HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive SummaryNC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.1
RiveR Basin DescRiption
The Roanoke River basin extends from its source in the Blue Ridge
Mountains of Virginia to the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina,
encompassing mountainous, piedmont, and coastal topography as
it flows generally east-southeastward. Its five subbasins (Figure
ES-2) constitute approximately 3,500 square miles of drainage
area and approximately 2,400 miles of streams and rivers in North
Carolina, and contains diversity with classified trout streams in
the western portion and swamp classified waters in the eastern
portion. Seventeen counties and 42 municipalities are within the
NC portion of the basin.
The ecoregions associated with this river basin are the:
£Sauratown Mountains of the Blue Ridge ecoregion;
£Triassic Basins;
£Southern Outer Piedmont;
£Northern Inner Piedmont;
£Carolina Slate Belt;
£Northern Outer Piedmont ecoregions of the Piedmont;
£Rolling Coastal Plain;
£Southeastern Floodplains;
£Low Terraces ecoregions of the Southeastern Plains;
£Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods;
£Mid-Atlantic Floodplains;
£Low Terraces ecoregions of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Though some urban and suburban development has occurred in
the Roanoke River basin, according to 2006 data, the greatest
portion of land cover in the basin has remained forest and, to a
lesser extent, agriculture-based. Also characteristic of activities
throughout the state, nonpoint source runoff and numerous
small point source dischargers associated with development and
agricultural activities have potential to affect water quality in the
basin.
executive summaRy
ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
Basin at a Glance
counties:
Beaufort, Bertie, Caswell,
Forsyth, Granville, Guilford,
Halifax, Martin, Northampton,
Orange, Person, Rockingham,
Stokes, Surry, Vance, Warren, &
Washington
majoR municipalities:
Eden, Henderson, Oak City,
Reidsville, Roanoke Rapids, &
Roxboro
peRmitteD Facilities:
NPDES Dischargers: ............223
Major .........................................17
Minor .........................................48 General ...................................158
NPDES Non-Discharge: ..........44
Stormwater: ..........................131
General ...................................122
Individual .....................................9
Animal Operations: .................84
Aquaculture: ............................45
population:
2000 Census ..................285,488
2010 Census ..................289,784
2006 lanD coveR:
Open Water .........................2.6%
Developed ...........................6.5%
Forest ...............................48.2%
Agriculture .........................21.1%
Wetlands ...........................11.9%
Barren Land ........................0.1%
Shrub/Grassland .................9.6%
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.2
FIguRE ES-1: thE ENtIRE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN (hyDROLOgIC uNIt CODE 030101)
Dan
R
i
v
e
r
MayoRiver SmithRiver
D
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
ROANOKE
RIVER
Pigg
River
BigOtterRiver
B
la
k
e
w
ater
River
BanisterRiver
ROANOKE
RIVER
SandyRiver
H
y
c
o
Riv
er
Co
u
n
tr
y
LineCr.
Kerr
Reservoir
Lake
Gaston
ROANOKERIVER
VIRGINIA
NORTH
CAROLINA
VA
NC
SC
Entire
Roanoke
River
Basin
0
20
40
60
80
10
Miles
®
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
September
2011
Legend
8-Digit
HUC
Subbasins
Hydrography
03010101
-
Upper
Roanoke
03010102
-
Middle
Roanoke
03010103
-
Upper
Dan
03010104
-
Lower
Dan
03010105
-
Banister
03010106
-
Roanoke
Rapids
03010107
-
Lower
Roanoke
STATES
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.3
FIguRE ES-2: NORth CAROLINA PORtION OF thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
D
a
n
R
iv
e
r
Hyco
Lake
Mayo
Reserv.
Kerr
Reserv.
Lake
Gaston
Roanoke
Rapids
R o a n o keRiver
Stokesdale
Eden
Kernersville
Roxboro
Henderson
Rich
Square
Hobgood
Williamston
Windsor
BEAUFORT
BERTIE
MARTIN
HALIFAX
NORTHAMPTON
WARREN
VANCE
GRANVILLE
PERSON
ORANGE
GUILFORD
CASWELL
ROCKINGHAM
STOKES
FORSYTH
NC
Portion
of
the
Roanoke
River
Basin
0
20
40
60
80
10
Miles
®
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
September
2011
Legend
2010
Use
Support
8-Digit
HUC
Subbasins
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Municipalities
Counties
03010102
-
Middle
Roanoke
River
03010103
-
Upper
Dan
River
03010104
-
Lower
Dan
River
03010106
-
Roanoke
Rapids
03010107
-
Lower
Roanoke
River
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.4
WateR Quality Data oveRvieW
Stream flow, aquatic biology, and chemical/physical parameters were analyzed as part of the
basinwide planning process. Detailed information about the Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
monitoring and the effects each parameter has on water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and
3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning document.
stReam FloW
The basin experienced prolonged droughts between 1998-2002 and between 2007-2008, with
moderate droughts in 2005 and 2006 (Figure ES-3). Details about flows in the Roanoke River
Basin is in the 2010 Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report by DWQ-Environmental
Sciences Section (ESS).
FIguRE ES-3: yEARLy FLOW RAtES (CFS) OF thE uSgS gAgE StAtIONS IN thE ROANOKE RIVER
BASIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2068500 2070500 2071000 2074000 2077200 02077303 02077670 2080500 208111310
Indicates periods of drought in the Roanoke River Basin
From Left to Right:
• 2068500: Dan River (Francisco)
• 2070500: Mayo River
• 2071000: Dan River (Wentworth)
• 2074000: Smith River
• 2077200: Hyco Creek (Leasburg)
• 2077303: Hyco Creek (McGehees)
• 2077670: Mayo Creek
• 2080500: Roanoke River
• 208111310:Cashie River
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.5
BioloGical Data
Biological samples of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish
communities were collected mostly during the spring and
summer months of 2009 by DWQ-ESS as part of the five-
year cycle basinwide sampling efforts. Limited samples
were also collected for special studies. Overall, 65
biological sampling sites were monitored and rated within
the Roanoke River Basin. Each site’s biological rating is
used to determine the stream’s aquatic life use support
category (Figure ES-4) for use on the Integrated Report.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is
shown in Figure ES-5 and color coded based on its current
rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in
the subbasin chapters. Figure ES-7 is a comparison of
benthic site ratings sampled during the last two basinwide
cycles to indicate if there are any overall shifts in ratings.
Benthic ratings from this cycle are overall similar to those
received during the previous cycle, indicating a relatively
stable benthic macroinvertebrate community.
FIguRE ES-5: BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE
ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
Benthos 2004-2009
Excellent/Natural
Good
Good-Fair/Moderate
Fair
Not Impaired
Not Rated
FIguRE ES-6: CuRRENt BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE
SItE RAtINgS
Excellent/Natural
Good
Good-Fair/Moderate
Fair
Poor/Severe
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIguRE ES-7: ChANgE IN BENthIC
mACROINVERtEBRAtE SItE RAtINgS
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
FIguRE ES-4: uSE SuPPORt
CAtEgORIES FOR BIOLOgICAL RAtINgS
Biological
Ratings
Aquatic Life
Use Support
Excellent
Supporting
(Categories 1-2)
Good
Good-Fair
Not Impaired
Not Rated Not Rated(Category 3)
Fair Impaired
(Categories 4-5)Poor
Benthic samplinG summaRy
£Total Stations Monitored 39
£Total Samples Taken 42
£Number of New Stations 17
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.6
Fish Community Sampling
Each fish community station monitored during the current
cycle is shown in Figure ES-8 and color coded based on
the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more
detail in the watershed section, below. Figure ES-9 shows
the percentages of each rating given during this sampling
cycle within the basin. Figure ES-10 is a comparison of fish
community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles
to determine if there are any overall watershed shifts in ratings. The majority of stations had no
change in rating; however, six stations declined in rating and six increased in rating.
FIguRE ES-8: FISh COmmuNIty StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE ROANOKE RIVER
BASIN
Fish 2004-2009
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
FIguRE ES-9: CuRRENt FISh COmmuNIty SItE RAtINgS
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIguRE ES-10: ChANgE IN FISh COmmuNIty SItE
RAtINgS
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
For more information about biological data in this basin, see the 2010 Roanoke River Basinwide
Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 1-B.
amBient monitoRinG Data
During the 2004-2008 sampling cycle, DWQ collected samples at 18 Ambient Monitoring System
(AMS) stations in the basin. Each station was sampled ten or more times and used for use
support assessment. The assessment shows that the majority of exceedances were for copper
and turbidity parameters. Fecal coliform bacteria is also a parameter of concern within the
Roanoke River Basin. All three parameters are discussed below.
Fish com. samplinG summaRy
£Total Stations Monitored 26
£Total Samples Taken 29
£Number of New Stations 3
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.7
Specific information about ambient monitoring methodology, seasonal variation, and data sheets
for ambient stations in this basin are in the Roanoke River Basin Ambient Monitoring System
Report.
Copper
Two ambient stations exceeded
the State standard for copper
levels more than 10% of the
time (Smith River and Marlowe
Creek). These stations are
indicated by the large red dots
in Figure ES-11. Four stations
exceeded the standard in less
than 10% of samples and 12
stations had no exceedances.
The cause of the elevated levels
is unknown; however, possible
sources could be past instream mining operations, agricultural use such as pesticides, or urban
influences such as dust from brake pads. The current copper standard is relatively low and
maybe revised during this upcoming cycle. If samples continue to exceed the standard during
the next sampling cycle, a source study is recommended.
Turbidity
The two ambient stations
exceeding the State standard,
as indicated in Figure ES-12 by
large red dots, are both on the
Dan River. The Dan River has
a long history of being turbid.
Six other stations exceeded the
standard in less than 10% of
samples.
The cause of turbidity in the Dan
River has previously been linked
to instream mining operations
and agricultural fields along the river. However, no permitted mining operations remain and
many agricultural practices have adopted better management practices to reduce sediment
reaching the streams.
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria (FCB)
The FCB standard for
freshwater streams is not to
exceed the geometric mean
of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400
colonies/100 ml in 20% of the
samples where five samples
have been taken in a span of
30 days (5-in-30). Only results
FIguRE ES-11: PERCENt OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE COPPER
StANDARD (2005-2009)
0.0%
<7.0%
7%-10%
>10.0%
FIguRE ES-12: PERCENt OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE tuRBIDIty
StANDARD (2005-2009)
0.0%
<7.0%
7%-10%
>10.0%
FIguRE ES-13: PERCENt OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE FCB
SCREENINg CRItERIA (2005-2009)
0%
0%-9.9%
10%-19.9%
>20%
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.8
from a 5-in-30 study are used to determine whether a stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters
with a use classification of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority over other waters for
5-in-30 studies.
DWQ uses a screening criteria of 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of samples to consider the need
for a 5-in-30 study. Figure ES-13 shows the percentage of samples at each station that exceeded
this screening criteria. Recreational waters that exceed this criteria would be prioritized for
additional sampling. However, none of the recreational waters in the Roanoke River Basin
exceeded the screening criteria.
The geometric mean of FCB per year for the basin
between 1997 and 2009 is shown in Figure ES-15.
Overlaying the yearly flow averages for the Roanoke
River with the yearly geometric mean of FCB indicates
an influence of flow on FCB levels.
The overall decrease in levels from 2003-2008
could be attributed to a number of reasons including
reduced flow levels and watershed groups that have
actively been fencing livestock out of streams, as in
Figure ES-14. Recommendations to further reduce
FCB levels can be found in the subbasin chapters.
FIguRE ES-15: yEARLy gEOmEtRIC mEAN FECAL COLIFORm BACtERIA DAtA WIthIN thE ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN WIth FLOW gAgE DAtA FROm thE ROANOKE RIVER At ROANOKE RAPIDS (BEtWEEN 1997
& 2009)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FC
B
(
c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Geometricmean
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
FIguRE ES-14: LIVEStOCK IN StREAm
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.9
pH
Figure ES-16 shows the mean and medians of all pH data collected in the basin per year over
time along with the flow line for the Roanoke River. A few of the eastern AMS stations are
exceeding the state standard for pH; however, in less than 10% of samples. The graph may
indicate pH levels in the basin are at least somewhat linked to stream flow.
FIguRE ES-16: mEAN & mEDIAN yEARLy Ph DAtA WIthIN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN WIth FLOW gAgE
DAtA FROm thE ROANOKE RIVER At ROANOKE RAPIDS (BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009)
6.5
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.9
pH
Median Mean
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1600018000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2080500
population & lanD coveR
Urbanization most often has a detrimental affect on to aquatic resources. Small towns and
communities are usually not considered urban centers, but even small concentrations of
urbanization can have significant impacts on local waterways. For example, a one-acre parking
lot produces 16 times more runoff than a one-acre meadow (Schueler and Holland, 2000). A
wide variety of studies over the past decade converge on a central point: when more than 10
percent of the acreage in a watershed is covered in roads, parking lots, rooftops, and other
impervious surfaces, the rivers and streams within the watershed become seriously degraded.
Studies show that if urbanized areas cover more than 25 percent of a watershed, the decline in
the health of the ecosystem is irreversible (Beach, 2002; Galli, 1991).
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.10
population
Population growth and urban stormwater runoff are likely contributing factors to stream pollution
in urban areas throughout the Roanoke River Basin. The 2010 census population of the North
Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin is 289,784. This is an increase of roughly 4,300
(1.5%) individuals from the 2000 census. The two figures below show distribution in population
throughout the basin by 12-digit subwatersheds between 2000 and 2010. The subwatersheds
with the highest populations are indicated by red and those with smaller populations are indicated
by green. The two 12-Digit HUCs with largest growth contains the Town of Windsor and the
12-Digit HUC just down stream. These two HUCs had 33% and 121% growth, respectively.
Subwatersheds around the Mayo and Kerr Reservoirs had growth of 25% and 31%, respectively
(as indicated in Figure ES-18).
FIguRE ES-17: 2000 uS CENSuS POPuLAtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN By 12-DIgIt
SuBWAtERShED
2000 Population
0 -800
801 -2,000
2,001 -4,500
4,501 -8,000
8,001 -1,4390
FIguRE ES-18: 2010 uS CENSuS POPuLAtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN By 12-DIgIt
SuBWAtERShED
2010 Population
0 -800
801 -2,000
2,001 -4,500
4,501 -8,000
8,001 -16,114
33%
25%31%
121%
29%
121% - Downstream of the Town of Windsor
33% - Includes the Town of Windsor
31% - Kerr Reservoir
29% - Kerr Reservoir25% - Mayo Reservoir
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.11
lanD coveR
The largest percent of land cover in the four
western subbasins is forested land. In the
Lower Roanoke River subbasin, it shifts to
be split between wetlands and forested area.
Developed area has remained about the same
since 2001 and is between six and nine percent
for each subbasin. Agricultural activities make
up about 20% of the land cover across the basin.
Table ES-1, Figure ES-19, and Figure ES-20
show the distribution of land cover across the
basin during 2001 and 2006. There was very
little change in overall land cover between the
two years compared.
FIguRE ES-19: 2001 LAND COVER IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
Legend
2001LandCover
8_Digit_HUC_ROA
OpenWater
Developed,Open Space
Developed,Low Intensity
Developed,MediumIntensity
Developed,High Intensity
BarrenLand
Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Agriculture
Wetlands
FIguRE ES-20: 2006 LAND COVER IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
Legend
2006LandCover
8_Digit_HUC_ROA
OpenWater
Developed,Open Space
Developed,Low Intensity
Developed,MediumIntensity
Developed,High Intensity
BarrenLand
Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Agriculture
Wetlands
tABLE ES-1: PERCENt OF LAND COVER By
CAtEgORy FOR 2001 & 2006 IN thE ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN
CAtEgORy % IN
2001
% IN
2006
Open Water 2.4 2.6
Developed, Open Space 4.2 5.1
Developed, Low Intensity 1 1
Developed, Medium Intensity 0.2 0.3
Developed, High Intensity 0.1 0.1
Barren Land 0.6 0.1
Forest 52.3 48.2
Shrub/Grassland 6.7 9.6
Agriculture, Pasture Hay 13.2 11.8
Agriculture, Cultivated Crops 9.4 9.3
Wetlands 9.8 11.9
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.12
suBBasin WateR Quality summaRies
uppeR Dan RiveR suBBasin (03010103)
The Upper Dan River Subbasin is the western-most subbasin and runs along the North Carolina/
Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: five segments of the Dan River
are Impaired for either fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity or both; and the Smith River is Impaired
for biological integrity, fecal coliform bacteria, and copper.
Monitoring results the biological community during this basinwide cycle showed only a small
percent declined. There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, a long term
pattern of a slight increase in pH was seen.
There is a coordinated effort between Virginia and North Carolina to focus studies and restoration
implementation on the greater Dan River drainage area. More details about this effort are in
Chapter 1.
loWeR Dan RiveR (03010104)
The Lower Dan River Subbasin is the second western-most subbasin and runs along the North
Carolina/Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: Dan River is newly
Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity; Marlowe Creek remains Impaired for biological
integrity and zinc in the downstream segment.
Monitoring results of the biological community during this time showed a small percent improved.
There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, there were a few elevated levels
for turbidity and FCB.
miDDle Roanoke RiveR suBBasin (03010102)
The Middle Roanoke River Subbasin located around the middle of the basin along the North
Carolina/Virginia state line, contains one Impaired stream: Nutbush Creek remains Impaired for
biological integrity. During this assessment cycle, the subbasin experienced prolonged drought
between 2007 and 2008.
The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is partially located
in this subbasin. The study has focused on examining the feasibility of addressing downstream
environmental resource concerns in the Lower Roanoke River drainage area through changes
in operations or structures at the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir.
Roanoke RapiDs suBBasin (03010106)
The Roanoke Rapids Subbasin is the second eastern most subbasin and runs along the North
Carolina/Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: Newmans Creek is
newly Impaired for biological integrity; Smith Creek remains Impaired for low DO, and the upper
and lower segments are Impaired for biological integrity.
Monitoring results of the biological community during this time did not indicate much change
between cycles. There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, there is a general
downward long term pattern in pH levels and a few spikes in turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria
levels were measured.
The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is also partially
located in this subbasin.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.13
loWeR Roanoke RiveR suBBasin (03010107)
The Lower Roanoke River Subbasin is the eastern most subbasin and empties into Albemarle
Sound. The subbasin contains three Impaired streams. One segment of Quankey Creek
remains Impaired for biological integrity. Welch Creek remains Impaired for dioxin and low pH;
and one of the two most downstream segments of the Roanoke River is Impaired for low DO
and the other is Impaired for dioxin.
Monitoring the biological community showed only a small percent declined and some improved.
There were no major ambient monitoring violations.
The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is also partially
located in this subbasin.
otheR BasinWiDe WateR Quality inFoRmation
john h. keRR Dam & ReseRvoiR section 216 FeasiBility stuDy
The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is located in three
subbasins (HUCs 03010102, 03010106, and 03010107). The study has focused on examining
the feasibility of addressing downstream environmental resource concerns in the Lower
Roanoke River drainage area through changes in operations or structures at the John H. Kerr
Dam and Reservoir. Along with USACE, the non-federal cost sharing partners for this study
are Virginia and North Carolina. The process includes forming diverse workgroups, conducting
a wide range of studies and developing a plan of recommendations. The project is currently
completing phase 2 and beginning phase 3, the final phase. A more detailed description of the
project is found in the Additional Study section of Chapter 2.
nc/va coopeRative eFFoRts
North Carolina and Virginia have been communicating periodically over the last few years to
coordinate watershed efforts. The entire Dan River drainage area which crosses the state lines
several times, has been selected as a larger area in which to coordinate efforts between the
states. More information about this effort is provided in Chapter 2.
inteRBasin tRansFeRs (iBts)
The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) is a regional provider of drinking water. The
system sells bulk water to Henderson, Oxford, and Warren County. These three customers, in
turn, serve portions of Vance, Granville, Franklin, and Warren Counties.
KLRWS has an existing, grandfathered surface water transfer capacity of 10 MGD. The
grandfathered capacity allows the system to move water from the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr
Lake) to the Tar and Fishing Creek River Basins, both of which are sub-basins to the Tar-Pamlico
Major River Basin. On February 18, 2009, KLRWS submitted a Notice of Intent to Request an
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). In
that notice, KLRWS requested to increase the authorized transfer from 10 MGD to 24 MGD, and
to transfer 2.4 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. These transfer
amounts are based on water use projections to the year 2040.
Dates of interest for this request are as follows:
£February 18, 2009 - KLRWS submitted a Notice of Intent to Request an Interbasin Transfer
Certificate to the EMC.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.14
£February 26, 2009 - CH2MHill (consultant for KLRWS) provided written notice of scheduled
public meetings as required by §143-215.22L(c).
£March 12, 2009 - A status update was presented to EMC’s Water Allocation Committee.
£April 1-8, 2009 - The applicant held five public meetings to collect comments on the scope
of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
£May 31, 2009 - Public comment scoping period ended.
£November 2009 - The applicant provided a status report to the Division of Water Resources.
Status:
The applicant is currently working to develop a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The EIS must address the following requirements, which are also set forth in G.S. §113A-4 and
§143-215.22L(d):
1. A comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts that would occur in the source and
receiving river basins if the petition for a certificate is granted;
2. Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided;
3. A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed
interbasin transfer;
4. An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer, including water supply
options that do not require an interbasin transfer and use of water conservation measures;
5. The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment involved in the proposed
action and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and;
6. Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented.
The draft EIS is expected to be available for review in 2011. The EMC may not act on any
petition until they have determined that the EIS is adequate.
Status of the IBT will be updated periodically on the Division of Water Resources’ Kerr Lake
Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Certification Request webpage.
Roanoke RiveR Basin Bi-state commission
The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission (RRBBC) was established as a bi-state
commission composed of members from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of North
Carolina. The purpose of the RRBBC is to:
£Provide guidance, conduct joint meetings, and make recommendations to local, state,
and federal legislative and administrative bodies, and to others as it deems necessary and
appropriate, regarding the use, stewardship, and enhancement of the Basin’s water and other
natural resources;
£Provide a forum for discussion of issues affecting the Basin’s water quantity, water quality,
and other natural resources;
£Promote communication, coordination, and education among stakeholders within the Basin;
£Identify Basin-related problems and recommend appropriate solutions; and
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.15
£Undertake studies and prepare, publish, and disseminate information through reports, and
other communications related to water quantity, water quality, and other natural resources of
the Basin.
Topics and issues the Bi-State Commission have been discussing over the past few years
include: importance of natural resources to the economic vitality of the basin; interbasin transfer
of water; as well as discussions on the controversial topic of uranium mining and its potential
occurrence in Virginia. Annual reports, meeting minutes, and membership lists are found on the
Commission’s website.
souRce WateR assessment oF puBlic WateR supplies
Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the Roanoke
River Basin
In April 2004, the Division of Environmental Health’s Public Water Supply Section completed
source water assessments for all drinking water sources and generated reports for the PWS
systems using these sources. The assessments are updated regularly; the most recent updates
were published in May 2010. The results of the assessments can be viewed in two different
ways, either through the interactive ArcIMS mapping tool or compiled in a written report for each
PWS system. To access the ArcIMS mapping tool, simply click on the “NC SWAP Info” icon on
DEH’s website. To view a report, select the PWS System of interest by clicking on the “Source
Water Assessment Results-2010” link found on the SWAP web page.
In the Roanoke River Basin, 422 public water supply sources were identified. Twelve are surface
water sources and 410 are groundwater sources. Of the 410 groundwater sources, nine have
a Higher, 373 have a Moderate and 28 have a Lower susceptibility rating. Table ES-2 identifies
the surface water sources and their overall susceptibility ratings. It is important to note that a
susceptibility rating of Higher does not imply poor water quality as susceptibility is an indication
of a water supply’s potential to become contaminated.
tABLE ES-2: SWAP ReSultS foR SuRfAce WAteR SouRceS in the RoAnoke RiveR BASin
PWS ID
NumBER
INhERENt
VuLNERABILIty
RAtINg
CONtAmINANt
RAtINg
OVERALL
SuSCEPtIBILIty
RAtINg
NAmE OF SuRFACE
WAtER SOuRCE PWS SyStEm NAmE
0217010 M L M Farmer Lake Town of Yanceyville
0217010 M L M Fuller’s Creek Town of Yanceyville
0273010 M L M City Lake City of Roxboro
0273010 M L M Lake Roxboro City of Roxboro
0273409 M L M Hyco Lake Roxboro Steam Plant
0279010 H H H Dan River Town of Eden
0279025 H L M Mayo River Town of Mayodan
0279030 H M H Dan River Town of Madison
0291010 M L M Kerr Lake Henderson-Kerr Lake Regional Water
0442010 H L M Roanoke River Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
0442010 M L M Roanoke Rapids Lake Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
0442020 H L M Roanoke River Weldon Water System
Additional information concerning SWAP on a statewide level can be found in Chapter 18 of the
2006 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.16
ecoloGical FloW in the Roanoke RiveR Basin
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation in 2010 directing the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to develop hydrologic models for each river basin in N.C.
An important part of this bill requires the department to determine the flows needed to maintain
ecological integrity in surface waters. The bill further authorized the creation of a Science
Advisory Board to assist the department in assessing these ecological flows. The members
and alternates of the board all have a strong background in aquatic ecology and represent a
diversity of water use interests. The board has a charter that will help guide them through this
process.
Updates on the progress of the Roanoke River model are on the Division of Water Resources
website.
BasinWiDe neeDs
To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to continue
to work closely with other state agencies in NC and across state lines as well as stakeholders to
identify and control pollutants. The costs of restoration can be high, but several programs exist
to provide funding for restoration efforts.
Balancing economic development and water quality protection will be a challenge. Some impacts
on surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning process.
Others 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
sediment and erosion control ordinances; stormwater best management practices for existing
and new development; development and enforcement of riparian 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 throughout the Roanoke River
Basin that provide a foundation on which future initiatives can be built.
ReFeRences
Beach, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the
United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.
Galli, J. 1991. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management
Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Mary-
land Department of Environment: Washington, D.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Appli-
cable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative
Code: 15A NCA 2B. Raleigh, NC. (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/)
____. DWQ. Planning Section. Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). November 2008. Supplemen-
tal Guide to Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans.
Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide)
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Ecosystems Unit. September 2010.
Roanoke River Basin Ambient Monitoring Systems Report (January 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2009). Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/
get_file?uuid=c9a59811-634c-490b-b566-6a8ebc00554d&groupId=38364)
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.17
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU).
December 2010. Basinwide Assessment Report: Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e3dd1d8b-bbc5-42c9-
9999-1d99dd4c7455&groupId=38364)
Schueler, T., and H.K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Water-
shed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
E
xEC
ut
IV
E
S
um
m
AR
y
2
0
1
1
ES.18