Chapter 1 - 03010103

RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.1
SubbaSin at a Glance
countieS:
Surry, Stokes, Forsyth,
Rockingham, & Caswell
MunicipalitieS:
Eden, Stoneville, Wentworth,
Mayodan, Reidsville, Stokesdale,
Danbury, Walnut Cove, Rural
Hall, & Walkertown
ecoreGionS:
Sauratown Mountains, Northern
Inner Piedmont, & Triassic Basin
perMitted FacilitieS:
NPDES Dischargers: ............126
Major ...........................................5
Minor .........................................28
General .....................................93
NPDES Non-Dischargers: .........3
Stormwater: ............................49 General .....................................49 Individual .....................................0
Animal Operations: ...................8
population:
2010 Census ..................124,907
2006 land cover:
Open Water .........................1.2%
Developed ...........................8.3%
Forest ...............................62.8%
Agriculture .........................19.0%
Wetlands .............................0.6%
Barren Land ........................0.1%
Shrub/Grassland .................8.0%
SubbaSin Water Quality overvieW
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.
During this assessment cycle (2004-2009), the subbasin experienced
a moderate drought in 2005 and 2006 as well as a prolonged drought
between 2007 and 2008. Monitoring the biological community during
this 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.
This subbasin is part of a bi-state coordinated effort between Virginia and
North Carolina to focus studies and restoration implementation on the
greater Dan River drainage area. More information about these efforts
can be found in the Recommendations, Action Plans & Other Information
at the Subbasin Scale section.
CHAPTER 1
upper dan
river SubbaSin
HUC 03010103
Includes: Dan River, Snow Creek, Big Creek, Town Fork Creek,
Mayo River, Rock House Creek, Smith Creek, & Wolf Island Creek
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.2
FIgURE 1-1: UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN (03010103)
Archies
Cr
PetersCr
NF1NF3
NF2
NF4
NF6
NB83
NB82
ROA003A
NB17
NB97
NB101
NB41
NB9
NB63
NF8
NB21
DANRI
V
ER
NB8
N0150000NF5
NF7
NB15
NB4
NB33
DANRIVER
NB26
NB26
NB120
NB47
NB26
NF10
NF42
N1360000
NF9
ROA009E
NB19
ROA009G
ROA009H
ROA009J
NB115 NF11
NF12
BigBe
a
verIslandCr
Paw
Paw
Cr
MillCr
Brush
y
FkCr
Hogans
C
rBrus
h
y
C
r
LynnBr
MayoRiver
Belews
Lake
Rock HouseCr
ROA0092A
SmithRiver
MatrimonyCr
NB36
NF18
NF20
NB114
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
N2300000
N1400000
N2430000
SURRY
Eden
Stokesdale
WentworthReidsville
Kernersville
Walkertown
Rural
Hall
Walnut
Cove
Mayodan
Stoneville
Danbury
STOKES
GUILFORD
FORSYTH
ROCKINGHAM
SURRY
CASWELL
HogansCreek
WolfIslandCreek
BigCreek
Town
F
o
r
k
C
reek
B
i
rc
h
F
o
r
k
SnowCreek
Lt.Crooked
Cr
JacobsCreek
S
.
D
o
u
ble
C
r
C
o
u
ntry
L
i
n
e
C
r
e
e
k
N.
Double
Cr
DAN
RIVER
H
i
c
k
o
r
y
C
r
Meadow
Branch
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
NB74
Upper
Dan
River
Subbasin
(03010103)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY#0Ek"Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
March
2011
¯
0
5
10
15
20
2.5
Miles
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.3
Water Quality data SuMMary For thiS SubbaSin
Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters is a large part of the basinwide
planning process. More detailed information about 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 from 1998-2002 and again from 2007-2008, with moderate
droughts in 2005 and 2006 (Figure 1-2). More detail about flows in the Roanoke River Basin can be found in
the 2010 Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report produced by DWQ-Environmental Science Section.
FIgURE 1-2: YEARlY FlOw RAtES (CFS) OF tHE USgS gAgE StAtIONS IN tHE UppER DAN
RIVER SUBBASIN BEtwEEN 1997 & 2009
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
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
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
bioloGical data
Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2009 by the DWQ-Environmental
Sciences Section as part of the five year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special studies. Overall, 30
biological sampling sites were monitored within the Upper Dan River Subbasin. The ratings for each station
can be seen in Appendix 1-B.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in
Figure 1-3 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the
sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure
1-5 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 similar to those received during the
previous cycle indicating a relatively stable community.
benthic SaMplinG SuMMary
£Total Stations Monitored 15
£Total Samples Taken 17
£Number of New Stations 9
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.4
FIgURE 1-3: BENtHIC StAtIONS COlOR CODED BY CURRENt
RAtINg IN tHE UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN
Benthos 2004-2009
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Not Impaired
Not Rated
FIgURE 1-4: CURRENt BENtHIC SItE RAtINgS
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIgURE 1-5: CHANgE IN BENtHIC SItE RAtINgS
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
Fish Community Sampling
Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown
in Figure 1-6 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the
sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure
1-7 shows the percentages of each rating given during this sampling cycle
within this subbasin. Figure 1-8 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. Overall, the community is relatively
stable.
FIgURE 1-6: FISH COmmUNItY StAtIONS COlOR CODED BY
CURRENt RAtINg IN tHE UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN
Fish 2004-2009
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
FiSh coM. SaMplinG SuMMary
£Total Stations Monitored 15
£Total Samples Taken 15
£Number of New Stations 1
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.5
FIgURE 1-7: CURRENt FISH COmmUNItY SItE RAtINgS
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIgURE 1-8: CHANgE IN FISH COmmUNItY SItE RAtINgS
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
For more information about biological data in this subbasin, see the 2010 Roanoke River Basinwide
Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 1-B.
aMbient data
The ambient data are used to develop use support ratings every two years, which are then reported to the
EPA via the Integrated Report (IR). The IR is a collection of all monitored waterbodies in North Carolina and
their water quality ratings. The most current IR is the 2010 version and is based on data collected between
2004 and 2008. The ambient data reported in this basin plan were collected between 2005 and 2009 and will
be used for the 2012 IR. If a waterbody receives an Impaired rating, it is then placed on the 303(d) Impaired
Waters List. The Roanoke River Basin portion of the 2010 IR can be found in Appendix 1-A and the full 2010
IR can be found on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website.
Four Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) stations are located in the Upper Dan River subbasin (see Figure 1-1
for the station locations). During the current sampling cycle (January 2005 and December 2009), samples
were collected for all parameters on a monthly basis except metals which were sampled quarterly until May
2007 when metals sampling was suspended. For more information about the ambient monitoring, parameters,
how data are used for use support assessment and other information, see Chapter 2 of the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning.
Long Term Ambient Monitoring
The following discussion of ambient monitoring parameters of concern include graphs showing the median
and mean concentration values for each ambient station in this subbasin by specific parameter over a 13 year
period (1997-2009). The geometric mean is a type of mean or average, which indicates the central tendency
or typical value of a set of numbers. The graphs are not intended to provide statistically significant trend
information, but rather an idea of how changes in land use or climate conditions can affect parameter readings
over the long term. The difference between median and mean results indicate the presence of outliers in the
data set. Box and whisker plots of individual ambient stations were completed by parameter for data between
2005 and 2009 by DWQ’s Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) and can be found in the Roanoke River
Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report.
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.6
pH
Figure 1-9 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
Upper Dan River Subbasin. The pH pattern seen during this time period is a steady increase until 2006 when it
dips back down. This pattern is seen in other parts of the northwestern corner of the state. Possible causes of
the increasing levels in this subbasin could be atmospheric deposition, groundwater influences or precipitation
influences. However, the exact reason is unknown at this time.
Proper riparian buffers throughout the subbasin could reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, which can
include nutrients from farm or lawn fertilizers, as well as impacts from acid rain. Trees within riparian buffers
are also beneficial for shading streams and reducing water temperatures. It is recommended to continue
monitoring pH levels within the subbasin and investigate possible causes.
FIgURE 1-9: SUmmARIzED pH VAlUES FOR All DAtA COllECtED At AmBIENt SAmplINg
StAtIONS IN HUC 03010103
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
pH
Median Mean
* NC pH Standard: Between 6.0 and 9.0 su
Turbidity
All four AMS stations within the Upper Dan River subbasin exceeded the state’s turbidity standard in 6 to 23
percent of samples, as seen in Figure 1-10 indicated by yellow and red dots. Possible sources of the elevated
turbidity levels are discussed in the 10-digit watershed section. Figure 1-11 shows the mean and median
turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Upper Dan River subbasin. The yearly
averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs with the exception of the 2009 mean. The western
most station is located in a designated Trout Water which has a standard of 10 NTU.
While some erosion is a natural phenomenon, human land use practices may accelerate the process to
unhealthy levels for aquatic life. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging
operations and excessive stormwater flow off impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity
exceedances demonstrate the importance of using best management practices to minimize the impacts of
agriculture and development upon water quality, and protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural
areas.
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.7
FIgURE 1-10: pERCENtAgE OF
SAmplES ExCEEDINg tHE tURBIDItY
StANDARD (2005-2009)
0%
<7%
7%-10%
>10%
FIgURE 1-11: SUmmARIzED tURBIDItY VAlUES FOR All DAtA COllECtED At
AmBIENt SAmplINg StAtIONS IN HUC 03010103
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

(
N
T
U
)
Median Mean
* NC Turbidity Standard: Class C Waters = 50 NUT; Class Tr Waters = 10 NTU
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
As seen in Figure 1-12, none of the four sites recorded DO standard exceedance during this monitoring cycle.
Figure 1-13 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
Upper Dan River subbasin. These averages are well within the normal DO range.
FIgURE 1-12: pERCENtAgE OF
SAmplES ExCEEDINg tHE DO
StANDARD (2005-2009)
0%
<7%
7%-10%
>10%
FIgURE 1-13: SUmmARIzED DO VAlUES FOR All DAtA COllECtED At
AmBIENt SAmplINg StAtIONS IN HUC 0301010
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
DO

(
m
g
/
l
)
Median Mean
* NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.8
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) occurs in water as a result of nonpoint
sources such as animal waste from wildlife, farm animals and/or
pets, as well as from sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). 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 from a 5-in-30 study are used to indicate whether the
stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a use classification
of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority for 5-in-30 studies.
Other waters are studied as resources permit.
As seen in Figure 1-14, three of the four sites had between 10%
and 20% of samples over 400 colonies/100 ml. Possible sources of
elevated levels of FCB are discussed in the subwatershed sections. Figure 1-15 shows the yearly geometric
mean (calculated average) for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Upper Dan River subbasin.
The highest yearly geometric mean was recorded in 2003 (232 colonies/100 ml). The figure also includes the
yearly average stream flow, as seen in Figure 1-2, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels.
FIgURE 1-15: SUmmARIzED FECAl COlIFORm BACtERIA VAlUES FOR All DAtA COllECtED At
AmBIENt SAmplINg StAtIONS IN HUC 03010103 wItH OVERlAYINg FlOw
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,

c
u
b
i
c

f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2068500207050020710002074000
0
50
100
150
200
250
FC
B

(
c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Geometricmean
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Di
s
h
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
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Di
s
h
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
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Di
s
h
c
h
a
r
g
e
,

c
u
b
i
c

f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2068500 2070500 2071000 2074000USGS Flow Gage Stations:
* NC FCB Standard (5-in-30 data only): Geomean not > 200/100 ml or 400/100 ml in 20% of samples
Additional information about possible causes of parameters discussed above for particular stations, see the
stream write ups below. For more information regarding any of the parameters listed above, see Section
3.3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. For additional information about
ambient monitoring data collected in this river basin, see the Roanoke River Basin Ambient Monitoring
System Report.
FIgURE 1-14: pERCENtAgE OF SAmplES
wItH ElEVAtED FCB lEVElS (2005-
2009)
<6.9%
6.9%-10%
10.1%-20.0%
>20.0%
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.9
underStandinG the data
Biological & Ambient Ratings Converted to Use Support Categories
Biological (benthic and fish community) samples are given a
bioclassification/rating based on the data collected at the site
by DWQs Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). These
bioclassifications include Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Not
Impaired, Not Rated, Fair and Poor. For specific methodology
defining how these rating are given see Benthic Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Fish Community SOP.
Once a rating is given, it is then translated into a Use Support
Category (see Figure 1-16).
Ambient monitoring data are analyzed based on the percent of
samples exceeding the state standard for individual parameters
for each site within a five year period. In general, if a standard is
exceeded in greater than 10.0% of samples taken for a particular
parameter, that stream segment is Impaired for that parameter.
The fecal coliform bacteria parameter is exception to the rule. See the Fecal Coliform Bacteria
section in the Ambient Data portion above.
Each biological parameter (benthic and fish community)
and each ambient parameter is assigned a Use Support
Category based on its rating or percent exceedance. A
detailed description of each category can be found on the first
page of Appendix 1-A. Each monitored stream segment is
given an overall category number which reflects the highest
individual parameter category. Figure 1-17 shows how the
category number is translated into the use support rating.
Example
Stream A had a benthic sample that rated Good-Fair and
12% of turbidity samples taken at the ambient station were exceeding the standard. The benthic
sample would be given an individual category number of 1 (Figure 1-16) and the turbidity parameter
would be given a category number of 5 since >10% of samples exceeded the standard. Therefore,
stream A’s overall category number would be a 5, indicating the stream has a use support rating of
Impaired.
FIgURE 1-16: 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
FIgURE 1-17: CAtEgORY NUmBER tO
USE SUppORt RAtINg
CAtEgORY #USE SUppORt RAtINg
1 Supporting2
3 Not Rated
4 Impaired5
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.10
recoMMendationS, action planS & other inForMation at the
SubbaSin Scale
WaterShed reStoration iMproveMent teaM (Writ)
The Upper Dan River Subbasin has been prioritized as an area in which to focus resources by the NC
Watershed Restoration Improvement Team (WRIT), which has only a selected few areas across the state.
The WRIT is comprised of representatives from different DENR divisions and programs (although now due
to 2011 legislative organizational mandates there are programs from the NC Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services as well) who are working to better coordinate watershed efforts across the state. WRIT has
specifically selected the following 12-digit HUCs within this subbasin as part of those few watersheds across
the state to focus efforts:
£Elk Creek
(030101030104);
£Peters Creek
(030101030105);
£Matrimoney Creek
(030101030505);
£Smith River
(030101030807);
£Town Creek
(030101030901); and
£Cascade Creek
(030101030902).
More specific details on these
subwatersheds can be found
in the 10-Digit Watershed
section below.
north carolina & virGinia coordinated eFFortS
The states of Virginia and North Carolina have been communicating periodically over the last few years
in an effort to coordinate watershed efforts between the two states. 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.
Rodney Wright with the Stokes, Rockingham, and Caswell County Soil & Water Conservation Districts is
serving as the watershed coordinator for the Upper Dan River Subbasin. He is working with locals and others
to identify and implement management measures in the subbasin. This effort will mainly focus on those areas
that drain to Impaired waters. Some specific projects implemented by this effort will be discussed in the
10-digit HUC’s Local Initiatives sections. The coordinator and local districts will be making a concerted effort
to work with their counterparts in VA in those subwatersheds that border VA to better coordinate activities.
Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC) received a Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grant to develop
an Eden Area Watershed Plan intended to address the impairments on both the Dan and Smith rivers in
this area. For more information on this effort, please refer to the PTRC’s website. PTRC also received a
205(j)/604(b)-funded GIS project to prioritize 12-digit HUC watersheds in both NC & VA for conservation and
restoration as they had previously done for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
FIgURE 1-18: UppER DAN RIVER wRIt SUBwAtERSHEDS
Legend
12-Digit HUC
8-Digit HUC
030101030104
030101030105
030101030505
030101030807
030101030901
030101030902
Counties_no_shorelines_ROA
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.11
dWQ priority SuMMary
Table 1-1 is a list of waters in the Upper Dan River Subbasin that DWQ has prioritized for restoration/protection.
The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steam’s impairment or impacts but rather by
the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its designated uses may be
prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently impaired. This is based on a more holistic
evaluation of the drainage area which includes monitoring results, current and needed restoration/protection
efforts, land use and other activities that could potentially impact water quality in the area. Some supporting
streams may have a more urgent need for protections than an impaired stream with restoration needs already
being implemented.
The table also lists potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream including in-field
observations, monitoring data, historical evidence and permit or other violations. Additional study may be
needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact. The last column includes a list of recommended actions.
tABlE 1-1: NOtABlE wAtERS IN tHE UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN (NOt RANKED)
StREAm NAmE AU#ClASS.pOtENtIAl
StRESSOR(S)
pOtENtIAl
SOURCE(S)
QUAlItAtIVE
StAtUS ACtIONS NEEDED
Dan River 22-(1)a C;Tr ----Supporting P: additional (biological
diversity)
Dan River 22-(1)b C;Tr Turbidity --Impaired P (endangered species)
Dan River 22-(8)WS-V ----Supporting P (rare species)
North Double Cr 22-10 C Nutrients (in the past)--Supporting M
South Double Cr 22-11 B ----Supporting M
Archies Cr 22-2 C;Tr ----Supporting P (qualifies for HQW)
Snow Cr 22-20 C Nutrient enrichment --Supporting RBR
Town Fork Cr 22-25a & b C ----Supporting M
Big Beaver
Island Cr
22-29 C ----Improving P (Fed Endangered)
Jacobs Cr 22-32-(3)WS-IV Turbidity --Supporting SEC BMPs
Rock House Cr 22-34-(2)WS-IV Turbidity --Supporting P (rare species)
Smith River 22-40-(1), (2.5)
& (3)
WS-IV;
CA;C
Turbidity, FCB, Copper --Impaired SS
Elk Cr 22-5 C;Tr Habitat Degradation
(Riparian Buffers)
--Supporting RBR
Peter Cr 22-6 C;Tr ----Supporting M, P (state threatened
species)
Big Cr 22-9 C;Tr Nutrients, DO
Saturation
--Supporting SS
Class.: Classification (e.g., C, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL)
Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated
use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Fecal Coliform Bacteria (FCB),
Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.)
Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving (For current Use Support Assessment see the Integrated Report.)
Actions Needed: Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Daylight Stream (DS), Education (E), Forestry BMPs (F), Local
Ordinance (LO), Monitoring (M), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Protection (P), Restoration (R), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Stormwater Controls (SC), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC BMPs), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Stressor Study (SS), .
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.12
StatuS & recoMMendationS For Monitored WaterS
underStandinG thiS Section
In this Section, more detailed information about stream health, special studies, aquatic life stressors
and sources and other additional information is provided by each 10-digit Hydrological Unit Code
(HUC). Waterbodies discussed in this Chapter include all monitored streams, whether monitored
by DWQ or local agencies with approved methods. Use Support information on all monitored
streams within this watershed can be seen on the map in Figure 1-1, and a Use Support list of all
monitored waters in this basin can be found in the Use Support Chapter.
Use Support & Monitoring Box:
Each waterbody discussed in the Status & Recommendations for
Monitored Waters within this Watershed section has a corresponding
Use Support and Monitoring Box (Table 1-2). The top row indicates
the 2010 Use Support and the length of that stream or stream
segment. The next two rows indicate the overall Integrated Report
category which further defines the Use Support for both the 2008
and the 2010 reports. These first three rows are consistent for all
boxes in this Plan. The rows following are based on what type of
monitoring stations are found on that stream or stream segment
and may include benthic, fish community and/or ambient monitoring
data. If one of these three types of monitoring sites is not shown,
then that stream is not sampled for that type of data. The first column
indicates the type of sampling in bold (e.g., Benthos) with the site
ID below in parenthesis (e.g., CB79). The latest monitoring result/rating of that site is listed in the
next column followed by the year that sample was taken. If there is more than one benthic site, for
example, on that stream, the second site ID and site rating will be listed below the first. The last
row in the sample box in Table 1-2 is the AMS data. The data window for all AMS sites listed in the
boxes in this Plan is between 2004-2008. Only parameters exceeding the given standard are listed
in the second column with the percent of exceedance listed beside each parameter.
Please note any fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) listing in the last row (as seen in Table 1-2) only
indicates elevated levels and a study of five samples in 30 days (5-in-30) must be conducted
before a stream becomes Impaired for FCB.
tABlE 1-2: ExAmplE OF A USE
SUppORt AND mONItORINg BOx
USE SUppORt: iMpaired (14 mI)
2008 IR Cat.4a
2010 IR Cat.4
Benthos (CB79)
(CB80)
Fair (2002)
Fair (2002)
Fish Com
(CF33)Good-Fair (2002)
AMS
(C1750000)
Turbidity - 12%
FCB - 48%
dan river current Water Quality StatuS
The Dan River drainage area stretches across two subbasins (03010103 & 03010104); however, the full
length of the NC portion of the river is discussed here including a summary of all Dan River Impairments and
TMDLs. A bi-state restoration effort for the Dan River drainage area is discussed in the section above.
Dan River [AU#: 22-(1)a]
This portion of the Dan River is the first segment to across the state line into
NC. The river crosses the state line four additional times before exiting NC
west of the Town of Milton flowing northward to Kerr Lake. The segment is
approximately five miles from the state line to it’s confluence with the Little
Dan River [AU#: 22-4] and is designated as Trout Waters. The majority of the
drainage area is forestry, agriculture, residential and some industrial areas.
All waters upstream of the Big Creek and Dan River confluence hold the secondary use classification of Trout
Waters. Near the most upstream portion of this segment, just after the Dan River crosses into NC, there is
a designated 363 acre Significant Natural Heritage Area. The river is known for its high level of fish species
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (5.1 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF3)Good (2004)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.13
diversity and the presence of several endemic species that are endangered, threatened, or significantly rare.
This segment of the Dan River was placed under the Supporting use support category on the 2010 Integrated
Report based on the 2004 fish sample.
Water Quality Status
This segment was last monitored in 2004. At that time, the fish population comprised of all pollution intolerant
species. There was a concern for the absence of sunfish and piscivores as a result of the segment being
Hatchery Supported Trout Waters; however, it is likely due to the habitat and fast running nature of the river.
The NC Wildlife Resources manages efforts to stock 6,800 brook, rainbow and brown trout from May to July
each year. Overall, the fish community in this segment was healthy as of 2004.
Dan River [AU#: 22-(1)b]
The second segment of the Dan River is approximately 11.6 miles from it’s
confluence with the Little Dan River [AU#: 22-4] to Peters Creek [AU#: 22-6]
and is designated as Trout Waters. The majority of land cover in the drainage
area is agriculture, forest and some residential. This segment of the Dan River
has been on the Impaired Waters List since 2008 for exceeding the turbidity
standard.
Water Quality Status
This segment of the Dan River has been monitored by DWQ since 1984 at the benthic station NB8. Ratings
between 1984 and 2009 have either been Good or Excellent. In 2009, the site received an Excellent rating,
reflecting the stable pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate community which has been observed in the past.
An ambient station is also located on this segment which has shown turbidity standard exceedances since the
2001 plan. The segment was first listed as Impaired for turbidity in 2008 and was not included on previous lists
due to difference in use support methodology. Streams classified as Trout Waters, as this segment is, have a
lower turbidity standard of 10 NTUs verses 50 NUTs for Class C waters. Even though the number of samples
exceeding the standard didn’t change much between the previous monitoring cycle and the present cycle, the
value of the exceeding samples increased.
A nutrient and sediment trend analysis was completed during this cycle. The analysis showed nutrients
peaking in February and August and decreasing to a minimum in October. Turbidity and total suspended solid
levels peaked in late spring and early summer months. Long term trends were evaluated during this cycle
for data collected between 1980 and 2009. Ammonia and specific conductance increased +0.004 mg/l per
year and +0.60 umhos/cm per year, respectively (Figure 1-19). See the Roanoke River Ambient Monitoring
Report for more details.
FIgURE 1-19: lONg tERm tRENDS At N0150000 (1980-2010)
USE SUppORt: iMpaired (11.6 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
Benthos
(NB8)Excellent (2009)
AMS
(N0150000)Turbidity - 22%
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.14
Recommendations
Examine the possibility of additional monitoring stations, stream walking or other investigation to try to identify
causes and sources of turbidity problems in Dan River. The upper part of this segment is located in Elk Creek
subwatershed which is one of the subwatersheds targeted for greater focus and resources by WRIT; therefore,
additional resources may be available for investigation. DWQ should coordinate with VA when working on this
river segment.
Dan River [AU#: 22-(8)]
This segment of the Dan River is approximately 26 miles from Big Creek [AU#:
22-9] to Town Fork Creek [AU#: 22-25b]. However, only about 11.6 miles of the
segment are within this watershed. The land cover for majority of the drainage
area is forest and agriculture. There are two mining operations towards the
downstream portion of the segment.
Water Quality Status
The benthic station is just downstream from the Little Dan River watershed (0301010301) boundary and gives
a representation of the water quality in that watershed. The land running parallel to the river in this upstream
area is mostly forested. Samples have been taken at this benthic site since 1994 when it received a Good-
Fair rating. That rating increased to a Good in 1999 and has remained at that rating ever since with a slightly
increasing overall score. A few rare species (Trycorythodes robacki and Ceraclea mentiea )were collected in
the 2009 sample.
Recommendations
This segment and the rare species found within it would benefit from additional protections on a state and local
level.
Dan River [AU#: 22-(31.5)a & (31.5)b]
These two segments of the Dan River are approximately 14 miles combined
from just over half a mile downstream of Jacobs Creek [AU#: 22-32-(3)] to Mill
Branch [AU#: 22-39.5]. Land cover along these segments is mostly agriculture
and residential with urban area around the Town of Eden. This segment has
been on the Impaired Waters List since 2002 for turbidity standard violations.
Water Quality Status
There is one monitoring (AMS) station between these two segments. Almost 15% of turbidity samples exceeded
the state standard at this station. Instream mining operations have been noted as a source in past plans.
DWQ developed a TMDL for turbidity for this section of the Dan River in 2005. The TMDL recommended a
59% reduction in total suspended solids between both point and nonpoint sources. As seen in Figure 1-20,
majority of sampling results have been reduced to below 35 NTUs since the TMDL was released in 2005
indicating progress.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(25.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(NB9)Good (2009)
USE SUppORt: iMpaired (14.2 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.4
AMS
(N2300000)Turbidity (14.8%)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.15
FIgURE 1-20: lONg tERm tURBIDItY SAmplINg At N2300000 (1997-2009)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1996 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2009
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

(
N
T
U
)
N23
* Red line indicates 50 NTU, the state standard
Dan River [AU#: 22-(39)a & b]
These two segments of the Dan River run from Mill Branch [AU#: 22-39.5] about
12 miles northeast to the state line. The river flows through Virginia for roughly
six miles, crosses back into NC for a mile and a half before it returns to Virginia.
After crossing state line again into NC, it flows for about 10 miles before its
final exit just before reaching the Town of Milton. These segments are lined
with agriculture and some forested areas, with tributaries draining additional
farmland and residential areas. There are also two major dischargers within
two and a half miles from the Smith River confluence (City of Eden WWTP and Duke Energy Dan River Steam
Station). These segments have been on the Impaired Waters List for FCB and Turbidity since 2008.
Water Quality Status
There are two AMS monitoring stations along these two segments. Both station’s samples exceeded the
turbidity state standard. The average turbidity levels for both stations have decreased; however, the amount
of samples exceeding the standard have increased at both stations. Both segments are on the Impaired
Waters List for FCB standard violations as well. A TMDL for FCB for the Smith and Dan Rivers was developed
in 2009 to address that impairment.
BMP Implementation
NC Division of Soil & Water Conservation was awarded an NC Section 319 NPS Program grant in 2008 to
implement BMPs throughout the Dan River Watershed. BMPs that will be installed during the course of this
project include: conservation cover, conservation crop rotation, cover crop, critical area planting, diversions,
livestock exclusion fencing, field borders, grassed waterways, heavy use area protection, troughs, water wells,
and watering facilities. This grant will conclude in March 2012. The DSWC received an additional 319 grant
in 2011 to continue implementing these BMPs throughout the watershed. Quarterly reports providing updated
on these projects are on the NPS 319 Program webpage.
USE SUppORt: iMpaired
(23.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
AMS
(N3000000)
(N3500000)
Turbidity (19%)
Turbidity (23%)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.16
dan river iMpairMent SuMMary
There are a total of 49.8 miles of the Dan River Impaired for turbidity standard violations as well as 38.2 miles
Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria standard violations.
tABlE 1-3: DAN RIVER ImpAIRmENtS BY SEgmENt
AU#DIStANCE
ImpAIRED (mI)
tURBIDItY
ImpAIRmENt
(% ExCEEDED*)
NEw
tURBIDItY
ImpAIRmENt
FECAl
ImpAIRmENt
NEw FECAl
ImpAIRmENt
22-(1)b 11.6 24%No No --
22-(31.5)a 4.8 10%No Yes Yes
22-(31.5)b 9.4 10%No Yes No
22-(38.5)0.6 12%No Yes No
22-(39)a 13.8 12%Yes Yes Yes
22-(39)b 9.6 16%Yes Yes No
* Percents based off of 2010 Impaired Waters List (2004-2008)
The 11.6 miles in the upper Dan River are in trout waters where the turbidity standard is 10 NTUs. This segment
had elevated turbidity again during this assessment period. These same waters received an Excellent and a
Good benthic bioclassification during the last three basin cycles.
The remaining 38.2 miles of the Dan River are impaired for both turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria. Of these,
14.2 miles were impaired for turbidity on the 2002 Impaired Waters List (22-(31.5)a & 22-(31.5)b). A TMDL
for this 14.2 miles segment was approved by the USEPA in January 2005, which recommends a 59 percent
reduction in Total Suspended Solids distributed over both point and nonpoint sources in order to achieve
acceptable water quality levels in this area. A turbidity TMDL will have to be developed for the remaining
24 miles. An addendum to the approved Virginia bacteria TMDL was approved in July 2009 to include the
segments of the Dan River in North Carolina which are Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The FCB TMDL for
both NC point sources and NC and VA nonpoint sources is 2.88E+12 counts/day.
In the past, the Dan River was often called the “Muddy Dan” by locals. The river almost always ran brown due
to sediment in the river. There were several instream sand mining operations as well as a lot of agricultural
activity along the river. No permitted sand mining operations remain along this segment of the Dan River
and many of the tobacco fields in this area have been converted to other agricultural practices such as cattle
farming. Many of these fields have also been converted to permanent grasslands or to natural vegetation with
help from the NC agriculture cost share program. While more environmentally friendly agricultural practices
have started to occur in this area, more timber harvesting is occurring in both North Carolina and Virginia. Since
the Dan River flows back and forth across the state line, timber harvesting practices in one state ultimately
affects the water quality in the other. Development of single family homes have increased in this area as well.
Sediment and erosion controls are often not required on these smaller size lots. The use of ATV’s was also
noted as an activity in this area that is likely contributing to the sediment load in the small tributaries that flow
into the Dan River. With a continued push to improve agricultural and forestry BMPs in the area as well as
better sediment and erosion control ordinances along the Dan River, improvements should be achievable.
See the WRIT section above for more detail on focused state and bi-state study and restoration efforts for the
Dan River drainage area.
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.17
little dan river-dan river (0301010301)
Includes: Dan River [AU#: 22-(1)a, b, c, & (8)], Archies Creek [AU#:
22-2], Elk Creek [AU#: 22-5], Peter Creek [AU#: 22-6], Big Creek [AU#:
22-9], North Double Creek [AU#: 22-10], South Double Creek
[AU#: 22-11], Cascade Creek [AU#: 22-12-(2)a & b], Indian Creek [AU#:
22-13-(2)], & Mill Creek [AU#: 22-18]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forested and some residential
areas. There are five minor NPDES permitted facilities located within the watershed.
Only one segment within this watershed (Dan River [AU#: 22-(1)b]) is on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
Archies Creek [AU#: 22-2]
Approximately seven miles of Archies Creek is within NC and flows into the
Dan River after crossing back into Virginia. The majority of the drainage area
is agricultural and forested land. The stream holds a secondary classification
of Trout Waters.
Water Quality Status
A fish community site is located just before the stream flows back into Virginia where it meets the Dan River.
This site was monitored for the first time in 2004 when it received an Excellent rating as it did again in 2009.
The site had the highest number of pollution intolerant species and lowest percentage of pollution tolerant
fish of any site in 2009. Even though this is not a NCWRC Hatchery Supported Trout stream, one large
stocked Brook Trout was collected. This, along with other pollution sensitive fish collected and suitable habitat
conditions, help toward qualifying this site as a regional reference site; however, the percentage of forested
land does not meet the criteria.
Recommendations
There are a high number of pollution intolerant fish species. DWQ will coordinate with Virginia on any restoration
or protection efforts in this river segment.
Elk Creek [AU#: 22-5]
Elk Creek is approximately three miles from the state line to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(1)b]. The majority of the land cover in this drainage area is forest
and agriculture. This creek holds the secondary use classification of Trout
Waters.
Water Quality Status
A fish community site, located at Puckett Road, has been monitored since 2004 when it received a Good-Fair
rating. At that time, riparian buffers along the stream were minimal, providing little to no shade for the stream
and sometimes completely absent. The buffer zones had been periodically burned and noted as contributing
to nonpoint source nutrients and sediment within the stream.
The 2009 sample improved to a Good rating. Biologists contributed the higher rating to an increased diversity
in certain fish species and greater abundance of others. Streambanks have been re-vegetated since 2004;
however, riparian zones were still narrow and offered little shading. This segment was noted to become easily
silted and, at the time of sampling was slightly turbid.
Recommendations
Elk Creek would benefit from additional riparian buffer restoration. This should include widening buffer zones
and planting of trees and large bushes to provide needed shade for better habitat for trout and other temperature
sensitive species. Wider buffer zones will also increase filtration of nonpoint source runoff.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (7.3 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF1)Excellent (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (2.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF4)Good (2009)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.18
Monitoring turbidity levels in Elk Creek could help determine if the stream is contributing to turbidity exceedances
measured just downstream of the Elk Creek/Dan River confluence. The Elk Creek subwatershed has been
targeted for study and restoration/protection by WRIT; therefore, additional resources may be available for
this investigation. DWQ will coordinate with Virginia on restoration or protection efforts in this river segment.
Peter Creek [AU#: 22-6]
Peter Creek is approximately nine miles from the state line to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(1)b]. The majority of the land cover in this drainage area is forest
and agriculture. This creek holds the secondary use classification of Trout
Waters.
Water Quality Status
A fish community station, located on Hart Road, has been sampled since 2004 when it received an Excellent
rating. That sample indicated exceptionally high water quality and qualified the site as a new fish community
regional reference site. The 2004 sample also included the only collection of the State Threatened Bigeye
Jumprock (Scartomyzon ariommus) within the basin.
The 2009 sample had similar results to the 2004 sample; however, it declined in rating to a Good. This sample
did not include the Bigeye Jumprock or the Smallmouth Bass; both of which were in the 2004 sample. The
fish community was still very diverse and included other pollution intolerant species. The pH level during the
sample collection was lower than the state standard of 6.0 su and specific conductivity was slightly elevated.
Habitat along the segment remained in good condition with good canopy cover, riffles and deep snag pools.
Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor this segment during the next sampling cycle. Due to the loss of the State
Threatened species and the presence of the Roanoke Hogsucker, Blacktip Jumprock, and Riverweed Darter
(Significantly Rare/Special Concern species), this stream would benefit from additional protections. DWQ will
coordinate with Virginia on any restoration or protection efforts in this river segment.
Big Creek [AU#: 22-9]
Big Creek is approximately 20 miles from source to the Dan River [AU#: 22-
(8)b]. Next to the Dan River, Big Creek has the largest drainage area of this
watershed. The majority of the land cover draining to the creek is a mixture of
forest, residential and agriculture including row crops and fish farms.
Water Quality Status
The 2009 fish community sample taken at Frye Road, decreased in rating from the first sample taken at this
site in 2004. The site had decent habitat with the exception of moderate to severe streambank erosion in
some places. Biologists noted signs of nonpoint source nutrient enrichment within the sample as well as
indications of early morning periphyton production. The decline in number of pollution intolerant species was
the reason for the decline in rating.
The sampling site is roughly two miles downstream of three fish farms which could be contributing to the
periphyton production.
North Double Creek [AU#: 22-10]
North Double Creek is approximately 14 miles from source to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(8)]. The majority of the land cover draining to the creek is a mixture
of forest, residential and agriculture.
Water Quality Status
A benthic and a fish community monitoring stations are located about two and
a half miles upstream of North Double Creek’s confluence with the Dan River.
The benthic site has been monitored since 1994 when it was rated Fair. Each
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (9.1 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF6)Good (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (19.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF2)Good-Fair (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (14.0 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthic
(NB15)Good (2009)
Fish Com
(NF5)Good (2009)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.19
year the site has increased by one rating level with exception of 2009 when it remained at a Good rating. The
2009 sample included various pollution sensitive taxa and a few rarely collected taxa. Even though there were
fewer pollution intolerant taxa as compared to the 2004 sample, it still suggests minimal upstream pollution
inputs.
The fish community site has been sampled twice since 2004 when it was rated Good-Fair and is a regional
reference site. The 2009 sample increased in rating to a Good. The presence of Bluehead Chub, which can
be an indicator of excess nutrients in the stream, was reduced from 43% to 32% of fish collected. It is still
the dominant species; however, the increase in other pollution sensitive species and a more balanced trophic
structure is a possible indication of nutrient reductions.
Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor both biological sites to record possible future improvement.
South Double Creek [AU#: 22-11]
South Double Creek is approximately ten miles from source to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(8)]. The majority of the land cover draining to the creek is a mixture
of forest, residential and agriculture.
Water Quality Status
A fish community site, located a little less than a mile from its confluence with
the Dan River, was sampled in 2004 (Good) and 2009. The habitat score for the 2009 sample was relatively
low (65 out of 100) mostly due to poor bottom substrate and riffle habitat. There were signs of re-vegetation
along one bank. The water column was slightly turbid and pH was just below the state standard of 6.0.
Despite the non-ideal habitat, there was a slightly larger percentage of pollution intolerant species. There
were no other changes from the sample collected in 2004, indicating a somewhat stable community.
Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor this station.
Cascade Creek (Hanging Rock Lake) [AU#: 22-12-(2)a & b]
Cascade Creek is approximately four miles from source to the Dan River [AU#:
22-(8)]. A little less than a mile downstream from the source of Cascade Creek
is a 12 acre lake named Hanging Rock Lake. Land cover in this drainage
area is dominated by forest with some agriculture. From source to the lake,
the creek holds secondary use classifications of B or recreational waters and
ORW. Cascade Creek is located in Hanging Rock State Park.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample was taken in 2005 as part of a special study to develop biocriteria for small streams in
North Carolina. The sample was given a Not Impaired rating since the studies proposed criteria has yet to
be approved. Habitat was rated high (92 out of 100) and the benthic community showed no signs of being
impacted.
Five lake samples were taken on Hanging Rock Lake between May and September in 2009. The lake was
first monitored in 1985 by DWQ. DO, temperature, pH, turbidity, and percent DO saturation levels were all
normal for the lake. Nutrient levels reflected low biological productivity and was found to be oligotrophic as it
has been since first sampled.
Indian Creek [AU#: 22-13-(2)]
Indian Creek is approximately three miles from source to the Dan River [AU#:
22-(8)]. Almost the entire drainage area is forested. The first seven tenths of a
mile of the stream holds a secondary use classification of ORW.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(9.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF7)Good (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(4.3 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthic
(NB4)
Not Impaired
(2005)
Lake Station (ROA003A)
No Exceedance
(2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(2.7 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthic
(NB33)
Not Impaired
(2005)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.20
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample was taken in 2005 as part of a special study to develop biocriteria for small streams in
North Carolina. The sample was given a Not Impaired rating since the studies proposed criteria has yet to
be approved. Habitat was rated high (92 out of 100) and the benthic community showed no signs of being
impacted.
toWn Fork creek (0301010302)
Includes: Town Fork Creek [AU#: 22-25a & b], Brushy Fork
Creek [AU#: 22-25-1], & Neatman Creek [AU#: 22-25-6]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forest and some residential
and urban areas. There are 16 minor NPDES permitted facilities and three permitted
cattle animal operations located within the watershed. There are no streams on the
2010 Impaired Waters List in this watershed.
Town Fork Creek [AU#: 22-25a & b]
Town Fork Creek is approximately 18 miles from source to the Dan River [AU#:
22-(25.5)]. All streams in this watershed drain to Town Fork Creek; therefore,
land cover for this drainage area is the same as that of the watershed.
Water Quality Status
Town Fork Creek was listed on the Impaired Waters list between 2002 and
2006 due to a Poor benthic rating in 1995. Since that time, the water quality in
this creek has gradually improved. A TMDL stressor study was conducted in
2004 and found that previous samples taken at NB83 and NB21 were too close
to an impoundment to give a good representation of the upper Town Fork Creek
watershed. There were also a significant number of agricultural BMPs implemented during the previous cycle,
totaling in $46,504 in Agricultural Cost Share Program funding.
During the current cycle, one sample was taken at the fish community site. Despite the presences of periphyton
and high dissolved oxygen saturation (128%), the NCIBI score slightly increased from the 2004 sample. The
slight increase was due to the larger percentage of insectivores. The specific conductivity levels were some-
what elevated and the water column was slightly turbid. The overall habitat score was relatively good, at 79
out of 100.
Recommendations
Benthic station NB19 should be monitored during the upcoming sampling cycle if resources allow. This site
provides the most holistic view of the watershed.
beleWS lake-dan river (0301010303)
Includes: Dan River [AU#: 22-(8), (25.5), (27.5) & (28.5)], Snow Creek
[AU#: 22-20], Fulk Creek [AU#: 22-24], Belews Creek (Kernersville
Lake) [AU#: 22 27-(1.5)], Belews Lake [AU#: 22-27-10, 22-27-(6), (7), (7.5),
22-27-8-(2), 22-27-9-(3) & (4)], Lynn Branch [AU#: 22-20-9], Raccoon
Creek [AU#: 22-20-4], Wood Benton Branch [AU#: 22-21], & Big
Beaver Island Creek [AU#: 22-29]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forest, residential and some
urban areas. There are 28 minor and one major NPDES permitted facilities and three permitted animal
operations located within the watershed. There are no streams on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this
watershed.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (26 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(NB83)
(NB21) (NB19)
Good (2004)
Good-Fair (2004)Good (2004)
Fish Com
(NF9)Good (2009)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.21
Snow Creek [AU#: 22-20]
Snow Creek is approximately 19 miles from source to the Dan River [AU#: 22-
(8)]. The headwaters of Snow Creek and its tributaries has land cover which is
dominated by agriculture. Further downstream, the land cover transitions to a
blend of agriculture, forest and residential areas.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample site is located just under four miles from Snow Creek’s
confluence with the Dan River. This site has been given a Good rating since
2000 and the benthic community has remained stable since that time. A few additional pollution sensitive
species were collected in the 2009 sample that were not previously recorded indicating a possible increase in
water quality.
The fish community site is about three and a half miles upstream from the benthic site. This site was first
sampled in 2004 when it received a Good rating. The 2009 sample resulted in a decrease in rating to a
Good-Fair. This was due to the increased number of omnivores which are an indication of nonpoint source
nutrient enrichment. This site is closer to the headwaters which is mostly agricultural land, including one
swine operation. Many of the tributaries in this drainage area have riparian buffers along either side of the
streambanks. However, there are others that completely lack any buffer area.
Recommendations
Riparian buffer restoration would enhance water quality for this creek and its tributaries.
Raccoon Creek [AU#: 22-20-4]
Raccoon Creek is approximately three miles from source to Snow Creek [AU#:
22-20]. The land cover in this drainage area is a mixture of agriculture, forest
and some residential.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample was taken in 2005 as part of a special study to develop
biocriteria for small streams in North Carolina. The sample was given a Not Impaired rating since the studies
proposed criteria has yet to be approved. Habitat was rated somewhat high (84 out of 100) and the benthic
community showed no signs of being impacted.
Lynn Branch [AU#: 22-20-9]
Lynn Branch is approximately three miles from source to Snow Creek [AU#:
22-20]. The majority of the drainage area is forested with some agriculture.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample was taken in 2005 as part of a special study to develop
biocriteria for small streams in North Carolina. The sample was given a Not
Impaired rating since the studies proposed criteria has yet to be approved. Habitat was good (74 out of 100)
and the benthic community showed no signs of being impacted.
Wood Benton Branch [AU#: 22-21]
Wood Benton Branch is approximately four miles from source to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(8)]. The majority of the drainage area is forested with areas of
agriculture in the headwaters.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample was taken in 2005 as part of a special study to develop
biocriteria for small streams in North Carolina. The sample was given a Not Impaired rating since the studies
proposed criteria has yet to be approved. Habitat was good (77 out of 100) and the benthic community
showed no signs of being impacted.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(18.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(NB17)Good (2009)
Fish Com
(NF8)Good-Fair (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (3.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (NB63)Not Impaired (2005)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (3.1 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (NB41)Not Impaired (2005)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (3.7 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(NB101)
Not Impaired
(2005)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.22
Belews Creek (Kernersville Lake) [AU#: 22-27-(1.5)]
Kernersville Lake is approximately 46 acres and drains to Belews Creek [AU#:
22-27-(2)]. The majority of the drainage area is residential and forest land.
The lake also receives runoff from the Town of Kernersville. The lake is an
emergency drinking reservoir for the town and holds the use classification of
WS-IV; B.
Water Quality Status
The lake was sampled at one location five times in 2007 and five times in 2009.
Results of both years were similar with the exception of DO levels that dropped down to 4.6 mg/l in September
2007. DO levels in 2009 returned to normal levels. Nutrient levels were elevated during both years and
blue-green alga associated with nutrient-rich water was present in the lake during sampling. Twenty percent
of chlorophyll a samples were above the state standard; therefore, the lake is expected to go on the 2012
Impaired Waters List.
An Algal Growth Potential Test was completed in 2009 and it was determined the lake is nitrogen limited. The
test also showed that the lake has elevated biological productivity (eutrophic). The lake has been designated
eutrophic since it was first sampled by DWQ in 1985.
Belews Lake [AU#: 22-27-(7), (7.5) & 22-27-9-(4)]
Belews Lake’s approximately 2,982 acres has four main arms which drain
the southern portion of this watershed and flows into the Dan River [AU#: 22-
(25.5)]. The majority of the drainage area is agriculture, residential, urban
and some forested areas. The Duke Energy Belews Creek Steam Station is
located along the west side of the lake.
Water Quality Status
The lake is split into seven different AU segments. There are four lake
monitoring stations which are located in three of the seven segments. The
segment AU#’s are listed above. Monitoring results from the five samples
taken in 2009 indicated very little change from previous monitoring years. One exception was the elevated
water temperatures that were found at ROA009J and ROA009E which is likely due to the thermal discharge
from the coal-fired power plant.
Nutrients monitored resulted in normal to below detection levels. This lake has been designated as oligotrophic
or very low biological productivity and has been since first sampled by DWQ in 1981. For more information
see the Roanoke River Basin Lake and Reservoir Assessment.
Big Beaver Island Creek [AU#: 22-29]
Big Beaver Island Creek is approximately 15 miles from source to the Dan
River [AU#: 22-(28.5)]. The land cover in this area transitions from agriculture
in the headwaters to forested land to more urban (residential and industrial)
towards the creeks confluence with the Dan River.
Water Quality Status
A fish community sample was collected about a half mile upstream from its confluence with the Dan River. The
habitat at this site was less than optimal with severe bank erosion in some places and a large debris dam at
the end of the sampling reach. However, most of the bank vegetation and canopy were high quality.
The site was also sampled in 2004. At that time it received a rating of Good. The 2009 sample increased to
an Excellent. This is due to the number of fish collected tripled from the previous sample. This can sometimes
be a sign of nutrient enrichment if the species are mostly omnivores. That was not the case here. The sample
showed a very diverse community which included the Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (46.1 ACRES)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.3n
Lake Station (ROA0092A)Chlorophyll a (20%)*
* This data will be reflected on the 2012
Impaired Waters list.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (2,982.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Lake Station
(ROA009J) (ROA009E)
(ROA009G)
(ROA009H)
(2009)
Temp (3 of 5)Temp (2 of 5)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (15.2 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF10)Excellent (2009)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.23
Mayo river (0301010304)
Includes: Mayo River [AU#: 22-30-(1), (5.5), (9.5) & (10)], Crooked
Creek [AU#: 22-30-2-2], Little Crooked Creek [AU#: 22-30-2-2-2],
Hickory Creek [AU#: 22-30-5] & Pawpaw Creek [AU#: 22-30-6-(2)]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forest, residential and some
urban areas. There are two minor and one major NPDES permitted facilities located
within the watershed. There are no stream on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this
watershed.
Mayo River [AU#: 22-30-(1)]
There are three segments of the Mayo River within this watershed; however,
only the first segment has been monitored during the past few cycles. This
segment of the Mayo River is approximately four miles from the state line to
half a mile down stream of the Hickory Creek [AU#: 22-30-5] confluence. Land
cover along this segment is mostly forest and agriculture.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sampling station is located about a half mile downstream of the
Virginia/North Carolina state line. The site has been sampled five times since
1989 and received a Good rating during every event except in 2009 when it
received an Excellent rating. The increase in rating is due to the increase in EPT taxa richness or the diversity
of pollution intolerant macroinvertebrates. This may be contributed to a reduction in nonpoint source runoff as
a result of the prolonged drought.
An ambient monitoring station is located at the same place as the benthic station. Turbidity exceedances
increased from 8.6% of samples exceeding the standard during the previous cycle to 10.2% exceeding during
this cycle. This exceedance will cause this segment of the Mayo River to be listed on the Impaired Waters
List for 2012. Copper and manganese levels were also elevated; however, only nine samples were collected.
Fecal coliform bacteria exceedances were down by 10% from the previous cycle.
Recommendations
These sites will continue to be monitored by DWQ.
Crooked Creek [AU#: 22-30-2-2]
Crooked Creek begins in NC and flows in and out of the state twice before
crossing back into Virginia to drain into the South Mayo River. The NC portion
of the creek is approximately nine miles. Land cover in this drainage area
starts with mostly agriculture in the headwaters and transitions to mostly
forested area downstream.
Hickory Creek [AU#: 22-30-5]
Hickory Creek is approximately four miles from source to the Mayo River [AU#:
22-30-(1)]. The majority of the drainage area is forest.
Water Quality Status
A benthic sample was taken in 2006 as part of a special study to develop
biocriteria for small streams in North Carolina. The sample was given a Not
Impaired rating since the studies proposed criteria has yet to be approved. Habitat was rated somewhat high
(84 out of 100) and the benthic community showed no signs of being impacted.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (3.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (NB28)Excellent (2009)
AMS
(N140000)Turbidity (10.2%)*
* This data will be reflected on the 2012 Impaired Waters list.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(8.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com (NF42)Good-Fair (2007)
RAMS `07-`08
(N1360000)No Exceedances
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (4.0 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(NB26)
Not Impaired
(2006)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.24
Pawpaw Creek [AU#: 22-30-6-(2)]
Pawpaw Creek is approximately 4.8 miles in total from the state line to the
Mayo River [AU#: 22-30-(5.5)] and is split into two segments. Land cover in
this drainage area is a mixture of agriculture and forest.
Water Quality Status
A fish community site has been monitored about a half mile upstream of
Pawpaw Creek’s confluence with the Mayo River since 1990. The last sample was taken in 2004 and resulted
in a Good-Fair rating. The 2009 sample reflected some improvement in water quality with an increased rating
of Good. There was a greater number of fish collected which were more diverse.
MatriMony creek-dan river (0301010305)
Includes: Dan River [AU#: 22-(28.5), (31.5)a, (31.5)b & (39)a], Hogans
Creek [AU#: 22-31 & 22-31-1], Brushy Creek [AU#: 22-32-1], Jacobs
Creek [AU#: 22-32-(0.5) & (3)], Rock House Creek [AU#: 22-34-(1) & (2)]
& Matrimony Creek [AU#: 22-38]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forest, residential and some
urban areas. There are 35 minor NPDES permitted facilities and two permitted swine
animal operations located within the watershed. There is one stream (Dan River)
within this watershed that is on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
Hogans Creek [AU#: 22-31]
Hogans Creek is approximately 13 miles total from source to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(28.5)]. Land cover in this drainage area is a mixture of agriculture,
forest and residential areas. The majority of forested area is found along the
streams edge and agricultural land is in the tributary headwaters.
Water Quality Status
About a mile upstream from the confluence with the Dan River, Hogans Creek has been monitored for the
pass two sampling cycles. In 2004, the site rated Good and was designated as a regional reference site. The
rating increased to an Excellent in 2009 due to a greater and more diverse community collected in the sample.
During both sampling years, this site had the highest habitat score of any other fish site within the basin.
Local Initiatives
In 1997, the Caswell County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Wetlands Restoration Program
conducted a stream restoration project on an unnamed tributary of Hogans Creek. Approximately 900 feet
of stream was restored and expanded to 1,800 feet. DWQ conducted pre and post stream project data
collections in 1996 and 1998. Since then, beavers have populated the restored area.
Jacobs Creek [AU#: 22-32-(3)]
Jacobs Creek is approximately 13 miles total from source to the Dan River
[AU#: 22-(31.5)a] and is split into two segments. The drainage area of this
segment consists of a mixed land cover of forest and agriculture.
Water Quality Status
A fish community monitoring station is located about a mile and a half upstream from the confluence with the
Dan River. This site was sampled during the last two sampling cycles. The site scored a Good rating during
both sampling events. However, the habitat score was the lowest (55 out of 100) in 2009 than any other site
of the 2004 and 2009 fish community samples in this basin. One bank had been re-vegetated since 2004, but
the stream still suffers from substantial nonpoint source erosion and sedimentation.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (1.8 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF14)Good (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (12.7 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com (NF11)Excellent (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG
(1.8 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF12)Good (2009)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.25
Rock House Creek [AU#: 22-34-(2)]
Rock House Creek is approximately eight miles total from source to the Dan
River [AU#: 22-(31.5)b] and is split into two segments. Land cover in this
drainage area is a mixture of forest, agriculture and urban area in the Town of
Wentworth.
Water Quality Status
A little over a half mile upstream of the confluence with the Dan River is a
fish community station that has been monitored during the last two sampling
cycles. This location is also downstream of where the tributaries draining the Town of Wentworth enter Rock
House Creek. The site scored a Good rating during both sampling events. In 2009, the site had high quality
banks and riparian zones; however, the stream still exhibits substantial nonpoint source erosion impacts. The
number and diversity of the fish collected had slightly increased from the 2004 sample. The significantly rare
Roanoke Hogsucker was also collected during this cycle.
Recommendations
DWQ will monitor the benthic site (NB36) during the upcoming sampling cycle to determine any changes in
water quality, if resources allow.
Matrimony Creek [AU#: 22-38]
Matrimony Creek begins in NC, crosses into Virginia for roughly three to four
miles before returning to NC. The NC portion of the creek is approximately
11 miles and drains into the Dan River [AU#: 22-(31.5)b]. Land cover in this
drainage area is a mixture of agriculture, some forest and residential/urban
area near the Town of Eden.
The 12-Digit subwatershed of Matrimony Creek (030101030505) is part of the WRIT study area within the Dan
River drainage area. For more information see the Recommendations, Action Plans & Other Information at
the Subbasin Scale section above.
loWer SMith river (0301010308)
Includes: Smith River [AU#: 22-40-(1), (2.5) & (3)]
This watershed contains a mix land use of urban, residential areas with some forested
areas. There are no permitted facilities within the watershed. There is one stream
(Smith River) within this watershed that is on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
Smith River [AU#: 22-40-(1), (2.5) & (3)]
Smith River is approximately five miles from the state
line to Dan River [AU#: 22-(39)a]. Land cover for the Smith River drainage
area is mostly urban with some forested area near the state line. Smith Creek
has been on the Impaired Waters List since 2002.
The 12-Digit subwatershed of Fall Creek-Smith Creek (030101030807) is
part of the WRIT study area within the Dan River drainage area. For more
information see the Recommendations, Action Plans & Other Information at
the Subbasin Scale section above.
Water Quality Status
Smith River was first placed on the Impaired Waters List in 2002 due to a Fair benthic sample collected in
1999. Roughly two miles downstream of the state line is an ambient monitoring site. Samples collected
between 2005 and 2009 showed elevated turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria and copper levels. The geometric
mean of FCB between 2005 and 2009 decreased from data collected between 2000 and 2004; however, the
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (6.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (NB36)Good-Fair (2001)
Fish Com
(NF18)Good (2009)
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (11.2 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com
(NF17)Good (2004)
USE SUppORt: iMpaired (5.1 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
Benthos
(NB74)Fair (1999)
AMS (N2430000)Turbidity (10.0%)Copper (15.4%)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.26
percent of samples over 400 colonies/100 ml increased (see Figure 1-21). Average turbidity levels as well as
percent of samples exceeding the standard decreased. FCB and copper were added to the list of parameters
exceeding state standards on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
In 2009 a Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL was approved by EPA for the Smith and Dan Rivers. This is
discussed in more detail in the Dan River discussion.
FIgURE 1-21: lONg tERm FCB & tURBIDItY SAmplINg At N2430000 (2000-2010)

Recommendations
DWQ will monitor the benthic station on the Smith River to evaluate if there has been any biological
improvements since 1999.
caScade creek-dan river (0301010309)
Includes: Dan River [AU#: 22-(39)a], Wolf Island Creek [AU#: 22-48]
& Birch Fork [AU#: 22-48-4]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forest, residential and some
urban areas. There are 37 minor and four major NPDES permitted facilities located
within the watershed. There is one stream (Dan River) within this watershed that is
on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
The 12-Digit subwatersheds Town Creek (030101030901) and Cascade Creek
(030101030902) are part of the WRIT study area within the Dan River drainage area. For more information
see the Recommendations, Action Plans & Other Information at the Subbasin Scale section above.
Wolf Island Creek [AU#: 22-48]
Wolf Island Creek is approximately 22 miles from source to the Dan River [AU#:
22-(39)a]. Land cover in this drainage area is mostly agriculture with some
forest and residential area. The upper headwaters also drains a portion of the
Town of Reidsville.
Water Quality Status
About a mile upstream from the streams confluence with Birch Fork Creek is a fish community site. This site
had the most diverse community of any other fish community site in the basin. There is substantial nonpoint
source erosion with channel and riparian bank instability which is responsible for the low habitat score. The
diversity and large increase in the number of fish collected increased the site rating from a Good (2004) to an
Excellent.
USE SUppORt: SupportinG (21.8 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Fish Com (NF20)Excellent (2009)
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.27
reFerenceS
References marked with (*) indicates a DWQ special study report. These reports are not currently available
online. Contact the DWQ Environmental Science Section at [phone] to receive a hardcopy.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable 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. Supplemental Guide to
Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans. Raleigh, NC. (http://por-
tal.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)
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). December 2010.
Basinwide Assessment Report: Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/doc-
ument_library/get_file?uuid=e3dd1d8b-bbc5-42c9-9999-1d99dd4c7455&groupId=38364)
____. DWQ. ESS. BAU. April 2005. Basinwide Assessment Report: Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. ESS. BAU. May 2009. Small Stream Biocriteria Development. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.esb.
enr.state.nc.us/documents/SmallStreamsFinal.pdf)
Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Popula-
tion, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
RO
A
N
O
K
E

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N
:

U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
1.28
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.1
appendix 1-a
USE SUppORt RAtINgS FOR All
mONItORED wAtERS IN tHE
UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN
DRAFt 2010
IR CAtEgORY
INtEgRAtED REpORtINg CAtEgORIES FOR INDIVIDUAl ASSESSmENt UNIt/USE SUppORt CAtEgORY/
pARAmEtER ASSESSmENtS. A SINglE AU CAN HAVE mUltIplE ASSESSmENtS DEpENDINg ON DAtA
AVAIlABlE AND ClASSIFIED USES.
1 All designated uses are monitored and supporting
1b Designated use was impaired, other management strategy in place and no standards violations for the parameter of interest (POI)
1nc DWQ have made field determination that parameter in exceedance is due to natural conditions
1r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status
1t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for parameter of interest
2 Some designated uses are monitored and supporting none are impaired Overall only
2b Designated use was impaired other management strategy in place and no standards violations Overall
only
2r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status overall only
2t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for POI Overall only
3a Instream/monitoring data are inconclusive (DI)
3b No Data available for assessment
3c No data or information to make assessment
3n1 Chlorophyll a exceeds TL value and SAC is met-draft
3n2 Chlorophyll a exceeds EL value and SAC is not met first priority for further monitoring-draft
3n3 Chlorophyll a exceeds threshold value and SAC is not met first second priority for further monitoring-draft
3n4 Chlorophyll a not available determine need to collect-draft
3t No Data available for assessment –AU is in a watershed with an approved TMDL
4b Designated use impaired other management strategy expected to address impairment
4c Designated use impaired by something other than pollutant
4cr Recreation use impaired no instream monitoring data or screening criteria exceeded
4cs Shellfish harvesting impaired no instream monitoring data- no longer used
4ct Designated use impaired but water is subject to approved TMDL or under TMDL development
4s Impaired Aquatic Life with approved TMDL for Aquatic Life POI or category 5 listing
4t Designated use impaired approved TMDL
5 Designated use impaired because of biological or ambient water quality standards violations and needing
a TMDL
5r Assessed as impaired watershed is in restoration effort status
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.2

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

Little Dan River-Dan River 0301010301Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Dan River Headwaters 03010103Roanoke River Basin Subbasin
Little Dan River-Dan River 0301010301Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Archies Creek22-2 North Carolina portion 7.3 FW Miles C;Tr
 1
Big Creek22-9 From source to Dan River 19.9 FW Miles C;Tr
 1
Cascade Creek22-12-(2)b From dam at swimming lake to Dan River 4.3 FW Miles B
 1
Cascade Creek
(Hanging Rock Lake)
22-12-(2)a From backwaters to dam at swimming lake 12.2 FW Acres B
 1
DAN RIVER (North
Carolina portion)
22-(1)a From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to
Little Dan River
5.1 FW Miles C;Tr
 1
DAN RIVER (North
Carolina portion)
22-(1)b From Little Dan River to Peters Creek 11.6 FW Miles C;Tr
 1
 1
 3a
 5
Elk Creek22-5 From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to
Dan River
2.9 FW Miles C;Tr
 1
Indian Creek22-13-(2)From Window Falls to Dan River 2.7 FW Miles C
 1
Mill Creek22-18 From source to Dan River 4.7 FW Miles C
 1
North Double Creek22-10 From source to Dan River 14.0 FW Miles C
 1
 1
Peters Creek22-6 From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to
Dan River
9.1 FW Miles C;Tr
 1
10/20/2010 Page 222 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.3

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

Little Dan River-Dan River 0301010301Roanoke River Basin Watershed
South Double Creek22-11 From source to Dan River 9.9 FW Miles B
 1
Town Fork Creek 0301010302Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Brushy Fork Creek22-25-1 From source to Town Fork Creek 3.0 FW Miles C
 1
Town Fork Creek22-25a From source to Timmons Cr.8.0 FW Miles C
 1
Town Fork Creek22-25b From Timmons Cr. to Dan River 18.0 FW Miles C
 1
 1
Belews Lake-Dan River 0301010303Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Belews Creek
(including Belews
Lake below elevation
725) (1)
22-27-(7)From Southern Railroad Bridge to to a point
1.8 mile downstream of Forsyth-Stokes
County Line
789.7 FW Acres C
 1
Belews Creek
(including Belews
Lake below elevation
725) (1)
22-27-(7.5)From a point 1.8 mile downstream of the
Forsyth-Stokes County Line to Dan River,
excluding the Arm of Belews Lake described
below which are classified "WS-IV&B"
1,283.8 FW Acres WS-IV
 1
 1
Belews Creek
(Kernersville Lake)
22-27-(1.5)From a point 0.5 mile upstream of
backwaters of Kernersville Lake to Town of
Kernersville Water Supply Dam
46.1 FW Acres WS-IV;CA
 3n
 1
Big Beaver Island
Creek
22-29 From source to Dan River 15.2 FW Miles C
 1
DAN RIVER22-(8)From Big Creek to to a point 0.2 mile
downstream of Town Fork Creek
25.9 FW Miles WS-V
 1
10/20/2010 Page 223 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.4

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

Belews Lake-Dan River 0301010303Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Lynn Branch (Lynn
Creek)
22-20-9 From source to Snow Creek 3.1 FW Miles C
 1
Raccoon Creek22-20-4 From source to Snow Creek 3.4 FW Miles C
 1
Snow Creek22-20 From source to Dan River 18.9 FW Miles C
 1
 1
West Belews Creek
(West Belews Creek
Arm of of Belews
Lake below elevation
725)
22-27-9-(4)From a point 0.4 mile downstream of
Powerplant to Belews Creek
582.4 FW Acres WS-IV
 1
 1
Wood Benton Branch22-21 From source to Dan River 3.7 FW Miles C
 1
Mayo River 0301010304Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Crooked Creek (North
Carolina portion)
22-30-2-2 From source to last crossing of North
Carolina-Virginia State Line
8.5 FW Miles C
 1
 1
Hickory Creek22-30-5 From source to Mayo River 4.0 FW Miles C
 1
Little Crooked Creek22-30-2-2-2 From source to Crooked Creek 4.7 FW Miles C
 1
Mayo River22-30-(1)From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a
point 0.6 mile downstream of Hickory Creek
3.5 FW Miles WS-V
 1
 1
 1
 1
10/20/2010 Page 224 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.5

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

Mayo River 0301010304Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Pawpaw Creek22-30-6-(2)From a point 1.3 mile upstream of
Rockingham County SR 1360 to Mayo R.
1.8 FW Miles WS-IV
 1
Matrimony Creek-Dan River 0301010305Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Brushy Creek (West
Prong Jacobs Creek)
22-32-1 From source to Jacobs Creek 4.3 FW Miles C
 1
DAN RIVER22-(31.5)a From a point 0.7 mile upstream of Jacobs
Creek to subbasin 03-02-02/03 boundary
4.8 FW Miles WS-IV
  4t
 4t
 1
 1
DAN RIVER22-(31.5)b From 03-02-02 boundary to a point 0.8 mile
downstream of Matrimony Creek
9.4 FW Miles WS-IV
 4t
 4t
 1
 1
DAN RIVER22-(38.5)From a point 0.8 mile downstream of
Matrimony Creek to Mill Branch (Town of
Eden water supply intake)
0.6 FW Miles WS-IV;CA
 4t
 5
Hogans Creek22-31 From source to Dan River 12.7 FW Miles C
 1
Jacobs Creek22-32-(3)From N.C. Hwy. 704 to Dan River 1.8 FW Miles WS-IV
 1
Matrimony Creek
(North Carolina
portion)
22-38 From source to Dan River 11.2 FW Miles WS-IV
 1
10/20/2010 Page 225 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.6

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

Matrimony Creek-Dan River 0301010305Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Mayo River22-30-(10)From dam at Mayodan Water Supply Intake
to Dan River
2.4 FW Miles C
 1
Rock House Creek22-34-(2)From Rockingham Countly SR 2381 to Dan
River
6.5 FW Miles WS-IV
 1
 1
Lower Smith River 0301010308Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Smith River22-40-(1)From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a
point 0.8 mile downstream of Rockingham
County SR 1714 (Aiken Road)
2.8 FW Miles WS-IV
 5
  4s
 4t
 1
Smith River22-40-(2.5)From a point 0.8 mile downstream of
Rockingham County SR 1714 (Aiken Road)
to Fieldcrest Mills Water Supply Intake
0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA
 5
  4s
 4t
 1
Cascade Creek-Dan River 0301010309Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Birch Fork22-48-4 From source to Wolf Island Creek 8.4 FW Miles C
 1
DAN RIVER (North
Carolina portion)
22-(39)a From Mill Branch to NC/VA crossing
downstream of Wolf Island Creek
13.8 FW Miles C
 4t
 5
Smith River22-40-(3)From Fieldcrest Mills Water Supply Intake
to Dan River
1.8 FW Miles C
 5
  4s
 4t
10/20/2010 Page 226 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.7

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

Cascade Creek-Dan River 0301010309Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Wolf Island Creek22-48 From source to Dan River 21.8 FW Miles C
 1
10/20/2010 Page 227 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.8
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.1
appendix 1-b
BIOlOgICAl SAmplINg SItE DAtA SHEEtS
(BENtHIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE & FISH COmmUNItY)
FOR tHE UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.2
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.3
Biological Samples Taken During this Assessment Cycle
StAtION ID wAtERBODY COUNtY SItE lOCAtION SAmplE RESUltS
Benthic Sample Sites
NB101 WOOD BENTON BR STOKES SR 1707 05 - Not Impaired
NB114 BIRCH FK ROCKINGHAM SR 1912 07 - Not Impaired
NB115 BRUSHY CR ROCKINGHAM SR 2321 07 - Not Impaired
NB120 L CROOKED CR Stokes SR 1622 08 - Good
NB15 N DOUBLE CR STOKES SR 1504 09 - Good
NB17 SNOW CR STOKES SR 1673 09 - Good
NB26 HICKORY CR ROCKINGHAM SR 1354 06 - Not Impaired
05 - Not Impaired
NB28 MAYO R ROCKINGHAM SR 1358 09 - Excellent 09 - Excellent
NB33 INDIAN CR STOKES SR 1001 05 - Not Impaired
NB4 CASCADE CR STOKES SR 2012 05 - Not Impaired
NB41 LYNN BR STOKES SR 1696 05 - Not Impaired
NB63 RACOON CR STOKES STEELE RD 05 - Not Impaired
NB8 DAN R STOKES NC 704 09 - Excellent
NB9 DAN R STOKES SR 1695 09 - Good
NB97 UT MILL CR STOKES SR 2018 05 - Not Impaired
Fish Community Sample Sites
NF1 Archies Cr Stokes SR 1415 09 - Excellent
NF10 Big Beaver Island Cr Rockingham US 311 09 - Excellent
NF11 Hogans Cr Rockingham NC 704 09 - Excellent
NF12 Jacobs Cr Rockingham NC 704 09 - Good
NF14 Pawpaw Cr Rockingham SR 1360 09 - Good
NF18 Rock House Cr Rockingham SR 2127 09 - Good
NF2 Big Cr Stokes SR 1471 09 - Good-Fair
NF20 Wolf Island Cr Rockingham SR 1767 09 - Excellent
NF4 Elk Cr Stokes SR 1433 09 - Good
NF42 Crooked Cr Stokes off SR 1626 07 - Good-Fair
NF5 N Double Cr Stokes SR 1504 09 - Good
NF6 Peters Cr Stokes SR 1497 09 - Good
NF7 S Double Cr Stokes SR 1483 09 - Good
NF8 Snow Cr Stokes SR 1652 09 - Good-Fair
NF9 Town Fork Cr Stokes SR 1955 09 - Good
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.4
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)26.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.8
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)49
pH (s.u.)8.2
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)92
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
DAN R NC 704 NB8 08/10/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
STOKES 1 03010103 36.514722 -80.303056 22-(1)b Northern Inner Piedmont
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 169.0 886 19 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (road/boat access)
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt.
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Bioclassification
08/10/09 10747 106 52 4.16 3.38 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Excellent
08/23/99 7981 85 41 4.17 3.26 Good
07/07/04 9403 91 45 3.89 3.42
Taxonomic Analysis
Several intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa were collected at this sampling location such as the mayflies Epeorus vitreus ,Seratella serratoides, and
Ephoron leukon ; the long-lived stoneflies Acroneuria abnormis ,Paragnetina ichusa/media , and Pteranarcys spp.; and the caddisflies Brachycentrus
appalachia,B. lateralis ,B. numerosus, and Goera spp . Rarely collected taxa found at this site included Brachycercus spp. and Brachycentrus lateralis.
Aquatic beetle fauna were extremely rich (13) at this sampling location.
Data Analysis
This portion of the Dan River continues to reflect Excellent water quality based on macroinvertebrate communities. The NCBI and EPTBI has remained
low at the site since sampling began in 1984 and the highest total taxa richness (106) and EPT taxa richness (52) on record at this sample site was
collected during the 2009 season. EPT abundance was also high at 216. This portion of the Dan River in North Carolina is relatively undisturbed by
metropolitan areas found furthur downstream. A pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate community continues to reside at this sampling location. If
requested, this site qualifies for reclassification as an Outstanding Resource Water or High Quality Water due to continued Excellent bioclassifications.
Good
07/12/90 5379 94 48 4.46 3.65 Excellent
08/23/94 6686 57 28 3.85 3.51
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.5
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)27.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)53
pH (s.u.)7.2
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20

Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
DAN R SR 1695 NB9 08/11/09 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
STOKES 1 03010103 36.401944 -80.138333 22-(8)Northern Inner Piedmont
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-V 335.0 700 40 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 10
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Instream Habitat (20)20
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)78 Substrate Mostly bedrock, boulder, and cobble with less gravel and sand.
Bioclassification
08/11/09 10749 100 42 4.62 3.82 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
08/23/99 7984 72 37 4.56 3.93 Good
07/07/04 9404 87 43 4.89 4.07
Taxonomic Analysis
Several intolerant EPT taxa were collected including the mayflies Epeorus vitreus , Ephoron leukon , and Serratella serratoides ; the stoneflies Acroneuria
abnormis and Paragnetina fumosa ; and the caddisflies Brachycentrus lateralis and Polycentropus spp. The intolerant beetles Optioservus trivittatus,
Promoresia elegans, and Psephenus herricki were also common. Rare EPT taxa collected at this sampling station inluded Trycorythodes robacki and
Ceraclea mentiea listed as "vulnerable to extirpation" by Morse et al.(1997) and Significantly Rare by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (2006)
respectively.
Data Analysis
This site continues to exhibit Good water quality based on macroinvertebrate fauna. The NCBI and EPTBI has remained relatively similar since sampling
began in 1994. Total taxa richness and EPT taxa richness steadily increased beginning in 1999 elevating the bioclassification from Good-Fair to Good;
where it has remained. Consistent good water quality at the site is likely attributed to the mostly forested upstream land use with minimal anthropogenic
activities.
Good-Fair08/23/94 6688 45 20 4.74 3.83
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.6
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)22.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.3
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)58
pH (s.u.)6.4
Channel Modification (5)5

Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
N DOUBLE CR SR 1504 NB15 08/10/09 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
STOKES 1 03010103 36.440000 -80.311020 22-10 Northern Inner Piedmont
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C 12.0 785 8 0.1
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)70 10 20
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)83 Substrate Mostly gravel and sand with some cobble substrate.
Bioclassification
08/10/09 10746 ---31 ---4.27 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
08/23/99 7982 ---25 ---3.95 Good-Fair
06/28/04 9396 ---31 ---3.42
Taxonomic Analysis
Various pollution sensitive EPT taxa were collected at this monitoring station in 2009 including the stoneflies Acroneuria abnormis, Leuctra spp, and
Tallaperla spp. Tallaperla has never been collected at this station. The intolerant mayflies Leucrocuta spp , Heptagenia marginalis , and Stenacron
pallidum were common. Pollution-sensitive caddisflies such as Chimarra spp. and Polycentropus spp. were abundant and common respectively. The
rarely collected mayfly Seratella serrata was also collected in 2009.
Data Analysis
This stream retained its bioclassification of Good in 2009 suggesting minimal upstream pollution input. EPT richness remained the same as in 2004,
however, EPTBI was elevated. This higher EPTBI may be due to the emergence of some intolerant taxa found in 2004 such as Pycnopsyche spp .
Empty Pycnopsyche spp. cases were found at the site suggesting the insects had already emerged preventing collection. Despite the presence of small
infrequent riffles, this station continues to exhibit good water quality most likely due to minimal anthropogenic input and a mostly forested catchment.
Fair08/23/94 6687 ---17 ---5.05
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.7
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)27.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)80
pH (s.u.)6.8
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18

Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
SNOW CR SR 1673 NB17 08/10/09 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
STOKES 1 03010103 36.434444 -80.147778 22-20 Northern Inner Piedmont
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C 34.0 650 11 0.1
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)60 10 0 30
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)5
Bank Erosion (7)3
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)68 Substrate Mostly sand with minimal cobble and gravel.
Bioclassification
08/10/09 10748 ---29 ---4.48 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
09/13/00 8308 ---29 ---4.08 Good
07/07/04 9405 ---31 ---4.33
Taxonomic Analysis
Both mayfly and caddisfly taxa new to this location were collected in 2009 including the caddislfies Brachycercus spp and Glossosoma spp. These
macroinvertebrates are considered sensitive to pollution and usually are not present in degraded water quality conditions. Additionally, the moderately
caddisfly intolerant Polycentropus spp was common at this site consistent with samples collected since 2000. Leuctra spp was the only stonefly
collected at this location.
Data Analysis
The bioclassification at this site has remained Good since 2000. It was reassessed following the Fair rating it received in 1999 pending its addition to the
303(d) list. The EPTBI in 2009 is slightly elevated compared to past samples, however, EPT taxa richness has remained consistent between 29 and 31
beginning in 2000. Overall, water quality has improved at the site since 1999 when presumably this location suffered from low flows and/or temporary
bridge construction impacts. No NPDES dischargers are currently active upstream from this macroinvertebrate monitoring station.
Fair
08/23/94 6689 ---22 ---4.04 Good-Fair
08/23/99 7983 ---18 ---4.29
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.8
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)26.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)53
pH (s.u.)7.3
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)10

Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
MAYO R SR 1358 NB28 08/11/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Rockingham 2 03010103 36.535520 -79.990620 22-30-(1)Northern Inner Piedmont
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)WS-V 261.0 720 40 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)5
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)89 Substrate Mostly bedrock and rubble with some boulders, gravel, and sand.
Bioclassification
08/11/09 10807 91 48 4.03 3.37 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
08/23/99 7985 70 32 4.27 3.45 Good
07/08/04 9406 78 33 4.74 4.13
Taxonomic Analysis
In 2009, a diverse macroinvertebrate community was observed at this sampling location. EPT richness (48) was the highest yet recorded during
Basinwide sampling at this site. Many intolerant EPT taxa were collected including but not limited to the mayflies Drunella allegheniensis, Epeorus
vitreus , and Serratella serratoides ; the stoneflies Leuctra spp , Paragnetina fumosa, and Pteranarcys spp, and the caddisflies Brachycentrus lateralis ,
B. nigrosoma, B. numerosus , Ceraclea mentiea , Micrasema wataga, and M. bennetti . Rarely collected EPT taxa included Heterocloeon petersi ,
Rhithrogena spp ., Brachycentrus lateralis and Ceraclea mentiea . Intolerant beetles present included Promeresia elegans, Psephenus herricki,
Optioservus ovalis , and O. trivittatus .
Data Analysis
The Mayo River Basinwide sampling location received a bioclassification of Excellent in 2009 suggesting an improvement in water quality from past
benthic samples. This may reflect a reduction in non point pollution inputs as a result of the prolonged drought. The NCBI and EPTBI has remained
stable throughout basinwide sampling at this location, however, total taxa richness and EPT taxa richness increased significantly in 2009 compared to
past samples. A history of Good ratings (1989-2004) and recent Excellent rating (2009) suggests improved water quality and very little anthropogenic
activity upstream. Further sampling should occur in the near future to determine if macroinvertebrate fauna continue to reflect improved water quality at
this location. The presence of so many intolerant and rare taxa in this stretch of river suggests further investigation(s) are needed to assess its potential
for reclassification.
Good
08/08/89 5035 79 42 4.79 4.00 Good
08/22/94 6685 64 38 3.58 3.20
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.9
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
County
STOKES
Excellent
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.43277778
05/11/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
ARCHIES CR
AU Number
22-2
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.55
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/11/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
7
04/19/04
NF1
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
025
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains southern Patrick County, VA and a very small portion of the extreme northwest corner of Stokes and northeastern Surry counties; no
municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River; site is ~ 0.7 miles upstream of the creek's confluence with the river. Habitats -- very high quality
instream and riparian habitats, site would have qualified as a regional reference site except the watershed landuse did not appear to be as greatly forested
(~ 50 %) as required to meet the criteria (≥ 70 %). Water Quality -- specific conductance has always been low (37 and 49 µS/cm). 2009 -- greatest
number of intolerant species (n=4) and lowest percentage of tolerant fish (3%) of any site in 2009; not a NCWRC Hatchery Supported Trout waters, but one
stocked Brook Trout, 200 mm TL was collected. 2004 & 2009 -- 22 species known from the site, including 5 species of darters and the endemic Cutlip
Minnow [Special Concern], Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare], Blacktip Jumprock, and Riverweed Darter [Special Concern]; dominant species are the
Bluehead Chub and Redlip Shiner. Based on this site's most recent Excellent rating, the site qualifies at minimum for High Quality Waters (HQW)
designation.
Rural Residential
5
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Brown Trout (n=1). Losses -- none.
54
54
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
70
15.3
12
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
1180
Drainage Area (mi2)
9.3
3
10
Bioclassification
Excellent
Excellent
NCIBI
16
Sample ID
Redlip Shiner (23%), Bluehead Chub
(21%) Most Abundant Species 2009
9
9.2
49
6.0
Slightly turbid
5
19
5
Bedrock, cobble, boulder, sandSubstrate
Species Total
22
212004-09
2009-28
Exotic Species 2009 Brown Trout, Smallmouth Bass
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1415
Location
93
7
7
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.10
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
County
STOKES
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.3075
05/11/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
ELK CR
AU Number
22-5
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.52388889
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/11/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
7
04/20/04
NF4
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
00
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains primarily southern Patrick County, VA and a very small portion of northwestern Stokes County; no municipalities in the watershed;
tributary to the Dan River, site is ~ 0.8 miles above the creek's confluence with the river. Habitats -- high gradient stream with plunge pools and riffles;
narrow riparian zones offering minimal shading to the stream, banks have re-vegetated since 2004. Water Quality -- specific conductance has always
been low (41 and 48 µS/cm). 2009 -- a slight increase in the diversity of suckers and a greater abundance of piscivores (i.e., Smallmouth Bass) were
largely responsible for the improved NCIBI score and rating; other metrics were unchanged. 2004 & 2009 -- 23 species known from the site, including 5
species of darters, 4 species of suckers, the endemic Cutlip Minnow [Special Concern], Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare], and Riverweed Darter
[Special Concern], but only one species of sunfish; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
25
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- White Sucker, Northern Hogsucker. Losses -- Mountain Redbelly Dace, Cutlip Minnow, Creek Chub,
Golden Redhorse, Brown Trout. All species gained or lost were represented by 1 fish/species, except for
Golden Redhorse and White Sucker (n=5 and 8, respectively).
52
44
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
15.3
12
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
890
Drainage Area (mi2)
8.5
1
2
9
Smallmouth Bass
Bioclassification
Good
Good-Fair
NCIBI
16
Sample ID
4
9.2
48
6.3
Slightly turbid, easily
silted
5
17
Bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, silt, sandSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
18
212004-13
2009-29
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1433
Location
Bluehead Chub (34%) Most Abundant Species 2009
75
6
3
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.11
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
County
STOKES
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.27138889
05/12/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
PETERS CR
AU Number
22-6
Yes
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.49388889
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/12/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
11
04/21/04
NF6
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
025
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains a portion of the southern part of Patrick County, VA and north-central Stokes County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to
the Dan River, site is ~ 1.9 miles above the creek's confluence with the river. Habitats -- a regional reference site; riffles, deep snag pools; good canopy
over the stream. Water Quality -- pH less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u. 2009 -- 6 species of suckers collected, the most of any site in 2009
(Wolf Island Creek also had 6 species); the loss of the intolerant Bigeye Jumprock [State Threatened], and the intolerant Smallmouth Bass were
responsible for the decline in the NCIBI score and rating; other metrics were unchanged. 2004 & 2009 -- very diverse community, 30 species known from
the site, including 7 species of suckers, 6 species of darters and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare], Bigeye Jumprock, Blacktip
Jumprock, and Riverweed Darter [Special Concern]; the loss of the Bigeye Jumprock and Smallmouth Bass and the decline from Excellent to Good
warrants additional monitoring in 2014.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Central Stoneroller, Bull Chub, Golden Shiner, Northern Hogsucker, Golden Redhorse, V-lip
Redhorse. Losses -- Bigeye Jumprock, Smallmouth Bass, Chainback Darter. All species gained or lost were
represented by 1or 2 fish/species, except for V-Lip Redhorse, Golden Redhorse, and Central Stoneroller (n=6,
7, and 19, respectively).
50
54
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
12.5
12
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
830
Drainage Area (mi2)
28.6
3
5
10
Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good
Excellent
NCIBI
11
Sample ID
10
11.2
57
5.4
Slightly turbid
5
16
Cobble, boulder, gravel, sand, silt.Substrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
27
242004-14
2009-30
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1497
Location
Bluehead Chub (24%) Most Abundant Species 2009
83
4
7
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.12
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
County
STOKES
Good-Fair
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.34888889
05/13/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
BIG CR
AU Number
22-9
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.4725
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/13/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
8
04/20/04
NF2
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
020
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains eastern Surry and northwestern Stokes counties; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River. Habitats -- gravel
riffles, runs, pools, woody debris, bank erosion is moderate to severe in places. Water Quality -- dissolved oxygen saturation at 125% indicating high early
morning periphyton production. 2009 -- more than twice as many fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (888 vs. 413), primarily Bluehead Chub and Crescent
Shiner; highest percentage of omnivores+ herbivores of any site (49%, indicative of non-point source nutrient enrichment; the loss of two intolerant darters,
Roanoke Darter and Riverweed Darter, and one species of sunfish were responsible for the decline in the NCIBI score and rating. 2004 & 2009 -- 22
species known from the site, including 4 species of darters and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare], Blacktip Jumprock, and Riverweed
Darter [Special Concern]; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
5
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Central Stoneroller, White Shiner, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Blacktip Jumprock, Flat Bullhead.
Losses -- Green Sunfish, Riverweed Darter, Roanoke Darter. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-
9 fish/species.
42
48
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
13.7
5
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
890
Drainage Area (mi2)
32.7
5
5
10
Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good-Fair
Good
NCIBI
7
Sample ID
9
13.0
52
6.0
Slightly turbid
5
16
Sand, gravel, boulder, bedrockSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
19
172004-10
2009-33
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1471
Location
Bluehead Chub (47%) Most Abundant Species 2009
73
4
7
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.13
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Most Abundant Species 2009 Bluehead Chub (32%), Crescent Shiner
(25%)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
SR 1504
Location
73
6
7
5
14
Sand, gravel, some cobbleSubstrate
Species Total
202009-32 Good
Good-Fair
NCIBI
12
Sample ID
9
182004-11
Drainage Area (mi2)
12.4
3
5
8
Bioclassification
10.2
52
6.1
Very slightly turbid
50
42
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
15.0
4
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
790
Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains west-central Stokes County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River, site is ~ 2.7 miles upstream of the creek's
confluence with the river. Habitats -- a regional reference site; primarily gravel/sand runs; one riffle at the upper end, some snags, undercuts; high quality
riparian zone on the right. 2009 -- the number of fish collected in 2009 was ~ 1.5 times more than in 2004 (811 vs. 539), primarily Crescent Shiner which
increased almost 10-fold; the slight increase in the diversity of suckers and darters and a more balanced trophic structure (i.e., less dominance by the
omnivorous Bluehead Chub) were responsible for the increased NCIBI score and rating; no lingering drought impacts. 2004 & 2009 -- 22 species known
from the site, including 4 species of darters and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare]; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
15
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Satinfin Shiner, Golden Redhorse, Bluegill, Roanoke Darter. Losses -- Flat Bullhead, Largemouth
Bass. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-5 fish/species.
Stream Width (m)
8
04/20/04
NF5
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
010
0.4
Agriculture
Yes
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.43972222
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
N DOUBLE CR
AU Number
22-10
05/12/09
NPDES Number
---
Exotic Species 2009 Bluegill
County
STOKES
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.31111111
05/12/09
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.14
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
County
STOKES
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.29805556
05/12/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
S DOUBLE CR
AU Number
22-11
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.43138889
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/12/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
7
04/20/04
NF7
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
020
0.5
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains west-central Stokes County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River, site is ~ 0.8 miles upstream of the creek's
confluence with the river. Habitats -- borders the Sauratown Mountains Level IV ecoregion; gravel riffles and runs, silty pools with bedrock outcrops; re-
vegetated left bank. Water Quality -- lowest specific conductance of any site in 2009, has always been low (46 µS/cm in 2004). 2009 -- slightly more total
fish and a lower percentage of tolerant fish were largely responsible for the very slight increase in NCIBI score and rating, no other changes in the other
metric scores; no lingering impacts from droughts. 2004 & 2009 -- 25 species known from the site, including 5 species of darters and the endemic
Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare] and Blacktip Jumprock; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
10
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Central Stoneroller, Blacktip Jumprock, Bluegill. Losses -- Mountain Redbelly Dace, Flat Bullhead,
Green Sunfish, Chainback Darter. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-5 fish/species.
48
46
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
70
12.9
3
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
750
Drainage Area (mi2)
16.4
4
10
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
5
Sample ID
Most Abundant Species 2009 Bluehead Chub (27%), Redbreast
Sunfish (20%)
9
10.5
47
5.9
Slightly turbid
5
14
3
Sand, gravel, bedrock outcropsSubstrate
Species Total
21
222004-12
2009-31
Bluegill Exotic Species 2009
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
B
SR 1483
Location
65
6
6
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.15
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
SR 1652
Location
Bluehead Chub (38%) Most Abundant Species 2009
72
4
7
Sand, gravel, cobble, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
19
162004-15
2009-34
10
12.2
66
6.2
Very slightly turbid
5
16
5
5
6
Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good-Fair
Good
NCIBI
10
Sample ID
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
90
13.9
4
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
750
Drainage Area (mi2)
22.7
Watershed -- drains northeastern and north-central Stokes County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River. Habitats -- shallow
riffles, runs, side snags, bedrock outcrop pool at the end of the reach. 2009 -- 3 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (746 vs. 249), primarily
Bluehead Chub, Redlip Shiner, and Crescent Shiner (69% of all the fish collected); a slight increase in sucker diversity was offset by the abundance of
omnivores, primarily Bluehead Chub, indicative of nonpoint source nutrient enrichment, which slightly decreased the NCIBI score and rating; no lingering
effects from the drought. 2004 & 2009 -- only 20 species known from the site, including the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare] and Blacktip
Jumprock; interestingly Snow Creek was the only site in the basin from which the Johnny Darter or the Tessellated Darter was not collected in 2004 or
2009, its absence is unexplained; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
10
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Central Stoneroller (n=9), Northern Hogsucker (n=4), Blacktip Jumprock (n=1), Bluegill (n=14).
Losses -- Flat Bullhead (n=6).
44
4604/21/04
NF8
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
00
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
36.46166667
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/13/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
9
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
SNOW CR
AU Number
22-20
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
LatitudeCounty
STOKES
Good-Fair
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.14972222
05/13/09
Date Station ID
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.16
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
SR 1955
Location
Fantail Darter (34%) Most Abundant Species 2009
79
6
7
Bedrock shelves, gravel, cobbleSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
21
212004-16
2009-35
7
12.4
95
6.9
Very slightly turbid
5
18
3
3
7
Bluegill, Green Sunfish
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
15
Sample ID
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
25
16.7
8
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
680
Drainage Area (mi2)
28
Watershed -- drains south-central Stokes and northern Forsyth counties, north and east of the City of Winston-Salem metropolitan area; three NPDES
� aci� ities � ithi� the cree� � s � atershed (� � 00� � � 5� � 00577� 0� a� d 00� � 7� � � com� i� ed �w = 0.107 MGD); tributary to the Dan River. Habitats -- shallow
gravel riffles, runs, bedrock riffles with Podostemum, side snag pools. Water Quality -- dissolved oxygen saturation at 128% due to afternoon
photosynthetic activity by the periphyton. 2009 -- 2.2 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004, primarily an increase in the number of Fantail Darter
(from 16% to 34%) and a decrease in the dominance of the Bluehead Chub (from 38% to 21%); these changes (decreasing the percentage of
omnivores+herbivores and increasing the percentage of insectivores) slightly increased the NCIBI score but not the rating. 2004 & 2009 -- 22 species
known from the site, including 5 species of sucker, 3 species of darters, and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare]; dominant species is the
Fantail Darter and Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
15
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Mountain Redbelly Dace (n=5). Losses -- V-lip Redhorse (n=5).
52
4804/21/04
NF9
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
060
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
36.26416667
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/13/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
10
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
TOWN FORK CR
AU Number
22-25b
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
1
LatitudeCounty
STOKES
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-80.2325
05/13/09
Date Station ID
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.17
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
US 311
Location
Bluehead Chub (27%) Most Abundant Species 2009
67
1
7
Gravel, cobble, sandSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
26
222004-18
2009-38
9
8.8
64
6.3
Clear, easily silted
5
14
3
4
8
Bluegill
Bioclassification
Excellent
Good
NCIBI
10
Sample ID
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
25
17.5
6
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
570
Drainage Area (mi2)
23.8
Watershed -- drains north-central Stokes and northwest Rockingham counties, including the western area of the towns of Madison and Mayodan; tributary
to the � a� � i� er� site is ~ 0.� mi� es a� o� e the cree� � s co� � � ue� ce � ith the ri� er. Habitats -- severe bank erosion in places, but bank vegetation and canopy
are of high quality; riffles, runs, side undercuts and snags, large coarse woody debris, large debris dam at end of reach. 2009 -- ~ 3.5 times more fish
collected in 2009 than in 2004 (866 vs. 247), primarily Bluehead Chub, Redlip Shiner, Fantail Darter, and Crescent Shiner (71% of all the fish collected); the
collection of 28 piscivorous Redfin Pickerel resulted in a more balanced trophic structure, increasing the NCIBI score and rating; one specimen of the
Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch was collected. 2004 & 2009 -- very diverse community with 30 species known from the site, including 6 species
of darters, 6 species of suckers, and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare], Blacktip Jumprock, and Roanoke Logperch; dominant species
is the Bluehead Chub.
Urban
50
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Creek Chub, Golden Redhorse, V-lip Redhorse, Blacktip Jumprock, Redfin Pickerel, Largemouth
Bass, Roanoke Logperch. Losses -- Golden Shiner, Northern Hogsucker, Glassy Darter, Chainback Darter.
All species gained or lost were represented by 1 or 2 fish/species, except for Glassy Darter, Northern
Hogsucker, Golden Redhorse, and Redfin Pickerel (n=4, 7, 9, and 28, respectively).
56
5204/22/04
NF10
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
025
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
36.3825
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Triassic Basins
05/14/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
6
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
BIG BEAVER ISLAND CR
AU Number
22-29
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
2
LatitudeCounty
ROCKINGHAM
Excellent
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-79.98083333
05/14/09
Date Station ID
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.18
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
750
Drainage Area (mi2)
8.1
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
SR 1360
Location
8 digit HUC
03010103
Cobble, gravelSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
21
18
2009-36
Bluehead Chub (22%) Most Abundant Species 2009
75
08/03/90
2004-17
15
Sample ID
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
14.4
10
Clear, easily silted
5
17
3
3
4
9.2
57
6.1
5
6
7
Elevation (ft)
Green Sunfish, Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good
Good-Fair
NCIBI
52
44
48 Good
04/22/04
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
7
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
65
No
Watershed � � drai� s � orth� ester� � oc� i� � ham � ou� t� � � o mu� ici� a� ities i� the � atershed� tri� utar� to the � a� o � i� er� site is ~ 0.� mi� es a� o� e the cree� � s
confluence with the river. Habitats -- good gradient with riffles and runs, shallow pools, narrow riparian zones. 2009 -- almost twice as many fish collected
in 2009 than in 2004 (979 vs . 527), primarily Redlip Shiner, Crescent Shiner, Central Stoneroller, and Fantail Darter (45% of all the fish collected); greater
diversities of sunfish and suckers and a very slight improvement in the trophic structure were responsible for the increased NCIBI score and rating. 1990 -
2009 -- 27 species known from the site, including 4 species of darters and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare] and Bigeye Jumprock
[State Threatened]; the dominant species is the Bluehead Chub; the intolerant Bigeye Jumprock and Roanoke Darter have not been collected since 1990;
the loss of two intolerant species, one of which is an endemic species of sucker, and the absence another species of sucker since 1990 from this site
warrants repeat assessment in 2014.
Rural Residential
2
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- White Sucker (n=4), Golden Redhorse (n=18), Pumpkinseed (n=10), Warmouth (n=2). Losses --
White Shiner (n=8).
05/14/09
NF14
90-08 23
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
033
0.3
Agriculture Other (describe)
Subbasin
2
Latitude
36.50444444
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Longitude
-79.96277778
05/14/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
PAWPAW CR
AU Number
22-30-6-(2)
County
ROCKINGHAM
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.19
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
NC 704
Location
Redlip Shiner (31%) Most Abundant Species 2009
95
6
7
Cobble, boulder, gravel, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
24
172004-19
2009-37
10
9.1
62
6.3
Clear
5
19
5
5
10
Green Sunfish, Bluegill
Bioclassification
Excellent
Good
NCIBI
16
Sample ID
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
95
16.0
12
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
600
Drainage Area (mi2)
23
Watershed � � drai� s south� est � oc� i� � ham � ou� t� � � o mu� ici� a� ities i� the � atershed� tri� utar� to the � a� � i� er� site is ~ � .� mi� es a� o� e the cree� � s
co� � � ue� ce � ith the ri� er� � our sma� � � � � � � � aci� ities � or mo� i� e home � ar� s � ithi� the cree� � s � atershed (tota� �w=0.251 MGD). Habitat -- a regional
reference site; borders the Northern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion, atypical Triassic Basin habitats; highest score of any site in the basin in 2004 and
2009; high gradient boulder and cobble riffles, runs, deep, long pools. 2009 -- 2.3 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004, primarily Redlip Shiner;
with a greater diversity of sunfish and more species with multiple age classes in 2009 than in 2004 the NCIBI score and rating increased; other metric
scores were unchanged; no lingering drought impacts. 2004 & 2009 -- 27 species known from the site, including 6 species of suckers, 5 species of darters,
and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare], Blacktip Jumprock, and Riverweed Darter [Special Concern]; dominant species is the Redlip
Shiner; extremely low flows during the 2002 drought may have impacted the community in 2004; as a regional reference site and with an Excellent rating, if
requested the site qualifies as High Quality Waters. Based on this site's most recent Excellent rating, the site qualifies at minimum for High Quality Waters
(HQW) designation.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- White Shiner, Satinfin Shiner, Golden Redhorse, V-lip Redhorse, Green Sunfish, Pumpkinseed,
Bluegill, Largemouth Bass, Riverweed Darter, Glassy Darter. Losses -- Rosyside Dace, Golden Shiner,
Blacktip Jumprock. Species gained or lost were represented by 1-10 fish/species.
54
4804/22/04
NF11
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
5 (road)0
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
36.3816593
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Triassic Basins
05/14/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
8
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
HOGANS CR
AU Number
22-31
Yes
Reference Site
Subbasin
2
LatitudeCounty
ROCKINGHAM
Excellent
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-79.9076818
05/14/09
Date Station ID
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.20
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
County
ROCKINGHAM
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-79.87638889
05/20/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
JACOBS CR
AU Number
22-32-(3)
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
2
Latitude
36.37944444
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
05/20/09
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
8
04/22/04
NF12
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
025
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains southwestern Rockingham County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River, site is ~ 1.6 miles above the creek's
co� � � ue� ce � ith the ri� er� t� o sma� � � � � � � � aci� ities � ithi� the cree� � s � atershed � � 00� � � � 5 a� d 00� 700� � tota� �w = 0.01 MGD). Habitats -- gravely and
sandy runs, side snags and deadfall pools, scour pools, boulders and bluff along the right bank; left bank has re-vegetated since 2004; site still suffers from
very substantial nonpoint source erosion and sedimentation; habitat score was the lowest of any site in 2004 and 2009. 2009 -- 2.6 times more fish
collected in 2009 than in 2004 (459 vs. 176), primarily Redlip Shiner; piscivores absent; no other changes in the metric scores. 2004 & 2009 -- 26 species
known from the site, including 5 species of suckers, 5 species of darters, and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare]; dominant species are
the Redlip Shiner and Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Rosyside Dace, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Creek Chub, Golden Redhorse, Flat Bullhead, Bluegill,
Chainback Darter. Losses -- Margined Madtom, Snail Bullhead, Green Sunfish, Largemouth Bass. All species
gained or lost were represented by 1-4 fish/species, except for Bluegill, Creek Chub, and Golden Redhorse,
(n=6, 8, 12, respectively).
50
50
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
11.6
4
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
565
Drainage Area (mi2)
36.2
3
5
4
Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
3
Sample ID
8
9.5
76
6.1
Clear
5
17
Sand, gravelSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
22
192004-20
2009-39
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
NC 704
Location
Redlip Shiner (26%) Most Abundant Species 2009
55
2
4
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.21
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Most Abundant Species 2009 Bluehead Chub (23%), Fantail Darter
18%)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
WS-IV
SR 2127
Location
68
6
7
5
14
Sand, gravel, some cobbleSubstrate
Species Total
242009-40 Good
Good
NCIBI
7
Sample ID
9
172004-22
Drainage Area (mi2)
23
5
5
6
Bioclassification
9.6
84
6.7
Clear, easily silted
52
48
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
13.1
4
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
510
Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains central Rockingham County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to the Dan River, site is ~ 0.6 miles above the creek's
confluence with the river. Habitats -- sand and gravel bars, very shallow sandy runs, side pools, high quality banks and riparian zones, but stream still
exhibits some substantial nonpoint source erosion impacts. 2009 -- 2.7 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (1149 vs. 417), primarily Fantail
Darter and Bluehead Chub; most fish collected from any site in 2009; less dominance by the omnivorous Bluehead Chub resulted in a more balanced
trophic structure and a slight increase in the NCIBI score; no lingering drought effects. 2004 & 2009 -- 25 species known from the site, including 5 species
of darters and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare]; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
5
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Central Stoneroller (n=21), Rosyside Dace (n=4), Swallowtail Shiner (n=10), Creek Chub (n=10), V-lip
Redhorse (n=15), Redear Sunfish (n=1), Largemouth Bass (n=2), Chainback Darter (n=1). Losses -- Green
Sunfish (n=34).
Stream Width (m)
9
04/23/04
NF18
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
020
0.3
Agriculture
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
3
Latitude
36.42055556
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Triassic Basins
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
ROCK HOUSE CR
AU Number
22-34-(2)
05/20/09
NPDES Number
---
Bluegill, Redear Sunfish Exotic Species 2009
County
ROCKINGHAM
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-79.79055556
05/20/09
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.22
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Most Abundant Species 2009 Bluehead Chub (25%), Crescent Shiner
(18%)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
SR 1767
Location
63
1
6
5
16
Sand, gravel, siltSubstrate
Species Total
282009-41 Excellent
Good
NCIBI
7
Sample ID
5
212004-23
Drainage Area (mi2)
43.2
5
5
10
Bioclassification
8.8
103
6.5
Clear
56
50
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
16.5
3
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
510
Other (describe)
None
Watershed -- drains the northeast corner of Rockingham County; headwaters begin northwest of the Town of Reidsville; tributary to the Dan River; one
small NPDES facility in the headwaters (NC0078271, Qw = 0.0084). Habitats -- large deadfalls and coarse woody debris, stick riffles, snag pools, wide
riparian zones with mature trees; stream still exhibits substantial nonpoint source erosion with channel and riparian bank instabilities. 2009 -- ~4 times
more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (719 vs . 177), primarily Bluehead Chub, Redlip Shiner, Crescent Shiner, and Bluegill; most diverse community of
any site, including 6 species of suckers; increased abundance and species richness of darters and sunfish were largely responsible for the increase in
NCIBI score and rating, no lingering drought effects. 2004 & 2009 -- very diverse community with 31 species known from the site, including 6 species of
sucker, 5 species of darters, and the endemic Roanoke Hogsucker [Significantly Rare] and Blacktip Jumprock; dominant species is the Bluehead Chub.
Rural Residential
25
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Rosyside Dace, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Blacktip Jumprock, Pumpkinseed, Redear Sunfish,
Largemouth Bass, Black Crappie, Glassy Darter, Chainback Darter, Roanoke Darter. Losses -- Notchlip
Redhorse, Green Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-4 fish/species.
Stream Width (m)
10
04/23/04
NF20
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
00
0.4
Agriculture
No
Reference Site
Subbasin
3
Latitude
36.48138889
Elevation (ft)
8 digit HUC
03010103 Northern Inner Piedmont
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
WOLF ISLAND CR
AU Number
22-48
05/20/09
NPDES Number
---
Exotic Species 2009 Bluegill, Redear Sunfish
County
ROCKINGHAM
Excellent
Bioclassification
Level IV EcoregionLongitude
-79.55861111
05/20/09
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.1
StAtION ID wAtERBODY AU#lOCAtION
N0150000 Dan River 22-(1)AT NC 704 NEAR FRANCISCO
N1400000 Mayo River 22-30-(1)AT SR 1358 NEAR PRICE
N2300000 Dan RIver 22-(31.5)AT SR 2150 NEAR WENTWORTH
N2430000 Smith River 22-40-(1)AT SR 1714 NEAR EDEN
N3000000 Dan River 22-(39)AT SR 1761 NEAR MAYFIELD
appendix 1-c
AmBIENt mONItORINg SYStEmS
StAtION DAtA SHEEtS
FOR tHE UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.2
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:N0150000
Location:DAN RIV AT NC 704 NR FRANCISCO
Stream class:C Tr
NC stream index:22-(1)
Hydrologic Unit Code:03010103
Latitude:36.51459 Longitude:-80.30282
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<6 6.1 8.3 8.8 10.4 12.1 13.2 17.557000
pH (SU)<6 6.2 7 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.2 8.658000
>9 6.2 7 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.2 8.658000
Spec. conductance
(umhos/cm at 25°C)
N/A 30 47 49 51 55 59 71560
Water Temperature (°C)>32 1.2 4.5 8.8 14.5 21.9 24.1 27.558000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3.2 6.2 7 12.9 15209
Turbidity (NTU)>10 1 1.5 2 3.8 8 25.5 4505813122.4 99.9
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.315852
NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.41 0.5 0.55581
TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.23 0.45 3.45833
Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.08 15817
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 62 63 80 115 315 702 730100
Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5100100
Cadmium, total (Cd)>0.4 1 1 1.8 2 2 2 2100100
Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 21 25 25 25 25100100
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 4 510090
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 150 151 168 245 500 959 99010000
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100
Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080
Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
58 41.5 4 6.9
01/10/2005Time period:01/04/2010to
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.3
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:N1400000
Location:MAYO RIV AT SR 1358 NR PRICE
Stream class:WS-V
NC stream index:22-30-(1)
Hydrologic Unit Code:03010103
Latitude:36.53514 Longitude:-79.99117
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 6.5 7.8 8.8 10.5 12 13.1 17.259000
<5 6.5 7.8 8.8 10.5 12 13.1 17.259000
pH (SU)<6 6.7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.359000
>9 6.7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.359000
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 35 49 56 58 64 68 91570
Water Temperature (°C)>32 1.3 5.9 9.2 14.3 22.9 25.4 28.759000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.6 4.4 6.2 15.8 41.6 182209
Turbidity (NTU)>50 2 2.7 3.5 6.2 13 55 800596010.2 62.3
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 120 120 140 180 1215 5400 540090
Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090
Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090
Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 17 1791711.1
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 310 310 425 440 1750 12000 1200093033.3
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 15 159080
Manganese, total (Mn)>200 12 12 20 24 46 950 95091011.1
Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080
Nickel, total (Ni)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 11 29 299070
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
58 100.3 9 15.5
01/10/2005Time period:12/03/2009to
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.4
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:N2300000
Location:DAN RIV AT SR 2150 NR WENTWORTH
Stream class:WS-IV
NC stream index:22-(31.5)
Hydrologic Unit Code:03010103
Latitude:36.41055 Longitude:-79.82693
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 6.3 7.2 7.8 9.6 11.4 13.3 14.760000
<5 6.3 7.2 7.8 9.6 11.4 13.3 14.760000
pH (SU)<6 6.6 7 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 8.260000
>9 6.6 7 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 8.260000
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 37 58 64 71 84 140 158580
Water Temperature (°C)>32 1.4 5.4 8.8 17 23.8 25.8 28.860000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 3 6.2 10 23 150 201196
Turbidity (NTU)>50 1.6 3.3 4 7.1 15.5 118 550619014.8 92
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.046147
NO2 + NO3 as N >10 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3 0.3461000
TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.23 0.31 0.89 2.26126
Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.22 0.83611
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 110 110 175 320 700 6600 660090
Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090
Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090
Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 3 39080
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 390 390 535 700 1125 5000 500092022.2
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090
Manganese, total (Mn)>200 21 21 27 32 54 90 909000
Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080
Nickel, total (Ni)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 12 25 259070
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
61 101.6 10 16.4
01/10/2005Time period:12/03/2009to
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.5
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:N2430000
Location:SMITH RIV AT SR 1714 NR EDEN
Stream class:WS-IV
NC stream index:22-40-(1)
Hydrologic Unit Code:03010103
Latitude:36.52087 Longitude:-79.75281
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL#
results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
#
ND

EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 7.1 8 8.6 10.3 11.4 13.2 14.860000
<5 7.1 8 8.6 10.3 11.4 13.2 14.860000
pH (SU)<6 6.4 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 8 8.660000
>9 6.4 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 8 8.660000
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 35 59 74 82 90 96 107580
Water Temperature (°C)>32 1.6 6.1 8.8 16 20.7 23.6 2660000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.8 3.2 6.2 8.2 33 152 470194
Turbidity (NTU)>50 1.8 2.4 3.2 5.5 14 64 360607011.7 75.2
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 84 84 125 210 720 8200 820090
Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090
Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090
Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 5 14 1491611.1
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 360 360 410 490 1010 7600 760092022.2
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090
Manganese, total (Mn)>200 26 26 30 36 56 240 24091011.1
Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080
Nickel, total (Ni)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 16 28 289050
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
60 92.9 11 18.3
01/10/2005Time period:12/03/2009to
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.6
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:N3000000
Location:DAN RIV AT SR 1761 NR MAYFIELD
Stream class:C
NC stream index:22-(39)
Hydrologic Unit Code:03010103
Latitude:36.54142 Longitude:-79.60525
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 6 7.1 7.7 9.6 11.4 12.9 1459000
<5 6 7.1 7.7 9.6 11.4 12.9 1459000
pH (SU)<6 6.2 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.159000
>9 6.2 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.159000
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 45 71 91 114 141 187 225580
Water Temperature (°C)>32 5.4 7.4 10.2 17.6 23.8 27.9 3059000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 4 4.1 8 10.2 27.2 62.4 322202
Turbidity (NTU)>50 2 3.1 4.7 7.4 25 160 2605911018.6 98.7
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 140 142 220 430 1035 2040 2100100
Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5100100
Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 1.8 2 2 2 2100100
Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 21 25 25 25 25100100
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 4 5 610050
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 470 472 565 880 1875 3000 310010404099.8
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100
Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080
Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 12 13 1310070
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
59 86.6 11 18.6
01/10/2005Time period:12/03/2009to
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.1
appendix 1-d
10-DIgIt wAtERSHED mApS
FOR tHE UppER DAN RIVER SUBBASIN
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.2
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.3
A rc h i e s Cr
Peters Cr
NF1
NF2
NF4
NF6
NB83 NB82
ROA003A
NB17
NB97
NB101
NB41 NB9
NB63
NF8
NB21
DAN RIV
E
R
NB8
N0150000
NF5 NF7
NB15
NB4
NB33
D A N R I V E RNB120NF42 ROA009ENB19BigBeaverIslandCr
Mill
Cr
BrushyFkCr
LynnBr BelewsLake
Danbury
D an
R
iver
Big C re e k
N
o
r
t
h
D
o
u
ble
Creek
S
o
u
t
h
D
o
u
ble
C
r
e
e
k
CascadeCr.
IndianCr.
D anRiver
E l k C r.
N
C
-
8
9
N
C-103
N
C
-
2
6
8
NC-89
N C-66
NC-8
NC-704
NC-66
Walnut
Cove
STOKES
SURRY
Town
F
o
r
k
C
r
eek
Lt.
CrookedCr
Little
Dan
River-Dan
River
Watershed
(0301010301)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY #0 E k "Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011
¯
0
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.4
NF2
NB83NB82
NB17
NB41
NB63
NF8
NB21 DANRIV
E
R
NF5NF7
NB15
NB4
DANRIVER
NF10
NF9
ROA009E
NB19
ROA009G
ROA009H
ROA009J
BigBeaverIsland
C
r
Brushy
F
k
C
r.
LynnBr
Belews
Lake
ROA0092A
Danbury
N
o
r
t
h
D
o
u
ble
Creek
IndianCr.
SURRY
STOKES
STOKES
FORSYTH
Rural
Hall
Walkertown
Walnut
Cove
T
o
w
n
F
o
r
k
Creek
B u f f alo Cr.
NeatmanCr.
O l d FieldCreek
LickCreek
M
ill
C
reek
NC-8
NC-65
US-52
NC-8
US -311
NC-66
Stokesdale
Kernersville
Mayodan
STOKES
FORSYTH
SURRY
Town
Fork
Creek
Watershed
(0301010302)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY#0Ek"Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011
¯
0
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.5
A rc hies
C
r
NF1
NB17
NB41
NB63
NF8
DAN RIV
E
R
D A N R I V E R
NB26
NB26
NB120
NB47
NB26
NF10
NF42
N1360000
ROA009E
ROA009G
ROA009H
ROA009J
NB115NF11
NF12
BigBeav
e
r
Islan d C r
Paw
Paw
Cr
Hogans
C
r
Brush
y
C
r
LynnBr
M a y o River
Belews
Lake
RockHouseCr
ROA0092A
Smith R iver
M atrimony C r
NB36
NB114
D
ANRIVER
Danbury
SURRYSTOKES
STOKES
FORSYTH
Rural
Hall
Walkertown
Walnut
Cove
T
o
w
n
F
o
r
k
Cree
k
NC-8
U S-52 NC-8
H
i
c
k
o
r
y
C
r
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
Stoneville
Mayodan
Jacobs
Creek
Stokesdale
Kernersville
ROCKINGHAM
GUILFORD
Madison
NB9
NB101
R
a
ccoonCr.
Snow
Cr.
WestBelewsCr.B
elewsCreekLittleBeav
erI s lan d Cr.
US-52
N C -7 7 2
N
C
-1
5
0
U
S
-
1
5
8
N C -6 8
W
o
o
d
B
e
nto
n
B
r.
Eden
Wentworth
Reidsville
STOKES
SURRY
BirchFork
NB74 NF18
NF18
NF17
NF42
Belews
Lake-Dan
River
Watershed
(0301010303)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY #0 E k "Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011¯
0
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.6
NB17
NB41
NB63
NF8
DANRIVER
DANRIVER
NB26
NB28
NB120
NB47
NB26
NF10
NF42
N1360000
ROA009E
ROA009G
ROA009H
NB115
NF11
NF12
BigBeaverIslan
d
C
r
Paw
Paw
Cr
HogansCr
Brushy
C
r
LynnBr
MayoRiver
Rock House Cr
MatrimonyCrNB36
Danbury
Walnut
Cove
NC-8
H
i
c
k
o
r
y
C
r
DAN
RIVER
Stoneville
Mayodan
Jacobs
Cree
k
Madison
NB9
NB101
R
a
ccoon
Cr.
Snow
Cr.
LittleBeaverIsland
Cr.
NC-772
W
o
o
d
B
e
n
to
n
B
r.
N1400000
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
C
r
.
LittleCro
o
k
e
d
C
r.
B
uff
a
lo
C
r.
NC-770
N
C-135
US-220
STOKES
ROCKINGHAM
Wentworth
NF18
Mayo
River
Watershed
(0301010304)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY#0Ek"Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011 ¯
0
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.7
NB17
NB41
NB63
NF8
DAN R I V ER
D A N R I V E R
NB26
NB47
NB26
NF10
ROA009E
ROA009J
NB115
NF11
NF12
BigBeaver
I
s
l
a
n
d
Cr
Hogans
C
r Bru
s
h
y
C
r
LynnBr
M a y o River
RockHouseCr
Smith R i ver
M a trimonyCr
NB36
NB114
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
Danbury
STOKES
FORSYTH
Rural
Hall
Walnut
Cove
T
o
w
n
F
o
r
k
C
r
eek
NC-8
U S-52 NC-8
H
i
c
k
o
r
y
C
r
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
Stoneville
Mayodan
Jacobs
C
reek
Stokesdale
ROCKINGHAM
GUILFORD
Madison
NB9
NB101
R
a
c
coonCr.
Snow
Cr.
WestBelewsCr.B
elewsCreekLittleBeaver
Isla
nd C r.
N C-7 7 2
U
S
-
1
5
8
W
o
o
d
B
e
nto
n
B
r.
B
uff
a
l
o
C
r.
NC-770
N
C-135
US-220
STOKES ROCKINGHAM
NF18 Wentworth
Eden
NC-704
US-311
US-220
NF17
ReidsvilleBirchFork
Matrimony
Creek-Dan
River
Watershed
(0301010305)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY #0 E k "Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011¯
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
1.25
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.8
SmithRiver
MatrimonyCr
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
Eden
NF17
NB74
N2430000
NC-14
NC
-
70
0
M
a
rti
n
C
r.TackettBr.
Lower
Smith
River
Watershed
(0301010308)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY#0Ek"Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011 ¯
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
0.3
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.9
NF12
RockHouseCr
S m i thRiver
M a trim onyCr NB36
NF20
NB114
D
A
N
R
IV
E
R
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
Stoneville
U
S
-
1
5
8
NC-770
NF18
Wentworth
Eden
NC-704
NF17
NB74
N2430000
NC-14
NC
-
70
0
Reidsville
ROCKINGHAMCASWELL
W
o
lfIsla
n
d
Creek
Birch
F
o
r
k
W
olfIslad
Cr.
N C -1 4
NC-700
U
S
-2
9
Cascade
Creek-Dan
River
Watershed
(0301010309)
Legend
Permits
Animal
Operation
Permits
Monitoring
Sites
2010
Use
Support
Minor
NPDES
Dischargers
Major
NPDES
Dischargers
NPDES
Non-Dischargers
NPDES
Stormwater
Individual
State
Cattle
Swine
Wet
Poultry
NPDES
Aquaculture
Supporting
Not
Rated
No
Data
Impaired
Primary
Roads
Municipalities
County
Boundaries
8-Digit
HUC
#*XY #0 E k "Y
USGS
Gage
Stations
!<
RAMS
(`09-`10)
¢¡
RAMS
(`07-`08)
¢¡
Lake
Stations
^
Benthos
"à)
Fish
Community
[¡
Ambient
¢¡
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
October
2011
¯
0
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
U
pp
ER
D
AN
R
IV
E
R
S
UB
B
A
S
I
N

(
H
U
C

0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)

App
EN
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.10