HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 4 - 03010106Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.1
CHAPTER 4
Roanoke Rapids
subbasin
HUC 03010106
Includes: Newmans Creek, Smith Creek, Sixpound Creek,
Lake Gaston & Roanoke Rapids Lake
subbasin at a Glance
counties:
Warren, Halifax & Northampton
Municipalities:
Littleton, Macon & Norlina
ecoReGions:
North Outer Piedmont & Rolling
Coastal Plain
peRMitted Facilities:
NPDES Dischargers: ................1
Major ...........................................0
Minor ...........................................0
General .......................................1
NPDES Non-Dischargers: .........1
Stormwater: ..............................7
General .......................................7 Individual .....................................0
Animal Operations: .................16
population:
2010 Census ....................13,846
2006 land coveR:
Open Water .......................10.3%
Developed ...........................6.7%
Forest ...............................57.5%
Agriculture .........................14.9%
Wetlands .............................2.7%
Barren Land ........................0.1%
Shrub/Grassland .................7.8%
subbasin WateR Quality oveRvieW
The Roanoke Rapids Subbasin is the second eastern most subbasin and
runs along the North Carolina/Virginia state line. The subbasin contains
two Impaired streams: Newmans Creek is Impaired for biological integrity;
and Smith Creek are Impaired for low DO and the upper and lower
segments are Impaired for biological integrity.
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
time did not indicate much change between cycles. There were no major
ambient monitoring violations; however, there is a general downward long
term pattern in pH levels and a few spikes in turbidity and fecal coliform
bacteria levels were measured.
The John H. Kerr Dan and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project
is partially located in this subbasin. The project area also includes HUCs
03010102 and 03010107. The study has focused on examining the
feasibility of addressing downstream environmental resource concerns in
the Lower Roanoke River drainage area through changes in operations
or structures at the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir. Along with USACE,
the non-federal cost sharing partners for this study are Virginia, and North
Carolina. The process includes forming diverse workgroups, conducting
a wide range of studies and developing a plan of recommendations. The
project is currently completing phase 2 and beginning phase 3, the final
phase. A more detailed description of the project is found in the Additional
Study section in Chapter 3.
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.2
FiguRe 4-1: Roanoke Rapids suBBasin (03010106)
NutbushCreek
Newmans
Creek
HALIFAX
WARREN
Norlina
Macon
Littleton
Smith
C
r
Sixpound C r
J o r d an Cr
Lake
Gaston
Hubquart e r Cr
Little Stonehouse Cr
DeepCr
Roanoke
Rapids
ROA039E
ROA039D
ROA039C
ROA039B
ROALGLSC
ROA039
ROA038A
NF45NB54
NB39
NB113
NB37
NB51
NB52
N6400000
NB90
NB88
NB89
Henderson
Middleburg
VANCEWARREN
N5000000NB49NB48CrookedRun GilliamsBranchLittleNutbushCreek
ROA037I
ROA037E
ROA037A
Roanoke
Rapids
Subbasin
(03010106)
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
August
2011
¯
0
3
6
9
12
1.5
Miles
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.3
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 4-2). 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 4-2: YeaRlY Flow Rates (CFs) oF tHe usgs gage stations in tHe Roanoke
Rapids suBBasin Between 1997 & 2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2077200 02077303 02077670
Indicates periods of drought in the Roanoke River Basin
From Left to Right:
• 2077200: Hyco Creek
(Leasburg)
• 2077303: Hyco River
(McGehees)
• 2077670: Mayo Creek
(Bethel Hill)
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, 6
biological sampling sites were monitored within the Roanoke Rapids Subbasin. The ratings for each of the
sampling stations can be seen in Appendix 4-B.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in
Figure 4-4 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the
sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure
4-5 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 stable community.
benthic saMplinG suMMaRy
£Total Stations Monitored 5
£Total Samples Taken 6
£Number of New Stations 3
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.4
FiguRe 4-3: BentHiC stations ColoR Coded BY CuRRent Rating in
tHe Roanoke Rapids suBBasin
Benthos 2004-2009
Excellent/Natural
Good
Good-Fair/Moderate
Fair
Not Impaired
Not Rated
FiguRe 4-4: CuRRent BentHiC site Ratings
Excellent/Natural
Good
Good-Fair/Moderate
Fair
Poor/Severe
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FiguRe 4-5: 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 4-6 and color coded based on the current rating. The site is
discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 4-7
shows the percentages of each rating given during this sampling cycle
within this subbasin. Figure 4-8 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 at this site is
stable.
FiguRe 4-6: FisH CommunitY stations ColoR Coded BY CuRRent
Rating in tHe Roanoke Rapids suBBasin
Fish 2004-2009
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Fish coM. saMplinG suMMaRy
£Total Stations Monitored 1
£Total Samples Taken 2
£Number of New Stations 0
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.5
FiguRe 4-7: CuRRent FisH Comm site Ratings
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FiguRe 4-8: CHange in FisH Comm 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 4-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 4-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 Roanoke Rapids subbasin (see Figure 4-1
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.
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.6
pH
Figure 4-10 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
Roanoke Rapids Subbasin. The pH pattern seen during this time period is a steady decrease until 2009 when
it jumps back up a bit. This pattern is seen in other parts of the southwestern portion 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. Site N6400000 exceeded the low
pH standard of 6.0 in 9.6% of samples as indicated by the orange dot in Figure 4-9.
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 4-9: peRCentage oF
samples exCeeding tHe pH
standaRds (2005-2009)
0%
<7%
7%-10%
>10%
FiguRe 4-10: summaRized pH values FoR all data ColleCted at
amBient sampling stations in HuC 03010106
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
pH
Median Mean
* NC pH Standard: Between 6.0 and 9.0 su
Turbidity
The AMS station in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin exceeded the state’s turbidity standard in 6 percent of
samples, as seen in Figure 4-11 indicated by the yellow dot. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels
are discussed in the 10-digit watershed section. Figure 4-12 shows the mean and median turbidity levels for
all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin. The yearly averages are well
below the state standard of 50 NTUs.
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 protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas.
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.7
FiguRe 4-11: peRCentage oF
samples exCeeding tHe tuRBiditY
standaRd (2005-2009)
0%
<7%
7%-10%
>10%
FiguRe 4-12: summaRized tuRBiditY values FoR all data ColleCted at
amBient sampling stations in HuC 03010106
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
(
N
T
U
)
Median Mean
* NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUT
Dissolved Oxygen
As seen in Figure 4-13, the AMS site exceeded the DO standard in 22% of samples during this monitoring
cycle. Figure 4-14 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years
in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin. These averages are well within the normal DO range.
FiguRe 4-13: peRCentage oF
samples exCeeding tHe do
standaRd (2005-2009)
0%
<7%
7%-10%
>10%
FiguRe 4-14: summaRized do values FoR all data ColleCted at
amBient sampling stations in HuC 03010106
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
DO
(
m
g
/
l
)
Median Mean
* NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous
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.
FiguRe 4-15: peRCentage oF samples
witH elevated FCB levels (2005-
2009)
<6.9%
6.9%-10%
10.1%-20.0%
>20.0%
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.8
As seen in Figure 4-15, the site had 9.6% of samples over 400 colonies/100 ml. Possible sources of elevated
levels of FCB are discussed in the subwatershed sections. Figure 4-16 shows the yearly geometric mean
(calculated average) for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin. The
highest yearly geometric mean was recorded in 2001 (56 colonies/100 ml). The figure also includes the yearly
average stream flow, as seen in Figure 4-2, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels.
FiguRe 4-16: summaRized FeCal ColiFoRm BaCteRia values FoR all data ColleCted at
amBient sampling stations in HuC 03010106 witH oveRlaYing Flow
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
FC
B
(
c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Geometricmean
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Di
s
h
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2077200 02077303 02077670
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Di
s
h
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2077200 02077303 02077670USGS Flow Gage Stations:
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Di
s
h
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2077200 02077303 02077670
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
* 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.
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.9
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 4-17).
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 below.
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 4-A. Each monitored stream segment is
given an overall category number which reflects the highest
individual parameter category. Figure 4-18 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 4-17) 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 4-17: use suppoRt
CategoRies FoR BiologiCal Ratings
Biological
Ratings
Aquatic Life
Use Support
Excellent/
Natural
Supporting
(Categories 1-2)
Good
Good-Fair/
Moderate
Not Impaired
Not Rated Not Rated(Category 3)
Fair Impaired
(Categories 4-5)Poor/Severe
FiguRe 4-18: CategoRY numBeR to
use suppoRt Rating
CategoRY #use suppoRt Rating
1 Supporting2
3 Not Rated
4 Impaired5
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.10
RecoMMendations & action plans at the subbasin scale
dWQ pRioRity suMMaRy
Table 4-1 is a list of waters in the Middle Roanoke 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 4-1: notaBle wateRs in tHe Roanoke Rapids suBBasin (not Ranked)
stReam name au#Class.potential
stRessoR(s)
potential
souRCe(s)
Qualitative
status
aCtions
needed
Lake Gaston 23-(12) &
(20.2)
WS-V;B Nutrients, Aquatic
Weeds
--Supporting --
Roanoke Rapids
Lake
23-(22.5)WS-IV;
B;CA
Nutrients, Aquatic
Weeds
--Supporting --
Newmans Cr 23-10-2 C Habitat Degradation, Erosion High Volume/Velocity Impaired SC, SS, E, M
Smith Cr 23-10a, b & c C Low DO, Low Flow,
Turbidity, Low pH
Runoff, Beaver Dams,
Drought
Impaired Ag, E
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), .
4.11
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
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 4-1, 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 4-2). 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 4-2 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 4-2) 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 4-2: 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%
uppeR lake Gaston-Roanoke RiveR (0301010602)
Includes: Smith Creek [AU#: 23-10a, b & c] & Newmans Creek
[AU#: 23-10-2]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential and some forested
areas. There are three swine and one cattle permitted animal operations located with
in the watershed. Two segments within this watershed (Newmans Creek & Smith
Creek) are on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
Newmans Creek [AU#: 23-10-2]
Newmans Creek is approximately six miles from source to Smith Creek
[AU#: 23-10b]. Land cover for the majority of this drainage area is forest and
agriculture. This creek was placed on the Impaired Waters list for the first time
in 2008 as a result of a Fair benthic rating in 2004.
use suppoRt: iMpaiRed (6.1 mi)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
Benthos (NB88)Fair (2004)
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.12
Water Quality Status
This creek was last monitored in 2004 as part of the Smith Creek TMDL study. At that time, the creek had poor
habitat with deeply incised and vertical streambanks and severe bank erosion even though there were well
established and intact riparian zones. The dominate nature of the pollution tolerant benthic species caused
this site to receive a Fair rating and to be placed on the 2008 Impaired Waters List.
Smith Creek [AU#: 23-10a, b & c]
Smith Creek is approximately 11 miles from source to the Virginia/NC state
line and is split into three segments. The majority of the drainage area is
agriculture, forest and some residential area. There are two swine and two
cattle operations permitted in Smith Creek’s drainage area. Smith Creek
has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 as a result of an unhealthy
benthic community.
Water Quality Status
The last biological samples taken in Smith Creek were part of a special study to
determine stressors causing the Impairment within the creek and corresponding
drainage area. Results of these samples are discussed in the 2006 Roanoke
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The study concluded that low or no flow conditions lead to both reduced
edge habitat and low dissolved oxygen levels that likely caused the biological Impairment in the watershed. It
indicates the low flows are likely due to beaver dams in the Blue Mud Creek tributary to Smith Creek that have
been increasing over the past several years. There was also a steady increase in conductivity levels which
suggests impacts from human activity as well. A connection was also made between the samples taken in the
upper reaches of the watershed which had larger riparian zones and better biological scores and the lower
reaches which had little riparian zones and lower biological scores.
An AMS site is located at US-1 near Paschall which is exceeding low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in 23%
of samples. This is an increase in exceedances of about 11% from the previous cycle. This increase could
be contributed to the increase in beaver dams in the watershed as well as a decrease in rainfall since 2004.
It should also be noted that average pH levels have been declining by about 0.3 su. Low pH exceedances
(below 6.0) have increased from 3.6% last cycle to 8.3% this cycle, indicating the watershed is being impacted
by low pH levels. Turbidity has also increased to 8.3% of samples exceeding the state standard. Specific
conductivity levels increase during this cycle as well. Nutrient levels have, on average, remained the same,
and fecal coliform bacteria has slightly declined.
Natural Conditions Assessment
In 2010, DWQ assessed Smith Creek to determine if the low DO levels were natural conditions or due to
human impacts. The December 2010 Draft Smith Creek Report indicated that low DO levels were mainly
originating from the Blue Mud tributary where multiple beaver dams were found. The beaver dams combined
with natural low flows and decomposition of large inputs of vegetation from forested and agricultural areas
which produce organic acids and increase oxygen demand, lower DO levels as the material decays and
summer temperatures rise. Therefore, the report concluded that the low DO levels found in Smith Creek are
natural.
Local Initiatives
In 2005, NC DSWC received $130,000 to complete the Smith Creek Watershed Restoration Plan, implement
BMPs, and conduct education-outreach. The primary objective of the project was to address the severe
sedimentation problems within the creek with the overall goal of removing Smith Creek from the Impaired
Waters List. Below is a list of BMPs that were implemented as part of this grant.
£Grassed waterway
£Livestock exclusion fencing
£Water troughs
use suppoRt: iMpaiRed (10.7 mi)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
Benthos
(NB89)
(NB90) (NB52)
Fair (2004)
Good-Fair (2004)Fair (2004)
Fish Com
(NF41)Fair (2004)
AMS
(N6400000)DO - (23.4%)
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.13
£Wells
£Heavy use protection areas
£Stream crossings
£Stock trails
£Crop conservation
£Agricultural road stabilization
Middle lake Gaston-Roanoke RiveR (0301010603)
Includes: Sixpound Creek [AU#: 23-13], Jordan Creek [AU#: 23-
14], Hawtree Creek [AU#: 23-11-(1)] & Lake Gaston [AU#: 23-(12) &
(20.2)]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential and forested areas.
There are three permitted swine animal operations located within the watershed. No
segments in this watershed are on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
Lake Gaston [AU#: 23-(12) & (20.2)
Lake Gaston is located on the North Carolina - Virginia border just downstream
from the John H. Kerr Reservoir dam on the Roanoke River (~1,1939.2 ac). The
drainage area for the lake is comprised of agricultural lands with some forested,
residential and urbanized lands. The lake is classified as a Water Supply (WS-
IV) and recreational waters (B) and currently Supporting its designated uses.
Water Quality Status
The lake is split into two segments that begin at the NC - Va. border and end
a half mile upstream of the Lake Gaston Dam. There are three lake monitoring stations throughout the lake
which were sampled five times each between May and September 2009. This data will be shown on the 2012
Integrated Report/Impaired Waters List. Assessment of parameters related to biological productivity indicated
mesotrophic conditions and moderate biological productivity, as it did during the previous sampling cycle.
However, average total nitrogen, TKN and chlorophyll a levels increased slightly. Total phosphorus levels
remained the same.
As discussed in the previous Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, the aquatic weed Hydrilla had
become problematic. Since 2004, many steps have been taken to eradicate this noxious aquatic weed. In
2005, the Lake Gaston Stakeholder’s Board developed and released Managing Aquatic Plants in Lake Gaston:
A Long-Term Action Plan. The Lake Gaston Weed Control Council has been implementing this plan since that
time. An update of the Council’s actions can be found in the Local Initiatives Chapter.
Fish Consumption Advisory
A fish consumption advisory was put into place by the Division of Health and Human Services on November
18, 2009 for mercury found in walleye and largemouth bass.
Progress Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Power Plant (NC0003425)
CP&L DBA Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. operates a steam electric power plant facility and holds an NPDES
permit NC0003425 to discharge process control and industrial waste streams to Hyco Lake a Class WS-V;B
water, in the Roanoke River Basin, in Person County.
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. installed wet limestone forced oxidation wet scrubbers on all operating units
at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant in response to requirements from the State of North Carolina under the
Clean Smokestacks legislation. Accordingly, Progress Energy installed a Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
wastewater settling pond, a General Electric ABMet bioreactor (a new technology biological treatment system),
and a FGD Flush Pond to treat wastewater generated by the recently added wet scrubbers.
use suppoRt: suppoRtinG
(11,939.2 aC)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Lake Stations
(ROA038A)
(ROA039)
(ROA039B)
No
Exceedances
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.14
Since installation of FGD Settling Pond, FGD Flush Pond and GE ABMet bioreactor Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc. has:
£upgraded ash handling system to handle all fly ash at the plant as dry ash to reduce pollutant loading to
the outfall.
£installed and uses the addition Sodium Hydroxide at the coal pile runoff pond.
£conducted pilot trial use of Met Clear treatment technology at the filter dam of the Ash Pond
£placed into service secondary hydrocyclones to reduce the amount of suspended solids in the blow down
to the settling pond.
£experienced a structural failure of the FGD Flush pond and the FGD Settling Pond. These treatment units
showed signs of structural stress that lead to a bypass of partially treated FGD wastewater to the ash pond.
Accordingly, additional monitoring, beyond the requirements of the NPDES permit was required by DWQ and
sampling results from the FGD Treatment Units, NPDES Internal Outfall 002, and final NPDES Outfall 003 to
Hyco Lake were reported by Progress Energy.
The repair and construction of the FGD Flush Pond, construction of new FGD Settling Pond (East Pond), and
the refurbishment of the FGD Settling Pond (West Pond) are completed. Progress Energy has explained that
any related or additional issues will be best addressed through the 2011 application for renewal of the Roxboro
Plant’s NPDES permit
loWeR lake Gaston-Roanoke RiveR (0301010604)
Includes: Roanoke Rapids [AU#: 23-(22.5)]
This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential and forested areas.
There are two minor NPDES permitted facilities along with three permitted cattle
and two swine animal operations located within the watershed. No segments in this
watershed are on the 2010 Impaired Waters List.
Roanoke Rapids Lake [AU#: 23-(22.5))
Roanoke Rapids Lake (~4,185 ac), located on the Roanoke River immediately
downstream from Lake Gaston, is owned by the Virginia Electric and Power
Company and used for hydropower generation as well as public recreation
and as a water supply. The drainage area for the lake is comprised of mostly
agricultural lands with some forested, residential and urbanized lands. There
are four permitted animal operations and two minor NPDES permitted facilities.
The lake was on the Impaired Waters list from 1998 to 2008 due to an infestation
of aquatic weeds (Hydrilla). The development of a TMDL in 2006 has resulted
in the lake being in the Supporting category.
Water Quality Status
The lake is one assessment unit spanning from the Lake Gaston Dam to the Roanoke Rapids Dam. Three
lake monitoring stations were sampled five times each between May and September of 2009 throughout the
lake. This data will be shown on the 2012 Integrated Report/Impaired Waters List. On average, nutrient levels
increased from low to moderate levels. Chlorophyll a levels have also increased since the previous sampling
cycle. This change indicates the lake has moderate biological productivity (mesotrophic). An Algal Growth
Potential Test conducted at all three sites determined the lake to be nitrogen limited.
A sample taken in August 2009 at the most upstream station (ROA039C) showed the highest levels of DO,
pH and chlorophyll a levels which are signs of elevated photosynthetic activity. A phytoplankton sample
was taken at this site resulting in evidence of an algal bloom (Aulacoseira sp.). This bloom was not seen at
the downstream monitoring station ROA039D. A significant amount of submerged aquatic plants were also
present at the upstream station, which may have contributed to the elevated DO and pH readings at this site.
use suppoRt: suppoRtinG (4,185 aC)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.2
Lake Stations (ROA039C)
(ROA039D)
(ROA039E)
No
Exceedances
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.15
Aquatic Weed TMDL
A TMDL for aquatic weeds was developed and approved by EPA in 2006 for Roanoke Rapids Lake, along
with a few other lakes within the state. For this lake, the TMDL addressed Hydrilla verticillata, Myriphyllum
spicatum and Egeria densa. These species are all noxious, exotic weeds that will require extensive control.
In 2003, the composition of aquatic weeds were dominated by Hydrilla (99%). This plant shades out native
vegetation, provides poor habitat for fish and other wildlife, provides good breeding grounds for mosquitoes,
and greatly interferes with recreational activities.
Management strategies to control these aquatic plants are discussed in detail within the TMDL. Two of these
strategies include consecutive short-term draw downs of the lake levels during the summer months, when
Hydrilla is most productive as well as the use of Grass Carp. If these strategies fail to control the plants,
herbicides are suggested. However, improper application of the herbicides recommended can contaminate
ground water and surface water.
ReFeRences
References marked with (*) indicates a DWQ special study report. These reports are not currently available
online. Contact the DWQ Environmental Science Section at (919) 743-8400 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. Month Year. (B-#) Report Name & Sample Date. Raleigh, NC.
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.
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
)
4.16
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-A.1
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
appendix 4-a
use suppoRt Ratings FoR all
monitoRed wateRs in tHe
Roanoke Rapids suBBasin
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-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
Upper Lake Gaston-Roanoke River 0301010602Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Lake Gaston-Roanoke River 03010106Roanoke River Basin Subbasin
Upper Lake Gaston-Roanoke River 0301010602Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Newmans Creek
(Little Deep Creek)
23-10-2 From source to Smith Creek 6.1 FW Miles C
5
Smith Creek23-10a From source to Cabin Branch 6.1 FW Miles C
4s
5
Smith Creek23-10b From Cabin Branch to SR1208 1.6 FW Miles C
1
5
Smith Creek23-10c From SR1208 to North Carolina-Virginia
State Line
3.0 FW Miles C
4s
4s
1
5
Terrapin Creek23-10-3-2 From source to Blue Mud Creek 5.0 FW Miles C
3a
Middle Lake Gaston-Roanoke River 0301010603Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Jordan Creek23-14 From source to Lake Gaston, Roanoke River 2.6 FW Miles C
1
Sixpound Creek23-13 From source to Lake Gaston, Roanoke River 6.3 FW Miles C
1
Lower Lake Gaston-Roanoke River 0301010604Roanoke River Basin Watershed
Deep Creek23-24-(1)From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream
of mouth
11.6 FW Miles WS-IV
1
1
Little Stonehouse
Creek
23-19 From source to Lake Gaston, Roanoke River 2.8 FW Miles C
1
10/20/2010 Page 231 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
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-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
Lower Lake Gaston-Roanoke River 0301010604Roanoke River Basin Watershed
ROANOKE RIVER
(Lake Gaston below
normal full power
pool elevation 200
MSL and Roanoke
Rapids Lake below
normal full power
pool elevation 132
feet MSL)
23-(22.5)From a line across Lake Gaston 0.5 mile
upstream of Lake Gaston Dam to Roanoke
Rapids Dam
4,185.0 FW Acres WS-IV,B;CA
3t
1
1
ROANOKE RIVER
(Lake Gaston below
normal full power
pool elevation 200
MSL)
23-(12)From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a
line across Lake Gaston following the
Warren-Northampton County Line
7,964.8 FW Acres WS-V,B
1
ROANOKE RIVER
(Lake Gaston below
normal full power
pool elevation 200
MSL)
23-(20.2)From a line across Lake Gaston following
the Warren-Northampton County Line to a
line across Lake Gaston 0.5 mile upstream
of Lake Gaston Dam
3,974.4 FW Acres WS-IV,B
1
1
10/20/2010 Page 232 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
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-A.4
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.1
appendix 4-b
BiologiCal sampling site data sHeets
(BentHiC maCRoinveRteBRate & FisH CommunitY)
FoR tHe Roanoke Rapids suBBasin
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.2
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.3
Biological Samples Taken During this Assessment Cycle
station id wateRBodY CountY site loCation sample Results
Benthic Sample Sites
NB113 HUBQUARTER CR WARREN SR 1337 06 - Not Impaired
NB37 JORDAN CR WARREN SR 1306 06 - Not Impaired
NB37 JORDAN CR WARREN SR 1306 05 - Not Impaired
NB39 L STONEHOUSE CR WARREN SR 1358 06 - Not Impaired
NB51 SIXPOUND CR WARREN SR 1306 09 - Good-Fair
NB54 DEEP CR HALIFAX US 158 09 - Natural
Fish Community Sample Sites
NF45 Deep Cr Halifax US 158 09 - Fair
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.4
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)23.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)62
pH (s.u.)6.6
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)5
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)73
Taxonomic Analysis
Only one stonefly larvae was collected at the sampling location. EPT taxa richness was low (13) and most are tolerant and common taxa found in North
Carolina Peidmont streams. The intolerant caddisfly Pycnopsyche spp . was abundant at the site. Chironomid richness (12) and biomass was low with
tolerant and slightly intolerant taxa present. No chironomid taxa were abundant at the site. Odonate richness (11) was high and several taxa were
common or abundant at the site including Argia spp.,Boyeria vinosa,Calopteryx spp.,Gomphus spp., and Macromia spp.
Data Analysis
No NPDES dischargers are located upstream from this location and land use is mostly rural with some agricultural portions. This site received a
bioclassification of Good-Fair for the third year in a row. The NCBI and EPTBI dropped since 2004 potentially due to half as many chironomid taxa
present in 2009. Also Pycnopsyche spp. were found rare at the site in 2004 and abundant in 2009. It was noted that water in the channel in certain
sections did not reach the bottom of both banks, flows were low, and detritius was abundant similar to that found in swamp-like conditions. These
observations and the presence of so many odonates suggests the site suffers from low flow conditions. Physical parameters such as infrequent
embedded riffles and low flows may limit habitat necessary for colonization of some rheophilic macroinvertebrates such as long-lived stonefly taxa.
Fair08/22/94 6643 12 12 5.51 5.51
Good-Fair
07/16/99 7923 54 14 5.50 5.03 Good-Fair
06/29/04 9418 62 15 6.43 5.44
Bioclassification
08/13/09 10812 58 13 5.75 4.69 Good-Fair
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Sand and silt was the dominant substrata.
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None __
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C 9.6 220 7 0.2
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
WARREN 7 03010106 36.510000 -78.079444 23-13 Northern Outer Piedmont
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
SIXPOUND CR SR 1306 NB51 08/13/09 Good-Fair
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.5
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)6.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)11.4
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)69
pH (s.u.)5.9
Channel Modification (5)15
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)15
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)0
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)90
Taxonomic Analysis
The primary reason for the jump in EPTBI in 2009 relative to previous samples was the first time collection of the pollution tolerant mayflies Caenis spp.
and Stenacron interpunctatum . In addition, several intolerant stoneflies collected in 2004 were absent in 2009 (Shipsa rotunda and Eccoptura
xanthenes) as was the intolerant caddisfly Neophylax oligius. The 2009 assessment produced a substantial increase in the diversity and abundance of
pollution-tolerant chironmids relative to the the 2004 sample. Indeed the 2009 sample produced 23 chironomid taxa while the 2004 sample had 12. This
shift in community composition was largely responsible for the increase in the BI from 2004 to 2009.
Data Analysis
Bioclassification and macroinvertebrate metrics have generally been stable at this location since sampling commenced in 2004 with both winter samples
producing Natural bioclassifications. However, the slight increase in both the BI and EPTBI in 2009 relative to the 2004 sample correlates to the
increasing trend in conductivity observed at this site as previous measurements in 1999 (21 µS/cm) and 2004 (47 µS/cm) were much lower than the 2009
measurement (69 µS/cm). These data combined may suggest a slight decrease in overall physical conditions at this site.
Natural02/23/04 9339 63 23 5.54 4.42
Bioclassification
02/03/09 10527 67 21 6.11 5.06 Natural
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Site Photograph
Water Clarity Clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Rubble, gravel, sand, silt, and detritus.
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None --- ---
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (US 158)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-IV 23.3 145 7 0.5
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
HALIFAX 8 03010106 36.451389 -77.781944 23-24-(1)Northern Outer Piedmont
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
DEEP CR US 158 NB54 02/03/09 Natural
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.6
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)
05/27/09 2009-48 18 38 Fair
145
Drainage Area (mi2)
23.5
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
WS-IV
US 158
Location
8 digit HUC
03010106
Gravel, cobble, sand, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
22
28
2010-50
Spottail Shiner (37%) Most Abundant Species 2009
73
09/21/94
2004-59
5
Sample ID
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
20.4
4
Clear, slightly tannin
stained
5
16
5
5
10
6.3
89
6.6
6
7
10
Elevation (ft)
Green Sunfish, Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
48
46
50 Good
05/26/04
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
8
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
No
Watershed -- drains north-central Halifax County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to Roanoke Rapids Lake, site is ~ 1.4 miles upstream from
the reservoir. Habitats -- straddles the Northern Outer Piedmont and the Rolling Coastal Plain Level IV ecoregions; good root mats, snags, undercuts,
deadfalls, short and shallow riffles, high quality riparian zones. 2009 -- number of fish collected was not much lower than in 2004 (289 vs 316), but 10
fewer species were present; very low percentage of the species with multiple age classes (28%); high percentage of tolerant fish (primarily Redbreast
Sunfish and Green Sunfish); skewed trophic structure due to the abundance of the omnivorous Spottail Shiner. 1994 - 2009 -- very diverse community, 31
species known from the site, including 8 species of sunfish, 5 species of catfish, but no intolerant species; in 1994 and 2004 the dominant species was the
Redbreast Sunfish. Note: the site was re-sampled in 2010 following a wetter winter and spring flow period and the community was rated Good.
Rural Residential
25
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Eastern Silvery Minnow, Notchlip Redhorse, Flier. Losses -- Crescent Shiner, Rosefin Shiner,
Satinfin Shiner, Creek Chubsucker, V-lip Redhorse, Flat Bullhead, Redfin Pickerel, Eastern Mudminnow,
Eastern Mosquitofish, Pumpkinseed, Warmouth, Redear Sunfish, Largemouth Bass. All species gained or lost
were represented by 1-9 fish/species, except for Eastern Mosquitofish, Flat Bullhead, and Satinfin Shiner (n=
11, 14, and 21, respectively).
06/16/10
NF45
94-39 21
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
00
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
Subbasin
8
Latitude
36.45138889
Fair
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Northern Outer Piedmont
Longitude
-77.7825
05/27/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle (2009
vs. 2004)
Waterbody
DEEP CR
AU Number
23-24-(1)
County
HALIFAX
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.7
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)6.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)11.4
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)69
pH (s.u.)5.9
Channel Modification (5)15
Site Photograph
Water Clarity Clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None --- ---
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (US 158)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-IV 23.3 145 7 0.5
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
HALIFAX 8 03010106 36.451389 -77.781944 23-24-(1)Northern Outer Piedmont
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
DEEP CR US 158 NB54 02/03/09 Natural
Channel Modification (5)15
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)15
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)0
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)90
Taxonomic Analysis
The primary reason for the jump in EPTBI in 2009 relative to previous samples was the first time collection of the pollution tolerant mayflies Caenis spp.
and Stenacron interpunctatum . In addition, several intolerant stoneflies collected in 2004 were absent in 2009 (Shipsa rotunda and Eccoptura
xanthenes) as was the intolerant caddisfly Neophylax oligius. The 2009 assessment produced a substantial increase in the diversity and abundance of
pollution-tolerant chironmids relative to the the 2004 sample. Indeed the 2009 sample produced 23 chironomid taxa while the 2004 sample had 12. This
shift in community composition was largely responsible for the increase in the BI from 2004 to 2009.
Data Analysis
Bioclassification and macroinvertebrate metrics have generally been stable at this location since sampling commenced in 2004 with both winter samples
producing Natural bioclassifications. However, the slight increase in both the BI and EPTBI in 2009 relative to the 2004 sample correlates to the
increasing trend in conductivity observed at this site as previous measurements in 1999 (21 µS/cm) and 2004 (47 µS/cm) were much lower than the 2009
measurement (69 µS/cm). These data combined may suggest a slight decrease in overall physical conditions at this site.
Natural02/23/04 9339 63 23 5.54 4.42
Bioclassification
02/03/09 10527 67 21 6.11 5.06 Natural
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate Rubble, gravel, sand, silt, and detritus.
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-B.8
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)
05/27/09 2009-48 18 38 Fair
145
Drainage Area (mi2)
23.5
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
WS-IV
US 158
Location
8 digit HUC
03010106
Gravel, cobble, sand, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
22
28
2010-50
Spottail Shiner (37%) Most Abundant Species 2009
73
09/21/94
2004-59
5
Sample ID
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
20.4
4
Clear, slightly tannin
stained
5
16
5
5
10
6.3
89
6.6
6
7
10
Elevation (ft)
Green Sunfish, Bluegill
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
48
46
50 Good
05/26/04
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
8
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
No
Watershed -- drains north-central Halifax County; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to Roanoke Rapids Lake, site is ~ 1.4 miles upstream from
the reservoir. Habitats -- straddles the Northern Outer Piedmont and the Rolling Coastal Plain Level IV ecoregions; good root mats, snags, undercuts,
deadfalls, short and shallow riffles, high quality riparian zones. 2009 -- number of fish collected was not much lower than in 2004 (289 vs 316), but 10
fewer species were present; very low percentage of the species with multiple age classes (28%); high percentage of tolerant fish (primarily Redbreast
Sunfish and Green Sunfish); skewed trophic structure due to the abundance of the omnivorous Spottail Shiner. 1994 - 2009 -- very diverse community, 31
species known from the site, including 8 species of sunfish, 5 species of catfish, but no intolerant species; in 1994 and 2004 the dominant species was the
Redbreast Sunfish. Note: the site was re-sampled in 2010 following a wetter winter and spring flow period and the community was rated Good.
Rural Residential
25
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Eastern Silvery Minnow, Notchlip Redhorse, Flier. Losses -- Crescent Shiner, Rosefin Shiner,
Satinfin Shiner, Creek Chubsucker, V-lip Redhorse, Flat Bullhead, Redfin Pickerel, Eastern Mudminnow,
Eastern Mosquitofish, Pumpkinseed, Warmouth, Redear Sunfish, Largemouth Bass. All species gained or lost
were represented by 1-9 fish/species, except for Eastern Mosquitofish, Flat Bullhead, and Satinfin Shiner (n=
11, 14, and 21, respectively).
06/16/10
NF45
94-39 21
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
00
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
Subbasin
8
Latitude
36.45138889
Fair
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Northern Outer Piedmont
Longitude
-77.7825
05/27/09
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle (2009
vs. 2004)
Waterbody
DEEP CR
AU Number
23-24-(1)
County
HALIFAX
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-C.1
appendix 4-c
amBient monitoRing sYstems
station data sHeets
FoR tHe Roanoke Rapids suBBasin
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-C.2
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:N6400000
Location:SMITH CRK AT US 1 NR PASCHALL
Stream class:C
NC stream index:23-10
Hydrologic Unit Code:03010106
Latitude:36.54087 Longitude:-78.19514
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 2.3 3.2 4.1 5.3 8.5 11.3 12.84711023.4 99.8
<5 2.3 3.2 4.1 5.3 8.5 11.3 12.84718038.3 100
pH (SU)<6 5.1 6 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.448408.3
>9 5.1 6 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.448000
Salinity (ppt)N/A 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.190
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 63 74 76 90 128 158 180480
Water Temperature (°C)>32 1.7 5.4 8.9 16.8 21.7 25 26.148000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.8 3 5 6.2 7 16 18198
Turbidity (NTU)>50 2.6 3.6 4.1 9.1 26.8 41.1 12048408.3
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.594825
NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.24732
TKN as N N/A 0.21 0.29 0.38 0.48 0.68 1.02 1.4450
Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.92460
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 56 56 68 92 130 240 24090
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 2 29090
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 820 820 1405 2200 3600 8500 850097077.8
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090
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 109090
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 11 119080
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
48 61.3 2 4.2
01/03/2005Time period:11/18/2009to
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
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-D.1
appendix 4-d
10-digit wateRsHed maps
FoR tHe Roanoke Rapids suBBasin
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-D.2
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-D.3
NewmansCre
e
k
Norlina
Macon
S
mithCreek
SixpoundCr
JordanCr
HubquarterCrROA038ANB113
NB37
NB51
NB52
N6400000
NB90
NB88
NB89
Middleburg
Kerr
Reservoir
Blu e Mu b C r e e k
Te r r a p i n C r e e k
VANCE
WARREN
V A N C EWARREN
N5000000
NB49
NB48
LittleNutbushCreek
ROA037I
ROA037E
ROA037A
I-85
US-158
U
S-1,1
5
8
U S -1,40 1
U S-4 0 1
U
S-158-B
U
S
NC-58
U S-1
I-85
I-85Upper
Lake
Gaston-Roanoke
River
(0301010602)
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
1
2
3
4
0.5
Miles
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-D.4
Norlina
Macon
Littleton
SmithCreek
Sixpound Cr
J o r d a n C r
Lake
Gaston
Hubquarte r C r
Little StonehouseCr
DeepCr
ROA039B
ROALGLSC
ROA039
ROA038A
NB39
NB113
NB37
NB51
NB52
N6400000NB90BlueMubCreek
TerrapinCreek
WARREN
NORTHAMPTON
HALIFAX
HawtreeCreek
US-158
NC-903
NC-4
US-401 US-1,401
US-158-B
US
NC-58
Middle
Lake
Gaston-Roanoke
River
(0301010603)
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
1
2
3
4
0.5
Miles
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-D.5
HALIFAX
WARREN
Macon
Littleton
SixpoundCr
JordanCr
Lake
Gaston
HubquarterCr
LittleStonehouseCr
D e e p Creek
Roanoke
Rapids
ROA039E
ROA039D
ROA039C
ROA039B
ROALGLSC
ROA039
ROA038A
NF45
NB54
NB39
NB113
NB37
WARREN
NORTHAMPTON
HALIFAX
Big
StonehouseCr.
Roanoke
Rapids
US-158
N
C
-4
8
NC-903
NC-46
NC-4
I-95
NC-125 NC-125
N
C
-
9
0
3
I-95
NC-48
N
C-1
25
Lower
Lake
Gaston-Roanoke
River
(0301010604)
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
0.9
1.8
2.7
3.6
0.45
Miles
Roa
n
o
k
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
:
R
oa
n
o
k
e
R
ap
i
d
s
suBB
as
i
n
(
H
uC
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
3
)
a
pp
e
n
d
i
Ces
4-D.6