999 because of their swampy nature. However,
significantly less diverse aquatic communities were observed in these streams than in other
Roanoke River basin swamp stream communities. The headwaters of both streams are
extensively channelized leading to severe habitat degradation in several miles of stream in these
watersheds. Refer to Section A, Part 4.4 for further information and recommendations.
Section B: Chapter 10 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 152
Chapter 10 -
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10
Includes the Cashie River, Roquist Creek and tributaries
10.1 Water Quality Overview
The Cashie River and its tributaries including Roquist,
Hoggard Mill and Wading Place Creeks are contained
within this coastal plain subbasin. All streams, including
the Cashie River itself, are slow moving and swampy in
nature. Windsor, Askewville and a portion of Lewiston-
Woodville are the only municipalities. A map of this
subbasin including water quality sampling locations is
presented in Figure B-10.
Bioclassifications for sample sites in this subbasin are
presented in Table B-25. Use support ratings for each
applicable category in this subbasin are summarized in
Table B-26. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing
of monitored waters and further information about use
support ratings.
Land use in the area is primarily forest with a mixture of
agricultural activities. Several animal operations are
located in the upper section of the Cashie River watershed. Timber is harvested in portions of
the watershed as well.
There are four dischargers in the subbasin. Only the Town of Windsor’s WWTP discharge,
flowing into an unnamed tributary to the Cashie River, is considered major; this WWTP is also
the only facility required to perform toxicity testing on its effluent. Toxicity problems have been
identified over recent review periods. The Cashie River and this facility are discussed in more
detail in the following sections.
Extensive evaluation, conducted by DWQ, of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina
suggests that different criteria should be used to assess the condition of water quality in these
systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen, lower pH,
and sometimes very complex braided channels and dark-colored water. DWQ has developed
draft biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign bioclassifications to these streams
(as is currently done for other streams and rivers across the state). However, DWQ believes that
there has been insufficient sampling of reference swamp streams to assign these
bioclassifications and use them for use support determinations in the Roanoke River basin.
DWQ continues to work toward preparing these criteria for future use.
Subbasin 03-02-10 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 307 mi
2
Land area: 290 mi
2
Water area: 17 mi
2
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 17,300 people
Pop. Density: 60 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 79.2
Surface Water: 0.6
Urban: 0.3
Cultivated Crop: 19.4
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 0.6
Section B: Chapter 10 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 154
Table B-25 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassifications
(1999) for Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10
Site Stream County Location Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-3* Cashie River Bertie SR 1219 Not Rated
B-4 Cashie River Bertie SR 1257 Not Rated
B-5 Hoggard Mill Creek Bertie SR 1301 Not Rated
B-6 Wading Place Creek Bertie NC 308 Not Rated
B-7 Roquist Creek Bertie US 13/17 Not Rated
Fish Tissue
FT-8 Cashie River Bertie Windsor N/A
Ambient Monitoring
N8950000 Cashie River Bertie SR 1219 N/A
* Historical data are available; refer to Appendix II.
Historical data are only available for sites along the Cashie River in this subbasin. All of the
tributaries sampled by DWQ in 1999 were sampled for the first time. The lower Cashie River
and Hoggard Mill Creek sites showed little deviation from natural swamp conditions. The upper
Cashie River site, Roquist Creek and Wading Place Creek showed some signs of impacts to
water quality from the watershed.
Water chemistry samples are collected monthly from the Cashie River near Lewiston-Woodville.
Low dissolved oxygen concentrations occurred frequently; 55 percent of samples over the past
five years were less than 4.0 mg/l. Lower pH was also observed. Iron exceeded the reference
value in over 81 percent of samples; however, water passed chronic toxicity tests conducted by
DWQ in July 2000. Fecal coliform exceeded the 200 colonies/100ml water quality standard in
almost 22 percent of samples. Nitrogen, phosphorus and turbidity were also elevated compared
to other Roanoke River coastal plain stations.
In 1999, 24 samples, representing largemouth bass, bowfin, black crappie, sunfishes and
catfishes, were collected from the Cashie River above Windsor and analyzed for metals
contaminants. Thirteen samples (of mainly largemouth bass and bowfin) or 54 percent of
samples contained mercury concentrations exceeding EPA or FDA screening values of 0.6 µg/g
and 1.0 µg/g, respectively. All other metal contaminant concentrations were less than the federal
or state criteria. Refer to Appendix II for details about fish tissue collections.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Basin (DENR-DWQ, May 2000), available
from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling
[phone].
Section B: Chapter 10 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 155
Table B-26 Use Support Ratings Summary (1999) for Monitored and Evaluated
1 Freshwater
Streams (miles) in Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10
Use Support
Category
FS PS NS NR Total
2
Aquatic Life/
Secondary Recreation
0 0 0 149.1 149.1
Fish Consumption 0 47.6 0 0 47.6
Primary Recreation 0002.32.3
Water Supply 00000
1 For the fish consumption use support category, only monitored stream miles are presented.
2 Total stream miles assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive
because some stream miles are assigned to more than one category.
10.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1996 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1996 Roanoke River basin
plan identified one impaired stream in this subbasin. The Cashie River is discussed below.
10.2.1 Cashie River (24.3 miles from source to SR 1257)
1996 Recommendation(s)
The 1996 basin plan listed the Cashie River as partially supporting. However, DWQ has since
determined that this site was inappropriately rated due to the swamp characteristics of the river.
The recommended strategy was to evaluate the contribution of agricultural runoff in the upper
portion of the watershed and implement BMPs as needed.
Status of Progress
In 1999, verification of swamp stream characteristics at SR 1219 in Bertie County was made, and
the previous bioclassifications that were inappropriately assigned to the benthic community were
adjusted. Since benthos data are not currently used to determine impairment in the biological
communities of swamp streams, the benthic community in the Cashie River is not rated.
Therefore, aquatic life is no longer considered impaired. However, the Cashie River is impaired
because of a fish consumption advisory and is discussed further in the following section.
10.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
The Cashie River was rated as impaired (partially supporting) based on the statewide bowfin
consumption advisory and recent DWQ fish tissue monitoring (1995-1999). This section
outlines the potential causes and sources of impairment and provides recommendations for
improving water quality.
Section B: Chapter 10 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 156
10.3.1 Cashie River (54.6 miles from source to the Roanoke River)
Current Status
Bowfin with levels of mercury that exceed the NC action level for consumption were collected
by DWQ in the Cashie River above Windsor in 1999. Because of the statewide bowfin
consumption advisory, this portion of the river is only partially supporting the fish consumption
use support category. (Note: This is not a new advisory, but improved use support methodology
now bases impairment for the fish consumption use support category on fish consumption
advisories. See Appendix III for more information regarding use support ratings.)
2001 Recommendation(s)
DWQ will continue to monitor fish tissue in the Cashie River and will work to identify sources
of mercury. Given the global scale of mercury cycling, it may be difficult for DWQ to recognize
significant reductions of mercury in fish over the short-term. Section A, Part 4.8 provides more
details about mercury in the environment.
10.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently in this subbasin, there are no waters listed on the state’s year 2000 303(d) list (not yet
EPA approved). All waters in the state will likely be added to the list in 2002 as partially
supporting because of the statewide bowfin consumption advisory. Appendix IV contains more
information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
10.5 Other Issues and Recommendations
There are no specific other issues for surface waters in this subbasin; however, recent DWQ
monitoring revealed habitat degradation impacts to aquatic life resulting from nonpoint source
pollution. Although no action is required, voluntary implementation of BMPs is encouraged and
continued monitoring is recommended. Section A, Chapter 4 contains general information and
recommendations about habitat degradation and other water quality problems that affect more
than one watershed in the basin. Additionally, education on local water quality issues is always a
useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint
source program descriptions and agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
Section C: Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives 157
Section C
Current and Future
Water Quality Initiatives
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 158
Chapter 1 -
Current Water Quality Initiatives
1.1 Workshop Summaries
In April 2000, there were three workshops held by DWQ in the Roanoke River basin at Eden,
Henderson and Windsor. There were 77 people in attendance representing a variety of interests.
Figure C-1 gives an estimation of groups/interests represented based on information recorded on
attendance sheets.
Figure C-1 Percent of Total Attendance by Various Interests at DWQ Water Quality
Workshops in the Roanoke River Basin (2000)
DWQ staff gave presentations about general water quality in the Roanoke River basin, basinwide
planning and the Wetlands Restoration Program. Participants at each workshop also gave brief
presentations about local water quality initiatives. Workshop attendees were asked to discuss the
following questions in small groups:
1. What are the main threats to water quality in the Roanoke River basin?
2. Where are the problem areas or waters?
3. What recommendations do you have for addressing these problems/waters?
4. What local agencies or organizations should be involved in addressing the problems?
A detailed outline of each small group’s discussion of these questions is available upon request.
Good discussion was generated at each workshop, and all of the information was considered, and
in some cases incorporated, into this draft plan. The most frequently cited threats to water
quality identified by workshop participants are listed below.
Natural Resource
Agency Staff
44%
Industry/Consulting
21%
Environmental
Organizations
10%
Landowners/
Citizens
10%
Agricultural
Interests
6%
Local/Region
Governments
6%<1%
Media
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 159
Important Issues Basinwide
• Sedimentation
• Nonpoint source pollution (agriculture, urban runoff, silviculture)
• Lack of local planning
• Wastewater treatment (collection system failures, discharges, failing septic systems)
• Water quantity issues (water withdrawals, interbasin transfers, flow management)
• Organic contaminants (PCBs, PBDEs, pesticides)
1.2 Federal Initiatives
1.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration
projects. Approximately $1 million is available annually for demonstration and education
projects across the state. Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina
Nonpoint Source Workgroup, made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or
research associated with nonpoint source pollution. Information on the North Carolina 319 grant
program, including application deadlines and requests for proposals, are available online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/bigpic.htm.
There are no projects in the Roanoke River basin that have been funded (federal Section 319
money must be matched with nonfederal dollars) through the Section 319 base program between
1990 and 2000.
1.2.2 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides technical, educational and financial
assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water and related natural resource
concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program
provides assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with federal and state environmental
laws and encourages environmental enhancement. The purposes of the program are achieved
through the implementation of a conservation plan which includes structural, vegetative and land
management practices on eligible land. Five to ten-year contracts are made with eligible
producers. Cost share payments may be made to implement one or more eligible structural or
vegetative practices, such as animal waste management facilities, terraces, filter strips, tree
planting and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments can be made to implement one or
more land management practices, such as nutrient management, pest management and grazing
land management.
Fifty percent of the funding available for this program will be targeted at natural resource
concerns relating to livestock production. The program is carried out primarily in priority areas
that may be watersheds, regions or multistate areas, and for significant statewide natural resource
concerns that are outside of geographic priority areas. Northampton, Bertie, Hertford and Gates
counties make up the Roanoke/Chowan EQIP Priority Area (2000). EQIP’s authorized budget of
$1.3 billion is prorated at $200 million per year through the year 2002.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 160
NRCS district contacts for the Roanoke River basin are included on the nonpoint source contact
sheet found in Appendix VI or visit the website at http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/eqip.htm for
more information.
1.2.3 US Fish and Wildlife Service - Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the only agency of the US Government whose
primary responsibility is fish, wildlife and plant conservation. The service helps protect a
healthy environment for people, fish and wildlife and helps Americans conserve and enjoy the
outdoors and our living treasures. The service’s major responsibilities are for migratory birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, and freshwater and anadromous fish.
The Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge includes forested wetlands in the lower 130 miles
of the Roanoke River from the fall line at Weldon, NC downstream to the Albemarle Sound near
Plymouth, NC. The 130-river miles encompass approximately 150,000 acres (235 sq. mi.) of
which 33,000 acres are in the refuge acquisition boundary. Figure C-2 in Part 1.5.2 of this
Section depicts these and other conservation lands in the lower Roanoke River basin.
Wetland Restoration and Protection
The refuge includes part of an extensive wetland ecosystem that contains excellent examples of
several southeastern plant communities and habitat types. The refuge includes some of the more
valuable wetlands for fish and wildlife, especially waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds and
anadromous fish. Preliminary planning with the US Corps of Engineers regarding 5,000 acres of
wetland restoration is also underway.
Fish Studies
In partnership with Dominion, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, National Marine Fisheries,
NC Division of Marine Fisheries, and other divisions within the FWS, the refuge has been
actively studying the use of the Roanoke River floodplain by anadromous fish species. The
purpose of this study was to learn the extent to which these fish rely on the floodplain for
spawning habitat and the effect that widely varying flows have on the success of spawning. The
study found that hickory shad and blueback herring utilize the floodplain for spawning and
nursery habitat.
Wildlife Surveys
Neotropical and resident bird species surveys were conducted during the spring and summer
along established transects on the Roanoke River floodplain by the Fish and Wildlife
Cooperative Extension Unit at NC State University. Refuge staff continue to monitor bird
populations each spring on refuge lands at 40 established natural river levee sites. Additionally,
waterfowl surveys by air are carried out each winter by FWS and state biologists to estimate
numbers and species composition of wintering waterfowl at the mouth of the Roanoke River and
Albemarle Sound.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 161
Osprey Population Tracking
To monitor productivity of ospreys nesting near the Albemarle Sound and to better understand
where the North Carolina population winters in South America, osprey chicks have been banded
for the past four years.
Activities permitted inside the refuge are fishing, boating, hiking, photography, wildlife
observation and hunting. The refuge is most easily accessed by boat. Conine Island is the only
tract accessible by land. Due to the intermittent ridges and swales found within the vast
floodplain, incomplete acquisition and erratic river flows, access by vehicle is restricted.
Comprehensive Conservation Planning
The US Fish and Wildlife Service is developing a management plan for the Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge. This Comprehensive Conservation Plan is required by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The plan considers both land uses and
management practices on the refuge. Public input, from those who use or are affected by the
refuge, is currently being solicited and that input will be used to develop alternatives to current
land uses and management practices.
The plans will focus on the management of habitat to support the wildlife species for which the
refuge was established. They will also address public use, law enforcement, land protection,
maintenance and staffing. The plan will project refuge activities for 15 years.
For additional information about this unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, visit the
website at http://southeast.fws.gov/wildlife/nwrroa.html. You may also contact refuge staff by calling
[phone] or by email [e-mail].
1.3 State Initiatives
1.3.1 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program
The Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP), formerly known as the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study (APES), was among the first National Estuary Programs established by
the EPA in 1987. The mission of the APNEP is to identify, restore and protect the significant
resources of the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system. Unlike traditional regulatory approaches
to environmental protection, the APNEP is a cooperative effort jointly sponsored by DENR and
the EPA that targets a broad range of issues and engages local communities in the process.
The program focuses not just on improving water quality in the region’s estuaries, but on
maintaining the integrity of the whole system -- its chemical, physical and biological properties,
as well as its economic, recreational and aesthetic values. Important components of the APNEP
are the consideration of water quality, fisheries resources, land and water habitats, and the
interaction of humans with the natural resources of the estuarine system. The APNEP is
designed to encourage local communities to take responsibility for managing the resources in
their respective jurisdictions.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 162
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
Since 1987, research generated by the APNEP has been instrumental to the development of a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). This plan is composed of
recommendations for management strategies that address concerns in the Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds region and to protect the system’s estuarine resources.
During the development of the CCMP, the APNEP was guided by a 95-member Management
Conference that represented diverse interests. Four committees were responsible for identifying
problems in the estuarine system, generating research where gaps in knowledge existed,
increasing public awareness of environmental issues, and finding solutions to address those
issues. As a result of these efforts, more is known about the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system
than ever before.
One of the recommendations of the CCMP was to
develop regional councils in each of the five major river
basins of the Albemarle-Pamlico watershed for the
purpose of fostering public input into the APNEP
program. In 1995, an Executive Order was issued by the
Governor of North Carolina calling for the creation of
these regional councils. The Roanoke River Basin
Regional Council is highlighted below.
Currently, the APNEP is administered and staffed by
DWQ; however, staff works closely with the EPA’s
Office of Water to implement the many objectives and
key management actions contained in the APNEP’s
CCMP.
Roanoke River Basin Regional Council
Each regional council is comprised of elected and appointed county and municipal officials,
representatives from agriculture, silviculture, commercial and recreational fishing, conservation,
environmental science, business/industry and tourism groups. Each council is charged with
identifying and implementing a project that utilizes innovative or unique management strategies
to address a priority watershed problem. Regional councils provide a forum for public, special
interest and local government involvement in the APNEP.
The Roanoke River Basin Regional Council (RRBRC) met eight times in 1998 and 1999 and
continues to meet in 2000. Recent meeting information is available from the APNEP website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nep/roanoke_regional_council.htm. Highlights of accomplishments thus far
include:
• Generated widespread local support for a resolution recommending Congressional funding
for an Army Corps of Engineers Section 216 Scoping Study to evaluate flow modifications
for the John H. Kerr Reservoir system and to reevaluate operation of the project.
CCMP Development Involved
Diverse Interests Including:
• Federal and state government
• University researchers
• Environmental groups
• Agriculture representatives
• Forestry interests
• Industry representatives
• Developers
• Fishermen
• Local elected officials
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 163
• The development and ongoing implementation of a demonstration project to rehabilitate and
permanently protect degraded riparian land along the Roanoke River through cattle
exclusion, planting of hardwood seedlings, and plans for rotational grazing.
• Initiated cooperative action by DENR and the Department of Corrections to address cattle
impacts (similar to those being corrected by the demonstration project) at the Caledonia
Prison Farm in Halifax County and the Odom Prison in Northampton County.
• Presentations at Coordinating Council meetings, the 1998 APNEP Public Forum, and
DWQ’s Roanoke River basin water quality workshop in Windsor.
• The development of a two-year Program of Work, which identified several issues of concern
in the basin including: 1) negative impacts of managed flows that do not match seasonal
patterns of rainfall; 2) low dissolved oxygen; 3) nutrient loads and sediment impacts; 4)
problems with small wastewater treatment facilities; and 5) landowner rights and
responsibilities.
For more information regarding the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program, contact Guy
Stefanski by calling [phone] ext. 585, email [e-mail] or visit the website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nep/.
1.3.2 NC Wetlands Restoration Program
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is a nonregulatory program
responsible for implementing wetland and stream restoration projects throughout the state. The
focus of the program is to improve water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities. The NCWRP is not a grant program. Instead, the program funds
wetland, stream and riparian area projects directly through the Wetlands Restoration Fund.
Restoration sites are targeted through the use and development of the Watershed Restoration
Plans (formerly called Basinwide Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plans). These plans are
developed, in part, using information compiled in DWQ’s Basinwide Water Quality Plans. The
Watershed Restoration Plans are updated every five years on the same schedule as DWQ’s
Basinwide Water Quality Plans.
The NCWRP is also working to develop comprehensive Local Watershed Restoration Plans
within the identified Priority Subbasins. These more locally-based plans will identify wetland
areas, contiguous reaches of stream, and contiguous strips of buffer vegetation that, once
restored, will provide significant water quality and other environmental benefits to watersheds.
The NCWRP will coordinate with local community groups, local governments and others to
develop and implement these plans.
The NCWRP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs
or environmental groups. For example, the NCWRP’s efforts can complement projects funded
through the Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components
with 319 funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality benefits of the
project. The NCWRP actively seeks landowners within the Roanoke River basin who have
restorable wetland, riparian and stream sites.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 164
Table C-1 lists the NCWRP’s targeted Local Watersheds in the Roanoke River basin. Further
details about these watersheds are provided in the appropriate subbasin chapter in Section B.
Table C-1 Wetlands Restoration Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2000)
Subbasin Targeted Local Watershed
Name(s)
Targeted Local Watershed
Number(s)*
03-02-01 Town Fork Creek
Snow Creek
Belews Creek
90010 & 90020
80010
80040
03-02-02 Big Beaver Island Creek 20010
03-02-04 Country Line Creek 32010 & 32030
03-02-06 Grassy Creek 61010
03-02-07 Smith Creek 31010
03-02-08 Chockoyette Creek
Quankey Creek
Conoconnara Swamp
70010 & 70020
70030
90010 & 90020
03-02-09 Hardison Mill Creek
Deep Run Swamp
40010
50010
03-02-10 Cashie River Headwaters 60010
* The numbers listed are the last five digits of the 14-digit Hydrologic Unit (HU) for each Local Watershed.
For more information about participating in the NCWRP, please contact Crystal Braswell at
[phone] or visit the DWQ website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ (click on Wetlands Restoration
Program).
1.3.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund offers approximately $40 million annually in grants
for projects within the broadly focused areas of restoring and protecting state surface waters and
establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In the Roanoke River basin, four
projects have been funded for a total of $2,920,000 (Table C-2).
Table C-2 Projects in the Roanoke River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (as of 7/00)
Stream or
Watershed
Project Project
Lead
Amount
Funded
Dan River Land Acquisition – Buffers Piedmont Land Conservancy $642,000
Conaby Creek and
Roanoke River
Stormwater Improvements Town of Plymouth $835,000
Mayo River Wastewater Improvements Town of Stoneville $643,000
Gills Creek Wastewater Improvements Town of Stovall $800,000
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 165
For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or visit the website at
www.cwmtf.net.
1.3.4 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program
The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program was established in 1984 to help reduce the
sources of agricultural nonpoint source pollution to the state’s waters. The program helps
owners and renters of established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by
using Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include vegetative, structural or
management systems that can improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the
potential for surface and ground water pollution. The Agriculture Cost Share Program is a
voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of installing an approved
BMP. The cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned control measures and
technical specifications are completed. The annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is
approximately 6.9 million.
Almost three million dollars were expended in the Roanoke River basin from 1995 through 1999
on a wide variety of nonpoint source pollution reduction projects. Figure C-2 presents
Agriculture Cost Share Program dollars (in thousands) spent over the five-year period for each
county in the North Carolina portion of the basin.
Note: 1999 data was not available for Bertie, Caswell, Granville, Northampon or Person counties.
Figure C-2 Agriculture Cost Share Program Dollars Expended (1995-1999) in Counties in the
Roanoke River Basin (Source: NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation)
Soil and Water Conservation District contacts for the Roanoke River basin are included in
Appendix VI or visit the website at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/files/acs.htm for more information.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Bert
ie
Cas
w
e
l
l
Gr
a
n
v
i
l
l
e
Ha
l
i
f
a
x
M
a
r
t
i
n
No
r
t
ham
p
t
on
Perso
n
Rock
i
n
g
h
am
Stoke
s
Va
n
c
e
W
a
r
r
e
n
Ag

C
o
s
t

S
h
a
r
e

D
o
l
l
a
r
s

S
p
e
n
t

(
1
0
0
0
s
)
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 166
1.3.5 Coastal Habitat Protection Plans
The North Carolina Fisheries Reform Act of 1997 requires the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to prepare Coastal Habitat Protection Plans (CHPPs) for the
"long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with each coastal habitat…." The plans
describe the fisheries, fishery habitats and water quality affecting coastal fisheries stocks in the
eight river basins that drain to the coast of North Carolina. Although staff of the Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) is responsible for actually writing the plans, DWQ and the Wildlife
Resources Commission, as well as the Divisions of Coastal Management (DCM) and
Environmental Health (DEH), are heavily involved in the program. The Environmental
Management, Coastal Resources and Marine Fisheries Commissions review and approve the
plans, and those commissions are responsible for any new rules necessary for implementation of
the plans.
The plans are organized by geographic area, with 11 management units, including the Roanoke
River basin, that generally correspond with the DWQ Basinwide Planning Program units. A
general source document includes regional and summary information. The management unit
plans are specific to their areas, including detailed information and specific recommendations
addressing conservation, habitat protection and enhancement, water quality improvement,
research and monitoring, and administrative actions. A complete plan includes both the source
document and the management unit plan. The first two area plans are underway in 2001:
Chowan and Coastal Ocean. All CHPPs will be finalized by July 2003, then reviewed and
updated every five years.
For additional information about CHPPs, contact Mike Street by calling 1-800-682-2632 (in NC)
or by e-mail at [e-mail]. You may also visit the DMF website at
http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chpp1.htm.
1.3.6 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers the federal Clean Water Act
and enforces state laws to improve the quality of Virginia’s streams, rivers, bays and
groundwater for aquatic life, human health and other water uses. With methods similar to those
used in North Carolina, permits are issued to businesses, industries, local governments and
individuals that take into account physical, chemical and biological standards for water quality.
Water programs address: pollution discharges, stormwater management, groundwater, petroleum
tank vessels and storage tanks, surface water, land application of treated wastes, and dredged
material.
For VADEQ program and contact information, call [phone] or toll-free in Virginia (800)
592-5482 or visit the website at http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/.
1.3.7 Partnership for the Sounds
The Partnership for the Sounds (PFS) promotes eco-tourism in the Albemarle-Pamlico region.
Educational centers offer displays, exhibits, audio-visual components, hands-on activities, group
programs and more, complemented by outdoor field trip opportunities in close proximity. The
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 167
new Roanoke/Cashie River Center, which promotes environmental education about the Roanoke
and Cashie Rivers, is the result of the cooperative efforts of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Partnership for the Sounds and the Town of Windsor.
For additional information about Partnership for the Sounds or the Roanoke/Cashie River Center,
call [phone] or visit the website at http://albemarle-nc.com/pfs/.
1.4 Local Initiatives
1.4.1 Town of Windsor
Cashie River Wetlands Walk
The Cashie River winds through Bertie County for more than 20 miles, beginning and ending
within the county boundaries. The river has a depth of 80 feet in places. It provides a spawning
area for herring, shad and striped bass and supports game fish including redfin, pickerel, sunfish,
crappie, catfish and largemouth bass. The continuous riparian areas along the river provide
productive habitat and important travel corridors for wildlife.
The wetlands environment along the Cashie River are made available to the public by the Cashie
River Wetlands Walk. A pedestrian bridge provides handicap access by boardwalk to the swamp
floor and allows the visitor to experience the wetlands first hand. The boardwalk winds through
bald cypress and water tupelos. An observation deck allows visitors to experience the wetlands
at different seasons of the year. Canoe or small boat launch piers provide access to several miles
of the Cashie River and river bottom ecosystem.
For additional information about the Cashie River Wetlands Walk, visit the website at
http://www.albemarle-nc.com/windsor/attractn/wetwalk.htm.
1.5 Regional Organizations
1.5.1 Roanoke River Basin Association
The Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization
whose mission is to establish and carry out a strategy for the development, use, preservation and
enhancement of the resources of the Roanoke River basin in the best interest of present and
future generations of basin residents. RRBA believes that basin resource conservation can co-
exist with managed economic growth.
RRBA consists of hundreds of members, mostly located within the basin of the 410-mile long
Roanoke River, including local governments, nonprofit, civic and community organizations,
regional government entities, businesses and individuals. The RRBA:
• Works for a comprehensive planning process for managing the flow of the Roanoke River
and for allocating the basin’s valuable resources.
• Educates basin residents and others about the resources of the Roanoke River basin.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 168
• Publishes a monthly newsletter, Basin Bulletin, for its supporters and constituents.
• Fought for over 20 years in an effort to prevent the City of Virginia Beach from diverting
water from the Roanoke River at Lake Gaston.
• Participates in the Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Relicensing Project in order to
protect the interests of basin residents and businesses.
• Monitors non-basin municipalities in North Carolina and Virginia who might seek an
interbasin transfer of water out of the Roanoke River basin.
• Monitors activities that might negatively impact the quality of the water resources.
• Recently urged Charlotte and Halifax counties, Virginia to adopt reasonable restrictions on
swine operations in order to prevent negative impacts to the Roanoke River.
• Monitored (and continues to monitor) and reported on the impact of the PCB contamination
in the Roanoke (Staunton) River, and encouraged Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality to plan for remediation of that contamination. RRBA also encouraged an interim
health advisory relative to the consumption of large, non-migratory, bottom-feeding fish in
areas of PCB contamination and ensured that DWQ was provided information related to this
contamination.
• Promotes and helps to fund recreational and safety facilities in the basin.
• Mobilized support for North Carolina’s "Year of the Rivers" Highway Sign Program which,
when implemented, will mark the perimeter of the Roanoke River basin with identifying
highway signs.
For additional information about the Roanoke River Basin Association, visit the website at
http://www.rrba.org. You may also contact Executive Director, Tom Brawner by calling (804) 577-
2159 or by email [e-mail].
1.5.2 The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a nonprofit membership corporation whose mission is to
preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth
by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. TNC’s goal is the long-term survival of
all viable native species and natural community types (terrestrial and aquatic).
TNC designated the lower Roanoke River and floodplain as one of the "Last Great Places", a
program designed to protect 75 of the nation’s most biologically important ecosystems and
natural communities. Working with public and private partners, the TNC-North Carolina
Chapter has invested over $20 million in the conservation of the lower Roanoke River. As a
result, more than 55,000 acres are in conservation ownership among TNC, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Georgia-Pacific/TNC Roanoke
Ecosystem Partnership (refer to Part 1.6.1 for further information), and others (Figure C-3).
TNC retains fee or conservation easement ownership over about 18,000 acres in the floodplain of
the lower Roanoke River; however, all 55,000 acres were acquired with the TNC-North Carolina
Chapter’s participation. A local office to manage conservation lands on the Lower Roanoke was
established in 1995. Two chapter employees are located in Windsor, NC to work with other
conservation partners to ensure the long-term viability of these lands.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 169
Figure C-3 Land in Conservation Ownership in the Roanoke River Basin (December 2000)
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 170
Reservoir Operations Model
TNC, the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), and Water Resources Management, Inc. have
been working together for four years to develop a Reservoir Operations Model for the Roanoke
River basin. This model uses more than 60 years of unregulated (natural) inflow data for each of
the five major reservoirs in the system along with the management policies provided by their
managers. The model predicts hydroelectric generation and the flow in the river below Roanoke
Rapids Dam on either a weekly or daily basis. The components of the management policies that
can be adjusted are: 1) the releases from the reservoirs for flood control or flow augmentation; 2)
desired lake levels through the year; and 3) upper and lower limitations on power generation.
The management policies in place today constitute a baseline against which other policies can be
compared to answer "what if" questions concerning the operation of the reservoirs.
The model is currently being upgraded to permit the evaluation of increasingly sophisticated
management policies including the ability to forecast inflows on the basis of the climate record
and to use such forecasts in operational decisions, a drought index to trigger changes in
operations during times of very low flows, policies based on the biological state of the system,
and policies that manage high as well as low flows for environmental purposes. The plan is to
provide a Windows 95 [trademark] graphical user interface and to make the model available over
the internet for access by any interested party.
Adaptive Management Partnership
TNC is currently advocating an Adaptive Management Partnership for the Roanoke River that
would represent all of the major stakeholders along the river, including institutions with
regulatory authority over natural resources, major landholders, major associations of landowners
and recreation users, major industries and local governments. The goal of the partnership is to
optimize management of the river for the benefit of the people, ecosystems and economies they
affect.
For additional information about The Nature Conservancy’s initiatives in the Roanoke River
basin, contact Jeffrey Horton at the Roanoke River Project Office by calling [phone] or
by email [e-mail].
1.5.3 Piedmont Land Conservancy
The Piedmont Land Conservancy (PLC) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving
natural and scenic lands, farms and open spaces in the piedmont of North Carolina to enrich the
quality of life for our communities and for future generations. The PLC represents nine North
Carolina counties: Alamance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry
and Yadkin. PLC strives toward the following goals:
To acquire and manage natural areas in piedmont North Carolina.
To protect endangered or significant native species of flora and fauna and to preserve
areas with significant topographical features.
To maintain the ecological integrity of the region, including its air and water quality
and biological diversity.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 171
To fulfill the human need for scenic land and open space to provide opportunities for
learning from and enjoying the natural world.
To enhance and buffer our communities.
PLC is not affiliated with any other organization and is supported entirely by members and
friends in the piedmont and has more than 600 members. It is the only local land trust serving
the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina. PLC builds partnerships with public agencies,
private organizations, landowners and individuals to save the best of our natural heritage. Since
incorporation, the PLC has protected over 490 acres of land.
River Corridors
To protect the quality of drinking water supplies, provide recreational opportunities and to
protect wildlife habitat, the PLC is targeting several major river corridors in the piedmont for
protection, including the Dan, Mayo, Yadkin and Haw Rivers. In 1998, the Piedmont Land
Conservancy received a $642,000 Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant to purchase
riparian buffer areas along the Dan River.
Additionally, PLC conducted a study of riparian land use and condition of riparian areas along
the Dan River in Stokes County. The resultant plan entitled Riparian Corridor Conservation
Design for the Upper Dan River Basin recommends protection and restoration strategies for
public and private lands within 300 feet of the Dan River in Stokes County (Bridle, May 2000).
Bog Turtle Habitat Restoration
The PLC is working together with more than 10 public and private partners to restore and protect
26 acres in Forsyth County of wetland habitat for the bog turtle. The bog turtle, weighing only 4
ounces, is one of the rarest turtle species in North America and is a state threatened species in
North Carolina. Preferring mountain bog habitat, bog turtles are rare in the piedmont because
most bogs have been drained for agricultural use. PLC is also working with Duke Power
Company on bog turtle habitat restoration.
For additional information about the Piedmont Land Conservancy, call [phone] or email
[e-mail]. You may also visit the website at http://www.greensboro.com/plc/.
1.6 Corporate Initiatives
1.6.1 Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Georgia-Pacific and The Nature Conservancy have entered into a land management agreement
covering 21,000 acres of floodplain wetlands along the lower Roanoke and Cashie Rivers in
North Carolina. These seven tracts of northeastern North Carolina land included in the Roanoke
agreement contain high quality examples of cypress trees and other trees that naturally occur in a
brownwater ecosystem. This area is also home to extensive wildlife, such as bald eagles and
more than 200 other species of birds. Representatives from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
scientists from North Carolina State University are also members of the management team.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 172
Some tracts of the 21,000 acres will be deemed high priority because of their special ecosystems.
On these lands, Georgia-Pacific has agreed to relinquish its timber harvesting rights. On other
tracts, timber harvesting will take place, following methods agreed to by the joint management
team. Georgia-Pacific was the first forest products company to attempt statewide protection of
significant natural areas in its ownership. These lands are shown on Figure C-2 in Part 1.5.2 of
this section.
1.7 Citizen Efforts
1.7.1 Rockingham County Watershed Preservation Coalition, Inc.
Beginning in 1996, citizens in and around Rockingham County, NC formed the Rockingham
County Watershed Preservation Coalition (RCWPC) to protect their rivers, watersheds and
groundwater. The Coalition’s accomplishments thus far include:
• Informed citizens and petitioned against NCDOT’s planned closing of the Mayo Loop Road
alongside of the Mayo River at Anglin Mill. If this road right-of-way had been lost, public
access to this section of the Mayo River would have been eliminated. Due to this effort,
DOT completely rebuilt the road.
• Adopted the Mayo Beach Road for cleanup under NCDOT’s Adopt-a-Highway Program.
• Worked with Piedmont Land Conservancy board members, landowners and the Rockingham
County Planning Department to gain approval to build (and maintain) two canoe access sites
on the Mayo River.
• Formed the Mayo Association, an umbrella group of organizations and individuals dedicated
to creating a park at the Anglin Mill site.
• Providing an informative, up-to-date website that links citizens to RCWPC and to resources
and information that is relevant to conservation work.
• Through these avenues and projects, provided a heightened sense of awareness of aquatic
resources and the importance of conservation.
• Joined NC Division of Water Resources’ Stream Watch program.
For more information about the Rockingham County Watershed Prevention Coalition, email
[e-mail] or visit the website at http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/4604/.
1.7.2 Roanoke River Partners
Roanoke River Partners is a nonprofit organization, which helps communities along the lower
Roanoke River to improve economic, environmental and social health. Specifically, the partners
promote small businesses and facilitate community and regional projects which highlight and
sustainably utilize the unique natural, historic and cultural resources found in the region.
One of Roanoke River Partners’ main goals is to explore the potential of heritage tourism in the
region. Heritage tourism is defined as historic, cultural or nature-based tourism which is
educational and strives to honor and protect the resources which it uses. Examples might include
a tour of local farms or a 3-day canoe trip for bird watchers through swamp forests.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 173
Current projects include the creation of a 200-mile canoe camping trail on the Roanoke River
and its tributaries. Such a trail will allow for the creation of local eco-tourism businesses such as
canoe guiding services, canoe rentals, bed and breakfasts, etc.
For more information about the Roanoke River Partners, contact Crystal Baity by calling (252)
794-2793, email [e-mail], or visit the website at www.roanokeriver.com/partners.
Section C: Chapter2 – Future Water Quality Initiatives 174
Chapter 2 -
Future Water Quality Initiatives
2.1 Overall DWQ Goals for the Future
The long-term goal of basinwide management is to protect the water quality standards and uses
of the surface waters in the state while accommodating reasonable economic growth. Attainment
of these goals and objectives will require determined, widespread public support; the combined
cooperation of state, local and federal agencies, agriculture, forestry, industry and development
interests; and considerable financial expenditure on the part of all involved. With this needed
support and cooperation, DWQ believes that these goals are attainable through the basinwide
water quality management approach.
In addition to these efforts, DWQ will continue to pursue several programmatic initiatives
intended to protect or restore water quality across the state. These include NPDES Program
Initiatives, better coordination of basinwide planning, use restoration waters program for
nonpoint source pollution, and improving database management and use of GIS capabilities.
Summaries of these initiatives are provided below.
NPDES Program Initiatives
In the next five years, efforts will be continued to:
• improve compliance with permitted limits;
• improve pretreatment of industrial wastes discharged to municipal wastewater treatment
plants so as to reduce effluent toxicity;
• encourage pollution prevention at industrial facilities in order to reduce the need for pollution
control;
• require dechlorination of chlorinated effluents or use of alternative disinfection methods for
new or expanding facilities;
• require multiple treatment trains at wastewater facilities; and
• require plants to begin plans for enlargement well before they reach capacity.
Long-term point source control efforts will stress reduction of wastes entering wastewater
treatment plants, seeking more efficient and creative ways of recycling by-products of the
treatment process (including reuse of nonpotable treated wastewater), and keeping abreast of and
recommending the most advanced wastewater treatment technologies.
DWQ requires all new and expanding wastewater dischargers to submit an alternatives analysis
as part of its NPDES permit application. Non-discharge alternatives, including connection to an
existing WWTP or land-applying wastes, are preferred from an environmental standpoint. If the
Division determines that there is an economically reasonable alternative to a discharge, DWQ
may deny the NPDES permit.
Section C: Chapter 2 – Future Water Quality Initiatives 175
DWQ will continue to make greater use of discharger self-monitoring data to augment the data it
collects. Quality assurance, timing and consistency of data from plant to plant are issues of
importance. Also, a system will need to be developed to enter the data into a computerized
database for later analysis.
Coordinating Basinwide Planning with Other Programs
The basinwide planning process can be used by other programs as a means of identifying and
prioritizing waterbodies in need of restoration or protection efforts and provides a means of
disseminating this information to other water quality protection programs. For example, the plan
can be used to identify and prioritize wastewater treatment plants in need of funding through
DWQ’s Construction Grants and Loan Program. The plans can also assist in identifying projects
and waterbodies applicable to the goals of the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Wetlands
Restoration Program or Section 319 grants program. Information and finalized basin plans are
provided to these offices for their use and to other state and federal agencies.
Use Restoration Waters (URW) Program for Nonpoint Source Impairment
DWQ has developed a conceptual strategy to manage watersheds with nonpoint source
impairments as determined through the use support designations. In July 1998, the state
Environmental Management Commission approved the Use Restoration Waters (URW) program
concept which will target all NPS impaired waters in the state using a two-part approach. As
envisioned, this classification will apply to all watersheds that are not supporting or partially
supporting their designated uses. The program will catalyze voluntary efforts by stakeholder
groups in impaired watersheds to restore those waters by providing various incentives and other
support. Simultaneously, the program will develop a set of mandatory requirements for NPS
pollution categories for locations where local groups choose not to take responsibility for
restoring their impairments. This URW concept offers local governments an opportunity to
implement site-specific projects at the local level as an incentive ("the carrot"). If the EMC is
not satisfied with the progress made towards use restoration by local committees, impairment
based rules will become mandatory in those watersheds ("the stick").
These mandatory requirements may not be tailored to specific watersheds but may apply more
generically across the state or region. DWQ staff has developed a timeline to accomplish the
following within five years from July 1998: work with stakeholder groups to develop mandatory
requirements; acquire the resources needed to carry out the program; develop criteria for
voluntary local programs and supporting incentive tools; and proceed through formal rule
making for the mandatory requirements. The form of the URW program will be strongly
influenced by the year-long stakeholder input process.
With more than 400 impaired watersheds or stream segments in the state, it is not realistic for
DWQ to attempt to develop watershed specific restoration strategies for nonpoint source
pollution. By involving the stakeholders in these watersheds, we believe we can catalyze large-
scale restoration of impaired waters. We anticipate that one of the major implementation
challenges of this new program will be educating public officials and stakeholders at the local
level as to the nature and solutions to their impairments. To address this challenge, the state
plans to develop a GIS-based program to help present information at a scale that is useful to local
Section C: Chapter 2 – Future Water Quality Initiatives 176
land management officials. Other incentives that the state might provide include seed grants and
technical assistance, as well as retaining the authority to mandate regulations on stakeholders
who are not willing to participate.
In cases where incentives and support do not result in effective watershed restoration strategies,
mandatory impairment source management requirements would be implemented in the
watershed. This is not the state’s preferred alternative, as it would add to state monitoring and
enforcement workload. However, in areas where it is necessary, DWQ plans to implement such
requirements. In the management area, DWQ would be assisted by regulatory staff from the
Division of Coastal Management, Division of Environmental Health, Division of Land
Resources and the Division of Marine Fisheries to insure compliance.
Improved Data Management and Expanded Use of Geographic Information System (GIS)
Computer Capabilities
DWQ is in the process of centralizing and improving its computer data management systems.
Most of its water quality program data (including permitted dischargers, waste limits,
compliance information, water quality data, stream classifications, etc.) will be put in a central
data center which will then be made accessible to most staff at desktop computer stations. Some
of this information is also being submitted into the NC Geographic Data Clearinghouse (Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis or CGIA). As this and other information (including
land use data from satellite or air photo interpretation) is made available to the GIS system, the
potential to graphically display the results of water quality data analysis will be tremendous.
Additional Research and Monitoring Needs
DWQ staff have identified some additional research and monitoring needs that would be useful
for assessing, and ultimately, protecting and restoring the water quality of the Roanoke River
basin. The following list is not inclusive. Rather, it is meant to stimulate ideas for obtaining
more information to better address water quality problems in the basin. With the newly available
funding programs (Clean Water Management Trust Fund and Wetlands Restoration Program)
and the existing Section 319 grant program, it may be desirable for grant applicants to focus
proposals on the following issues:
• More resources are needed to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Identifying
nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for impaired
waters, given the current limited resources available, is an overwhelming task.
Therefore, only limited progress towards restoring NPS impaired waters can be
expected unless substantial resources are put towards solving NPS problems.
DWQ would like to work more closely with the Conservation Districts in each county of the
Roanoke River basin to identify nonpoint sources of pollution, develop land use and land cover
data, and to develop water quality management strategies for impaired watersheds within the
Roanoke River basin.
Section C: Chapter 2 – Future Water Quality Initiatives 177
2.2 DWQ Compliance and Enforcement Policy Revisions
DENR began implementing a new two-stage compliance and enforcement policy in 1997. Both
stages of the revised policy are in effect as of July 1, 1999. The five major elements of the policy
are intended to provide a comprehensive route to strengthen enforcement and heighten
compliance for all dischargers and nonpoint sources of water pollution in North Carolina. The
five major components of the policy are to:
1. Foster compliance through pollution prevention, technical assistance and training, reevaluate
existing grant and loan funding priority criteria, and develop recognition and incentive
programs.
2. Enhance enforcement through increased penalties, penalties for sewer collection systems,
reduced thresholds for noncompliance, and delegation of civil penalty assessment authority to
the DWQ regional office supervisors.
3. Focus on chronic and willful violators through increased use of moratoriums on expanding
and additional connections, expansion of notification to the public of violators, clarification
of process of determining "noncompliance", and initiation of discussion with stakeholders on
possible legislative actions.
4. Assure improvement in compliance and enforcement through development of accountability
measures.
5. Find and use all available resources for compliance needs with local, state and nonprofit
groups.
DENR is also in the process of conducting assessment of its enforcement programs. The goal of
the assessment is to identify potential areas for improvement in DENR’s efforts to enforce
environmental laws and ultimately improve compliance. This effort got underway in July 1999
with two focus group meetings. If you would like to see the Scope of Work for the enforcement
assessment, see DENR’s web page at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/novs/scope.htm/.
References 178
References
Bales, Jerad D., Carolyn J. Oblinger, and Asbury H. Sallenger, Jr. 2000. Two Months of
Flooding in Eastern North Carolina, September-October 1999: Hydrologic, Water
Quality, and Geologic Effects of Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene. US Geological
Survey (USGS). Raleigh, NC.
Bridle, Kenneth A., Ph.D. and William A. McGee, MLA. May 2000. Riparian Corridor
Conservation Design for the Upper Dan River Basin. Piedmont Land Conservancy.
Greensboro, NC.
Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality
Management: Program Description. Division of Environmental Management. Water
Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
Davis, Tracy E. May 31, 2001. State Mining Specialist, Division of Land Resources.
NCDENR. Personal communication. Raleigh, NC.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
____. K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological
Integrity in Running Water: A Method and its Rationale. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Spec.
Publ. 5. 28 pp.
Kornegay, James K. and T. Wayne Jones. 1995. A Report on the Roanoke River Fish Kills, 25
July – 2 August 1995. NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
Manooch, C.S. III, and R.A. Rulifson (eds.). 1989. Roanoke River Water Flow Committee
Report: A commended water flow regime for the Roanoke River, North Carolina, to
benefit anadromous striped bass and other below-dam resources and users. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-216.
Meador, Michael R. and April O. Layher. November 1998. Instream Sand and Gravel Mining:
Environmental Issues and Regulatory Process in the United States. Fisheries 23(11):6-
13.
McGarvey, Daniel J. 1996. Stream Channelization. Bibliography of Environmental Literature.
Wittenberg University, Environmental Geology. Springfield, Ohio.
http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/geol/progcrs/geol220/mcgarvey/index.shtml
Nelson, E.L. 1993. Instream Sand and Gravel Mining. Pages 189-196 in C.F. Bryan and D.A.
Rutherford, eds. Impacts on Warmwater Streams: Guidelines for Evaluation. Southern
Division, American Fisheries Society. Little Rock, AR.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Division of Land
Resources (DLR). Land Quality Section. July-September 1999. Sediments: Newsletter
of the North Carolina Sediment Control Commission. Vol. 6 No. 3. Raleigh, NC.
References 179
References (cont.)
____. DLR. Land Quality Section. 1998. What is Erosion and Sedimentation? Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). August 1, 2000. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina
Administrative Code: 15A NCAC 2B .0200. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. August 2000. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
Waters of the Roanoke River Basin. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCAC
2B .0313. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. Biological Assessment Unit. 2001. Standard
Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment and
Fish Tissue. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. Biological Assessment Unit. April 3, 2001.
Memorandum to Callie Dobson, through Trish MacPherson, from Bryn H. Tracy. Fish
Community Ratings of Grassy Creek and Island Creek (Granville County, Subbasin 06,
Roanoke River Basin). Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. May 2000. Basinwide Assessment Report,
Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. December 1999. Assessing changes in Coastal
Plain streams after Hurricane Floyd. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. Wetlands Restoration Program. August 1998. Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian
Restoration Plan for the Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
____. Division of Water Resources (DWR). January 2000. Draft State Water Supply Plan.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Environmental Sciences Branch. Ecosystems Analysis Unit. Biological Assessment
Group. 1997. Standard Operating Procedures: Biological Monitoring. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD).
Division of Forest Resources. September 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices
Manual. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). November 1999. Wildlife in North
Carolina. Special Issues: Rivers of North Carolina. Vol. 63 No. 11. Raleigh, NC.
References 180
References (continued)
NCWRC. Division of Inland Fisheries. May 1998. Draft Fisheries Management Direction for
the Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
Roell, Michael J. June 1999. Sand and Gravel Mining in Missouri Stream Systems: Aquatic
Resource Effects and Management Alternatives. Missouri Department of Conservation,
Conservation Research Center. Columbia, MO.
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rohde, Fred C., Rudolf G. Arndt, David G. Lindquist, and James F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater
Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill, NC.
Rulifson, R.A. and C.S. Manooch, III (eds.). 1991. Roanoke River Water Flow Committee
Report for 1990. NOAA Technical memorandum NMFS-SEFC-291, 433P.
Russell, David. June 7, 2001. Environmental Specialist II, Winston-Salem Regional Office,
DENR-DWQ. Personal communication.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. 1997
National Resources Inventory. North Carolina State Office. Raleigh, NC.
____. Natural Resources Conservation Service. November 1995. North Carolina Cooperative
Hydrologic Unit River Basin Study. North Carolina State Office. Raleigh, NC.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Watershed Academy Website:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/.
____. 1997. Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection. EPA 841-B-97-
008. Office of Water (4503F). United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. 98 pp.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Sand and Gravel (Construction) Webpage:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sand_&_gravel_construction/.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). March 2001. 305(b) Water Quality
Assessment Report, Chapter 2.5 Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns. Roanoke, VA.
____. 1999. Roanoke River Basin PCB Project Results - Dan River Mainstem Stations.
____. 1998. 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report. Roanoke, VA.
____. 1998. 303(d) Priority List and Report. Richmond, VA.
____. 1996. 303(d) Priority List and Report. Richmond, VA.
References 181
References (continued)
VADEQ. West Central Regional Office (WCRO). September 1999. Roanoke River Basin
Informational Materials. Roanoke, VA.
Western North Carolina Tomorrow (WNCT). 1999. Sediment and Erosion Control Webpage:
http://wnct.org/psas/sediment.htr.
Willis, Lawrence D. July 20, 2000. Biologist, West Central Region, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality. Roanoke, VA. Personal communication.
Appendices
Appendix I
NPDES Discharges
and
Individual NPDES Stormwater Permits
in the
Roanoke River Basin
Ta
b
l
e

A
-
I
-
1

N
P
D
E
S

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

(
a
s

o
f

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
0
)
A-
I
-
1
Pe
r
m
i
t

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
t
y

R
e
g
i
o
n

T
y
p
e

O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

D
1

D
2

D
3

D
4

D
5

M
G
D

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
a
m
NC
0
0
2
5
5
2
6

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
o
v
e
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

2

0
.
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

T
o
w
n

F
o
r
k

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
5
7
7
2
0

T
w
i
n

L
a
k
e
s

M
H
P

/

S
S
B
.
,

I
n
c
.

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

0
.
0
4

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

T
i
m
m
o
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
8
2
3
8
4

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y

/

D
a
n
b
u
r
y

W
W
T
P

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
1

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
4
4
9
5
4

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

S
o
u
t
h

S
t
o
k
e
s

H
S

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
1
7
3

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

L
it
t
l
e

N
e
a
t
m
a
n

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
4
4
9
6
2

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

N
o
r
t
h

S
t
o
k
e
s

H
S

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
1
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
6
7
0
9
1

R
a
y
c
o

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

/

M
i
kk
o
l
a

D
o
w
n
s

S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
0
7
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

E
a
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
7
8
1
1
5

R
a
y
c
o

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

/

G
r
e
y
s
t
o
n
e

S
ub
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
0
4

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
8
7
4
6

R
a
y
c
o

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

/

B
r
i
a
r
w
oo
d

S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
0
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

B
r
u
s
h
y

F
o
r
k

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
0
3
4
9
2

R
.
J
.

R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s

/

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
o
v
e

S
i
t
e

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2

1
6

1
4

2
6

0
.
0
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

V
o
s
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
7
9
0
4
9

R
.
H
.

J
o
h
n
s
o
n

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
.

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
0
6

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

R
o
u
g
h

F
o
r
k
NC
0
0
3
5
1
7
3

K
o
b
e

C
o
p
p
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
,

I
n
c
.

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2

1
7

1
4

1
6

0
.
0
2
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
0
3
4
4
1

J
P
S

E
l
a
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
c
s

C
o
r
p

-

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

P
l
a
n
t

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
4

1
6

2

1
7

0
.
0
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

L
i
t
t
l
e

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
5
6
7
9
1

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
s

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

C
a
r
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
0
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
8
3
9
3
3

H
e
a
t
e
r

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

/

R
a
n
g
e
c
r
e
s
t

R
o
a
d

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
0
6

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
5
5
9
9

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

W
a
l
k
e
r
t
o
w
n

M
i
d
d
l
e

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
9

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

W
e
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
5
6
0
2

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

W
a
l
k
e
r
t
o
w
n

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
1
0
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

W
e
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
4
4
0
6

D
u
k
e

P
o
w
e
r

/

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k

S
t
e
a
m

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
4

6
8

6
9

7
0

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
e
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
9
7
7
7

D
O
C

-

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
0
1
3
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

F
l
a
t

S
h
o
a
l
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
4
3
2
9
0

D
a
n
b
u
r
y
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
T
P

S
t
o
k
e
s

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
2

n
o
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

S
c
o
t
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
NC
0
0
3
7
3
1
1

C
r
e
e
k
s
i
d
e

M
a
n
o
r

R
e
s
t

H
o
m
e

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
0
1

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

U
T

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
6
0
4
6
1

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

W
a
t
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

A
b
i
n
g
t
o
n

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
4
6
7
5
2

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

W
a
t
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

/

K
y
n
w
o
o
d

S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5

0
.
0
2
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
7
5
0
2
7

C
a
i
n
s

W
a
y

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k

F
o
r
s
y
t
h

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

0
.
0
4
3
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

A
d
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
8
0
1
1

S
t
o
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

R
o
c
k
i
ng
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

5
5

5
7

6
4

0
.
2
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
5
9
2
5
1

Q
u
a
i
l

A
c
r
e
s

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

0
.
0
1
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

U
T

H
o
g
a
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
1
8
7
3

M
a
y
o
d
a
n
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

3
8

4
0

5
0

5
5

3

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
4
6
3
0
2

M
a
y
o
d
a
n
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
T
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
1

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

U
T

M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
1
0
7
5

M
a
d
i
s
o
n
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
7
7
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
6
0
5
4
2

G
o
l
d

H
i
l
l

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k

R
o
c
k
i
ng
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

0
.
0
1
7
6

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

U
T

H
o
g
a
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
5
0
9
5
4

D
o
l
l
y

M
a
d
i
s
o
n

M
o
t
e
l

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
0

1
3

0
.
0
1
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

H
o
g
a
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
4
4
7
5
0

B
r
i
t
t
h
a
v
e
n

o
f

M
a
d
i
s
o
n

R
o
c
k
i
ng
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

4
0

0
.
0
2
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

H
o
g
a
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
8
5
0
2
2

2
2
0

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
2

n
o
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

U
T

H
o
g
a
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
0
2
8
2
8

Z
a
r
n
,

I
n
c
.

-

R
e
i
d
s
v
i
l
l
e

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2

1
4

1
7

0
.
0
0
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

L
i
c
k

F
o
r
k

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
7
9
8
7

V
u
l
c
a
n

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

-

S
t
o
n
e
v
i
l
l
e

R
o
c
k
i
ng
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

4
2

4
1

n
o
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
Ta
b
l
e

A
-
I
-
1

N
P
D
E
S

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

(
a
s

o
f

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
0
)
A-
I
-
2
Pe
r
m
i
t

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
t
y

R
e
g
i
o
n

T
y
p
e

O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

D
1

D
2

D
3

D
4

D
5

M
G
D

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
a
m
NC
0
0
6
0
6
2
3

S
t
o
n
e

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

M
H
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

0
.
0
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
8
6
6
6
5

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

P
o
w
e
r

L
L
C

/

D
y
n
e
g
y

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
4

7
3

n
o
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

J
a
c
o
b
’
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
7
8
5
5

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
0
1
9
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

R
o
c
k

H
o
u
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
6
9
8
6

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

S
a
d
l
e
r

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
2
7

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

W
o
l
f

I
s
l
a
n
d

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
6
9
5
1

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

H
a
p
p
y

H
o
m
e

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
3
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
3
7
0
0
1

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

B
e
t
h
a
n
y

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
3
7

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

H
u
f
f
i
n
e
s

M
i
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
5
5
0
1
8

R
o
b
e
r
t
s

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

0
.
0
0
2
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
9
9
8
0

M
i
l
l
e
r

B
r
e
w
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
7

1
6

1
4

6
8

5
.
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
8
5
6
2
6

M
a
d
i
s
o
n
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
T
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
1

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

B
i
g

B
e
a
v
e
r

I
s
l
a
n
d
NC
0
0
8
5
1
8
9

J
o
s
e
’
s

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t

-

S
a
n
d

F
i
l
t
e
r

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
0

0
.
0
0
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
0
1
6
4
3

F
i
e
l
d
c
r
e
s
t

C
a
n
n
o
n

/

N
e
w

S
t
r
e
e
t

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5
5

2

0
.
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
5
0
7
1

E
d
e
n
,

C
i
t
y

-

M
e
b
a
n
e

B
r
i
d
g
e

W
W
T
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

5
5

7
8

6
1

1
3
.
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
5
1
5
1

E
d
e
n
,

C
i
t
y

o
f

-

D
r
y

C
r
e
e
k

W
R
P

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

2

5
5

0
.
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
0
3
4
6
8

D
u
k
e

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

-

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

6
8

6
9

7
0

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
7
7
1
3
5

C
u
r
l

M
o
d
u
l
a
r

H
o
m
e
s

/

H
i
d
d
e
n

V
a
l
l
e
y

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

8

5

0
.
0
2
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

U
T

L
i
c
k

F
o
r
k

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
7
8
2
7
1

B
e
t
s
y

J
e
f
f

P
e
n
n

4
-
H

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
3

0
.
0
0
8
4

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

C
a
r
r
o
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
4
0
0
1
1

Y
a
n
c
e
y
v
i
l
l
e
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

C
a
s
w
e
l
l

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

2

1
0

1
1

5
5

0
.
4
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
4

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
0
7
3
2
3

Y
a
n
c
e
y
v
i
l
l
e
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
T
P

C
a
s
w
e
l
l

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
1

0

0
.
0
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
4

F
u
l
l
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
0
1
8
0

D
O
C

-

B
l
a
n
c
h

Y
o
u
t
h

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

#
3
9
4
0

C
a
s
w
e
l
l

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
0
1
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
4

U
T

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
1
0
2
4

R
o
x
b
o
r
o
,

C
i
t
y

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

5
5

5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

M
a
r
l
o
w
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
0
3
0
4
2

R
o
x
b
o
r
o
,

C
i
t
y

o
f

-

W
T
P

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
1

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

U
T

M
a
r
l
o
w
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
6
5
3
6

P
e
r
s
o
n

C
o

B
O
E

/

W
o
o
d
l
a
n
d

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
6

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

U
T

S
o
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
6
5
4
4

P
e
r
s
o
n

C
o

B
O
E

/

B
e
t
h
e
l

H
i
l
l

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
6

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

U
T

B
a
m
b
o
o

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
0
3
4
2
5

C
P
&
L

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

S
.
E
.

(
P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
n
t
)

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2

1
4

1
6

1
7

6
8

0
.
0
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e
NC
0
0
3
8
3
7
7

C
P
&
L

M
a
y
o

S
.
E
.

(
P
o
w
e
r

P
l
a
n
t
)

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2

1
7

6
8

7
0

2
1

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

M
a
y
o

C
r
e
e
k
-
>
C
r
u
t
c
h
f
i
e
l
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
NC
0
0
6
5
0
8
1

C
o
g
e
n
t
r
i
x

-

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

P
e
r
s
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
6

1
7

1
5

6
8

7
0

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

U
T

M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
5
4
9
1

V
a
n
c
e

C
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

/

E
.
O
.

Y
o
u
n
g
,

J
r
.

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

V
a
n
c
e

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
3
6

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
6

U
T

M
il
l

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
8
3
1
0
1

K
e
r
r

L
a
k
e

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

W
a
t
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

V
a
n
c
e

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
1

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
6

U
T

A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
0
5
5
9

H
e
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
-
N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

W
W
T
P

V
a
n
c
e

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

5
5

6
4

2
6

7
8

4
.
1
4

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
6

N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
2
7
4
3

G
r
a
n
v
i
l
l
e

C
o

S
c
ho
o
l

/

S
t
o
v
a
l
l

G
r
a
n
v
il
l
e

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
7

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
6

U
T

G
i
l
l
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
5
7
2
1

W
e
l
d
o
n
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

1
7

6
8

7
0

1
.
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
4
2
0
1

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

9

5
5

5
6

6
3

8
.
3
4

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
Ta
b
l
e

A
-
I
-
1

N
P
D
E
S

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

(
a
s

o
f

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
0
)
A-
I
-
3
Pe
r
m
i
t

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
t
y

R
e
g
i
o
n

T
y
p
e

O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

D
1

D
2

D
3

D
4

D
5

M
G
D

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
a
m
NC
0
0
2
5
4
3
7

R
i
c
h

S
q
u
a
r
e
,

T
o
w
n

-

W
W
T
P

N
o
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

B
r
i
d
g
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
8
8
3
5

P
e
r
d
u
e

F
a
r
m
s
,

I
n
c
.

/

L
e
w
i
s
t
o
n

B
e
r
t
i
e

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
3

3

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
7
9
0
1
4

P
a
n
d
a
-
R
o
s
e
m
a
r
y
,

L
.
P
.

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3
7

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

U
T

C
h
o
c
k
o
y
o
t
t
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
6
6
1
9
2

H
a
l
i
f
a
x
,

T
o
w
n

-

W
W
T
P

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
0
7
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

Q
u
a
n
k
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
3
8
6
3
6

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

C
o

B
O
E

/

B
a
k
e
r
s

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

3

0
.
0
0
7
3

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

U
T

K
e
h
u
k
e
e

S
w
a
m
p
NC
0
0
2
7
6
4
2

D
O
C

-

O
d
o
m

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

#3
3
1
0

N
o
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
1
2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
9
7
3
4

D
O
C

-

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

#
3
3
1
5

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

0
.
0
1
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

L
it
t
l
e

Q
u
a
n
k
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
7
6
2
6

D
O
C

-

C
a
l
e
d
o
n
i
a

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
1

2
3

2
4

1
6

4
0

0
.
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
0
0
7
5
2

C
h
a
m
p
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

/

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

H
a
l
i
f
a
x

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
8

1
4

6
1

2
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
0
0
4
4

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
t
o
n
,

T
o
w
n

-

W
W
T
P

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

2

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
no
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
0
0
6
8
0

W
e
y
e
r
h
a
e
u
s
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

-

P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h

M
i
l
l

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
8

1
4

1
9

8
2
.
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
6
8
1
8
7

U
n
i
t
e
d

O
r
g
a
n
i
c
s

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
4

1
6

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

U
T

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
0
0
2
8

P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
,

T
o
w
n

-

W
W
T
P

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

3

9

1
0

2
5

0
.
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
0
2
3
1
3

P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
T
P

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
2

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

U
T

C
o
n
a
b
y

C
r
e
e
k
NC
0
0
2
3
7
1
0

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

F
a
b
r
i
c
s
,

I
n
c
.

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2

1
4

1
6

5
5

0
.
4
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
3
5
8
5
8

J
a
m
e
s
v
i
l
l
e
,

T
o
w
n

-

W
W
T
P

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
4
4
7
7
6

H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
0
8

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
0
1
9
6
1

A
l
a
m
a
c

K
n
i
t

F
a
b
r
i
c
s
,

H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n

M
a
r
t
i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
a
j
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

5
5

1
4

1
5

1
6

2

1
.
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
6
7
5
1

W
i
n
d
s
o
r
,

T
o
w
n

o
f

-

W
W
T
P

B
e
r
t
i
e

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
a
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

1
.
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

U
T

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
8
6
2
1
5

W
i
l
l
i
f
o
r
d

L
og
g
i
n
g
,

I
n
c
.

B
e
r
t
i
e

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1
8

1
9

0

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

U
T

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
2
3
1
1
6

L
e
w
i
s
t
o
n
-
W
o
o
d
v
il
l
e
,

T
o
w
n

-

W
W
T
P

B
e
r
t
i
e

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

1

0
.
1
5

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r
NC
0
0
4
7
0
0
7

E
v
a
n
s

L
u
m
b
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,

I
n
c
.

B
e
r
t
i
e

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

2
2

1
6

1
9

1
4

n
o
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

U
T

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r
A-I-4
NPDES DISCHARGE CODES
INDICATING TYPES OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGED
1 Domestic Municipal 25 Seafood and Fish processing
2 Domestic Industrial / Commercial 26 Tobacco processing
3 Domestic Schools 27 Beverage production
5 Domestic Subdivisions 37 Oil separator
8 Domestic Mobile Home Parks 38 Oil refinery
9 Domestic Hospitals 40 Laundry waste
10 Domestic Restaurants 41 Mining and Material processing
11 Domestic Institutions (colleges, 42 Mine dewatering
prisons, nursing homes) 50 Printing and Publishing
13 Domestic Lodging (hotels, motels, 55 Textiles
campgrounds, rest areas) 56 Metal plating
14 Non-Contact cooling water/condensate 57 Metal finishing
15 Contact cooling water 61 Car wash facilities
16 Boiler blowdown 63 Rubber processing
17 Cooling tower blowdown 64 Glass manufacturing
18 Pulp and Paper 68 Ash Ponds and Coal Piles
19 Wood products 69 Metal Cleaning (Steam Electric plants)
21 Water plants (Surface water) 70 Low-Volume Wastes (Steam Electric plants)
22 Water plants and Water conditioning 73 Stormwater
(Groundwater) 78 Other wastewater from Industrial and
23 Meat processing and rendering Commercial (Not otherwise listed)
24 Vegetable and Fruit processing
Table A-I-2 NPDES Individual Stormwater Dischargers in the Roanoke River Basin (as of January 2000)
Permit # Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County
NCS000229 Roanoke Valley Projects I & II Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000106 Champion International Corporation Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000124 Georgia-Pacific Corporation Chockoyotte Creek 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000166 Perdue - Lewiston UT Flag Run Gut 03-02-08 Bertie
NCS000197 Panda Rosemary LTD Partnership Roanoke Rapids MSSS to Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000289 Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Company UT Kehukee Swamp 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000325 Myers Industries - Patch Rubber UT Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000185 United Organics Corporation UT Roanoke River 03-02-09 Martin
NCS000189 Weyerhaeuser Company Roanoke River & Warren Neck Creek 03-02-09 Martin
Appendices
Appendix II
Biological Water Quality Data
Collected by DWQ
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections
Fish Community Collections
Fish Tissue Assessments
Lakes Assessments
A-II-1
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methodology and Bioclassification Criteria
Benthic macroinvertebrates can be collected using two sampling procedures. DWQ’s standard
qualitative sampling procedure includes 10 composite samples: two kick-net samples, three
bank sweeps, two rock or log washes, one sand sample, one leafpack sample, and visual
collections from large rocks and logs. The purpose of these collections is to inventory the
aquatic fauna and produce an indication of relative abundance for each taxon. Organisms are
classified as Rare (1-2 specimens), Common (3-9 specimens) or Abundant (≥10 specimens).
Several data analysis summaries (metrics) can be produced from standard qualitative samples to
detect water quality problems. These metrics are based on the idea that unimpaired streams and
rivers have many invertebrate taxa and are dominated by intolerant species. Conversely,
polluted streams have fewer numbers of invertebrate taxa and are dominated by tolerant species.
The diversity of the invertebrate fauna is evaluated using taxa richness counts; the tolerance of
the stream community is evaluated using a biotic index.
EPT taxa richness (EPT S) is used with DWQ criteria to assign water quality ratings
(bioclassifications). "EPT" is an abbreviation for Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera,
insect groups that are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution. Higher EPT taxa richness
values usually indicate better water quality. Water quality ratings are also based on the relative
tolerance of the macroinvertebrate community as summarized by the North Carolina Biotic Index
(NCBI). Both tolerance values for individual species and the final biotic index values have a
range of 0-10, with higher numbers indicating more tolerant species or more polluted conditions.
Water quality ratings assigned with the biotic index numbers are combined with EPT taxa
richness ratings to produce a final bioclassification, using criteria for mountain/piedmont/coastal
plain streams. EPT abundance (EPT N) and total taxa richness calculations also are used to help
examine between-site differences in water quality. If the EPT taxa richness rating and the biotic
index differ by one bioclassification, the EPT abundance value is used to determine the final site
rating.
Benthic macroinvertebrates can also be collected using the DWQ’s EPT sampling procedure.
Four composite samples are taken at each site instead of the 10 taken for the qualitative sample:
1 kick, 1 sweep, 1 leafpack and visual collections. Only intolerant EPT groups are collected and
identified, and only EPT criteria are used to assign a bioclassification.
The expected EPT taxa richness values are lower in small high quality mountain streams, <4
meters in width or with a drainage area <3.5 square miles. For these small mountain streams, an
adjustment to the EPT taxa richness values is made prior to applying taxa richness criteria. Both
EPT taxa richness and biotic index values also can be affected by seasonal changes. DWQ
criteria for assigning bioclassification are based on summer sampling (June-September). For
samples collected in other seasons, EPT taxa richness can be adjusted. The biotic index values
can also be seasonally adjusted for samples collected outside the summer season.
Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent to each
benthic sample. These bioclassifications primarily reflect the influence of chemical pollutants.
The major physical pollutant, sediment, is not assessed as well by a taxa richness analysis.
A-II-2
Swamp Streams
Extensive evaluation, conducted by DWQ, of swamp streams across eastern North Carolina
suggests that different criteria should be used to assess the condition of water quality in these
systems. Swamp streams are characterized by slower flow, lower dissolved oxygen, lower pH,
and sometimes very complex braided channels and dark-colored water. DWQ has developed
draft biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign bioclassifications to these
streams. However, validation of the swamp criteria will require collecting data for several years
from swamp stream reference sites. The criteria will remain in draft form until DWQ is better
able to evaluate such things as: year-to-year variation at reference swamp sites, effects of flow
interruption, variation among reference swamp sites, and the effect of small changes in pH on the
benthos community. Other factors, such as whether the habitat evaluation can be improved and
the role fisheries data should play in the evaluation, must also be resolved. While it may be
difficult to assign use support ratings to these swamp streams, these data can be used to evaluate
changes in a particular stream between dates or to evaluate effects of different land uses on water
quality within a relatively uniform ecoregion.
Draft swamp stream rating criteria evaluate swamp streams based on benthic macroinvertebrate
data (collected in winter), fish community data and a habitat score. Benthic data collected
outside of the winter high flow period are not used to assign ratings. At least two of the above
referenced data types must be collected in order to assign a rating. Each of these data types is
assigned a point value of 10 (Good), 5 (Fair) or 1 (Poor), and the points are averaged to assign an
overall site rating (OSR): Good-Excellent (>7.5), Fair-Good (5.0-7.5), Fair (2.0-4.9) and Poor
(<2.0). Ratings for the benthic macroinvertebrate communities are based entirely on the biotic
index value: Good <6.99, Fair 7.75-7.00, Poor >7.75. Deep (nonwadeable) coastal rivers with
little or no visible current have different EPT criteria that are being used on a provisional basis
until more data can be gathered.
Flow Measurement
Changes in the benthic macroinvertebrate community are often used to help assess between-year
changes in water quality. However, some between-year changes in the macroinvertebrate
community may be due largely to changes in flow. High flow years magnify the potential effects
of nonpoint source runoff, leading to scour, substrate instability and reduced periphyton. Low
flow years may accentuate the effects of point source dischargers by providing less dilution of
wastes.
For these reasons, all between-year changes in the biological communities are considered in light
of flow conditions (high, low or normal) for one month prior to the sampling date. Daily flow
information is obtained from the closest available USGS monitoring site and compared to the
long-term mean flows. High flow is defined as a mean flow >140% of the long-term mean for
that time period, usually July or August. Low flow is defined as a mean flow <60% of the long-
term mean, while normal flow is 60-140% of the mean. While broad scale regional patterns are
often observed, there may be large geographical variation within the state and large variation
within a single summer period.
A-II-3
Habitat Evaluation
DWQ has developed a habitat assessment form to better evaluate the physical habitat of a stream.
The habitat score has a potential range of 1-100, based on evaluation of channel modification,
amount of instream habitat, type of bottom substrate, pool variety, bank stability, light
penetration and riparian zone width. Higher numbers suggest better habitat quality, but no
criteria have been developed for assigning ratings indicating Excellent, Good, Fair or Poor
habitat.
A-II-4
Table A-II-1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Collected in the Roanoke River Basin, 1983 -
1999 (Current basinwide monitoring sites have the map number bolded.)
Subbasin/
Stream Location County
Site
No.
Index
No. Date
S/
EPT S
NCBI/
EPT BI
Bio
Class1
03-02-01
Dan R NC 704 Stokes B-1 22-(1) 08/99 85/41 4.19/3.30 G
08/94 57/28 3.84/3.51 G
07/90 94/48 4.48/3.68 E
07/88 89/38 4.06/2.98 G
07/86 84/37 4.00/3.17 G
08/84 86/36 4.66/3.58 G
Dan RSR 1695 Stokes B-2 22-8 08/99 72/37 4.57/3.95 G
08/94 45/20 4.75/3.87 G -F
North Double Cr SR 1504 Stokes B-3 22-10 08/99 -/25 -/3.97 G -F
08/94 -/17 -/4.63 F
UT Cascade Cr (fam ily cabins) Stokes B-4 06/95 37/15 4.34/1.96 G -F
Cascade Cr SR 2012 Stokes B-5 22-12-(2) 06/95 54/26 2.96/1.98 G
09/90 -/23 -/2.99 G -F
Cascade Cr Near SR 1001 Stokes B-6 22-12-(2) 03/91 -/26 -/2.94 G
09/90 -/26 -/3.48 G
Cascade Cr
(above sw imming lake)
Stokes B-7 22-12-1 06/95 69/31 3.35/1.77 E
03/93 -/34 -/1.61 E
08/91 -/26 -/1.59 G
03/91 -/35 -/1.69 E
09/90 -/22 -/1.88 G
Indian Cr (above trail)Stokes B-8 22-13-(1) 03/93 -/30 -/1.47 E
03/91 -/25 -/1.38 G
Indian Cr (below trail)Stokes B-9 22-13-(1) 03/93 -/34 -/1.54 E
03/91 -/27 -/1.22 E
09/90 -/26 -/2.57 E
Indian Cr SR 1001 Stokes B-10 22-13-(2) 09/90 -/22 -/2.33 G
Indian Cr SR 1487 Stokes B-11 22-13-(2) 09/90 -/27 -/2.76 G
Snow Cr SR 1673 Stokes B-12 22-20 08/00 G
08/99 -/18 -/4.37 F
08/94 -/22 -/4.00 G -F
Town Fk Cr SR 1970 Stokes B-13 22-25 09/95 -/7-/5.95 P
Town Fk Cr SR 1961 Stokes B-14 22-25 09/95 89/26 5.17/4.77 G -F
Town Fk Cr SR 1955 Stokes B-15 22-25 09/95 -/26 -/4.69 G -F
Town Fk Cr US 311 Stokes B-16 22-25 02/88 -/19 -/4.43 G -F
Town Fk Cr SR 1917 Stokes B-17 22-25 08/94 -/15 -/4.59 G -F
02/88 -/24 -/4.21 G -F
Neatm an Cr SR 1961 Stokes B-18 22-25-6 09/95 -/29 -/4.27 G
UT Dan R, US 311 Stokes B-19 22-(28.5) 02/87 -/21 -/4.00 G -F
UT Dan R (near raceway) Stokes B-20 22-(28.5) 02/87 -/15 -/4.40 F
03-02-02
Mayo RSR 1358 Rockingham B-1 22-30-(1) 08/99 70/32 4.26/3.44 G
08/94 64/38 3.60/3.24 G
08/89 79/42 4.78/4.02 G
03/89 96/54 3.72/2.85 G
07/87 87/40 4.78/4.10 G
07/86 102/37 5.07/3.95 G
Mayo R NC 770 Rockingham B-2 22-30-(1) 03/89 -/37 -/3.49 G -F
Mayo RUS 220 Bus R ockingham B-3 22-30-(1) 03/89 -/44 -/3.29 G -F
Mayo R NC 135 Rockingham B-4 22-30-(10) 08/89 -/28 -/4.12 G
Mayo RSR 2177 Rockingham B-5 22-30-(10) 08/99 52/21 5.22/4.25 G -F
09/94 71/33 4.70/4.33 G
03-02-03
Dan RSR 2150 Rockingham B-1 22-(31.5) 08/89 64/26 5.50/4.66 G
07/87 92/32 5.67/4.61 G
Dan RSR 1761 Rockingham B-2 22-(39) 08/91 55/26 5.07/4.30 E
07/87 68/26 5.14/4.15 G
07/86 61/20 5.87/4.64 G -F
09/84 56/17 5.71/4.41 G -F
08/83 65/22 5.53/4.70 G
A-II-5
Subbasin/
Stream Location County
Site
No.
Index
No. Date
S/
EPT S
NCBI/
EPT BI
Bio
Class1
03-02-03 (con’t)
Smith R (near NC/VA state line) VA 922 B-3 22-40-(1) 09/84 63/21 5.74/4.42 G -F
Smith R NC 14 R ockingham B-4 22-40-(3) 09/99 51/18 5.23/3.67 F
08/94 58/18 5.66/4.43 F
07/90 81/31 5.52/4.18 G -F
07/88 69/24 6.03/5.08 F
07/86 57/18 6.14/4.71 F
Wolf Island Cr NC 700 CaswellB-5 22-48 07/88 82/24 5.81/4.82 G
07/85 68/25 5.40/4.69 G
08/83 76/24 5.52/4.53 G
UT Hogans Cr VA 736 PittsylvaniaB-6 22-50 06/98 44/16 4.94/4.04 NR
11/96 48/12 6.15/4.71 NR
UT Hogans Cr (above ponds) O ff SR 1503 CaswellB-7 22-50 06/98 43/13 5.25/4.61 NR
11/96 36/10 6.13/4.92 NR
UT Hogans Cr (below ponds) O ff SR 1503 CaswellB-8 22-50 06/98 48/12 5.89/5.67 NR
11/96 41/76.42/3.95 NR
Jones Cr SR 2632 Rockingham B-9 22-50-3 01/92 -/29 -/4.56 G
Jones Cr SR 2571 Rockingham B-10 22-50-3 12/87 83/27 5.55/4.50 G
03-02-04
Dan R NC 57 CaswellB-1 22-39 08/99 66/32 5.42/4.54 G
Country Line Cr NC 57 CaswellB-2 22-56-(3.7) 08/94 -/14 -/4.42 G -F
07/90 73/26 5.51/4.52 G
07/87 78/26 5.77/4.95 G
08/83 72/19 5.80/4.34 G -F
03-02-05
H yco Cr (North Hyco Cr)US 158 CaswellB-1 22-58-1 08/94 -/10 -/5.93 F
07/90 65/20 5.91/5.27 G -F
07/87 74/23 5.86/5.15 G -F
07/86 78/21 5.88/5.07 G -F
Marlowe Cr SR 1322 Person B -2 22-58-12-6 08/99 53/96.34/5.74 F
08/94 33/56.90/6.49 P
03-02-06
Island Cr SR 1445 G ranvilleB-1 23-4 08/94 -/17 -/5.10 G -F
L Island Cr SR 1342 Vance B-2 23-4-3 05/88 -/21 -/4.88 G -F
Nutbush Cr (above W W TP) NC 39 Vance B-3 23-8-(1) 11/94 58/12 6.89/6.13 F
10/94 54/12 6.96/5.77 F
05/88 44/67.40/6.75 F
Nutbush Cr (below WWTP) Off NC 39 Vance B-4 23-8-(1) 11/94 48/77.19/6.20 F
Nutbush Cr SR 1317 Vance B-5 23-8-(1) 08/99 41/86.72/6.75 F
10/94 50/86.74/6.31 F
08/94 44/86.83/6.88 F
05/88 35/38.14/6.45 P
Anderson Swam p Cr I-85 Vance B-6 23-8-6-(1) 02/90 49/13 6.98/5.71 NR
UT Anderson Swamp Cr US 1/158 Vance B-7 23-8-6-(1) 02/90 18/27.55/7.75 NR
03-02-07
Smith Cr US 1Warren B-1 23-10 07/99 59/12 6.56/5.51 F
08/94 53/66.94/6.15 F
07/89 59/12 6.75/5.06 F
07/86 56/10 6.22/5.13 F
08/84 56/12 6.42/5.36 F
Sixpound Cr SR 1306 W arren B-2 23-13 07/99 54/14 5.50/5.04 G -F
08/94 -/12 -/5.32 F
03-02-08
Deep Cr US 158 Halifax B-1 23-24-(1) 07/99 58/11 6.40/5.17 NR
08/94 64/13 6.36/5.70 F
Roanoke R (below Weldon) US 158 Halifax B-2 23-(26) 09/94 45/16 5.29/4.68 G
Roanoke R (boat access),Halifax B-3 23-(26) 03/99 76/28 5.26/4.36 G
Roanoke RUS 258 Halifax B-4 23-(26) 07/99 41/19 5.21/4.76 G
03/99 67/30 5.37/4.72 G
09/94 45/16 4.90/4.28 G
A-II-6
Subbasin/
Stream Location County
Site
No.
Index
No. Date
S/
EPT S
NCBI/
EPT BI
Bio
Class1
03-02-08 (con’t)
Smith R (near NC/VA state line) VA 922 B-3 22-40-(1) 09/84 63/21 5.74/4.42 G -F
07/85 49/16 5.92/4.88 G -F
Q uankey Cr NC 903 Halifax B-5 23-30 02/99 40/96.66/5.92 NR
Q uankey Cr NC 561 Halifax B-6 23-30 09/99 -/9-/5.51 F
Q uankey Cr (above WWTP) Halifax B-7 23-30 12/92 51/76.55/5.69 F
Q uankey Cr (below WWTP) Halifax B-8 23-30 12/92 57/96.41/5.28 F
O coneechee Cr SR 1126 Northam pton B-9 23-31 02/99 22/46.48/6.85 NR
Conoconnara Swp NC 561, Halifax B-10 23-33 02/99 31/56.44/6.80 NR
07/84 39/37.49/6.26 NR
Kehukee Swp SR 1804 Halifax B-11 23-42 09/99 -/6-/6.19 NR
02/99 59/87.10/6.44 NR
03-02-09
Roanoke R (below Hamilton), NC 125/903 M artinB-1 23-(26) 03/99 61/23 5.82/4.80 G -F
09/94 51/19 5.21/4.39 G
Roanoke R (below William ston) US 17 M artinB-2 23-(26) 07/99 45/17 5.96/4.77 G -F
03/99 73/23 6.32/5.07 G -F
09/94 53/17 5.70/4.80 G -F
Indian Cr SR 1108 BertieB-3 23-47 03/97 30/17.40/7.78 NR
Conoho Cr NC 125/903 M artinB-4 23-49 02/99 29/37.28/7.56 NR
08/94 23/07.49/-NR
Conoho Cr SR 1417 M artinB-5 23-49 02/99 39/56.26/4.80 NR
Hardison Mill Cr NC 171 M artinB-6 23-50-3 02/99 24/27.69/7.65 NR
Hardison Mill Cr SR 1528 M artinB-7 23-50-3 02/99 27/37.28/7.65 NR
Deep Run Swp NC 171 M artinB-8 23-52-1-1 02/99 21/17.61/7.78 NR
Welch Cr SR 1552 M artinB-9 23-55 02/99 32/37.20/6.92 NR
Roanoke R NC 45 BertieB-10 23-(53) 07/99 59/97.35/6.56 NR
09/94 52/97.52/6.08 NR
06/92 60/87.48/5.82 NR
07/90 51/10 7.48/6.23 NR
07/88 60/77.93/6.62 NR
07/86 50/87.68/6.77 NR
07/85 37/48.16/6.50 NR
07/84 42/67.63/6.18 NR
07/83 38/68.07/5.42 NR
Conaby Cr SR 1114 W ashington B-11 23-56 04/94 68/57.015.89 NR
Conaby Cr SR 1325 W ashington B-12 23-56 04/94 41/07.44/-NR
03-02-10
Cashie R (above WWTP) off NC 11 BertieB-1 24-2-(1) 06/84 37/08.61/-NR
Cashie R (below WWTP) off NC 11 BertieB-2 24-2-(1) 06/84 41/08.39/-NR
Cashie RSR 1219 BertieB-3 24-2-(1) 02/99 41/67.47/7.23 NR
06/84 43/28.247.00 NR
07/83 34/28.54/7.00 NR
Cashie RSR 1257 BertieB-4 24-2-(1) 02/99 34/76.78/6.09 NR
Hoggard Mill Cr SR 1301 BertieB-5 24-2-6 02/99 46/76.74/6.37 NR
W ading Place Cr NC 308 BertieB-6 24-2-8 03/99 35/37.35/7.42 NR
Roquist Swp US 13/17 BertieB-7 24-2-8 02/99 31/46.98/5.48 NR
Cashie RSR 1500 BertieB-8 24-2-(9) 09/94 56/98.10/6.34 NR
1 E = Excellent, G = G ood,
G-F = G ood-Fair, F = Fair, P = Poor, and NR = Not Rated.
A-II-7
Fish Community Sampling Methodology and Bioclassification Criteria
At each sample site, a 600-foot section of stream is measured and selected. Fish in the
delineated stretch of stream are then collected using two backpack electrofishing units and two
persons netting the stunned fish. After collection, all readily identifiable fish are examined for
sores, lesions, fin damage, or skeletal anomalies, measured (total length to the nearest 1 mm),
and then released. Those fish that are not readily identifiable are preserved and returned to the
laboratory for identification, examination, and measurement. Detailed descriptions of the
sampling methods may be found on the Environmental Sciences Branch website:
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/IBI%20Methods%202.pdf.
The assessment of biological integrity using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI) is provided by the cumulative assessment of 12 parameters or metrics. The values
provided by the metrics are converted into scores on a 1, 3 or 5 scale. A score of 5 represents
conditions which would be expected for undisturbed reference streams in the specific river basin
or ecoregion, while a score of 1 indicates that the conditions deviate greatly from those expected
in undisturbed streams of the region. Each metric is designed to contribute unique information to
the overall assessment. The scores for all metrics are then summed to obtain the overall NCIBI
score. Finally, the score (an even number between 12 and 60) is then used to determine the
ecological integrity class, as proposed by Karr (1981), of the stream from which the sample was
collected (Table A-II-2).
Table A-II-2 Original Scores, Integrity Classes, and Class Attributes for Evaluating Fish
Communities Using Karr’s 1981 Index of Biotic Integrity
NCIBI
Scores
Integrity
Classes Class Attributes*
> 58 Excellent Comparable to the best situations without human disturbance. All regionally expected
species for the habitat and stream size, including the most intolerant forms are present,
along with a full array of size classes and a balanced trophic structure.
48-52 Good Species richness somewhat below expectation, especially due to the loss of the most
intolerant species; some species are present with less than optimal abundances or size
distributions; and the trophic structure shows some signs of stress.
40-44 Fair Signs of additional deterioration include the loss of intolerant species, fewer species,
and a highly skewed trophic structure.
28-34 Poor Dominated by omnivores, tolerant species, and habitat generalists; few top carnivores;
growth rates and condition factors commonly depressed; and diseased fish often
present.
< 22 Very Poor Few fish present, mostly introduced or tolerant species; and disease fin damage and
other anomalies are regular.
----- No fish Repeated sampling finds no fish.
* Over-lapping classes share attributes with classes greater than and less than the respective IBI score.
The NCIBI has been revised since the 1997 Standard Operating Procedures were printed
(NCDEHNR 1997). Recently, the focus of using and applying the NCIBI has been restricted to
wadeable streams that can be sampled by a crew of four persons. The bioclassifications and
criteria have also been re-calibrated against regional reference site data (Table A-II-3).
A-II-8
Table A-II-3 Revised Scores and Classes for Evaluating the Fish Community of a Wadeable
Stream Using the NCIBI in the Piedmont Portion of the Cape Fear, Neuse,
Roanoke and Tar River Basins
NCIBI Scores NCIBI Classes
> 54 Excellent
46 - 52 Good
40 - 44 Good-Fair
34 - 38 Fair
≤ 32 Poor
The definition of the piedmont for these four river basins is based upon a map of North Carolina
watersheds by Fels (1997). Specifically for the Roanoke River basin, the piedmont encompasses
the entire basin above Roanoke Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and
Halifax, NC.
Work began in 1998 to develop a fish community boat sampling method that could be used in
non-wadeable coastal plain streams. Plans are to sample 10-15 reference sites with the boat
method once it is finalized. As with the benthos in swamp streams, several years of reference
site data will be needed before criteria can be developed with confidence to evaluate the
biological integrity of large streams and rivers, like the Roanoke River, using the fish
community.
Table A-II-4 Fish Community Data Collected in the Roanoke River Basin, 1990-1999
(Sites sampled during the current five-year basinwide cycle are bolded.)
Subbasin Waterbody Station County Date NCIBI Rating
03-02-02 Paw Paw Cr SR 1360 Rockingham 08/90 Good
03-02-03 Wolf Island Cr NC 700 Caswell 10/94 Excellent
03-02-04 Cane Cr SR 1527 Caswell 10/94 Good-Fair
03-02-04 Country Line Cr NC 57 Caswell 09/94 Good
03-02-04 Moon Cr SR 1511 Caswell 09/94 Good
03-02-05 Marlowes Cr SR 1322 Person 09/94 Good-Fair
03-02-06 Grassy Cr SR 1300 Granville 06/99 Good
SR 1436 Granville 06/94 Good
03-02-06 Island Cr SR 1445 Granville 06/99 Excellent
06/94 Good
03-02-06 Nutbush Cr SR 1317 Vance 10/94 Good-Fair
03-02-07 Six Pound Cr SR 1306 Warren 05/94 Good-Fair
03-02-07 Smith Cr US 1 Warren 05/94 Good-Fair
03-02-08 Conoconnara Swp NC 561 Halifax 09/94 Not Rated
03-02-08 Deep Cr US 158 Halifax 09/94 Good
03-02-08 Kehukee Swp SR 1804 Halifax 10/94 Not Rated
03-02-08 Quankey Cr SR 1619 Halifax 09/94 Good-Fair
03-02-10 Cashie R SR 1257 Bertie 10/94 Not Rated
A-II-9
Fish Tissue Criteria
In evaluating fish tissue analysis results, several different types of criteria are used. Human
health concerns related to fish consumption are screened by comparing results with:
• Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended screening values.
• Criteria adopted by the North Carolina State Health Director.
Sample results which exceed these levels are a human health concern and are evaluated by the
NC Division of Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology at DWQ’s request. The FDA
levels were developed to protect humans from the chronic effects of toxic substances consumed
in foodstuffs, and thus, employ a "safe level" approach to fish tissue consumption. Presently, the
FDA has only developed metals criteria for mercury.
The EPA has recommended screening values for target analytes which are formulated from a risk
assessment procedure (EPA, 1995). These are the concentrations of analytes in edible fish tissue
that are of potential public health concern. DWQ compares fish tissue results with EPA
screening values to evaluate the need for further intensive site-specific monitoring.
Table A-II-5 Fish Tissue Criteria
Contaminant FDA
Action Levels
US EPA
Screening Values
NC
Health Director
Metals
Cadmium -- 10.0 --
Mercury 1.0 0.6 --
Selenium -- 50.0 5.0
Organics
Aldrin 0.3 -- --
Chlorpyrifos -- 30 --
Total chlordane 1 -- 0.08 --
Cis-chlordane 0.3 -- --
Trans-chlordane 0.3 -- --
Total DDT 2 -- 0.3 --
Dieldrin -- 0.007 --
Dioxins (total) -- 0.7 3.0
Endosulfan (I and II) -- 60.0 --
Endrin 0.3 3.0 --
Heptachlorepoxide -- 0.01 --
Hexachlorobenzene -- 0.07 --
Lindane -- 0.08 --
Mirex -- 2.0 --
Total PCBs -- 0.01 --
PCB-1254 2.0 -- --
Toxaphene -- 0.1 --
1 Total chlordane includes the sum of cis-and trans- isomers as well as nonachlor and oxychlordane.
2 Total DDT includes the sum of all its isomers and metabolites (i.e., p,p DDT, o,p DDT, DDE,
and DDD).
Note: All wet weight concentrations are reported in parts per million (ppm,
dioxin which is in parts per trillion (ppt, pg/g).
The North Carolina State Health Director has adopted a selenium limit of 5 µg/g for issuing an
advisory. Although the EPA has suggested a screening value of 0.7 ppt (pg/g) for dioxins, the
State of North Carolina currently uses a value of 3.0 ppt in issuing an advisory.
A-II-10
Table A-II-6 Wet Weight Concentrations of Mercury (Hg), Arsenic (As) and Cadmium (Cd) in
Fish Tissue from the Roanoke River Basin (1994 – 1999)
Subbasin/
Site CountyDate Species
Total
Length
(cm )
Weight
(g)
Hg
(
As
(
Cd
(
03-02-03
Dan River near Eden Rockingham 08/31/1999 Bluegill 16 77 0.05 ND
1 ND1
Channel catfish 35.5 358 0.10 ND ND
Golden redhorse 37.8 335 0.36 ND ND
Golden redhorse 33 387 0.17 ND ND
Golden redhorse 31.2 300 0.27 ND ND
Golden redhorse 33.5 378 0.23 ND ND
Golden redhorse 37.1 476 0.37 ND ND
Golden redhorse 34.3 426 0.17 ND ND
Largemouth bass 30 374 0.20 ND ND
Largemouth bass 28.2 304 0.13 ND ND
Largemouth bass 27.5 260 0.12 ND ND
Quillback 38.2 796 0.29 ND ND
Redbreast sunfish 16.3880.07 ND ND
Redbreast sunfish 13.2 44.20.10 ND ND
Redear sunfish 15.7 73.50.04 ND ND
Golden redhorse 37.8 414 0.22 ND ND
Snail bullhead 30.1 369 0.03 ND ND
Snail bullhead 31 346 0.03 ND ND
White catfish 29 334 0.16 ND ND
03-02-06
Kerr Lake at m outh
of Nutbush Cr
Vance 05/20/1999 Bluegill 18.4 125 0.12 ND ND
Chain pickerel 57 1552 0.39 ND ND
Chain pickerel 53 1219 0.31 ND ND
Largemouth bass 46.5 1470 0.56 ND ND
Largemouth bass 42 1121 0.51 ND ND
Largemouth bass 43.8 984 0.65 ND ND
Largemouth bass 38 671 0.41 ND ND
Largemouth bass 38.5 767 0.59 ND ND
Largemouth bass 31 500 0.35 ND ND
Largemouth bass 33.6 477 0.52 ND ND
Largemouth bass 30.5 412 0.34 ND ND
Largemouth bass 31.5 423 0.26 ND ND
Largemouth bass 29.5 401 0.28 ND ND
Redear sunfish 27.5 377 0.06 ND ND
Redear sunfish 26.8 419 0.11 ND ND
Redear sunfish 22 179 0.08 ND ND
White catfish 27 241 0.34 ND ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 70
Striped bass 467
Striped bass 48.2
Striped bass 42.5
Striped bass 73.2
Striped bass 41
Striped bass 77.1
Striped bass 65
Striped bass 44.6
Striped bass 67
Striped bass 41.7
Striped bass 44.3
Striped bass 74.8
Striped bass 39.5
Striped bass 42.4
Striped bass 70.1
Striped bass 72.2
Striped bass 44.5
Striped bass 78.2
A-II-11
Subbasin/
Site CountyDate Species
Total
Length
(cm )
Weight
(g)
Hg
(
As
(
Cd
(
03-02-07
Lake Gaston near Halifax 07/08/1999 Bluegill 17.5 104.60.05 ND ND
Henrico Bluegill 18.1 119.30.05 ND ND
Bluegill 14.8 76.50.03 ND ND
Channel catfish 49.2 1096 0.05 ND ND
Channel catfish 48.2 1013 0.21 ND ND
Channel catfish 48.5 1172 0.05 ND ND
Channel catfish 43.5 804 0.10 ND ND
Channel catfish 47.8 1136 0.07 ND ND
Largemouth bass 25 212 0.07 ND ND
Largemouth bass 29.5 343 0.10 ND ND
Largemouth bass 31.1 423 0.07 ND ND
Largemouth bass 36.2 612 0.29 ND ND
Largemouth bass 42.6 962 0.37 ND ND
Largemouth bass 38.2 797 0.19 ND ND
Largemouth bass 37.4 728 0.14 ND ND
Largemouth bass 40.1 979 0.24 ND ND
Largemouth bass 45.3 1077 0.20 ND ND
Largemouth bass 45 1585 0.27 ND ND
Yellow perch 19.7 87.30.05 ND ND
Yellow perch 24.4 169 0.12 ND ND
03-02-08
Roanoke River at
Weldon
Halifax 05/19/99 Bluegill 14.9 66.60.07 ND ND
Bluegill 15.7 77.50.06 ND ND
Black crappie 25.1 254 0.28 ND ND
Largemouth bass 43.1 1193 0.57 ND ND
Largemouth bass 40.7 1095 0.33 ND ND
Largemouth bass 38.2 657 0.43 ND ND
Largemouth bass 30.2 371 0.29 ND ND
Largemouth bass 32.3 412 0.43 ND ND
Largemouth bass 29.3 330 0.33 ND ND
Largemouth bass 25.3 244.50.23 ND ND
Largemouth bass 21.9 139.50.18 ND ND
Redbreast sunfish 17 92 0.10 ND ND
Striped bass 47.5 1256 0.20 ND ND
Striped bass 43.8 986 0.21 ND ND
Striped bass 45.3 907 0.24 ND ND
Striped bass 42.8 732 0.20 ND ND
Striped bass 39.7 661 0.19 ND ND
Striped bass 43.1 1540 0.51 ND ND
White catfish 37.5 575 0.07 ND ND
White catfish 33.8 528 0.15 ND ND
Yellow perch 23.8 188 0.17 ND ND
09/20/1995 Bowfin 39.5 621 0.13 ----
Bowfin 42 686 0.13 ----
Bowfin 46 992 0.11 ----
Bowfin 53.5 1223 0.67 ----
Bowfin 64 2701 0.68 ----
Bowfin 57.5 2394 0.56 ----
A-II-12
Subbasin/
Site CountyDate Species
Total
Length
(cm )
Weight
(g)
Hg
(
As
(
Cd
(
03-02-08 (con’t)
Roanoke River at
Scotland Neck
Halifax 05/19/99 Bowfin 58 1847 0.52 ND ND
Bowfin 55 1417 0.47 ND ND
Bowfin 60.1 2010 1.1ND ND
Bowfin 50 1100 0.39 ND ND
Bowfin 54.9 1429 0.41 ND ND
Bowfin 49.5 1349 0.57 ND ND
Bluegill 17.5 116 0.14 ND ND
Channel catfish 54.8 1654 0.15 ND ND
Channel catfish 43.5 641 0.10 ND ND
Largemouth bass 40.2 966 0.71 ND ND
Largemouth bass 32.5 533 0.46 ND ND
Largemouth bass 31.2 412 0.52 ND ND
Redbreast sunfish 18.9 167 0.06 ND ND
Striped bass 49 1245 0.26 ND ND
Striped bass 45.2 1004 0.28 ND ND
Striped bass 48 1128 0.20 ND ND
Striped bass 47 1082 0.11 ND ND
Striped bass 45 1054 0.18 ND ND
Striped bass 43.2 835 0.15 ND ND
Striped bass 43.5 901 0.10 ND ND
Striped bass 41.1 652 0.26 ND ND
White catfish 36 712 0.42 ND ND
White catfish 28.7 305.50.19 ND ND
03-02-09
Roanoke River at
Plym outh
Washington 07/21/1999 Bowfin 55.5 1738 0.56 ND ND
Bowfin 52.5 1321 0.47 ND ND
Bowfin 45.7 837 0.50 ND ND
Bowfin 42.5 690 0.31 ND ND
Bluegill 17.9 133.60.07 ND ND
Chain pickerel 47.8 640 0.64 ND ND
Largemouth bass 41.6 1165 0.44 ND ND
Largemouth bass 44.1 1282 0.53 ND ND
Largemouth bass 39.3 924 0.68 ND ND
Largemouth bass 37.6 759 0.48 ND ND
Largemouth bass 37.2 797 0.40 ND ND
Largemouth bass 37.1 821 0.64 ND ND
Largemouth bass 39 619 0.84 ND ND
Largemouth bass 37.6 703 0.49 ND ND
Largemouth bass 33.2 484 0.42 ND ND
Largemouth bass 28.9 342 0.45 ND ND
Largemouth bass 36.2 639 0.36 ND ND
Redear sunfish 25.5 313 0.13 ND ND
Redear sunfish 26.1 338 0.22 ND ND
Redear sunfish 19.4 140 0.12 ND ND
Yellow perch 23.6 190.30.20 3.9ND
Yellow perch 20.1 119 0.16 ND ND
07/06/1995 Bowfin 44.8 900 0.43 ----
Bowfin 54 1500 0.37 ----
Bowfin 54.7 1700 0.45 ----
Bowfin 52.1 1200 0.6----
Bowfin 67.1 3000 1 ----
Bowfin 69.5 3500 1.5----
Bowfin 72.6 3900 1.2----
A-II-13
Subbasin/
Site CountyDate Species
Total
Length
(cm )
Weight
(g)
Hg
(
As
(
Cd
(
03-02-09 (con’t)
Roanoke River at US-17 M artin 07/06/1999 Bowfin 57.3 1815 0.65 ND ND
Bowfin 57 1959 0.76 ND ND
Bowfin 65.1 2633 1.3ND ND
Bluegill 23 290 0.30 ND ND
Bluegill 18.8 150.50.30 ND ND
Bluegill 17.6 132 0.17 ND ND
Bluegill 16.8990.27 ND ND
Largemouth bass 44.8 1226 1.3ND ND
Largemouth bass 42.1 1090 1.4ND ND
Largemouth bass 36.5 853 0.86 ND ND
Largemouth bass 39.7 894 0.94 ND ND
Largemouth bass 37.1 850 0.76 ND ND
Largemouth bass 35.1 692 0.94 ND ND
Largemouth bass 33 574 0.82 ND ND
Largemouth bass 33.8 704 0.75 ND ND
Largemouth bass 33 525 0.68 ND ND
Largemouth bass 26.4 253 0.44 ND ND
Largemouth bass 22.5 155 0.35 ND ND
Redear sunfish 20.9 187 0.19 ND ND
White catfish 38 768 0.64 ND ND
White catfish 35 588 0.67 ND ND
White catfish 36.2 610 0.39 ND ND
White catfish 33.1 518 0.67 ND ND
White catfish 33.2 408 0.31 ND ND
07/06/1995 Bowfin 51.1 110 0.85 ----
Bowfin 53 1200 0.84 ----
Bowfin 54.5 1300 0.85 ----
Bowfin 53.3 1300 0.84 ----
Bowfin 54.1 1200 0.98 ----
Bowfin 69.5 2800 2.4----
Bowfin 58.1 1700 1.2----
Bowfin 67.3 2400 2.2----
03-02-10
Cashie River at Windsor Bertie 07/21/1999 Bowfin 54.5 1426 1.5ND ND
Bowfin 53 1495 1.5ND ND
Bowfin 53 1468 1.3ND ND
Bowfin 50.5 1239 1.0ND ND
Bowfin 41 663 0.69 ND ND
Bowfin 41.5 649 0.67 ND ND
Bluegill 22.1 202 0.68 ND ND
Bluegill 16.8 205 0.31 ND ND
Bluegill 15.5780.20 ND ND
Black crappie 22.1 183.50.45 ND ND
Black crappie 19.9 118 0.24 ND ND
Brown bullhead 37.5 694.30.17 ND ND
Chain pickerel 39.6 435 0.80 ND ND
Largemouth bass 50.7 2201 1.4ND ND
Largemouth bass 51.5 2185 1.9ND ND
Largemouth bass 42 1088 0.64 ND ND
Largemouth bass 33.7 503 1.1ND ND
Largemouth bass 29 350 0.58 ND ND
Largemouth bass 30.1 420 0.44 ND ND
Largemouth bass 27 285 0.42 ND ND
Largemouth bass 29.8 325 0.65 ND ND
Largemouth bass 27.4 279 0.44 ND ND
Largemouth bass 25.1 219 0.49 ND ND
Yellow bullhead 32.3 498 0.56 ND ND
1 ND = non-detect; detection level for arsenic = 1.0
A-II-14
Table A-II-7 Wet Weight Concentrations of PCBs in Fish Tissue from John H. Kerr Reservoir
at the Mouth of Nutbush Creek, Vance County (1999)
Date
Sam pled Species Total
Length (mm)
Weight
(g)
PCB
(1
01/28/1999 Striped bass 467 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 482 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 425 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 732 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 410 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 771 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 650 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 446 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 670 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 417 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 443 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 748 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 395 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 424 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 701 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 722 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 445 --- ND
01/28/1999 Striped bass 782 --- 0.162
01/28/1999 Striped bass 700 --- 0.222
05/20/1999 Largemouth bass 465 1470 ND
05/20/1999 Largemouth bass 420 1121 ND
05/20/1999 Largemouth bass 438 984 ND
05/20/1999 Largemouth bass 380 671 ND
05/20/1999 Largemouth bass 385 767 ND
1 ND = not detected; detection level was 0.125
A-II-15
Lakes Assessments
Numerical indices are often used to evaluate the trophic state of lakes. An index was developed
specifically for North Carolina lakes as part of the state’s original Clean Lakes Classification
Survey. The North Carolina Trophic State Index (NCTSI) is based on total phosphorus (TP in
mg/l), total organic nitrogen (TON in mg/l), Secchi depth (SD in inches), and chlorophyll a
(CHL in µg/L). Lakewide means for these parameters are used to produce a NCTSI score for
each lake, using the equations:
TONScore = ((Log (TON) + 0.45)/0.24)*0.90
TPScore = ((Log (TP) + 1.55)/0.35)*0.92
SDScore = ((Log (SD) – 1.73)/0.35)*-0.82
CHLScore = ((Log (CHL) – 1.00)/0.48)*0.83
NCTSI= TONScore + TPScore + SDScore + CHLScore
In general, NCTSI scores relate to trophic classifications (Table A-II-8). When scores border
between classes, best professional judgment is used to assign an appropriate classification.
NCTSI scores may be skewed by highly colored water typical of dystrophic lakes. Some
variation in the trophic state of a lake between years is not unusual because of the potential
variability of data collections which usually involve sampling a limited number of times during
the growing season.
Table A-II-8 Lakes classification criteria
NCTSI Score Trophic Classification
< -2.0 Oligotrophic
-2.0 – 0.0 Mestrophic
0.0 – 5.0 Eutrophic
> 5.0 Hypereurtrophic
Appendices
Appendix III
Use Support Methodology
and
Use Support Ratings
A-III-1
DRAFT June 4, 2001
A. Introduction to Use Support
Surface waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Determining how well a
waterbody supports its uses (use support status) is an important method of interpreting water
quality data and assessing water quality.
Surface waters are rated fully supporting (FS), partially supporting (PS) or not supporting (NS).
The terms refer to whether the classified uses of the water (i.e., aquatic life protection, recreation
and water supply) are being met. For example, waters classified for fishing and secondary
contact recreation (Class C for freshwater or SC for saltwater) are rated FS if data used to
determine use support did not exceed specific criteria. However, if these criteria were exceeded,
then the waters would be rated as PS or NS, depending on the degree of degradation. Waters
rated PS or NS are considered to be impaired. Waters lacking data, or having inconclusive data,
are listed as not rated (NR). More specific methods are presented in Part C of this appendix.
Historically, the non-impaired category was subdivided into fully supporting and fully
supporting but threatened (ST). ST was used to identify waters that were fully supporting but
had some notable water quality concerns and could represent constant, degrading or improving
conditions. North Carolina’s past use of ST was very different from that of the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which uses it to identify waters that demonstrate
declining water quality (EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water
Quality Assessments [305(b) Reports] and Electronic Updates, 1997). Given the difference
between the EPA and North Carolina definitions of ST and the resulting confusion that arises
from this difference, North Carolina no longer subdivides the non-impaired category. However,
these waters and the specific water quality concerns remain identified in the basin plans so that
data, management and the need to address the identified concerns are not lost.
B. Interpretation of Data and Information
Data used in the use support assessments include biological data, chemical/physical data, lakes
assessment data, fish consumption advisories from the NC Department of Health and Human
Services, and swimming advisories and shellfish sanitation surveys from the NC Division of
Environmental Health (as appropriate). Available land cover and land use information is also
used, along with water supply reports from regional water treatment plant consultants.
Although there is a general procedure for analyzing the data and information for determining use
support ratings, each waterbody is reviewed individually, and best professional judgment is
applied during these determinations. Assessments are made on either a monitored (M) or
evaluated (E) basis depending on the level of information available. Refer to Part E for more
information on the basis of assessments.
When interpreting the use support ratings, it is important to understand its associated limitations
and degree of uncertainty. The assessments are not intended to provide precise conclusions
about pollutant budgets for specific watersheds. Rather, the intent of use support assessments is
A-III-2
to gain an overall picture of water quality, to describe how well surface waters support the uses
for which they were classified, and to document the potential contribution made by different
pollution sources.
C. Assessment Methodology
Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk through several use support categories. Six categories
are used to assess this approach: aquatic life and secondary recreation, fish consumption,
shellfish harvesting, primary recreation, water supply and "other" uses. These categories are tied
to the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams. A single water could have more
than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the multiple use support categories,
as shown in the table below. For many waters, a use support category will not be applicable
(N/A) to the best use classification of that water (e.g., swimming is not a best use of a Class C
water). A full description of the stream classifications is available in the DWQ document titled:
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Use Support Categories
Primary
Classification
Ecosystem
Approach
Human Health
Approach
Aquatic
Life/Secondary
Recreation
Fish
Consumption
Primary
Recreation
Water
Supply
Shellfish
Harvesting
Other
C X X N/A N/A N/A X
SC X X N/A N/A N/A X
BXXXN/AN/AX
SB X X X N/A N/A X
SA X X X N/A X X
WS I – WS IV X X N/A X N/A X
Many types of information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify causes and
sources of use support impairment. A use support data file is maintained for each of the 17 river
basins. In these files, stream segments are listed as individual records. All existing data
pertaining to a stream segment are entered into its record. The following describes the data and
methodologies used to make use support assessments for the surface water classifications
(described in Section A, Chapter 3) using the six use support categories. These methods will
continue to be refined, as additional information becomes available.
Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Use Support
The aquatic life and secondary recreation use support category is an ecosystem approach to
assess whether aquatic life (benthic macroinvertebrates and fish) can live in and reproduce in the
waters of the state and whether waters support secondary recreation (i.e., wading, boating and
minimal human body contact with water). This category is applied to all waters of the state.
Biological data, ambient monitoring data and NPDES discharger data are all considered in
A-III-3
assessing the aquatic life and secondary recreation use support category. The following is a
description of each data type and methods used to assess how well a water is meeting the criteria
for aquatic life and secondary recreation protection.
Biological Data
There are two main types of biological data: benthic marcoinvertebrates and fish community.
Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both
are evaluated in assessing use support. It is important to note that where both ambient data and
biological data are available, biological data are given greater weight.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioclassification
Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent to each
benthic macroinvertebrate sample based on the number of taxa present in the pollution intolerant
aquatic insects groups of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPTs) and the Biotic
Index (BI), which summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in each collection. The benthos
bioclassifications are translated to use support ratings according to the following scheme:
Bioclassification Use Support Rating
Excellent Fully Supporting (FS)
Good Fully Supporting (FS)
Good-Fair Fully Supporting (FS)
Fair Partially Supporting (PS)
Poor Not Supporting (NS)
Due to the increased emphasis put on Fair or Poor bioclassifications and the borderline nature of
some bioclassifications, sites should be resampled within 12-24 months after a Fair rating is
obtained in 1999 and beyond, if this Fair rating will result in a lower use support rating or if data
are from a site never sampled before. This resampling will be done to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will not be given a use support rating until the second sample is
obtained. The table below shows how a final use support rating is obtained for sites that are
resampled.
A-III-4
New Benthic Macroinvertebrate Classifications (1999 and Beyond)
and Data Causing a Decline in Use Support Ratings
Pre-1999
Bioclassification
1st sample
Bioclassification
Draft Use
Support Rating
2nd sample
Bioclassification
Final Use
Support Rating
N/A Fair NR; resample Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
FS
N/A Fair NR; resample Fair PS
N/A Fair NR; resample Poor NS
N/A Poor NS N/A NS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair NR; resample Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
FS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair NR; resample Fair PS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair NR; resample Poor NS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Poor NS N/A NS
N/A – Not Applicable NR = Not Rated
The use of benthic macroinvertebrate data can be limited in some waters. The accumulation of
swamp stream data over nearly a decade suggests that not all swamp streams support similar
fauna. The development of swamp stream criteria is complex, and one set of criteria is likely not
appropriate for all swamp streams. Benthic macroinvertebrate data will not be used in waters
characterized or classified by DWQ as swamp waters until the biological rating criteria for these
waters can be used with confidence.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data are not used to develop use support ratings for estuarine waters
because the data have not been found to be suitable for use support assessment due to the
influence of salinity and bottom substrate on the benthic community structure and the difficulty
in determining the aerial extent of a rating from an estuarine macroinvertebrate site.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data are use to provide bioclassifications for high elevation trout
streams. These benthos data, while not a direct measure of the trout population, are a robust
measure of stream integrity. Loss of canopy, increase in stream temperature, increased nutrients,
toxicity and increased sedimentation will affect the benthos and fish community. For these
reasons, the benthos bioclassifications provide a valuable assessment of the integrity of trout
waters.
Fish Community Bioclassification
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream’s
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The index
incorporates information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic
function, abundance and condition, and reproductive function. The index is translated to use
support rating according to the following scheme:
A-III-5
NCIBI Use Support Rating
Excellent Fully Supporting (FS)
Good Fully Supporting (FS)
Good-Fair Fully Supporting (FS)
Fair Partially Supporting (PS)
Poor Not Supporting (NS)
The NCIBI was recently revised by DWQ (NCDENR, 2001). Currently, the focus of using and
applying the NCIBI is restricted to wadeable streams that can be sampled by a crew of four
persons. Infrequently, larger wadeable streams can be sampled if there is a crew of six persons.
The bioclassifications and criteria have also been recalibrated against regional reference site data
(BAU, 2000a, 2000b and 2001).
Criteria and ratings are applicable only to wadeable streams in the following river basins: Broad,
Catawba, Savannah, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamilco, French Broad,
Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga. In the Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar
River basins, the criteria and ratings are only applicable to streams in the piedmont portion of
these basins. The definition of the "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of
North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically:
• In the Cape Fear River basin -- except for the streams draining the Sandhills in Moore, Lee
and Harnett counties; the entire basin upstream of Lillington, NC.
• In the Neuse River basin -- the entire basin above Smithfield and Wilson, NC, except for the
south and southwest portions of Johnston County and the eastern two-thirds of Wilson
County.
• In the Roanoke River basin -- the entire basin in North Carolina upstream of Roanoke
Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and Halifax, NC.
• In the Tar-Pamlico River basin -- the entire basin above Rocky Mount, NC, except for the
lower southeastern one-half of Halifax County and the extreme eastern portion of Nash
County.
Criteria and ratings have not been developed for:
• Streams in the Broad, Catawba, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Savannah, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little
Tennessee, New and Watauga River basins which are characterized as wadeable first to third
order streams with small watersheds, naturally low fish species diversity, cold water
temperatures, and high gradient plunge-pool flows. Such streams are typically thought of as
"Southern Appalachian Trout Streams".
• Wadeable streams in the Sandhills ecoregion of the Cape Fear, Lumber and Yadkin-Pee Dee
River basins.
• Wadeable streams and swamps in the coastal plain region of the Cape Fear, Chowan,
Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak River basins.
• All non-wadeable and large streams and rivers throughout the state.
A-III-6
New Fish Community Classifications (1999 and Beyond)
and Data Causing a Decline in Use Support Ratings
Pre-1999
Bioclassification
1st sample
Bioclassification
Draft Use
Support Rating
2nd sample
Bioclassification
Final Use Support
Rating
N/A Fair NR; resample Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
FS
N/A Fair NR; resample Fair PS
N/A Fair NR; resample Poor NS
N/A Poor NS N/A NS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair NR; resample Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
FS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair NR; resample Fair PS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Fair NR; resample Poor NS
Good-Fair, Good
or Excellent
Poor NS N/A NS
N/A = Not Applicable; NR = Not Rated; FS = Fully Supporting, PS = Partially Supporting, and NS = Not Supporting.
Ambient Monitoring Data
Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring
System. These data are downloaded from the ambient database, the Surface Water Information
Management System, for analysis. Total number of samples and percent of samples exceeding
the NC standards are used for use support ratings along with other data or alone when other data
are not available. Where both ambient data and biological data are available, biological data are
given greater weight.
When reviewing ambient data, a five-year window of data that ends on August 31 of the year of
biological sampling is used. For example, if a basin is sampled in 2000, then the five-year
window for the basin would be September 1, 1995 to August 31, 2000. Selected ambient
parameters are used to assess aquatic life/secondary recreation use support. These parameters
include NH3, dissolved oxygen, pH, Cl, As, Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb. These parameters are measured
against standards for a minimum of ten samples as follows:
Standards Violation Rating
Criterion exceeded ≤10% Fully Supporting
Criterion exceeded 11-25% Partially Supporting
Criterion exceeded >25% Not Supporting
Data for copper, iron and zinc are not used according to the percent criterion exceeded scheme
outlined above. These metals have action level standards because they are generally not
bioaccumulative and have variable toxicity to aquatic life depending on chemical form, solubility
and stream characteristics. In order for an action level standard to be violated, there must be a
toxicological test that documents an impact on a sensitive aquatic organism. The action level
standard is used to screen waters for potential problems with copper, iron and zinc.
A-III-7
Metals data for Cu and Fe are screened at the 85th percentile of five years of ambient data ending
on August 31 of the year of biological sampling. Sites, other than estuarine and swamp waters,
with an 85th percentile of
instream chronic toxicity testing by DWQ. Chronic toxicity testing in estuarine and swamp
waters is not ecologically meaningful. Criteria are still being developed for zinc. If a stream
does not have biological data that would deem a FS rating, then the stream can be rated PS or NS
for aquatic life if instream chronic toxicity is found. Criteria for evaluating instream chronic
toxicity are three chronic pass/fail tests over three months using Ceriodaphnia. Three fails result
in a NS rating, and two fails result in a PS rating.
It is important to note that some waters may exhibit characteristics outside the appropriate
standards due to natural conditions (e.g., many swamp waters are characterized by low pH and
dissolved oxygen). These natural conditions do not constitute a violation of water quality
standards.
NPDES Discharger Data
Aquatic Toxicity Data
For facilities that perform Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests per state NPDES discharge
permit requirements, a review of the results of a five-year window of data that ends on August 31
of the year of biological sampling is used. For example, if a basin is sampled in 2000, then the
five-year window for the basin would be September 1, 1995 to August 31, 2000. If a stream
with a WET test facility has not been sampled for instream chronic toxicity, biological
community data or has no ambient data, and that facility has
the stream is not rated. If failures continue, DWQ will work with the facility to correct the
failures and assess stream impacts before the next basin sampling cycle begins with either a
biological survey or instream chronic toxicity testing, if possible.
Discharge Effluent Data
NPDES effluent data are reviewed by analyzing monthly averages of water quality parameters
over a two-year period (date ending on August 31 of the year of biological sampling). Prior to
May 31, 2000, facilities are screened for criterion 40% in excess of state standards for
conventional pollutant limitations or 20% in excess of state standards for toxic pollutants for two
or more months during two consecutive quarter review periods or chronic violations of either
conventional or toxic pollutant limitations for four or more months during 2 consecutive quarter
review periods. After May 31, 2000, facilities are screened for criterion 20% in excess of state
standards for both conventional and toxic pollutants for two or more months during two
consecutive quarter review periods or chronic violations of either conventional or toxic pollutant
limitations for four or more months during 2 consecutive quarter review periods. Streams with
discharges that are in excess of permit limits will not be rated if no biological or ambient
monitoring data are available. Therefore, streams will not be rated PS or NS based on effluent
data alone. Appropriate DWQ staff will be given a list of these facilities for follow-up.
In special situations, where there are currently insufficient biological data available, the
basinwide planner will make a request of the DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch to determine
whether a biological survey is appropriate. If a biological survey is appropriate, the stream
A-III-8
rating will be determined by the bioclassification resulting from the survey. If a biological
survey is not appropriate, then the stream will be given a NR rating.
Problem Parameters
Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is listed in the
DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified by
DWQ biologists based on site visits, it is listed and attempts are made to identify the type of
habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation, loss of woody habitat, loss of pools, loss of riffles,
channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, streambed scour and bank erosion). Habitat
evaluation methods are being developed to better identify specific types of habitat degradation.
Sources
General nonpoint sources (NP) and point sources (P) of pollution are identified where there is
sufficient information.
Basis of Assessment
FS ratings are extrapolated up tributaries from monitored streams when no problematic
dischargers or change in land use/cover are identified. The FS rating may be applied to
unmonitored tributaries where there is little land disturbance (e.g., national forests). Problem
parameters or sources (except general NPS) are not applied to unmonitored tributaries. PS or NS
ratings are not extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries. Refer to Part E for more information.
Fish Consumption Use Support
The fish consumption use support category is a human health approach to assess whether humans
can safely consume fish from a water. This use support category is applied to all waters of the
state. The use support rating is assigned using fish consumption advisories issued by the NC
Department of Health and Human Services.
If a limited fish consumption advisory is posted at the time of use support assessment, the water
is rated PS. If a no consumption advisory is posted at the time of use support assessment, the
water is rated NS. The current statewide fish consumption advisory for bowfin due to elevated
levels of mercury in fish tissue is an exception. For this reason, the fish consumption use support
rating for all waters of the state is PS. However, it is recognized that bowfin only live and
reproduce in waters of the piedmont and coastal plain. In order to separate out other fish
consumption advisories and to identify actual bowfin populations with high levels of mercury,
only waters with fish tissue monitoring data are presented on the use support maps and in the use
support summary tables. A review of the present methods for assessing the fish consumption use
support category is being conducted, and methods could be modified to take in account fish
tissue and fish population data.
Only those waters that have been monitored for fish tissue and do not have an advisory are rated
FS. Only waters sampled from 1989 on are considered, because these waters were sampled
using more rigorous methods than those sampled before this date. All waters not monitored or
evaluated and without advisories are not rated.
A-III-9
Primary Recreation Use Support
In addition to the use support categories applicable to Class C and SC waters, the primary
recreation use support category will be assessed for all Class B, Class SA and Class SB waters
where data are available. This use support category is a human health approach to assess
whether waters support primary recreation activities such as swimming, water-skiing, skin
diving, and similar uses involving human body contact in an organized or frequent basis. The
use support rating is based on swimming advisories issued by local health departments and by
the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH) beach monitoring program.
Freshwaters
Fecal coliform bacteria data are used to assess Class B waters. Each January, the geometric
mean for ambient stations in Class B waters for the prior sampling year is obtained and a screen
is conducted for waters with geometric means >200 colonies per 100 ml. Monitored Class B
waters are rated FS if the geometric mean is
>200 colonies per 100 ml during the past year, fecal coliform bacteria are noted as a problem
parameter, and a request is made of the DWQ regional office to sample this water 5 times/30
days in June during non-runoff events, if possible. If this 5 times/30-day monitoring, as required
to assess the NC standard, indicates a geometric mean above 200 colonies per 100 ml, then the
data are sent to DEH for consideration of posting swimming advisories. The DWQ regional
office should continue to sample the stream 5 times/30 days during the months of July and
August and send the data to DEH. Because North Carolina’s fecal coliform bacteria standard is
200 colonies per 100 ml for the geometric mean of five samples taken in a thirty-day period,
fecal coliform bacteria are listed as a cause of impairment for the 303(d) list only when
additional sampling has determined that the standard is being exceeded.
If a water is posted with an advisory for at least two months in the past five years ending on
August 31 of the year of biological sampling, it is rated as PS unless DEH staff believes that the
cause of fecal problems is not persistent. Those waters posted as “Do Not Swim” for more than
two months in the past five years are rated NS. Class B waters without fecal or advisory data are
not rated.
DWQ attempts to determine if there are any inland swimming areas monitored by county or local
health departments. County or local health departments are asked to list those waters with
swimming advisories posted for at least two months in the past five years ending on August 31
of the year of biological sampling.
Estuarine waters
DEH fecal coliform data are used to assess estuarine (SA and SB) waters. Each January, DEH
submits a letter to DWQ stating which coastal waters were posted with an advisory reporting an
increased risk from swimming during the prior year. Those Class SA or SB waters with an
advisory for at least two months in the past five years ending on August 31 of the year of
biological sampling are rated PS, unless DEH staff believes that the cause of fecal problems is
not persistent. Those waters posted as “Do Not Swim” for more than two months in the past five
years are rated NS. If DEH has no data on a water, that water will not be rated. If ambient data
show fecal coliform bacteria geometric mean of >200 colonies per 100 ml, then a request is
A-III-10
made of the DWQ regional office to sample this water 5 times/30 days in June during non-runoff
events, if possible. If this 5 times/30-day monitoring, as required to assess the NC standard,
indicates a geometric mean above 200 colonies per 100 ml, then the data are sent to DEH for
consideration of posting swimming advisories. The DWQ regional office should continue to
sample the water 5 times/30 days during the months of July and August and send the data to
DEH. Because North Carolina’s fecal coliform bacteria standard is 200 colonies per 100 ml for
the geometric mean of five samples taken in a thirty-day period, fecal coliform bacteria are listed
as a cause of impairment for the 303(d) list only when additional sampling has determined that
the standard is being exceeded.
Water Supply Use Support
This use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters. The water supply use support
category is a human health approach to assess whether a water can be safely consumed after
adequate treatment. Most drinking water supplies in NC are drawn from human-made reservoirs
that often have multiple uses.
Water supply use support is assessed using information from the seven regional water treatment
plant (WTP) consultants. Each January, the WTP consultants will submit a spreadsheet listing
each closure and water intake switch-over for every water treatment plant in their region. This
spreadsheet will describe the length and time of the event, contact information for the WTP, and
the cause of the closure or switch.
Use support for water supply will be fine-tuned to determine what closures/switches were due to
water quality concerns. Those closures/switches due to water quantity and reservoir turnovers
will not be considered for use support. The frequency and duration of closures/switches due to
water quality concerns are considered when assessing use support. In general, North Carolina’s
surface water supplies are in good condition and most, if not all, will be rated FS. Specific
criteria for rating waters PS or NS are yet to be determined.
Other Uses: All Waters in the State
This category of use will be assessed infrequently but could be applied to any water in the state.
Examples of uses that fall into this category are aesthetics and industrial and agricultural water
supply. This category allows for the assessment of any use that is not considered by aquatic life
and secondary recreation, primary recreation, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting or water
supply.
D. Use of Outside Data
DWQ actively solicits outside data and information in October prior to the basinwide sampling
year. The solicitation allows for approximately 60 days to submit data. Data from sources
outside DWQ are screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient quality and
quantity, they may be incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten samples for
more than a one-year period is needed to be considered for use support assessments. The way
the data are used depends on the degree of quality assurance and quality control of the collection
and analysis of the data as detailed in the draft 2000 303(d) report and shown in the table below.
A-III-11
Level 1 data can be used in the same fashion as DWQ data to determine use support ratings.
Level 2 or Level 3 data may be used to help identify causes of pollution and problem parameters.
They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up or down a stream from
a DWQ monitoring location. Where outside data indicate a potential problem, DWQ evaluates
the existing DWQ biological and ambient monitoring site locations for adjustment as
appropriate.
Criteria Levels for Use of Outside Data in Use Support Assessments
Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Monitoring frequency of at least 10 samples for
more than a one-year period
Yes Yes/No No
Monitoring locations appropriately sited and
mapped
Yes Yes No
State certified laboratory used for analysis
according to 15A NCAC 2B .0103
Yes Yes/No No
Quality assurance plan available describing
sample collection and handling
Yes, rigorous scrutiny Yes/No No
E. Monitored vs. Evaluated
Assessments are made on either a monitored (M) or evaluated (E) basis depending on the level of
information that was available. Because a monitored rating is based on the most recent five-year
window and site-specific data, it is treated with more confidence than an evaluated rating.
FS ratings are extrapolated up tributaries to monitored streams where there are no dischargers
with permit violations or changes in land use/cover. Problem parameters or sources (except
general NPS) are not applied to unmonitored tributaries. PS or NS ratings are not applied to
unmonitored tributaries. Refer to the following summary for the basis of assigning use support
ratings.
Summary of Basis for Assigning Use Support Ratings to Freshwater Streams
Overall Basis Specific Basis Description
Monitored Monitored (M)
Monitored/Evaluated (ME)
Monitored stream segmentsa with datab ≤5c years old.
Stream segmenta is unmonitored, but is assigned a use support rating
based on another segment of same stream for which datab ≤5c years old
are available.
Evaluated Evaluated (E)
Evaluated/Old Data (ED)
Unmonitored streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to monitored
stream segments rated FS. Must share similar land use to the
monitored stream segment.
Monitored stream segmentsa with available datab >5c years old.
Not Rated Not Rated (NR) Insufficient or no data available to determine use support. Includes
unmonitored streams that are direct or indirect tributaries to stream
segments rated PS or NS.
a) A stream segment is a stream, or a portion thereof, listed in the Classifications and Water Quality Standards for a river basin. Each
segment is assigned a unique identification number (index number).
b) Major data sources include benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications and chemical/physical monitoring data.
c) From the year that basin monitoring was done.
A-III-12
F. Nutrient Enrichment Issues
The complex and dynamic ecosystem interactions that link chemical and physical water quality
parameters and biological response variables must be considered when evaluating use support.
In general, North Carolina assesses use support by determining if a water’s uses, such as water
supply, fishing and recreation, are met. Violations of water quality standards in lakes or
estuaries are not equated with use impairment unless uses are not met. In following this
approach, use support for aquatic life propagation, maintenance of biological integrity, recreation
and water supply can be holistically evaluated.
One of the main causes of impacts to lakes and estuaries is nutrient enrichment, or
eutrophication. Several water quality variables may help to describe the level of eutrophication.
These include pH, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, turbidity, total
dissolved gases and other quantitative indicators, some of which have specific water quality
standards. It is generally agreed that excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are the
principal culprits in eutrophication related use impairment. These variables are important
concerns; however, climate, hydrology and biological response factors (chlorophyll,
phytoplankton, fish kills, etc.) are also essential to evaluate because they may control the
frequency of episodes related to potential use impairment. In addition, many of North Carolina’s
lakes are human-made reservoirs that do not mimic natural systems.
North Carolina does not determine eutrophication related use impairment with the quantitative
assessment of an individual water quality variable (i.e., chlorophyll a). Likewise, North Carolina
does not depend on a fixed index composed of several water quality variables, which does not
have the flexibility to adapt to numerous hydrological situations, to determine use impairment.
Instead, the weight of evidence approach is most appropriate to determine use support in terms of
nutrient enrichment in lakes. This approach can be flexibly applied depending on the amount
and quality of available information. The approach uses the following sources of information:
• multiple quantitative water quality variables (e.g., dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a)
• third party reports
• analysis of water quality complaints
• algal bloom reports
• macrophyte observations
• reports from water treatment plant operators
• reports from lake associations
• fish kill reports
• taste and odor observations
• aesthetic complaints
• frequency of noxious algal activity
• reports/observations of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Division of Marine
Fisheries and other agencies
A-III-13
References
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). Environmental Sciences Branch. Biological Assessment Unit.
2001a. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Western and Northern Mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and
Watauga River Basins). Raleigh.
____. 2001b. Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring. Stream Fish
Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Raleigh.
_____. 2000a. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Inner Piedmont, Foothills, and Eastern Mountains (Broad, Catawba, Savannah, and
Yadkin River Basins). September 22, 2000. Raleigh.
_____. 2000b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Outer Piedmont (Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar River Basins). October 17, 2000.
Raleigh.
Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh.
Aq
u
a
t
i
c

L
i
f
e
/
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

–

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
14
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
s
)

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
o
u
r
c
e
(
s
)
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R
(N
C

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
St
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

B
i
g

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

2
0
.
2

F
S

M

T
u
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

B
i
g

C
r
e
e
k

t
o

U
S

H
w
y
.
31
1

i
n

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

2
3
.
5

F
S

M
No
r
t
h

D
o
u
b
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

1
4
.
0

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Ca
s
c
a
d
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g

l
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

0
.
8

F
S

M
Ca
s
c
a
d
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

s
w
i
m
m
i
n
g
la
k
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

4
.
3

F
S

M
Sn
o
w

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

1
8
.
9

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
To
w
n

F
o
r
k

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

T
i
m
m
o
n
s

C
r
.

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

8
.
0

N
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
n
o
r

N
o
n
-
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

P
o
i
n
t
So
u
r
c
e
,

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
Hy
d
r
o
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
a
t
m
a
n

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

T
o
w
n

F
o
r
k
Cr
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

1
2
.
7

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Be
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
(K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
La
k
e
)
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
of

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
La
k
e

t
o

T
o
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

0
.
5

F
S

M
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
St
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

H
i
c
k
o
r
y

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

3
.
6

F
S

M
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

H
i
c
k
o
r
y

C
r
e
e
k
to

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
9

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
of

A
v
a
l
o
n

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

1
0
.
8

F
S

M
E
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
9

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

f
r
o
m

A
v
a
l
o
n

D
a
m
to

d
a
m

a
t

M
a
y
o
d
a
n

W
a
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y

I
n
t
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

0
.
5

F
S

M
E
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

d
a
m

a
t

M
a
y
o
d
a
n

W
a
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y

I
n
t
a
k
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

2
.
4

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

R
u
n
o
f
f
/
S
t
o
r
m

S
e
w
e
r
s
,
La
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Aq
u
a
t
i
c

L
i
f
e
/
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
1
5
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
s
)

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
o
u
r
c
e
(
s
)
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
7

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
of

J
a
c
o
b
s

C
r
e
e
k

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8
mi
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

M
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y
Cr
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

1
4
.
2

P
S

M

T
u
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

I
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

M
i
n
i
n
g
,

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
La
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R
(N
C

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

M
i
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h

t
o

l
a
s
t
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g

o
f

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

7
.
5

F
S

M

T
u
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
Sm
i
t
h

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
St
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
7
1
4

(
A
i
k
e
n

R
o
a
d
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

2
.
8

P
S

M
E

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

S
o
u
r
c
e
s

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

S
t
a
t
e

J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
or

B
o
r
d
e
r
s
Sm
i
t
h

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
7
1
4

(
A
i
k
e
n

R
o
a
d
)
to

F
i
e
l
d
c
r
e
s
t

M
i
l
l
s

W
a
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y

I
n
t
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

0
.
5

P
S

M
E

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

S
o
u
r
c
e
s

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

S
t
a
t
e

J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
or

B
o
r
d
e
r
s
,

U
r
b
a
n

R
u
n
o
f
f
/
S
t
o
r
m
Se
w
e
r
s
Sm
i
t
h

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

F
i
e
l
d
c
r
e
s
t

M
i
l
l
s

W
a
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y

I
n
t
a
k
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

1
.
8

P
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

S
o
u
r
c
e
s

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

S
t
a
t
e

J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
or

B
o
r
d
e
r
s
,

U
r
b
a
n

R
u
n
o
f
f
/
S
t
o
r
m
Se
w
e
r
s
Co
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e
Cr
e
e
k
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

1
.
0

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
a
t
s

F
o
r
k

t
o
da
m

a
t

F
a
r
m
e
r

L
a
k
e

(
T
o
w
n

o
f
Ya
n
c
e
y
v
i
l
l
e

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
in
t
a
k
e

l
o
c
a
t
e
d

1
.
8

m
i
l
e
up
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

6
2
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
4

3
.
5

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

S
i
l
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Hy
c
o

R
i
v
e
r
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

H
y
c
o
La
k
e
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

i
n

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e

t
o
da
m

o
f

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

a
r
m
s
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

0
.
2

F
S

M
Hy
c
o

C
r
e
e
k
(N
o
r
t
h

H
y
c
o
Cr
e
e
k
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e
,
Hy
c
o

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

1
6
.
8

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

S
i
l
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Hy
c
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

d
a
m

o
f

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e

t
o
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e
Li
n
e
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

6
.
8

F
S

M
Aq
u
a
t
i
c

L
i
f
e
/
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
1
6
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
s
)

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
o
u
r
c
e
(
s
)
Ma
r
l
o
w
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

S
t
o
r
y
s

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

1
0
.
9

P
S

M

U
n
k
n
o
w
n

t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y
Ha
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
n
o
r

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
o
i
n
t

S
o
u
r
c
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
Ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
,

U
r
b
a
n

R
u
n
o
f
f
/
S
t
o
r
m
Se
w
e
r
s
,

L
a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ma
y
o

C
r
e
e
k
(M
a
h
o

C
r
e
e
k
)
(M
a
y
o

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

d
a
m

o
f

M
a
y
o
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

6
.
5

F
S

M
Gr
a
s
s
y

C
r
e
e
k
(G
r
a
s
s

C
r
e
e
k
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

a
t

G
r
a
n
v
i
l
l
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
SR

1
4
3
1
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

1
8
.
3

F
S

M
Is
l
a
n
d

C
r
e
e
k
(I
s
l
a
n
d

C
r
e
e
k
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

6
.
4

F
S

M
Nu
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k
(I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Nu
t
b
u
s
h

C
r

A
r
m
of

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

C
r
o
o
k
e
d

R
u
n

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
6

4
.
6

P
S

M

U
n
k
n
o
w
n

t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y
Ha
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
t
r
i
e
n
t
s
Ma
j
o
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

P
o
i
n
t

S
o
u
r
c
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
Ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
,

U
r
b
a
n

R
u
n
o
f
f
/
S
t
o
r
m
Se
w
e
r
s
,

L
a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
So
u
r
c
e

U
n
k
n
o
w
n
Nu
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k
Ar
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.
Ke
r
r

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Fr
o
m

C
r
o
o
k
e
d

R
u
n

t
o

N
o
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

F
S

M
Sm
i
t
h

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

1
0
.
4

P
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R

(
L
a
k
e
Ga
s
t
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
St
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e
Ga
s
t
o
n

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

W
a
r
r
e
n
-
No
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

0
.
1

F
S

M
Si
x
p
o
u
n
d

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
,
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

6
.
3

F
S

M
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R

(
L
a
k
e
Ga
s
t
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

W
a
r
r
e
n
-
No
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e

t
o

a
li
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

0
.
5
mi
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
Da
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

5
.
2

F
S

M

A
q
u
a
t
i
c

W
e
e
d
s
Aq
u
a
t
i
c

L
i
f
e
/
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
1
7
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
(
s
)

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
o
u
r
c
e
(
s
)
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R

(
R
o
a
n
o
k
e
Ra
p
i
d
s

L
a
k
e
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
0.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

L
a
k
e
Ga
s
t
o
n

D
a
m

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e
Ra
p
i
d
s

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
7
03
-
0
2
-
0
8
4,
8
9
3
ac
r
e
s
PS

M

A
q
u
a
t
i
c

W
e
e
d
s
De
e
p

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e
up
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
1
.
6

N
R

M
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R
Fr
o
m

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

D
a
m

t
o
a
p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f
N.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8

b
r
i
d
g
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
.
6

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
of

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8

b
r
i
d
g
e

t
o

a
li
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

r
i
v
e
r

5
0

f
e
e
t
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8
(C
i
t
y

o
f

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s
,
To
w
n

o
f

W
e
l
d
o
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
in
t
a
k
e
s
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
.
7

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

r
i
v
e
r

5
0
ft

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
C

H
w
y

4
8
br
i
d
g
e

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f
Sa
n
d
y

R
u
n

C
r

a
t

t
h
e
Be
r
t
i
e
/
N
o
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
/
H
a
l
i
f
a
x
Co
.

l
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

5
0
.
1

F
S

M
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R
Fr
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

S
a
n
d
y
Ru
n

C
r

a
t

t
h
e

B
e
r
t
i
e
/
No
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
/
H
a
l
i
f
a
x

C
o
.

l
i
n
e
to

t
h
e

1
8

m
i
l
e

m
a
r
k
e
r

a
t
Ja
m
e
s
v
i
l
l
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

7
0
.
3

F
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

H
y
d
r
o
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

E
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Qu
a
n
k
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

L
i
t
t
l
e

Q
u
a
n
k
e
y
Cr
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
6
.
0

N
R

M
Qu
a
n
k
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

L
i
t
t
l
e

Q
u
a
n
k
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

t
o
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

3
.
4

P
S

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

H
y
d
r
o
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Oc
c
o
n
e
e
c
h
e
e
Cr
e
e
k
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
4
.
6

N
R

M
Co
n
o
c
o
n
n
a
r
a
Sw
a
m
p
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
7
.
7
1

N
R

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Aq
u
a
t
i
c

L
i
f
e
/
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
1
8
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
o
u
r
c
e
(
s
)
Ke
h
u
k
e
e

S
w
a
m
p
(W
h
i
t
e

M
i
l
l
p
o
n
d
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

1
0
.
6

N
R

M
Co
n
o
h
o

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

M
a
r
t
i
n

C
o

1
4
1
7
be
l
o
w

B
e
a
v
e
r
d
a
m

C
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
9

2
4
.
5

N
R

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Co
n
o
h
o

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

M
a
r
t
i
n

C
o

1
4
1
7

t
o
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
9

7
.
0

F
S

M
Ha
r
d
i
s
o
n

M
i
l
l
Cr
e
e
k
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

S
w
e
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
Cr
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
9

1
9
.
9

N
R

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

H
y
d
r
o
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
De
e
p

R
u
n

S
w
a
m
p

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

G
a
r
d
n
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

9
.
4

N
R

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

H
y
d
r
o
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
RO
A
N
O
K
E
RI
V
E
R
Fr
o
m

1
8

m
i
l
e

m
a
r
k
e
r

a
t
Ja
m
e
s
v
i
l
l
e

t
o

A
l
b
e
m
a
r
l
e

S
o
u
n
d
(B
a
t
c
h
e
l
o
r

B
a
y
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
9

1
8
.
3

F
S

M
We
l
c
h

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
9

1
3
.
3

N
R

M
AL
B
E
M
A
R
L
E
SO
U
N
D
(B
a
t
c
h
e
l
o
r

B
a
y
)
We
s
t

o
f

a

l
i
n
e

e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

a
po
i
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

n
o
r
t
h

o
f
mo
u
t
h

o
f

M
o
r
g
a
n

S
w
a
m
p

i
n

a
so
u
t
h
e
r
l
y

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

o
f
la
n
d

o
n

t
h
e

e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e

o
f

t
h
e
mo
u
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
9

2
,
5
8
6
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

B
e
r
t
i
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
SR

1
2
2
5
03
-
0
2
-
1
0

1
5
.
2

N
R

M
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

B
e
r
t
i
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
2
2
5
to

a

p
o
i
n
t

1

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

f
r
o
m
Be
r
t
i
e

C
o
.

S
R

1
5
0
0
03
-
0
2
-
1
0

3
0
.
1

N
R

M
Ho
g
g
a
r
d

M
i
l
l
Cr
e
e
k
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

7
.
4

N
R

M
Ro
q
u
i
s
t

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

2
6
.
3

N
R

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
d
i
n
g

P
l
a
c
e
Cr
e
e
k
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
1
0

7
.
4

N
R

M

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
s
h

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
1
9
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Ea
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
(E
a
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
Ar
m

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e
)
Fr
o
m

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e
(F
o
r
s
y
t
h

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

2
1
4
0
)

t
o

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d

B
r
i
d
g
e
30
2
0
1

B

0
.
5

P
S

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Ar
m

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y

s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
of

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e

D
a
m
En
t
i
r
e

A
r
m

3
0
2
0
1

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

3
,
5
0
0
ac
r
e
s
PS

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Hy
c
o

R
i
v
e
r
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Hy
c
o

L
a
k
e

b
e
l
o
w
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

4
1
0
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

i
n

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e

t
o

d
a
m

o
f
Hy
c
o

L
a
k
e
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

a
r
m
s
be
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

4
1
0
30
2
0
5

W
S
-
V
&
B

3
,
7
5
0
ac
r
e
s
PS

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n

&
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

D
a
m

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t
0.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8
br
i
d
g
e
30
2
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
6

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.
Hw
y
.

4
8

b
r
i
d
g
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

r
i
v
e
r

5
0
fe
e
t

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8
30
2
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

1
.
7

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

S
a
n
d
y

R
u
n

C
r

a
t
th
e

B
e
r
t
i
e
/
N
o
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
/
H
a
l
i
f
a
x

C
o
.

l
i
n
e
to

t
h
e

1
8

m
i
l
e

m
a
r
k
e
r

a
t

J
a
m
e
s
v
i
l
l
e
30
2
0
8

C

7
0
.
3

P
S

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

r
i
v
e
r

5
0

f
t
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
C

H
w
y

4
8

b
r
i
d
g
e

t
o

t
h
e
co
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

S
a
n
d
y

R
u
n

C
r

a
t

t
h
e
Be
r
t
i
e
/
N
o
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
/
H
a
l
i
f
a
x

C
o
.

l
i
n
e
30
2
0
8

C

5
0
.
1

P
S

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

1
8

m
i
l
e

m
a
r
k
e
r

a
t

J
a
m
e
s
v
i
l
l
e

t
o
Al
b
e
m
a
r
l
e

S
o
u
n
d

(
B
a
t
c
h
e
l
o
r

B
a
y
)
30
2
0
9

C

S
w

1
8
.
3

P
S

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n

&

D
i
o
x
i
n
We
l
c
h

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

3
0
2
0
9

C

S
w

1
3
.
3

N
S

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n

&

D
i
o
x
i
n
AL
B
E
M
A
R
L
E
SO
U
N
D

(
B
a
t
c
h
e
l
o
r
Ba
y
)
We
s
t

o
f

a

l
i
n
e

e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

o
f
la
n
d

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

n
o
r
t
h

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

o
f

M
o
r
g
a
n
Sw
a
m
p

i
n

a

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
l
y

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

a
po
i
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d

o
n

t
h
e

e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e

o
f

t
h
e
mo
u
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
30
2
0
9

B

S
w

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n

&

D
i
o
x
i
n
Fi
s
h

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
0
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

B
e
r
t
i
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
2
2
5

3
0
2
1
0

C

S
w

1
5
.
2

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

B
e
r
t
i
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
2
2
5

3
0
2
1
0

C

S
w

1
5
.
2

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

B
e
r
t
i
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
2
2
5

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t
1
m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

f
r
o
m

B
e
r
t
i
e

C
o
.

S
R
15
0
0
30
2
1
0

C

S
w

3
0
.
1

P
S

M

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

1
.
0

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

f
r
o
m
Be
r
t
i
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
5
0
0

t
o

t
h
e
Th
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e

(
T
h
e

G
u
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

C
a
s
h
i
e
an
d

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
s
)
30
2
1
0

B

S
w

2
.
3

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

t
h
e

T
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e

(
T
h
e

G
u
t
be
t
w
e
e
n

C
a
s
h
i
e

a
n
d

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
s
)

t
o
N.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
5
30
2
0
9

C

S
w

5
.
8

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Ca
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
5

t
o

A
l
b
e
m
a
r
l
e

S
o
u
n
d
(B
a
t
c
h
e
l
o
r

B
a
y
)
30
2
0
9

B

S
w

1
.
2

P
S

M
E

F
i
s
h

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

B
o
w
f
i
n
Pr
i
m
a
r
y

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
1
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s
Ca
s
c
a
d
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

s
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

l
a
k
e

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

B

O
R
W

0
.
8

F
S

M
E
Ca
s
c
a
d
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

s
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

l
a
k
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

B

4
.
3

F
S

M
Ar
m

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
so
u
t
h
e
a
s
t

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e

D
a
m
(B
e
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

7
2
5
)
En
t
i
r
e

A
r
m

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

3
,
5
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
Hy
c
o

R
i
v
e
r
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e
be
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

4
1
0
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

i
n

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e

t
o

d
a
m

o
f

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

a
r
m
s

b
e
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

4
1
0
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
V
&
B

3
,
7
5
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
So
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k
(L
a
k
e

R
o
x
b
o
r
o
)
Fr
o
m

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

L
a
k
e

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

t
o

d
a
m

a
t

L
a
k
e

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I
&
B

3
.
6

F
S

M
Nu
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

A
r
m
of

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Fr
o
m

C
r
o
o
k
e
d

R
u
n

t
o

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
6

B

2
1
,
7
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
Li
t
t
l
e

N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

B

1
.
3

F
S

M
E
Do
d
s
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
(D
o
b
s
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

B

0
.
7

F
S

M
E
Ca
s
e

Q
u
a
r
r
y

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

B

1
.
1

F
S

M
E
Di
x

B
r
a
n
c
h
(D
i
c
k
s

C
r
e
e
k
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
u
t
b
u
s
h

C
r
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

B

1
.
0

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R
(L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s
La
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

W
a
r
r
e
n
-
N
o
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
V
&
B

1
0
,
1
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R
(L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

W
a
r
r
e
n
-
No
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

0
.
5
mi
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

3
,
3
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R
(R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

L
a
k
e
)
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

L
a
k
e
Ga
s
t
o
n

D
a
m

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

C
A

4
,
8
9
3
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
AL
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

S
O
U
N
D
(B
a
t
c
h
e
l
o
r

B
a
y
)
We
s
t

o
f

a

l
i
n
e

e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

n
o
r
t
h
of

m
o
u
t
h

o
f

M
o
r
g
a
n

S
w
a
m
p

i
n

a

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
l
y

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

a
po
i
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d

o
n

t
h
e

e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e

o
f

t
h
e

m
o
u
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
9

B

S
w

2
,
5
8
6
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
2
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

B
i
g

C
r
e
e
k

t
o

U
S

H
w
y
.

3
1
1

i
n

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
V

2
3
.
5

F
S

M
Un
n
a
m
e
d

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

a
t

C
a
m
p

S
e
r
t
o
m
a

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f
St
o
k
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

2
0
1
1
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
I

0
.
3

F
S

M
E
Un
n
a
m
e
d

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

a
t

C
a
m
p

S
e
r
t
o
m
a

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

S
t
o
k
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y
SR

2
0
1
1

t
o

C
a
m
p

S
e
r
t
o
m
a

r
a
w

w
a
t
e
r

i
n
t
a
k
e

(
L
a
t
:
36

2
4
’ 0
2
"

L
o
n
g
:

8
0

1
8
’ 2
5
"
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
2

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

T
o
w
n

F
o
r
k
Cr
e
e
k

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
e
e
d

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V

9
.
2

F
S

M
Eu
r
i
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V

5
.
9

F
S

M
E
Be
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f
ba
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V

0
.
2

F
S

M
E
Be
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k

(
K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
k
e
)

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f
Ke
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
k
e

t
o

T
o
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

W
a
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
5

F
S

M
Be
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

B
e
l
e
w
s
La
k
e

b
e
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

7
2
5
)
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

1
.
8

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

t
h
e

F
o
r
s
y
t
h
-
St
o
k
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e
Ar
m

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

b
e
l
o
w

w
h
i
c
h

a
r
e
cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d

"
W
S
-
I
V
&
B
"
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V

0
.
7

F
S

M
We
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k

(
W
e
s
t

B
e
l
e
w
s
Cr
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e
)
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
4

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

P
o
w
e
r
p
l
a
n
t
to

B
e
l
e
w
s

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V

2
.
0

F
S

M
E
Ar
m

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
so
u
t
h
e
a
s
t

o
f

B
e
l
e
w
s

L
a
k
e

D
a
m
En
t
i
r
e

A
r
m

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
1

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

3
,
5
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
e
e
d

C
r
e
e
k

t
o
Ro
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
1
3
8

(
M
a
d
i
s
o
n

w
a
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
y

i
n
t
a
k
e
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
Re
e
d

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

7
.
8

F
S

M
E
Re
e
d

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
3

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

t
o

D
a
n
Ri
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
4

F
S

M
E
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
1
3
8

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
7
mi
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

J
a
c
o
b
s

C
r
.
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
V

9
.
1

F
S

M
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
3
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a
po
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

H
i
c
k
o
r
y

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
V

3
.
6

F
S

M
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

H
i
c
k
o
r
y

C
r
e
e
k
to

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
9

m
i

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

A
v
a
l
o
n

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

1
0
.
8

F
S

M
Pa
w
p
a
w

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

1
.
3

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
3
6
0

t
o

M
a
y
o

R
.
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
8

F
S

M
E
Me
a
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

4
.
2

F
S

M
E
Bo
a
z

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

4
.
5

F
S

M
E
Un
n
a
m
e
d

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

n
e
a
r

S
t
o
n
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

4
.
3

F
S

M
E
Ma
y
o

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
9

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

f
r
o
m

A
v
a
l
o
n
Da
m

t
o

d
a
m

a
t

M
a
y
o
d
a
n

W
a
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

I
n
t
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
2

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
5

F
S

M
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
7

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

J
a
c
o
b
s

C
r
e
e
k

t
o
a
p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

M
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

1
4
.
2

F
S

M
Ja
c
o
b
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

7
0
4

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
8

F
S

M
E
Ma
s
s
y

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

3
.
7

F
S

M
E
Ro
c
k

H
o
u
s
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
l
y

S
R

2
3
8
1

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

6
.
5

F
S

M
E
Ro
a
c
h

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

5
.
7

F
S

M
E
Wh
e
t
s
t
o
n
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

2
.
4

F
S

M
E
Bu
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

1
0
.
2

F
S

M
E
Ma
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k

(
N
C

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
)

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

1
1
.
2

F
S

M
E
Be
a
r

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

0
.
8

F
S

M
E
Jo
n
e
s

B
r
a
n
c
h

(
J
o
n
e
s

C
r
e
e
k
)

F
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o
Ma
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
Li
t
t
l
e

M
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

M
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

4
.
7

F
S

M
E
Po
p
l
a
r

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o
Ma
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
4

F
S

M
E
Bo
i
l
i
n
g

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

B
r
a
n
c
h

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

M
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

0
.
6
4

F
S

M
E
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
4
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s
DA
N

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

M
a
t
r
i
m
o
n
y
Cr
e
e
k

t
o

M
i
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h

(
T
o
w
n

o
f

E
d
e
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
in
t
a
k
e
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
6
0

F
S

M
Mi
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

0
.
3
0

F
S

M
E
Sm
i
t
h

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8
mi
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
7
1
4
(A
i
k
e
n

R
o
a
d
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

2
.
8

F
S

M
Ma
r
t
i
n

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
6

F
S

M
Sm
i
t
h

R
i
v
e
r

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
7
1
4

(
A
i
k
e
n

R
o
a
d
)

t
o

F
i
e
l
d
c
r
e
s
t

M
i
l
l
s
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

I
n
t
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
3

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
5

F
S

M
Co
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

1
.
0

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
a
t
s
Fo
r
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
4

W
S
-
I
I

1
2
.
0

F
S

M
E
Ho
s
t
l
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
4

W
S
-
I
I

5
.
1

F
S

M
E
Na
t
s

F
o
r
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
4

W
S
-
I
I

2
.
4

F
S

M
E
Co
u
n
t
r
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

1
.
0

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
a
t
s

F
o
r
k

t
o

d
a
m
at

F
a
r
m
e
r

L
a
k
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
4

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

3
.
5

F
S

M
Fu
l
l
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f
Ya
n
c
e
y
v
i
l
l
e

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

d
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
4

W
S
-
I
I

1
.
0

F
S

M
E
Fu
l
l
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
8

m
i

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

Y
a
n
c
e
y
v
i
l
l
e

w
a
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
y

d
a
m

t
o

Y
a
n
c
e
y
v
i
l
l
e

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

d
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
4

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
Hy
c
o

R
i
v
e
r
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

H
y
c
o
La
k
e

b
e
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

4
1
0
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

i
n

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e

t
o

d
a
m

o
f

H
y
c
o

L
a
k
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

a
r
m
s

b
e
l
o
w

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

4
1
0
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
V
&
B

0
.
2

F
S

M
So
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

L
a
k
e

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

5
.
3

F
S

M
Su
g
a
r
t
r
e
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

S
o
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

5
.
0

F
S

M
E
So
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k

(
L
a
k
e
Ro
x
b
o
r
o
)
Fr
o
m

b
a
c
k
w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

L
a
k
e

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

t
o

d
a
m

a
t

L
a
k
e
Ro
x
b
o
r
o
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I
&
B

3
.
6

F
S

M
So
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

d
a
m

a
t

L
a
k
e

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e
do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

D
o
u
b
l
e

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

4
.
0

F
S

M
Do
u
b
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

S
o
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

4
.
6
8

F
S

M
E
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
5
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s
Br
o
a
c
h
s

M
i
l
l

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
o
u
b
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

5
.
5
2

F
S

M
E
Sn
i
p
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

B
r
o
a
c
h
s

M
i
l
l

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

3
.
2
2

F
S

M
E
So
u
t
h

H
y
c
o

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

D
o
u
b
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

t
o
Hy
c
o

L
a
k
e
,

H
y
c
o

R
i
v
e
r

(
C
i
t
y

o
f

R
o
x
b
o
r
o

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
in
t
a
k
e
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

0
.
7
5

F
S

M
E
St
o
r
y
s

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
9

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.
Hw
y
.

5
7
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

3
.
1
3

F
S

M
E
St
o
r
y
s

C
r
e
e
k

[
R
o
x
b
o
r
o

C
i
t
y
La
k
e

(
L
a
k
e

I
s
s
a
c

W
a
l
t
o
n
)
]
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
9

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

5
7

t
o
Ro
x
b
o
r
o

C
i
t
y

L
a
k
e

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

1
.
2

F
S

M
Sa
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.
Hw
y
.

5
7
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

2
.
4

F
S

M
E
Sa
t
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

5
7

t
o
Ro
x
b
o
r
o

C
i
t
y

L
a
k
e
,

S
t
o
r
y
s

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
Li
c
k

B
r
a
n
c
h

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

0
.
7

F
S

M
E
Li
c
k

B
r
a
n
c
h

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

t
o

R
o
x
b
o
r
o
Ci
t
y

L
a
k
e
,

S
t
o
r
y
s

C
r
.
03
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
I
I

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
Ma
y
o

C
r
e
e
k

(
M
a
h
o

C
r
e
e
k
)
(M
a
y
o

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

d
a
m

o
f

M
a
y
o

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
5

W
S
-
V

6
.
5

F
S

M
An
d
e
r
s
o
n

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
(I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n

S
w
a
m
p
Cr
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
Fr
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

V
a
n
c
e
Co
u
n
t
y

S
R

1
3
7
4
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

W
S
-
I
I
I
&
B

4
.
1

F
S

M
E
An
d
e
r
s
o
n

S
w
a
m
p

C
r
e
e
k
(I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n

S
w
a
m
p
Cr
e
e
k

A
r
m

o
f

J
o
h
n

H
.

K
e
r
r
Re
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
)
Fr
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

V
a
n
c
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

S
R
13
7
4

t
o

M
i
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
03
-
0
2
-
0
6

W
S
-
I
I
I
&
B

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R
(L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e
ac
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

W
a
r
r
e
n
-
No
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
V
&
B

1
0
,
1
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R
(L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
)
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

W
a
r
r
e
n
-
No
r
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

L
i
n
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
0.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

3
,
3
0
0
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
Wa
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

U
s
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

T
a
b
l
e

– R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
A-
I
I
I
-
2
6
Na
m
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
i
l
e
s

R
a
t
i
n
g

B
a
s
i
s
Mi
l
l

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
,

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V

3
.
0

F
S

M
E
Po
e

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
,

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V

2
.
1

F
S

M
E
Ji
m
m
i
e
s

C
r
e
e
k
(J
i
m
m
i
e
s

R
u
n
)
Fr
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
-
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
i
n
e

t
o

L
a
k
e
Ga
s
t
o
n
,

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
1

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R
(R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

L
a
k
e
)
Fr
o
m

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

L
a
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f
La
k
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

D
a
m

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

D
a
m
03
-
0
2
-
0
7

W
S
-
I
V
&
B

C
A

4
,
8
9
3
ac
r
e
s
FS

M
Bl
a
c
k

G
u
t

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

D
e
v
i
l
s

B
r
a
n
c
h

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
4

F
S

M
E
Bl
a
c
k

G
u
t

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

D
e
v
i
l
s

B
r
a
n
c
h

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

L
a
k
e
,
Ro
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

1
.
0

F
S

M
E
De
v
i
l
s

B
r
a
n
c
h

(
D
o
u
b
l
e

B
r
a
n
c
h
)

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

B
l
a
c
k

G
u
t

C
r
e
e
k

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

2
.
5

F
S

M
E
De
e
p

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

s
o
u
r
c
e

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

0
3
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

1
1
.
6

F
S

M
E
De
e
p

C
r
e
e
k

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
5

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

m
o
u
t
h

t
o

R
o
a
n
o
k
e
Ra
p
i
d
s

L
a
k
e
,

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

0
.
6

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s

D
a
m

t
o

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e
up
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8

b
r
i
d
g
e
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

1
.
6

F
S

M
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

F
r
o
m

a

p
o
i
n
t

0
.
6

m
i
l
e

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

N
.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8
br
i
d
g
e

t
o

a

l
i
n
e

a
c
r
o
s
s

r
i
v
e
r

5
0

f
e
e
t

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f
N.
C
.

H
w
y
.

4
8

(
C
i
t
y

o
f

R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
a
p
i
d
s
,

T
o
w
n

o
f
We
l
d
o
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

i
n
t
a
k
e
s
)
03
-
0
2
-
0
8

W
S
-
I
V

C
A

1
.
7

F
S

M
E
Appendices
Appendix IV
303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology
A-IV-1
303(d) LISTING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
What is the 303(d) List?
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a comprehensive public
accounting of all impaired waters. North Carolina’s list of impaired waters must be submitted to
EPA by April 1 of every even year (40 CFR 130.7). The list includes waters impaired by
pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria, and by pollution, such as
hydromodification and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from point
sources, nonpoint sources or atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across
state lines. North Carolina lists impaired waters regardless of whether the pollutant or source of
pollution is known and whether the pollutant/pollution source(s) can be legally controlled or
acted upon by the State of North Carolina. More complete information can be obtained from
North Carolina’s Draft 2000 303(d) List (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/mtu/), which can be obtained by
calling the Planning Branch of DWQ at [phone].
303(d) List Development
Generally, there are three steps to preparing North Carolina’s 303(d) list. They are: 1) gathering
information about the quality of North Carolina’s waters; 2) screening those waters to determine
if any are impaired and should be listed; and 3) prioritizing listed waters for TMDL development.
The following subsections describe each of these steps in more detail.
Sources of Information
North Carolina considers all practical existing and readily available data and information in
preparing the 303(d) list. Sources solicited for “existing and readily available data and
information” include, but are not limited to the following:
• The previous 303(d) list.
• Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans and Assessment Reports.
• 305(b) reports.
• 319 nonpoint source pollution assessments.
• Waters where specific fish or shellfish consumption bans and/or advisories are currently
in effect.
• Waters for which effluent toxicity test results indicate possible or actual excursions of
state water quality standards.
• Waters identified by the state as impaired in its most recent Clean Lakes Assessment.
• Drinking water source water assessments under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Trend analyses and predictive models used for determining numeric and narrative water
quality standard compliance.
• Data, information and water quality problems reported from local, state or federal
agencies, Tribal governments, members of the public and academic institutions.
Listing Criteria
Waters whose use support ratings were not supporting (NS) or partially supporting (PS) based on
monitored information in the 305(b) report are considered as initial candidates for the 303(d) list.
Waters that were listed on the previously approved 303(d) list are evaluated and automatically
included if the use support rating was NS, PS or not rated (NR).
A-IV-2
Guidance from EPA on developing the 1998 303(d) lists indicates that impaired waters without
an identifiable problem parameter should not be included on the 303(d) list. However, DWQ
feels that waters listed in the 305(b) report as impaired for biological reasons, where problem
parameters have not been identified, should remain on the 303(d) list. The Clean Water Act
states that chemical, physical and biological characteristics of waters shall be restored. The
absence of an identified cause of impairment does not mean that the water should not receive
attention. Instead, DWQ should resample or initiate more intensive studies to determine why the
water is impaired. Thus, biologically impaired waters without an identified cause of impairment
are on the draft 2000 303(d) list.
Assigning Priority
North Carolina has developed a TMDL priority ranking scheme that reflects the relative value
and benefits that a water provides to the state. The priority ranking system is designed to take
into account the severity of the impairment, especially when threats to human health, endangered
species or the designated uses of the water are present.
A priority of High, Medium or Low has been assigned to all waters on Parts 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the
list (the following section describes these parts in more detail). A high priority is assigned to all
waters that are classified as water supplies. A high priority is also automatically assigned to all
waters harboring species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA). A medium priority has minimally been assigned to waters harboring state listed
endangered and threatened species. As a way of addressing anti-degradation concerns, classified
Outstanding Resource Waters and High Quality Waters start at the medium priority. The
remaining waters on the list are prioritized according to severity of the impairment.
New Format of the List
North Carolina has begun to make the structural changes prescribed in EPA’s July 13, 2000 final
TMDL rule. The Draft 2000 § 303(d) List reflects many of these changes. EPA’s final rule will
likely eventually require 303(d) lists to be divided into four sections. North Carolina’s 2000 list
has been divided into six parts and reflects comments made on the proposed rules by North
Carolina and other states. This 6-part format meets the requirements of existing rules, and future
lists will meet requirements of revised federal rules (when implemented). A summary of each
part of the list is provided below. A more detailed discussion is found in the preface to the actual
list document.
Part 1 - Waters impaired by a pollutant as defined by EPA.
“The term pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal and agricultural
waste discharged into the water.” TMDLs will be submitted for all water/pollutant combinations
listed in Part 1.
Part 2 - Waters impaired by pollution, not by a pollutant.
EPA defines pollution as “The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical,
biological and radiological integrity of the water” in the CWA section 502(19). EPA believes
that in situations where the impairment is not caused by a pollutant, a TMDL is generally not the
appropriate solution to the problem. In keeping with the principle that the § 303(d) list is an
A-IV-3
accounting of all impaired waters; however, these types of waters will remain on Part 2 of the list
until water quality uses and standards are attained by some other means.
Part 3 - Waters for which EPA has approved or established a TMDL and water quality
standards have not yet been attained.
Monitoring data will be considered when evaluating Part 3 waters for potential delisting. Waters
will be moved to Part 1 of the list if updated information and data demonstrate that the approved
TMDL is inadequate.
Part 4 - Waters for which TMDLs are not required.
Other required regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES permit limits, Phase I Federal Stormwater
Permits, etc.) are expected to attain water quality standards by the next regularly scheduled
listing cycle.
Part 5 - Biologically impaired waters with no identified cause of impairment.
Roughly half of the waters on North Carolina’s § 303(d) list appear on Part 5. Identification of
the cause(s) of impairment will precede movement of these waters to Parts 1 and 2 of the list.
EPA recognized that in specific situations the data are not available to establish a TMDL and that
these specific waters might be better placed on a separate part of the 2000 § 303(d) list (64 FR,
46025). Data collection and analysis will be performed in an attempt to determine a cause of
impairment. North Carolina’s proposed plan for managing biologically impaired waters can be
found in the preface to Part 5 of the list.
Part 6 – The proper technical conditions do not yet exist to develop a TMDL.
“Proper technical conditions refers to the availability of the analytical methods, modeling
techniques and data base necessary to develop a technically defensible TMDL. These elements
will vary in their level of sophistication depending on the nature of the pollutant and
characteristics of the segment in question” (43 FR 60662). These are waters that would
otherwise be on Part 1 of the list. In the proposed TMDL regulations, EPA again recognized that
in some specific situations the data, analyses or models are not available to establish a TMDL
and that these specific waters might be better off on a separate part of the 2000 § 303(d) list (64
FR, 46025). North Carolina seeks EPA technical guidance in developing technically defensible
TMDLs for these waters. DWQ has included fecal impaired shellfish waters on this part of the
list. North Carolina’s approach to managing shellfish waters impaired because of fecal coliform
violations is outlined in the preface to Part 6 of the list.
Scheduling TMDLs
North Carolina will submit TMDLs for each water within 13 years of its first listing starting with
the EPA-approved 1998 § 303(d) list. TMDLs for waters first listed in 1998 or earlier will be
developed by 2011. As a general rule, TMDLs will be addressed according to highest priority in
accordance with the rotating basinwide planning approach. Due to the wide range of
complexities encountered in TMDL development, TMDLs will not necessarily be submitted to
EPA in order of priority.
TMDLs on Part 1 of the § 303(d) list are at many different stages on the path to an approved
TMDL. Some require additional data collection to adequately define the problem in TMDL
terms. Some require more outreach to increase stakeholder involvement and “buy-in”. Others
A-IV-4
need to have a technical strategy budgeted and scheduled. Some are almost ready for submittal
to EPA for approval. As the current regulations require, North Carolina has listed waters
targeted for TMDL development within the next two years. There are no targeted waters in the
Roanoke River basin at this time.
North Carolina has used “biological impairment” to place the majority of waters on the § 303(d)
list. Additional consideration and data collection are necessary if the establishment of a TMDL
for waters on Part 5 is to be expected. It is important to understand that the identification of
waters on Part 5 of the list does not mean that they are low priority waters. The problem
parameter identification (PPI) approach is a high priority for the State of North Carolina.
However, it should be noted that it may take significant resources and time to determine the
cause of impairment. The PPI approach is also a declaration of need for more data and more
time to adequately define the problems and whether they are affected by pollution, pollutants or a
combination.
North Carolina believes it to be both practical and honest to schedule TMDL development for
only those waters where we have some information about the cause of impairment. Scheduling
TMDLs for waters that may not be impaired by a pollutant is misleading and counterproductive.
Delisting Waters
North Carolina relies heavily on the existing § 305(b) reporting methodology to complete the §
303(d) process. In general, waters will be removed from the § 303(d) list when data show that a
water is fully supporting its uses. In some cases, mistakes have been discovered in the original
listing decision and the mistakes are being corrected. Waters appearing on the previously
approved § 303(d) list will be removed from the § 303(d) lists under the following
circumstances:
• An updated § 305(b) use support rating of fully supporting.
• Applicable water quality standards are being met (i.e., no longer impaired for a given
pollutant).
• The basis for putting the water on the list is determined to be in invalid (i.e., was
mistakenly identified as impaired in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv) and/or
National Clarifying Guidance for State and Territory 1998 Section 303(d) Listing
Decisions. Robert Wayland III, Director. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
Aug 27, 1997.
• A water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride).
• Removal of fish consumption advisories.
• Typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified).
Appendices
Appendix V
Explanation of Box Plots
A-V-1
Box plots (or box and whisker plots) show the distribution of measurements of a parameter.
Here the distribution of measurements of a hypothetical parameter are compared between Station
A and Station B. The percentage of measurements at or below a particular concentration are
indicated on the figure. Note that the median and variation of measurements taken at Station B
are greater than the median of Station A.
Appendices
Appendix VI
Roanoke River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts
A-VI-1
Statewide Nonpoint Source Management Program Description
The North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program consists of a broad framework of
federal, state and local resource and land management agencies. More than 2,000 individuals
administer programs that are directly related to nonpoint source pollution management within the
state. A range of responsibilities have been delegated to county or municipal programs including
the authority to inspect and permit land clearing projects or septic system performance. In the
field of agriculture, a well established network of state and federal agricultural conservationists
provide technical assistance and program support to individual farmers.
Staff in the DWQ Water Quality Section’s Planning Branch lead the Nonpoint Source
Management Program, working with various agencies to insure that program goals are
incorporated into individual agencies’ management plans. The goals include:
1. Coordinate implementation of state and federal initiatives addressing watershed protection
and restoration.
2. Continue to target geographic areas and waterbodies for protection based upon best
available information.
3. Strengthen and improve existing nonpoint source management programs.
4. Develop new programs that control nonpoint sources of pollution not addressed by existing
programs.
5. Integrate the NPS Program with other state programs and management studies (e.g.,
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program).
6. Monitor the effectiveness of BMPs and management strategies, both for surface and
groundwater quality.
Coordination between state agencies is achieved through reports in the North Carolina Nonpoint
Source Management Program Update. Reports are intended to keep the program document
current and develop a comprehensive assessment identifying the needs of each agency to meet
the state nonpoint source program goals. Annual reports are developed to describe individual
program priorities, accomplishments, significant challenges, issues yet to be addressed, and
resource needs. A copy of the latest Annual Report (FY1998) is available online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/nps_mp.htm.
The nature of nonpoint source pollution is such that involvement at the local level is imperative.
Basinwide water quality plans identify watersheds that are impaired by nonpoint sources of
pollution. Identification, status reports and recommendations are intended to provide the best
available information to local groups and agencies interested in improving water quality. The
plans also make available information regarding federal, state and local water quality initiatives
aimed at reducing or preventing nonpoint source pollution.
The following table is a comprehensive guide to contacts within the state’s Nonpoint Source
Management Program. For more information, contact Alan Clark at [phone] ext. 570.
Most employees of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources, including Division of
Water Quality, Division of Land Resources, and the Division of Forest Resources, can be
reached by email using the following formula: [e-mail].
A-VI-2
Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the US Department of Agriculture, formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Technical specialists certify waste management plans for
animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; work with landowners on private lands to conserve natural
resources, helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and needs; administer several federal agricultural
cost share and incentive programs; provide assistance to rural and urban communities to reduce erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve
other resource problems; conduct soil surveys; offer planning assistance for local landowners to install best management practices; and offer
farmers technical assistance on wetlands identification.
Area 2
Conservationist
Mike Suggs 704-637-2400 600 West Innes Street, Salisbury, NC 28144
Area 3
Conservationist
Ruth Kirby &
Livia Marques-Cooper
919-734-0961 Federal Building, Room 108, 134 North John Street,
Goldsboro, NC 27530-3676
County District Conservationist Phone Address
Bertie Paula A. Ashley 252-794-5305 Bertie County Office Building, Room 211, 106 Dundee St.,
PO Box 566, Windsor, NC 27983-0566
Caswell Warren H. Mincey 336-694-4581 Agriculture Building, Main Street,
PO Box 96, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Granville Diana Lewis 919-693-4603 PO Box 10, Oxford, NC 27565
Halifax J. Wayne Short 252-583-3481 Halifax County Agricultural Center, Hwy 301,
PO Box 8, Halifax, NC 27839
Martin Rupert W. Hasty, Jr. 252-792-4350 104 Kehukee Park Road,
PO Box 483, Williamston, NC 27892-0483
Northampton Tony R. Short 252-534-2591 Northampton County Administrative Building, Hwy 305,
PO Box 218, Jackson, NC 27845-0218
Person Vilma Mendez-Colombani 910-997-8244 123 Caroline Street, Suite 300, Rockingham, NC 28379
Rockingham John I. Timmons 336-342-8225 Rockingham County Government Center, 371 NC 65,
PO Box 201, Wentworth, NC 27375-0201
Stokes Reginald F. Liddell 336-593-2846 Old Courthouse Building, Hwy 89,
PO Box 98, Danbury, NC 27016
Vance 252-438-5727 County Office Building, Room 1, 305 Young Street,
Henderson, NC 27536
Warren Dallas L. Shackleford 252-257-3836 Route 1, Box 486-D, Warrenton, NC 27589-9651
A-VI-3
Agriculture
Soil & Water Conservation Districts:
Boards and staff under the administration of the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC). Districts are responsible for:
administering the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at the county level; identifying areas needing soil
and/or water conservation treatment; allocating cost share resources; signing cost share contracts with landowners; providing technical
assistance for the planning and implementation of BMPs; and encouraging the use of appropriate BMPs to protect water quality. For detail
information, please visit the web site of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/files/do.htm.
County Board Chairman Phone Address
Bertie John W. Stallings 252-794-2183 1001 Stokes Avenue, Windsor, NC 27983
Caswell James R. Blackwell 336-694-4581 Agriculture Building, PO Box 96, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Granville Bobby E. Greene 919-693-4907 6561 Huntsboro Road, Oxford, NC 27565
Halifax Kenneth Brantley 252-537-2206 3959 Hwy. 158, Roanoke Rapids, NC 27808
Northampton William M. Stephenson 252-539-2236 Route 1, Box 301, Garysburg, NC 27831
Rockingham Rupert O. Jones, Jr. 336-349-7754 180 Jonesland Trail, Reidsville, NC 27320-9183
Stokes Banner Shelton 336-983-5584 Route 3, Box 228-C, King, NC 27021
Vance John D. Parrish 252-492-8425 101 Quail Ridge, Henderson, NC 27536
Warren Alvis P. Fleming 252-586-3635 225 Sunny Acres, Littleton, NC 27850
* Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
State agency that administers the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP). Allocates ACSP funds to
the Soil and Water Conservation Districts; and provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and engineering.
Distributes Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee.
Central Office David B. Williams 919-715-6103 Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27626
Area 2, Winston-Salem Marlene Salyer 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street,
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Area 3, Winston-Salem Gerald Dorsett 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street,
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Area 4, Raleigh Steve Bennett 919-571-4700 1628 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Area 5, Washington George Stewart 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square
Washington, NC 27889
NCDA Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture technical specialists: certify waste management plans for animal operations; provide certification training
for swine waste applicators; track, monitor and account for use of nutrients on agricultural lands; operate the state Pesticide Disposal Program;
and enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws with farmers.
Central Office Dr. Donald Eaddy 919-733-7125 2 West Edenton Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
Region 4 Tim Hall 910-324-9924 104 Jaclane Drive, Clinton, NC 28502-3867
Region 5 Rick Morris 910-866-5485 3184 Old NC 41, Bladenboro, NC 28320
Region 7 Kevin Johnson 919-736-1799 PO Box 1970, Pikeville, NC 27863
Region 8 Robin Watson 336-570-6850 1709 Fairview Street, Burlington, NC 27215
Region 9 David Dycus 919-776-9338 5022 Henley Road, Sanford, NC 27330
Region 10 Tim Hambrick 336-386-4602 192 Davis Road, Mount Airy, NC 27030
A-VI-4
Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
County Contact Person Phone Address
Bertie William J. Griffin 252-794-5317 102 Dundee Street, PO Box 28, Windsor, NC 27983
Caswell Larry Whitt 336-694-4158 126 Court Square, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Granville Johnsie Cunningham 919-603-1350 PO Box 926, Oxford, NC 27565
Halifax Patricia Peele 252- 583-5161 Halifax County Agricultural Center, 359 Ferrell Lane,
PO Box 37, Halifax, NC 27839
Martin J.B. Coltrain 252-792-1621 PO Box 1148, 205 E. Main Street, Williamston, NC 27892
Northampton Cynthia Brown 252-534-2711 J.W. Faison Administrative Building,
PO Box 636, Hwy. 305 N., Jackson, NC 27845
Person Derek Day 336- 599-1195 304 South Morgan Street, Room 123, Roxboro, NC 27573
Rockingham Scott Shoulars 336-342-8230 Rockingham County Center, PO Box 200,
Wentworth, NC 27375-0200
Stokes Jeffrey Boyles 336-593-8177 PO Box 460, Danbury, NC 27016
Vance Harold Thompson 252-438-8188 Vance County Office Building, PO Box 1028,
305 Young Street, Henderson, NC 27536
Warren Philip McMillan 919-257-3640 Warren County Center, PO Box 708, Warrenton, NC 27589
Forestry
* Division of Forest Resources:
Develop, protect and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina’s forests through professional stewardship, enhancing the quality of our
citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources.
Water Quality Forester
Districts 5,7,10,11
Don Watson 919-732-8105 3314 NC 86 South, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Central Office Moreland Gueth 919-733-2162 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1616
Construction/Mining
* DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations. Conducts land surveys and studies,
produces maps, and protects the state’s land and mineral resources.
Central Office Mel Nevills 919-733-4574 1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Raleigh Region John Holley 919-571-4700 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Washington Region Floyd Williams 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall,
Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region Matthew Gantt 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances for construction.
Forsyth Co/Winston-Salem Jeff Kopf 336-727-2388 100 Liberty Walk, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
City of Henderson Frank Frazier 252-431-6026 PO Box 1434, Henderson, NC 27536
Guilford County Earl Davis 336-373-3803 PO Box 3427, Greensboro, NC 27402
Orange County Ren Ivins 919-732-8181 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
A-VI-5
General Water Quality
* DWQ Water Quality Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the French Broad and Neuse River Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; conduct stormwater permitting; model water quality;
conduct water quality monitoring; perform wetlands permitting; conduct animal operation permitting and enforcement; and conduct water
quality classifications and standards activities.
NPS Planning Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Urban Stormwater Bradley Bennett 919-733-5083 x525 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Modeling Adugna Kebede 919-733-5083 x515 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Monitoring Jimmie Overton 919-733-9960 x204 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Wetlands John Dorney 919-733-1786 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Animal Operations Dennis Ramsey 919-733-5083 x528 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Classifications/Standards Jeff Manning 919-733-5083 x579 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
* DWQ Regional Offices:
Conduct permitting and enforcement field work on point sources, stormwater, wetlands and animal operations; conduct enforcement on water
quality violations of any kind; and perform ambient water quality monitoring.
Raleigh Region Ken Schuster 919-571-4700 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Washington Region Jim Mulligan 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region Larry Coble 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Wildlife Resources Commission:
To manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect and regulate the wildlife resources of the state; and to administer the laws enacted by
the General Assembly relating to game, game and non-game freshwater fishes, and other wildlife resources in a sound, constructive,
comprehensive, continuing and economical manner.
Central Office Frank McBride 919-528-9886 PO Box 118, Northside, NC 27564
US Army Corps of Engineers:
Responsible for: investigating, developing and maintaining the nation’s water and related environmental resources; constructing and
operating projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and protection; hydropower development; water
supply; water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, and outdoor recreation; responding to emergency relief
activities directed by other federal agencies; and administering laws for the protection and preservation of navigable waters, emergency flood
control and shore protection. Responsible for wetlands and 404 Federal Permits.
Ask for the project manager covering your county.
Wilmington Field
Office
Ernest Jahnke 910-251-4511 Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Raleigh Field Office Ken Jolly 919-876-8441 x22 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
* DWQ Groundwater Section:
Groundwater classifications and standards; enforcement of groundwater quality protection standards and cleanup requirements; review of
permits for wastes discharged to groundwater; issuance of well construction permits; underground injection control; administration of the
underground storage tank (UST) program (including the UST Trust Funds); well head protection program development; and ambient
groundwater monitoring.
Central Office Carl Bailey 919-733-3221 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Raleigh Region Jay Zimmerman 919-571-4700 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington Region Willie Hardison 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region Sherri Knight 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
A-VI-6
Solid Waste
* DENR Division of Waste Management:
Management of solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment. The Division includes three sections and one program –
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund and the Resident Inspectors Program.
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-733-0692 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh, NC 27605
On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Division of Environmental Health and County Health Departments:
Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through the practice of modern environmental health science, the use of
technology, rules, public education, and above all, dedication to the public trust.
Services include:
• Training of and delegation of authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater.
• Engineering review of plans and specifications for wastewater systems 3,000 gallons or larger and industrial process wastewater systems
designed to discharge below the ground surface.
• Technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on soil suitability and other site considerations for on-
site wastewater systems.
Central Office Steve Steinbeck 919-570-6746 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh, NC 27604
Raleigh Region 919-571-4700 3800 Barett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington
Region
Bob Uebler 252-946-6481
ext. 330
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem
Region
Scott Greene 336-431-6736 585 Waughtown Street, Winston Salem, NC 27107
County Primary Contact Phone Address
Bertie Ron Freeman 252-794-5322 502 Barringer Street, Windsor, NC 27983
Caswell Anne Scott 336-694-6841 County Park Road, PO Drawer H-189,
Yanceyville, NC 27379
Granville Dr. Rodwell Drake 919-693-1333 PO Box 367, 101 Hunt Street, Oxford, NC 27565
Halifax June Conway-Alston 252-586-5154 PO Box 10, 204 Evans Road, Hollister, NC 27844
Martin Lalitha Tallapaka 252-799-3030 10 West Liberty Street, Williamston, NC 27892
Northampton Sheila Josnson 252-534-5841 237 North Church Street Extesion, PO Box 635,
Jackson, NC 27845
Person Lisa Richarson 336-597-2204 1011 N. Madison Boulevard, Roxboro, NC 27573
Rockingham Mark Langle 336-342-8132 371 NC 65, Suite 204, PO Box 204,
Wentworth, NC 27375-8143
Stokes Jim Oakley 336-593-2402 PO Box 187, 1009 N. Main Street, Danbury, NC 27016
Vance Jackie Sergent 919-693-2141 PO Box 367, 101 Hunt Street, Oxford, NC 27565
Warren Jennifer Jones 252-257-2116 544 West Ridgeway Street, Warrenton, NC 27589
* Most employees of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources, including Division of Water Quality, Division of Land
Resources, and Division of Forest Resources, can be reached by email using the following formula: [e-mail].
• DENR Raleigh Regional Office covers the following counties: Granville, Halifax, Northampton, Person, Vance and Warren.
• DENR Washington Regional Office cover the following counties: Bertie, Martin and Washington.
• DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office covers the following counties: Caswell, Forsyth, Rockingham, Stokes and Surry.
Appendices
Appendix VII
Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms
A-VII-1
Glossary
§ Section.
30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in
two years.
7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.
anadromous A species of fish that migrates to spawn in freshwater after spending most of its life in an
estuary or ocean. Examples for the Roanoke River basin are the American Shad and the
Striped Bass.
B (Class B) Class B Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities
include frequent and/or organized swimming and other human contact such as skin diving
and water skiing.
basin The watershed of a major river system. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina.
benthic Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate),
macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not
limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these
organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index
and bioclassification for more information.
benthos A term for bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.
best management Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or
practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality.
BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and nonstructural controls, operation and
maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of
practices and not just one at a time.
bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a
stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent.
BMPs See best management practices.
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most
NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged.
C (Class C) Class C Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
others uses.
chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of
chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large
amount of algae resulting from nutrient overenrichment or eutrophication.
coastal counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington.
Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern two-
fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95).
conductivitiy A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the
concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in
solution.
degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by
pollution or other sources of stress.
A-VII-2
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DO Dissolved oxygen.
drainage area An alternate name for a watershed.
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality, an agency of DENR.
dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), "black-water" lakes which are rich in organic matter. Dystrophic
lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are stressed by low
pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the Coastal Plain
and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat deposits.
NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes.
effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant.
EMC Environmental Management Commission.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three orders
of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies).
eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic
lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal
blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur.
eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient,
organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal
growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause
unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems.
fall line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain
regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on
rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast.
FS Fully supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality.
GIS Geographic Information System. An organized collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate,
analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.
habitat degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality.
This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed.
HQW High Quality Waters. A supplemental surface water classification.
HU Hydrologic unit. See definition below.
Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed.
hydrologic unit A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging units. A hierarchical code consisting
of two digits for each of the above four levels combined to form an eight-digit hydrologic
unit (cataloging unit). An eight-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an average of 975
square miles. There are 54 eight-digit hydrologic (or cataloging) units in North Carolina.
These units have been further subdivided into eleven and fourteen-digit units.
hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability.
Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or
periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant
growth.
impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that has a use support rating of partially supporting (PS) or
not supporting (NS) its uses.
A-VII-3
impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.
kg Kilograms. To change kilograms to pounds multiply by 2.2046.
lbs Pounds. To change pounds to kilograms multiply by 0.4536.
loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr)
macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones
(invertebrate).
macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye.
meotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available
nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while
supporting a good diversity of aquatic life.
MGD Million gallons per day.
mg/l Milligrams per liter (approximately 0.00013 oz/gal).
NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a
population of fish in a given waterbody.
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen.
nonpoint source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The
quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover
and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from
forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than runoff
from urban lands.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NPS Nonpoint source.
NR Not rated. A waterbody that is not rated for use support due to insufficient data.
NS Not supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that does not support its designated uses and
has poor water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and NS are called
impaired.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Waters classified as NSW include the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Chowan River basins; the New River watershed in the White Oak basin; and
the watershed of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (including the entire Haw River watershed).
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The units used to quantify turbidity using a turbidimeter.
This method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample under
defined conditions with the intensity of the light scattered by a standard reference
suspension under the same conditions.
oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients.
Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in
undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended to
protect unique and special resource waters having excellent water quality and being of
exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. No new or expanded
wastewater treatment plants are allowed, and there are associated stormwater runoff
controls enforced by DWQ.
pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14.
Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and
approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution.
phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries.
A-VII-4
Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North
Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains region.
PS Partially supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that only partially supports its
designated uses and has fair water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and
NS are called impaired.
riparian zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ.
river basin The watershed of a major river system. North Carolina is divided into 17 major river
basins: Broad, Cape Fear, Catawba, Chowan, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Lumber, Neuse, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, Watauga, White Oak
and Yadkin River basins.
river system The main body of a river, its tributary streams and surface water impoundments.
runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and
into waterbodies.
SA Class SA Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters that have sufficient
water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting.
SB Class SB Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact.
SC Class SC Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality to support secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival.
sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead
organisms).
silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry.
SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management
Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to
surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution
within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular
parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to
facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to
the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance).
streamside The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect
management streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms.
zone (SMZ)
subbasin A designated subunit or subwatershed area of a major river basin. Subbasins typically
encompass the watersheds of significant streams or lakes within a river basin. Every river
basin is subdivided into subbasins ranging from one subbasin in the Watauga River basin to
24 subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 133 subbasins statewide. These
subbasins are not a part of the national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council (see hydrologic unit).
Sw Swamp Waters. A supplemental surface water classification denoting waters that have
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities. These waters are
common in the Coastal Plain and are often naturally discolored giving rise to their nickname
of “blackwater” streams.
TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate
and maintain its uses and water quality standards.
TN Total nitrogen.
TP Total phosphorus.
tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody.
trophic classification Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake's biological productivity, which is
the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The
A-VII-5
productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics,
including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal growth
and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity:
unproductive lakes are termed "oligotrophic"; moderately productive lakes are termed
"mesotrophic"; and very productive lakes are termed "eutrophic".
TSS Total Suspended Solids.
turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may
scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity.
UT Unnamed tributary.
watershed The region, or land area, draining into a body of water (such as a creek, stream, river, pond,
lake, bay or sound). A watershed may vary in size from several acres for a small stream or
pond to thousands of square miles for a major river system. The watershed of a major river
system is referred to as a basin or river basin.
WET Whole effluent toxicity. The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by an
aquatic toxicity test.
WS Class WS Water Supply Water Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters used
as sources of water supply. There are five WS categories. These range from WS-I, which
provides the highest level of protection, to WS-V, which provides no categorical restrictions
on watershed development or wastewater discharges like WS-I through WS-IV.
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant.