The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRoanoke Plan 2011NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.1 RiveR Basin DescRiption The Roanoke River basin extends from its source in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia to the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina, encompassing mountainous, piedmont, and coastal topography as it flows generally east-southeastward. Its five subbasins (Figure ES-2) constitute approximately 3,500 square miles of drainage area and approximately 2,400 miles of streams and rivers in North Carolina, and contains diversity with classified trout streams in the western portion and swamp classified waters in the eastern portion. Seventeen counties and 42 municipalities are within the NC portion of the basin. The ecoregions associated with this river basin are the: £Sauratown Mountains of the Blue Ridge ecoregion; £Triassic Basins; £Southern Outer Piedmont; £Northern Inner Piedmont; £Carolina Slate Belt; £Northern Outer Piedmont ecoregions of the Piedmont; £Rolling Coastal Plain; £Southeastern Floodplains; £Low Terraces ecoregions of the Southeastern Plains; £Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods; £Mid-Atlantic Floodplains; £Low Terraces ecoregions of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. Though some urban and suburban development has occurred in the Roanoke River basin, according to 2006 data, the greatest portion of land cover in the basin has remained forest and, to a lesser extent, agriculture-based. Also characteristic of activities throughout the state, nonpoint source runoff and numerous small point source dischargers associated with development and agricultural activities have potential to affect water quality in the basin. executive summaRy ROANOKE RIVER BASIN Basin at a Glance counties: Beaufort, Bertie, Caswell, Forsyth, Granville, Guilford, Halifax, Martin, Northampton, Orange, Person, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Vance, Warren, & Washington majoR municipalities: Eden, Henderson, Oak City, Reidsville, Roanoke Rapids, & Roxboro peRmitteD Facilities: NPDES Dischargers: ............223 Major .........................................17 Minor .........................................48 General ...................................158 NPDES Non-Discharge: ..........44 Stormwater: ..........................131 General ...................................122 Individual .....................................9 Animal Operations: .................84 Aquaculture: ............................45 population: 2000 Census ..................285,488 2010 Census ..................289,784 2006 lanD coveR: Open Water .........................2.6% Developed ...........................6.5% Forest ...............................48.2% Agriculture .........................21.1% Wetlands ...........................11.9% Barren Land ........................0.1% Shrub/Grassland .................9.6% NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.2 FIguRE ES-1: thE ENtIRE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN (hyDROLOgIC uNIt CODE 030101) Dan R i v e r MayoRiver SmithRiver D a n R i v e r ROANOKE RIVER Pigg River BigOtterRiver B la k e w ater River BanisterRiver ROANOKE RIVER SandyRiver H y c o Riv er Co u n tr y LineCr. Kerr Reservoir Lake Gaston ROANOKERIVER VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA VA NC SC Entire Roanoke River Basin 0 20 40 60 80 10 Miles ® NC Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Unit September 2011 Legend 8-Digit HUC Subbasins Hydrography 03010101 - Upper Roanoke 03010102 - Middle Roanoke 03010103 - Upper Dan 03010104 - Lower Dan 03010105 - Banister 03010106 - Roanoke Rapids 03010107 - Lower Roanoke STATES NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.3 FIguRE ES-2: NORth CAROLINA PORtION OF thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN D a n R iv e r Hyco Lake Mayo Reserv. Kerr Reserv. Lake Gaston Roanoke Rapids R o a n o keRiver Stokesdale Eden Kernersville Roxboro Henderson Rich Square Hobgood Williamston Windsor BEAUFORT BERTIE MARTIN HALIFAX NORTHAMPTON WARREN VANCE GRANVILLE PERSON ORANGE GUILFORD CASWELL ROCKINGHAM STOKES FORSYTH NC Portion of the Roanoke River Basin 0 20 40 60 80 10 Miles ® NC Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Unit September 2011 Legend 2010 Use Support 8-Digit HUC Subbasins Supporting No or Inconclusive Data Impaired Municipalities Counties 03010102 - Middle Roanoke River 03010103 - Upper Dan River 03010104 - Lower Dan River 03010106 - Roanoke Rapids 03010107 - Lower Roanoke River NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.4 WateR Quality Data oveRvieW Stream flow, aquatic biology, and chemical/physical parameters were analyzed as part of the basinwide planning process. Detailed information about the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) monitoring and the effects each parameter has on water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning document. stReam FloW The basin experienced prolonged droughts between 1998-2002 and between 2007-2008, with moderate droughts in 2005 and 2006 (Figure ES-3). Details about flows in the Roanoke River Basin is in the 2010 Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report by DWQ-Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). FIguRE ES-3: yEARLy FLOW RAtES (CFS) OF thE uSgS gAgE StAtIONS IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2068500 2070500 2071000 2074000 2077200 02077303 02077670 2080500 208111310 Indicates periods of drought in the Roanoke River Basin From Left to Right: • 2068500: Dan River (Francisco) • 2070500: Mayo River • 2071000: Dan River (Wentworth) • 2074000: Smith River • 2077200: Hyco Creek (Leasburg) • 2077303: Hyco Creek (McGehees) • 2077670: Mayo Creek • 2080500: Roanoke River • 208111310:Cashie River NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.5 BioloGical Data Biological samples of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities were collected mostly during the spring and summer months of 2009 by DWQ-ESS as part of the five- year cycle basinwide sampling efforts. Limited samples were also collected for special studies. Overall, 65 biological sampling sites were monitored and rated within the Roanoke River Basin. Each site’s biological rating is used to determine the stream’s aquatic life use support category (Figure ES-4) for use on the Integrated Report. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure ES-5 and color coded based on its current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the subbasin chapters. Figure ES-7 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two basinwide cycles to indicate if there are any overall shifts in ratings. Benthic ratings from this cycle are overall similar to those received during the previous cycle, indicating a relatively stable benthic macroinvertebrate community. FIguRE ES-5: BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN Benthos 2004-2009 Excellent/Natural Good Good-Fair/Moderate Fair Not Impaired Not Rated FIguRE ES-6: CuRRENt BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE SItE RAtINgS Excellent/Natural Good Good-Fair/Moderate Fair Poor/Severe Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE ES-7: ChANgE IN BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE SItE RAtINgS Improved Declined No Change New Station FIguRE ES-4: uSE SuPPORt CAtEgORIES FOR BIOLOgICAL RAtINgS Biological Ratings Aquatic Life Use Support Excellent Supporting (Categories 1-2) Good Good-Fair Not Impaired Not Rated Not Rated(Category 3) Fair Impaired (Categories 4-5)Poor Benthic samplinG summaRy £Total Stations Monitored 39 £Total Samples Taken 42 £Number of New Stations 17 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.6 Fish Community Sampling Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure ES-8 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section, below. Figure ES-9 shows the percentages of each rating given during this sampling cycle within the basin. Figure ES-10 is a comparison of fish community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall watershed shifts in ratings. The majority of stations had no change in rating; however, six stations declined in rating and six increased in rating. FIguRE ES-8: FISh COmmuNIty StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN Fish 2004-2009 Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair FIguRE ES-9: CuRRENt FISh COmmuNIty SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE ES-10: ChANgE IN FISh COmmuNIty SItE RAtINgS Improved Declined No Change New Station For more information about biological data in this basin, see the 2010 Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 1-B. amBient monitoRinG Data During the 2004-2008 sampling cycle, DWQ collected samples at 18 Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) stations in the basin. Each station was sampled ten or more times and used for use support assessment. The assessment shows that the majority of exceedances were for copper and turbidity parameters. Fecal coliform bacteria is also a parameter of concern within the Roanoke River Basin. All three parameters are discussed below. Fish com. samplinG summaRy £Total Stations Monitored 26 £Total Samples Taken 29 £Number of New Stations 3 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.7 Specific information about ambient monitoring methodology, seasonal variation, and data sheets for ambient stations in this basin are in the Roanoke River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. Copper Two ambient stations exceeded the State standard for copper levels more than 10% of the time (Smith River and Marlowe Creek). These stations are indicated by the large red dots in Figure ES-11. Four stations exceeded the standard in less than 10% of samples and 12 stations had no exceedances. The cause of the elevated levels is unknown; however, possible sources could be past instream mining operations, agricultural use such as pesticides, or urban influences such as dust from brake pads. The current copper standard is relatively low and maybe revised during this upcoming cycle. If samples continue to exceed the standard during the next sampling cycle, a source study is recommended. Turbidity The two ambient stations exceeding the State standard, as indicated in Figure ES-12 by large red dots, are both on the Dan River. The Dan River has a long history of being turbid. Six other stations exceeded the standard in less than 10% of samples. The cause of turbidity in the Dan River has previously been linked to instream mining operations and agricultural fields along the river. However, no permitted mining operations remain and many agricultural practices have adopted better management practices to reduce sediment reaching the streams. Fecal Coliform Bacteria (FCB) The FCB standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of the samples where five samples have been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30). Only results FIguRE ES-11: PERCENt OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE COPPER StANDARD (2005-2009) 0.0% <7.0% 7%-10% >10.0% FIguRE ES-12: PERCENt OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE tuRBIDIty StANDARD (2005-2009) 0.0% <7.0% 7%-10% >10.0% FIguRE ES-13: PERCENt OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE FCB SCREENINg CRItERIA (2005-2009) 0% 0%-9.9% 10%-19.9% >20% NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.8 from a 5-in-30 study are used to determine whether a stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a use classification of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority over other waters for 5-in-30 studies. DWQ uses a screening criteria of 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of samples to consider the need for a 5-in-30 study. Figure ES-13 shows the percentage of samples at each station that exceeded this screening criteria. Recreational waters that exceed this criteria would be prioritized for additional sampling. However, none of the recreational waters in the Roanoke River Basin exceeded the screening criteria. The geometric mean of FCB per year for the basin between 1997 and 2009 is shown in Figure ES-15. Overlaying the yearly flow averages for the Roanoke River with the yearly geometric mean of FCB indicates an influence of flow on FCB levels. The overall decrease in levels from 2003-2008 could be attributed to a number of reasons including reduced flow levels and watershed groups that have actively been fencing livestock out of streams, as in Figure ES-14. Recommendations to further reduce FCB levels can be found in the subbasin chapters. FIguRE ES-15: yEARLy gEOmEtRIC mEAN FECAL COLIFORm BACtERIA DAtA WIthIN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN WIth FLOW gAgE DAtA FROm thE ROANOKE RIVER At ROANOKE RAPIDS (BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 FIguRE ES-14: LIVEStOCK IN StREAm NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.9 pH Figure ES-16 shows the mean and medians of all pH data collected in the basin per year over time along with the flow line for the Roanoke River. A few of the eastern AMS stations are exceeding the state standard for pH; however, in less than 10% of samples. The graph may indicate pH levels in the basin are at least somewhat linked to stream flow. FIguRE ES-16: mEAN & mEDIAN yEARLy Ph DAtA WIthIN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN WIth FLOW gAgE DAtA FROm thE ROANOKE RIVER At ROANOKE RAPIDS (BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009) 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9 pH Median Mean 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 1600018000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 population & lanD coveR Urbanization most often has a detrimental affect on to aquatic resources. Small towns and communities are usually not considered urban centers, but even small concentrations of urbanization can have significant impacts on local waterways. For example, a one-acre parking lot produces 16 times more runoff than a one-acre meadow (Schueler and Holland, 2000). A wide variety of studies over the past decade converge on a central point: when more than 10 percent of the acreage in a watershed is covered in roads, parking lots, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces, the rivers and streams within the watershed become seriously degraded. Studies show that if urbanized areas cover more than 25 percent of a watershed, the decline in the health of the ecosystem is irreversible (Beach, 2002; Galli, 1991). NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.10 population Population growth and urban stormwater runoff are likely contributing factors to stream pollution in urban areas throughout the Roanoke River Basin. The 2010 census population of the North Carolina portion of the Roanoke River basin is 289,784. This is an increase of roughly 4,300 (1.5%) individuals from the 2000 census. The two figures below show distribution in population throughout the basin by 12-digit subwatersheds between 2000 and 2010. The subwatersheds with the highest populations are indicated by red and those with smaller populations are indicated by green. The two 12-Digit HUCs with largest growth contains the Town of Windsor and the 12-Digit HUC just down stream. These two HUCs had 33% and 121% growth, respectively. Subwatersheds around the Mayo and Kerr Reservoirs had growth of 25% and 31%, respectively (as indicated in Figure ES-18). FIguRE ES-17: 2000 uS CENSuS POPuLAtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN By 12-DIgIt SuBWAtERShED 2000 Population 0 -800 801 -2,000 2,001 -4,500 4,501 -8,000 8,001 -1,4390 FIguRE ES-18: 2010 uS CENSuS POPuLAtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN By 12-DIgIt SuBWAtERShED 2010 Population 0 -800 801 -2,000 2,001 -4,500 4,501 -8,000 8,001 -16,114 33% 25%31% 121% 29% 121% - Downstream of the Town of Windsor 33% - Includes the Town of Windsor 31% - Kerr Reservoir 29% - Kerr Reservoir25% - Mayo Reservoir NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.11 lanD coveR The largest percent of land cover in the four western subbasins is forested land. In the Lower Roanoke River subbasin, it shifts to be split between wetlands and forested area. Developed area has remained about the same since 2001 and is between six and nine percent for each subbasin. Agricultural activities make up about 20% of the land cover across the basin. Table ES-1, Figure ES-19, and Figure ES-20 show the distribution of land cover across the basin during 2001 and 2006. There was very little change in overall land cover between the two years compared. FIguRE ES-19: 2001 LAND COVER IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN Legend 2001LandCover 8_Digit_HUC_ROA OpenWater Developed,Open Space Developed,Low Intensity Developed,MediumIntensity Developed,High Intensity BarrenLand Forest Shrub/Scrub Grassland/Herbaceous Agriculture Wetlands FIguRE ES-20: 2006 LAND COVER IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN Legend 2006LandCover 8_Digit_HUC_ROA OpenWater Developed,Open Space Developed,Low Intensity Developed,MediumIntensity Developed,High Intensity BarrenLand Forest Shrub/Scrub Grassland/Herbaceous Agriculture Wetlands tABLE ES-1: PERCENt OF LAND COVER By CAtEgORy FOR 2001 & 2006 IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN CAtEgORy % IN 2001 % IN 2006 Open Water 2.4 2.6 Developed, Open Space 4.2 5.1 Developed, Low Intensity 1 1 Developed, Medium Intensity 0.2 0.3 Developed, High Intensity 0.1 0.1 Barren Land 0.6 0.1 Forest 52.3 48.2 Shrub/Grassland 6.7 9.6 Agriculture, Pasture Hay 13.2 11.8 Agriculture, Cultivated Crops 9.4 9.3 Wetlands 9.8 11.9 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.12 suBBasin WateR Quality summaRies uppeR Dan RiveR suBBasin (03010103) The Upper Dan River Subbasin is the western-most subbasin and runs along the North Carolina/ Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: five segments of the Dan River are Impaired for either fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity or both; and the Smith River is Impaired for biological integrity, fecal coliform bacteria, and copper. Monitoring results the biological community during this basinwide cycle showed only a small percent declined. There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, a long term pattern of a slight increase in pH was seen. There is a coordinated effort between Virginia and North Carolina to focus studies and restoration implementation on the greater Dan River drainage area. More details about this effort are in Chapter 1. loWeR Dan RiveR (03010104) The Lower Dan River Subbasin is the second western-most subbasin and runs along the North Carolina/Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: Dan River is newly Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity; Marlowe Creek remains Impaired for biological integrity and zinc in the downstream segment. Monitoring results of the biological community during this time showed a small percent improved. There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, there were a few elevated levels for turbidity and FCB. miDDle Roanoke RiveR suBBasin (03010102) The Middle Roanoke River Subbasin located around the middle of the basin along the North Carolina/Virginia state line, contains one Impaired stream: Nutbush Creek remains Impaired for biological integrity. During this assessment cycle, the subbasin experienced prolonged drought between 2007 and 2008. The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is partially located in this subbasin. The study has focused on examining the feasibility of addressing downstream environmental resource concerns in the Lower Roanoke River drainage area through changes in operations or structures at the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir. Roanoke RapiDs suBBasin (03010106) The Roanoke Rapids Subbasin is the second eastern most subbasin and runs along the North Carolina/Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: Newmans Creek is newly Impaired for biological integrity; Smith Creek remains Impaired for low DO, and the upper and lower segments are Impaired for biological integrity. Monitoring results of the biological community during this time did not indicate much change between cycles. There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, there is a general downward long term pattern in pH levels and a few spikes in turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria levels were measured. The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is also partially located in this subbasin. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.13 loWeR Roanoke RiveR suBBasin (03010107) The Lower Roanoke River Subbasin is the eastern most subbasin and empties into Albemarle Sound. The subbasin contains three Impaired streams. One segment of Quankey Creek remains Impaired for biological integrity. Welch Creek remains Impaired for dioxin and low pH; and one of the two most downstream segments of the Roanoke River is Impaired for low DO and the other is Impaired for dioxin. Monitoring the biological community showed only a small percent declined and some improved. There were no major ambient monitoring violations. The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is also partially located in this subbasin. otheR BasinWiDe WateR Quality inFoRmation john h. keRR Dam & ReseRvoiR section 216 FeasiBility stuDy The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is located in three subbasins (HUCs 03010102, 03010106, and 03010107). The study has focused on examining the feasibility of addressing downstream environmental resource concerns in the Lower Roanoke River drainage area through changes in operations or structures at the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir. Along with USACE, the non-federal cost sharing partners for this study are Virginia and North Carolina. The process includes forming diverse workgroups, conducting a wide range of studies and developing a plan of recommendations. The project is currently completing phase 2 and beginning phase 3, the final phase. A more detailed description of the project is found in the Additional Study section of Chapter 2. nc/va coopeRative eFFoRts North Carolina and Virginia have been communicating periodically over the last few years to coordinate watershed efforts. The entire Dan River drainage area which crosses the state lines several times, has been selected as a larger area in which to coordinate efforts between the states. More information about this effort is provided in Chapter 2. inteRBasin tRansFeRs (iBts) The Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) is a regional provider of drinking water. The system sells bulk water to Henderson, Oxford, and Warren County. These three customers, in turn, serve portions of Vance, Granville, Franklin, and Warren Counties. KLRWS has an existing, grandfathered surface water transfer capacity of 10 MGD. The grandfathered capacity allows the system to move water from the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr Lake) to the Tar and Fishing Creek River Basins, both of which are sub-basins to the Tar-Pamlico Major River Basin. On February 18, 2009, KLRWS submitted a Notice of Intent to Request an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). In that notice, KLRWS requested to increase the authorized transfer from 10 MGD to 24 MGD, and to transfer 2.4 MGD from the Roanoke River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. These transfer amounts are based on water use projections to the year 2040. Dates of interest for this request are as follows: £February 18, 2009 - KLRWS submitted a Notice of Intent to Request an Interbasin Transfer Certificate to the EMC. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.14 £February 26, 2009 - CH2MHill (consultant for KLRWS) provided written notice of scheduled public meetings as required by §143-215.22L(c). £March 12, 2009 - A status update was presented to EMC’s Water Allocation Committee. £April 1-8, 2009 - The applicant held five public meetings to collect comments on the scope of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). £May 31, 2009 - Public comment scoping period ended. £November 2009 - The applicant provided a status report to the Division of Water Resources. Status: The applicant is currently working to develop a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS must address the following requirements, which are also set forth in G.S. §113A-4 and §143-215.22L(d): 1. A comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts that would occur in the source and receiving river basins if the petition for a certificate is granted; 2. Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided; 3. A description of measures to mitigate any adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed interbasin transfer; 4. An evaluation of alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer, including water supply options that do not require an interbasin transfer and use of water conservation measures; 5. The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and; 6. Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The draft EIS is expected to be available for review in 2011. The EMC may not act on any petition until they have determined that the EIS is adequate. Status of the IBT will be updated periodically on the Division of Water Resources’ Kerr Lake Regional Water System Interbasin Transfer Certification Request webpage. Roanoke RiveR Basin Bi-state commission The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission (RRBBC) was established as a bi-state commission composed of members from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of North Carolina. The purpose of the RRBBC is to: £Provide guidance, conduct joint meetings, and make recommendations to local, state, and federal legislative and administrative bodies, and to others as it deems necessary and appropriate, regarding the use, stewardship, and enhancement of the Basin’s water and other natural resources; £Provide a forum for discussion of issues affecting the Basin’s water quantity, water quality, and other natural resources; £Promote communication, coordination, and education among stakeholders within the Basin; £Identify Basin-related problems and recommend appropriate solutions; and NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.15 £Undertake studies and prepare, publish, and disseminate information through reports, and other communications related to water quantity, water quality, and other natural resources of the Basin. Topics and issues the Bi-State Commission have been discussing over the past few years include: importance of natural resources to the economic vitality of the basin; interbasin transfer of water; as well as discussions on the controversial topic of uranium mining and its potential occurrence in Virginia. Annual reports, meeting minutes, and membership lists are found on the Commission’s website. souRce WateR assessment oF puBlic WateR supplies Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the Roanoke River Basin In April 2004, the Division of Environmental Health’s Public Water Supply Section completed source water assessments for all drinking water sources and generated reports for the PWS systems using these sources. The assessments are updated regularly; the most recent updates were published in May 2010. The results of the assessments can be viewed in two different ways, either through the interactive ArcIMS mapping tool or compiled in a written report for each PWS system. To access the ArcIMS mapping tool, simply click on the “NC SWAP Info” icon on DEH’s website. To view a report, select the PWS System of interest by clicking on the “Source Water Assessment Results-2010” link found on the SWAP web page. In the Roanoke River Basin, 422 public water supply sources were identified. Twelve are surface water sources and 410 are groundwater sources. Of the 410 groundwater sources, nine have a Higher, 373 have a Moderate and 28 have a Lower susceptibility rating. Table ES-2 identifies the surface water sources and their overall susceptibility ratings. It is important to note that a susceptibility rating of Higher does not imply poor water quality as susceptibility is an indication of a water supply’s potential to become contaminated. tABLE ES-2: SWAP ReSultS foR SuRfAce WAteR SouRceS in the RoAnoke RiveR BASin PWS ID NumBER INhERENt VuLNERABILIty RAtINg CONtAmINANt RAtINg OVERALL SuSCEPtIBILIty RAtINg NAmE OF SuRFACE WAtER SOuRCE PWS SyStEm NAmE 0217010 M L M Farmer Lake Town of Yanceyville 0217010 M L M Fuller’s Creek Town of Yanceyville 0273010 M L M City Lake City of Roxboro 0273010 M L M Lake Roxboro City of Roxboro 0273409 M L M Hyco Lake Roxboro Steam Plant 0279010 H H H Dan River Town of Eden 0279025 H L M Mayo River Town of Mayodan 0279030 H M H Dan River Town of Madison 0291010 M L M Kerr Lake Henderson-Kerr Lake Regional Water 0442010 H L M Roanoke River Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District 0442010 M L M Roanoke Rapids Lake Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District 0442020 H L M Roanoke River Weldon Water System Additional information concerning SWAP on a statewide level can be found in Chapter 18 of the 2006 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.16 ecoloGical FloW in the Roanoke RiveR Basin The North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation in 2010 directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to develop hydrologic models for each river basin in N.C. An important part of this bill requires the department to determine the flows needed to maintain ecological integrity in surface waters. The bill further authorized the creation of a Science Advisory Board to assist the department in assessing these ecological flows. The members and alternates of the board all have a strong background in aquatic ecology and represent a diversity of water use interests. The board has a charter that will help guide them through this process. Updates on the progress of the Roanoke River model are on the Division of Water Resources website. BasinWiDe neeDs To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to continue to work closely with other state agencies in NC and across state lines as well as stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The costs of restoration can be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration efforts. Balancing economic development and water quality protection will be a challenge. Some impacts on surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning process. Others can be identified through the basinwide plan, but actions to address these impacts must be taken at the local level. Such actions should include: development and enforcement of local sediment and erosion control ordinances; stormwater best management practices for existing and new development; development and enforcement of riparian buffer ordinances; and land use planning that assesses impacts on natural resources. This basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that are underway throughout the Roanoke River Basin that provide a foundation on which future initiatives can be built. ReFeRences Beach, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. Galli, J. 1991. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Mary- land Department of Environment: Washington, D.C. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Appli- cable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B. Raleigh, NC. (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/) ____. DWQ. Planning Section. Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). November 2008. Supplemen- tal Guide to Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans. Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide) ____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Ecosystems Unit. September 2010. Roanoke River Basin Ambient Monitoring Systems Report (January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009). Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/ get_file?uuid=c9a59811-634c-490b-b566-6a8ebc00554d&groupId=38364) NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.17 ____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). December 2010. Basinwide Assessment Report: Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e3dd1d8b-bbc5-42c9- 9999-1d99dd4c7455&groupId=38364) Schueler, T., and H.K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Water- shed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : E xEC ut IV E S um m AR y 2 0 1 1 ES.18 RO A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu 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 (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. 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) 1.28 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 1-A.8 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 1-B.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 1-D.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N 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 : uPP E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 1-D.10 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.1 suBBasin at a Glance counties: Rockingham, Caswell, Person, & Granville municipalities: Reidsville, Yanceyville, Milton, & Roxboro ecoReGions: Northern Inner Piedmont, Southern Outer Piedmont, & Northern Outer Piedmont peRmitteD Facilities: NPDES Dischargers: ..............67 Major ...........................................3 Minor ...........................................8 General .....................................56 NPDES Non-Dischargers: .......26 Stormwater: ............................12 General .....................................11 Individual .....................................1 Animal Operations: .................11 population: 2010 Census ....................50,017 2006 lanD coveR: Open Water .........................2.2% Developed ...........................4.7% Forest ...............................61.8% Agriculture .........................19.5% Wetlands .............................1.3% Barren Land ........................0.2% Shrub/Grassland ...............10.3% suBBasin WateR Quality oveRvieW The Lower Dan River Subbasin is the second western most subbasin and runs along the North Carolina/Virginia state line. The subbasin contains two Impaired streams: Dan River is Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity; and Marlowe Creek is Impaired for biological integrity as well as zinc in the downstream segment. 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 showed a small percent improved. There were no major ambient monitoring violations; however, there were a few elevated levels for turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria. CHAPTER 2 loWeR Dan RiveR suBBasin HUC 03010104 Includes: Dan River, Country Line Creek, Lake Roxboro, Hyco River, Hyco Lake, Marlowe Creek, Mayo Reservoir & Aarons Creek ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.2 FIguRE 2-1: LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN (03010104) Rattl e s nakeCr Kerr Reservoir Rock HouseCr SmithRiverMatrimonyCrNB36NF18 D A N RI V E R ROCKINGHAM GUILFORD CASWELL ALAMANCE ORANGE PERSON GRANVILLE PERSON Yanceyville Roxboro Reidsville J o n e s C r H o g a n s Cr M o o n Cr Rattlesnake C r DAN R I V ER C o u n tr y Line Cr Country Li n eCrHycoCr Hyco Lake Lake Roxboro Lake Issac Walton MarloweCr MayoCr Mayo ReservoirCrookedFkAaronsCr NF31 NB112 N4590000 ROA0343A ROA0342AROA0341A ROA031H ROA031E ROA031C ROA030DE ROA030DC ROA030DA ROA030C ROA030E ROA030F ROA030G ROA027G ROA027J ROA027L Farmer Lake N4250000 N4400000 NB43 NB85 NB118 NB119 NF30 S o uthHyco Cr NB40 NB22 N3500000 NF26 NF24 NF15 NB116 NB84 NF35 N3410000 Stovall NB64 NB87 NB86 BlueCre ek MountainCreek Johnson Creek LittleJohnson Cre e k LickBranch CedarBranch Eden WentworthReidsville ROCKINGHAM DANRIVER NB74 NC-62 US-158 I-40,85 NC-119 US-29 NC-157 I-85 US-70 N C-57 NC-49 NC-87 US-501 NC-700 NC-61 NC-86 N C -1 5 0 NC-96 U S-2 9-B U S US-15 NC-100 I-40 US-70-BUS N C-56 NC-54 NC-87,100 NC-770 NC-61,100 NC-49,54 US-158,501 NC-57 NC-54 US-29-BUS NC-49 NC-49 I-40,85 NC-86 NC-119 NC-62 US-29 NC-87 NC-61 NC-86 I-85 I-85 NC-49 NC-86 NC-87 US-158 I-85 NC-150 I-40 Lower Dan River Subbasin (03010104) 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 4 8 12 16 2 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.3 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 2-2). 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 2-2: yEARLy FLOW RAtES (CFS) OF thE uSgS gAgE StAtIONS IN thE LOWER DAN RIVER 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, 12 biological sampling sites were monitored within the Lower Dan River Subbasin. The ratings for each of the sampling stations can be seen in Appendix 2-B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 2-3 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 2-5 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two basinwide cycles to indicate if there are any overall shifts in ratings. Of the two existing sites, one declined and one improved. Benthic samplinG summaRy £Total Stations Monitored 6 £Total Samples Taken 6 £Number of New Stations 4 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.4 FIguRE 2-3: BENthIC StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN Benthos 2004-2009 Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Not Impaired Not Rated FIguRE 2-4: CuRRENt BENthIC SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 2-5: 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 2-6 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 2-7 shows the percentages of each rating given during this sampling cycle within this subbasin. Figure 2-8 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 2-6: FISh COmmuNIty StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN Fish 2004-2009 Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Fish com. samplinG summaRy £Total Stations Monitored 6 £Total Samples Taken 7 £Number of New Stations 1 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.5 FIguRE 2-7: CuRRENt FISh COmm SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 2-8: 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 2-B. Fish Kills/Spill Events Mayo Creek: A site visit, conducted on 30 March 2004 by DWQ staff, resulted in the observation of approximately 60 dead common carp in various stages of decay within 500 meters of the reservoir spillway. There were also approximately 200 live carp congregating in the shallow areas and around spillway. Approximately 50% of the live carp had sores on top of their head and body. Many carp were very lethargic and unresponsive, as was a bluehead chub. Live carp were in spawning condition, but no spawning activity was observed. Four specimens were sent to Warm Springs Fish Health Center, Georgia, for analysis. There are no known causes. Bowes Branch: The La. Pacific Corporation plant near Roxboro experienced a serious fire within the production facility. A subsequent fish kill occurred in the company’s fire pond. During the fire, large quantities of water were pulled from the pond to spray on the fire. Runoff was at times about 3 to 4 inches deep running from the building to the stormwater system, thereby returning to the pond. The fire began at 2:41 AM on June 13, 2006, and the use of water ended about 4:30 PM. Production units that burned included mixers in which the chemicals methyl diisocyanate, paraformaldehyde, and paraffin wax were being applied to wood. Some undetermined quantity of these materials returned to the pond with the recycling firewater. There was heavy rain from the remnants of tropical depression Alberto most of the day of June 14, as well. Dead fish were observed and reported at about 7:35 AM on June 15. The pond was also observed at that time to have a reddish material floating along one edge where the wind had moved it. A total of 290 fish were observed killed the first day: 113 bass, 50 carp, and 127 sunfish. None was observed to be diseased, malformed, or otherwise abnormal. The next day, another 50 were gathered, 20 bass and 30 sunfish. About half were “fresh” enough to have expired overnight. 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 2-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 Lower Dan River subbasin (see Figure 2-1 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 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.6 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. pH Figure 2-10 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Dan River Subbasin. Station N4250000 had two percent of samples exceeding the low pH standard of 6.0 as shown by the yellow dot in Figure 2-9. The pH levels in this subbasin remain mostly stable throughout this time frame. FIguRE 2-9: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE Ph StANDARDS (2005-2009) 0% <7% 7%-10% >10% FIguRE 2-10: SummARIzED Ph VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010104 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 pH Median Mean * NC pH Standard: Between 6.0 and 9.0 su Turbidity Two of the four AMS stations in the Lower Dan River subbasin exceeded the state’s turbidity standard in 5 to 16 percent of samples, as seen in Figure 2-11 indicated by yellow and red dots. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 10-digit watershed section. Figure 2-12 shows the mean and median turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Dan River 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.7 FIguRE 2-11: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE tuRBIDIty StANDARD (2005-2009) 0% <7% 7%-10% >10% FIguRE 2-12: SummARIzED tuRBIDIty VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010104 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Median Mean * NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUT Dissolved Oxygen (DO) As seen in Figure 2-13, none of the four sites recorded DO standard exceedance during this monitoring cycle. Figure 2-14 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Dan River subbasin. These averages are well within the normal DO range. FIguRE 2-13: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE DO StANDARD (2005-2009) 0% <7% 7%-10% >10% FIguRE 2-14: SummARIzED DO VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010104 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 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.8 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 2-15, two of the four sites had between 6.9% and 20% of samples over 400 colonies/100 ml. Possible sources of elevated levels of FCB are discussed in the subwatershed sections. Figure 2-16 shows the yearly geometric mean (calculated average) for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Dan River 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 2-2, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels. FIguRE 2-16: SummARIzED FECAL COLIFORm BACtERIA VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010104 WIth OVERLAyINg FLOW 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 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. FIguRE 2-15: 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.9 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 2-17). 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 2-A. Each monitored stream segment is given an overall category number which reflects the highest individual parameter category. Figure 2-18 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 2-17) 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 2-17: 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 2-18: 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.10 RecommenDations & action plans at the suBBasin scale DWQ pRioRity summaRy Table 2-1 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 2-1: NOtABLE WAtERS IN thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN (NOt RANKED) StREAm NAmE Au#CLASS.POtENtIAL StRESSOR(S) POtENtIAL SOuRCE(S) QuALItAtIVE StAtuS ACtIONS NEEDED Country Line Cr (Farmer Lake) 22-56-(3.5)a, (3.5b) &(3.7) WS-II; HQW,CA Low DO, Nutrients, Turbidity --Impaired SS Hyco Lake 22-58-(0.5)WS-V;B Chlorophyll a, Low pH, Low DO --Supporting SS Marlowe Cr 22-58-12-6a & b C Habitat Degradation, Copper ,Zinc Urban Runoff Impaired SC, E, RBR Mayo Cr (Mayo Reservoir) 22-58-15-(0.5)WS-V TSS --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), . ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.11 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 2-1, 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 2-2). 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 2-2 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 2-2) 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 2-2: 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% hoGans cReek-Dan RiveR (0301010401) Includes: Dan River [AU#: 22-(39)b], Jones Creek [AU#: 22-50-3], Hogans Creek [AU#: 22-50], Moon Creek [AU#: 22-51], Rattlesnake Creek [AU#: 22-52] & Cane Creek [AU#: 22-54] This watershed contains a mixed land use of agriculture, forest and residential areas. There are 12 minor NPDES permitted facilities and three permitted animal operations located within the watershed. There is one stream (Dan River) on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this watershed. Dan River [AU#: 22-(39)b] This is the last segment of the Dan River within NC and is approximately ten miles from state line to state line. Land cover for this drainage area is mostly agriculture with some forested and residential areas. uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (9.6 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (NB22)Good (1999) AMS (N3500000) Turbidity (22.8%) FCB (22.8%) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.12 Water quality status of this segment of the Dan River and other information about the full length of the river is discussed in the Dan River Impairment Summary section in Chapter 1. countRy line cReek (0301010402) Includes: Country Line Creek [AU#: 22-56-(1), (3.5)a, (3.5)b & (3.7)] This watershed contains a mixed land use of agriculture, forest and residential areas. There are three minor NPDES permitted facilities and one permitted swine animal operation located within the watershed. There is one stream (Country Line Creek) on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this watershed. Country Line Creek (Farmer Lake) [AU#: 22-56-(3.5)a, (3.5)b & (3.7)] Farmer Lake is approximately 91 acres in size. The majority of the drainage area is forest, agriculture and some residential. The lake is a water supply reservoir for the City of Yanceyville and is classified as a WS-II, HQW, CA. Only the upstream segment of this lake is on the 2010 Impaired Waters List. Water Quality Status Lake station samples were taken in 2007 and 2009 during the summer months on Farmer Lake. Samples showed poor water clarity, thermally stratified waters, low DO levels and high biological productivity. Ammonia and nitrite plus nitrate concentration were low; however, total phosphorus and TKN levels were elevated. Four out of the 34 samples taken between the two years were exceeding the chlorophyll a state standard. All exceeding samples were found in the Impaired segment of the lake (ROA027G). Turbidity levels at this station were also exceeding the state standard by 33%. See Figure 2-1 for station locations. Recommendations A source study in this drainage area could determine the source of nutrients. hyco lake (0301010405) Includes: Hyco Creek [AU#: 22-58-1], South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro) [AU#: 22-58-4-(0.5), (1.7) & (3)], & Hyco Lake [AU#: 22-58-(0.5)] This watershed contains a mixed land use of agriculture, forest and residential areas. There are 39 minor and one major NPDES permitted facilities and four permitted animal operation located within the watershed. There is one stream (Country Line Creek) on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this watershed. Hyco Lake [AU#: 22-58-(0.5)] Hyco Lake is located on the Hyco River approximately three miles south of the North Carolina-Virginia State line in Person and Caswell Counties. Land cover around the lake is a mixture of forest residential and agriculture. The lake was previously on the Impaired Waters List due to a NC DHHS fish consumption advisory-selenium. The advisory was lifted, removing the lake from the Impaired Waters List. This lake is currently supporting all designated uses. Water Quality Status There are four lake monitoring stations scattered throughout Hyco Lake. These stations were monitored between May and September 2009. Nutrient levels within the lake have historically measured at low to moderate levels. Results from this cycle indicate the lake remains at low to moderate nutrient and biological productivity levels. However, there is a moderate increase in chlorophyll a levels when uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (90.7 AC) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.5 Lake Station (ROA027G) (ROA027J) (ROA027L) Chlorophyll a, Turbidity uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (4,298 AC) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.2 Lake Stations (ROA030E) (ROA030C) (ROA030F) (ROA030G) No Exceedances ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.13 evaluating samples between 1994 - 2009. Long term monitoring results also show a decrease in pH and a steady decrease in DO levels. Specific conductivity averages almost doubled between the current and past sampling cycle. In 2008, Progress Energy notified the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) of DWQ that the FGD wastewater settling basin was seeping and at risk of failure. To reduce this risk, Progress Energy dewatered the settling basin into the adjacent ash pond to reduce the hydraulic head in the settling basin. On February 27, 2008, Progress Energy notified RRO staff that an 8 to 12 foot wide berm failure had occurred on the flush pond berm, allowing water from the pond to discharge into the adjacent Ash Pond. According to Progress Energy, at the time of the berm failure, the flush pond only contained start up water and not backwash water from the FGD Bioreactor. The RRO requested Progress Energy to conduct additional sampling of both lake surface water and adjacent ground water in an effort to determine changes or effects of the waste streams as a result of the treatment unit failure, bypass and changes in the treatment capacities of the settling basin. This sampling effort was conducted eight times in March and April. Data from this monitoring effort revealed elevated levels of thallium, selenium, copper, beryllium, silver, mercury and antimony in the effluent stream from outfall 003 in Hyco Lake and from a non-potable well located within 500 feet of the FGD Settling Pond and the FGD Flush Pond. At the request of the Raleigh Regional Office, staff from DWQ’s Intensive Survey Unit collected water and sediment samples on July 21, 2008 from various lake sites near the FGD wastewater treatment system along with two additional sites located upstream and downstream of the facility. Results of this sampling indicated that elevated metals detected by Progress Energy in the spring were now at very low levels or below DWQ laboratory detection levels. Thallium was present in the sediment samples along with vanadium and selenium, however, water samples collected near the bottom of the reservoir at the three sediment sampling sites exhibited concentrations of these metals below the DWQ laboratory’s detection levels. Physical measurements taken at each sampling site were similar to those observed in the past with the exception of conductivity values, which were the greatest recorded by DWQ staff since 1983 when this reservoir was first monitored. For more information about this and additional monitoring see the Roanoke River Basin Lake and Reservoir Assessment Report. hyco RiveR (0301010406) Includes: Hyco River [AU#: 22-58-(9.5)], Marlowe Creek [AU#: 22- 58-12-6a & b], & Mayo Creek (Mayo Reservoir) [AU#: 22-58-15-(0.5)] This watershed contains a mixed land use of agriculture, forest, urban and residential areas. There are five minor and two major NPDES permitted facilities and two permitted swine animal operation located within the watershed. There is one stream (Marlowe Creek) on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this watershed. Marlowe Creek [AU#: 22-58-12-6a & b] Marlowe Creek is split into two segments and is approximately 11 miles from source to Storys Creek which flows into Hyco River [AU#: 22-58-(9.5)]. The Town of Roxboro is located in the headwaters of Marlowe Creek. Further downstream, the land use is mostly forest and agriculture. Marlowe Creek has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998. Water Quality Status Marlowe Creek was sampled twice for biological health during this cycle. The first sample was taken in 2006 as part of a Small Stream Biocriteria Development study near the intersection of N. Main Street and NC-49 in Roxboro. The sample showed the creeks aquatic life was severely impacted by the highly urbanized area and had poor habitat (scored a 39 out of 100). uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (11.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (NB43) (NB85) (NB119) Fair (2009) Fair (2004) Not Rated (2006) Fish Com (NF27)Good-Fair (2004) AMS (N4400000)Copper (22.2%)Zinc (44.4%) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.14 The second sample (NB43) was taken further downstream near the confluence of Fishing Creek. This site has been sampled since 1994 when it received a Poor rating. Each sample increased in rating following the 1994 sample up to a Good-Fair in 2004. This water quality improvement was contributed to significant facility upgrades at the Roxboro WWTP. The 2009 sample dropped back to a Fair rating and reflected water quality similar to what was seen in 1999. The WWTP however, had only a few minor permit violations and only failed one toxicity test. An Ambient Monitoring Station is also located near the confluence of Fishing Creek. DO and turbidity levels have improved as compared to the last cycle (1999-2003). Fecal coliform bacteria levels have also improved. The geometric mean was three time lower than the previous cycle. However, copper and zinc levels remain elevated above the state standards. Marlowe Creek will remain on the Impaired waters list for both biological impairments as well as for copper and zinc exceedances. Local Initiatives The City of Roxboro was designated as a Phase II community as of January 2010 which require additional stormwater BMPs. This will assist in reducing the urban runoff impacting the stream. Mayo Creek (Mayo Reservoir) [AU#: 22-58-15-(0.5)] The Mayo Reservoir is roughly 2,613 acres and is owned by Progress Energy. The majority of the drainage area is agriculture, forest and residential. Water Quality Status Surface physical parameters (DO, pH and water temperature) in 2009 were similar to those values observed in this reservoir since it was first monitored by DWQ in 1983. Conductivity values, however, were greater in 2009 (range = 111 to 166 µmhos/cm). Total solids were also greater in 2009 than in previous years (range = 80 to 130 mg/L) while values for turbidity and total solids remained the same. Nutrient levels and chlorophyll a levels were all low. The lake was determined to be mesotrophic, or having moderate biological productivity, in 2009. Progress Energy Mayo Steam Electric Power Plan (NC0038377) CP&L DBA Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. operates a steam electric power plant facility and holds an NPDES permit NC0038377 to discharge process control and industrial waste streams to Mayo Lake a Class WS-V 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 Mayo 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 flush pond to treat wastewater generated by the recently added wet scrubbers. Since installation of FGD settling basin, 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 of a MetClear injection system to aid in the settling of mercury and other constituents in the settling pond. £added a pH adjustment system to the inlet of the bioreactor to aid in keeping the pH of the wastewater at an optimum level for maximum treatment efficiency. £placed into service secondary hydrocyclones to reduce the amount of suspended solids in the blowdown to the settling pond. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (2,613 AC) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Lake Stations (ROA0343A) (ROA0342A) (ROA0341A) No Exceedances ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.15 However, effluent sampling results reported by Progress Energy from the NPDES Outfall 002 has revealed effluent limit exceedances. On December 9, 2010, Progress Energy provided DWQ an Application for a Special Order by Consent, whereby a schedule may be developed for additional treatment unit(s) and/or alternative treatment technology construction. aaRons cReek-Dan RiveR (0301010407) Includes: Crooked Fork [AU#: 22-59-1], & Aarons Creek [AU#: 22- 59] This watershed contains a mixed land use of agriculture, forest and residential areas. There are no permitted facilities located within the watershed. There are no streams on the 2010 Impaired Waters List in this watershed. 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. May 2009. Small Stream Biocriteria Development. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.esb. enr.state.nc.us/documents/SmallStreamsFinal.pdf) ____. DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2010. Lake & Reservoir Assessments Roanoke River Basin. 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) 2.16 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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 2-a uSE SuPPORt RAtINgS FOR ALL mONItORED WAtERS IN thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-A.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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  Hogans Creek-Dan River 0301010401Roanoke River Basin Watershed Dan River 03010104Roanoke River Basin Subbasin Hogans Creek-Dan River 0301010401Roanoke River Basin Watershed Cane Creek22-54 From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River 0.8 FW Miles C  1 DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion) 22-(39)b From NC/VA crossing downstream of Wolf Island Creek to last crossing of North Carolina-Virginia State Line 9.6 FW Miles C  4t  5 Hogans Creek22-50 From source to Dan River 29.1 FW Miles C  1 Jones Creek (Lake Wade) 22-50-3 From source to Hogans Creek 7.6 FW Miles C  1 Moon Creek (Wildwood Lake) 22-51 From source to Dan River 17.0 FW Miles C  1 Rattlesnake Creek22-52 From source to Dan River 2.7 FW Miles C  1 Country Line Creek 0301010402Roanoke River Basin Watershed Country Line Creek22-56-(1)From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth of Nats Fork 10.5 FW Miles WS-II;HQW  1 Country Line Creek22-56-(3.7)From dam at Farmer Lake to Dan River 24.5 FW Miles C  1 Country Line Creek (Farmers Lake) 22-56-(3.5)a Upper reservoir- From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth Nats Fork to dam at Farmer Lake (Town of Yanceyville water supply intake located 1.8 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 62) 90.7 FW Acres WS- II;HQW,CA  5  5  1 10/20/2010 Page 228 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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  Country Line Creek 0301010402Roanoke River Basin Watershed Country Line Creek (Farmers Lake) 22-56-(3.5)b Lower reservoir-From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth Nats Fork to dam at Farmer Lake (Town of Yanceyville water supply intake located 1.8 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 62) 271.1 FW Acres WS- II;HQW,CA  1  1 Hyco Lake 0301010405Roanoke River Basin Watershed Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek) 22-58-1 From source to Hyco Lake, Hyco River 16.8 FW Miles C  3a Hyco River, including Hyco Lake below elevation 410 22-58-(0.5)From source in Hyco Lake to dam of Hyco Lake, including tributary arms below elevation 410 4,297.9 FW Acres WS-V,B  1  1 South Hyco Creek22-58-4-(3)From a point 0.6 mile downstream of Double Creek to Hyco Lake, Hyco River (City of Roxboro water supply intake) 0.7 FW Miles WS- II;HQW,CA  1 South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro) 22-58-4-(1.4)From backwaters of Lake Roxboro to dam at Lake Roxboro 493.6 FW Acres WS-II,B;HQW  3n  1 Hyco River 0301010406Roanoke River Basin Watershed Hyco River22-58-(9.5)From dam of Hyco Lake to North Carolina- Virginia State Line, including all portions in North Carolina 6.8 FW Miles C  1  1 Marlowe Creek22-58-12-6a From source to Mitchell Creek 6.6 FW Miles C   5 10/20/2010 Page 229 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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  Hyco River 0301010406Roanoke River Basin Watershed Marlowe Creek22-58-12-6b From Mithcell Creek to Storys Creek 4.5 FW Miles C  5  1  1  1  5 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) 22-58-15-(3.5)From dam of Mayo Reservoir to North Carolina-Virginia State Line 0.5 FW Miles C  1  1 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) (Mayo Reservoir) 22-58-15-(0.5)From source to dam of Mayo Reservoir 2,613.8 FW Acres WS-V  1  1 Storys Creek [Roxboro City Lake (Lake Issac Walton)] 22-58-12-(1.5)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of N.C. Hwy. 57 to Roxboro City Lake Dam 189.5 FW Acres WS- II;HQW,CA  1 Aarons Creek-Dan River 0301010407Roanoke River Basin Watershed Aarons Creek22-59 From source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line 8.6 FW Miles C  1 10/20/2010 Page 230 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-A.6 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.1 appenDix 2-B BIOLOgICAL SAmPLINg SItE DAtA ShEEtS (BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE & FISh COmmuNIty) FOR thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.3 Biological Samples Taken During this Assessment Cycle StAtION ID WAtERBODy COuNty SItE LOCAtION SAmPLE RESuLtS Benthic Sample Sites NB112 CROOKED FK PERSON SR 1558 06 - Not Impaired NB116 NEGRO CR CASWELL SR 1769 06 - Not Impaired NB118 TANYARD BR PERSON US 501 06 - Not Rated NB119 MARLOWE CR PERSON NC 49 06 - Not Rated NB40 COUNTRY LINE CR CASWELL NC 57 09 - Excellent NB43 MARLOWE CR PERSON SR 1322 09 - Fair Fish Community Sample Sites NF15 Hogans Cr Caswell SR 1330 09 - Good-Fair NF24 Moon Cr Caswell SR 1511 09 - Good NF26 Rattlesnake Cr Caswell SR 1523 09 - Good NF30 S Hyco Cr Person US 158 09 - Fair NF31 Aarons Cr Granville SR 1400 09 - Good NF35 Hogans Cr Caswell SR 1301 09 - Good-Fair ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.4 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) Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody HOGANS CR AU Number 22-50 County CASWELL Latitude 36.439045 Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont Longitude -79.515205 07/06/09 Date NF35 Station ID Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 00 0.3 Agriculture Other (describe) No NPDES Number Reference Site This is the first fish community sample collected from this 2009-2010 Random Ambient Monitoring site. Watershed -- drains primarily eastern Rockingham County, including a portion of the Town of Reidsville; two small NPDES facilities located in the headwaters (NC0002828 and NC0077135, total Qw= 0.027 MGD); tributary to the Dan River. Habitats -- snags, stick riffles, gravel bars, deadfalls, and shallow runs; high quality bank and riparian characteristics, but stream still exhibits impacts such as poor quality riffles and sandy substrate from nonpoint source erosion. 2009 -- all diversity metrics (total species diversity and diversities of darters, sunfish, and suckers) were lower than expected; intolerant species were also absent; three species (White Sucker, Notchlip Redhorse, and Largemouth Bass) were represented only by young-of-year and were excluded from the sample. Long-term nonpoint source erosion seems to be the primary stressor to this stream. Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 07/06/09 Stream Width (m) 8 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 100 Elevation (ft) 550 Drainage Area (mi2) 65.4 Good-Fair NCIBI 42 None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 20.0 3 5 --- 5 9 3 Sample ID 2009-80 6 7 10 7.1 122 6.7 Slightly turbid 5 13 Satinfin Shiner (25%) Most Abundant Species 2009 66 Sand, gravel, block bedrock boulders jutting out from the left bankSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 15 Bluegill Bioclassification FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1301 Location 8 digit HUC 03010104 Subbasin 3 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.5 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 CASWELL Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV EcoregionLongitude -79.40416667 07/06/09 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody HOGANS CR AU Number 22-50 No Reference Site Subbasin 3 Latitude 36.49027778 Elevation (ft) 8 digit HUC 03010104 Northern Inner Piedmont 07/06/09 NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 11 05/25/04 NF15 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 030 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) None Watershed -- drains eastern Rockingham and northwestern Caswell counties, including a portion of the Town of Reidsville; two small NPDES facilities located in the headwaters (NC0002828 and NC0077135, total Qw = 0.027 MGD); tributary to the Dan River. Habitats -- gravelly and sandy runs; good snag pools, undercuts, Podostemum in the riffles, but stream still exhibits substantial nonpoint source erosion. 2009 -- ~ 2 times as many fish were collected in 2009 than in 2004 (336 vs. 178), primarily Swallowtail Shiner, Crescent Shiner, and Satinfin Shiner (53% of all the fish collected); the diversities of sunfish and suckers were much lower than expected; 1 of only 2 sites where suckers were absent, although Notchlip Redhorse were collected they were represented only by young-of-year and were excluded from the sample; combined with a skewed trophic structure the NCIBI score and rating declined; despite having a large drainage area the community may still be suffering from drought impacts and from chronic nonpoint source ersoion. 2004 & 2009 -- 26 species known from the site, including 6 species of darters; dominant species is the Swallowtail Shiner. Rural Residential 10 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains --Rosyside Dace, Crescent Shiner, Glassy Darter, Riverweed Darter. Losses -- White Sucker, Northern Hogsucker, Notchlip Redhorse, Margined Madtom, Channel Catfish, Green Sunfish, Chainback Darter, Roanoke Darter. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-3 fish/species, except for Crescent Shiner (n=37). 40 52 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 60 20.8 3 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 410 Drainage Area (mi2) 92.6 5 5 9 Bluegill Bioclassification Good-Fair Good NCIBI 4 Sample ID 10 7.3 118 6.7 Slightly turbid 5 16 Sand, gravelSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 18 202004-56 2009-81 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1330 Location Swallowtail Shiner (28%) Most Abundant Species 2009 69 5 7 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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) 370 Drainage Area (mi2) 47.2 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1511 Location 8 digit HUC 03010104 Sand, gravelSubstrate Species Total 20 16 2009-42 59 09/07/94 2004-32 5 Sample ID None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 15.0 3 Clear 5 8.4 97 6.5 5 6 9 Good Good NCIBI 52 46 44 Good-Fair Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 45 Elevation (ft) Bioclassification 14 3 3 6 Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Eastern Silvery Minnow, Crescent Shiner, Redlip Shiner, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Creek Chub, White Sucker, Redear Sunfish, Glassy Darter. Losses -- Golden Shiner, Redfin Pickerel, Pumpkinseed, Largemouth Bass. All species gained or lost were represented by 1- 4 fish/species, except for Redlip Shiner, Eastern Silvery Minnow, and Crescent Shiner (n=17, 41, and 130, respectively). 05/21/09 04/30/04 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 8 55 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No Watershed -- drains northwestern Caswell County; no municipalities with the watershed; tributary to the Dan River, site is ~ 2.2 miles above the creek's confluence with the river. Habitats -- sandy runs, woody debris, snags, narrow riparian zones intact along both banks, but stream still exhibits substantial nonpoint source erosion as evident from the low scoring habitat characteristics. 2009 -- 6 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (627 vs . 104), especially Crescent Shiner (130 vs. 0), Bluehead Chub (112 vs. 11), and Eastern Silvery Minnow (41 vs . 0); no lingering effects from the drought. 1994 - 2009 -- very diverse fish community, 30 species are known from the site, including 12 species of cyprinids, 5 species of sunfish, and 4 species of darters; dominant species are variable and include Eastern Silvery Minnow (1994), Satinfin Shiner and Redbreast Sunfish (2004), and Crescent Shiner and Bluehead Chub (2009); NCIBI score and rating have gradually been improving over the past 15 years. Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Level IV Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont Longitude -79.33555556 NF24 94-34 22 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 0 Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody MOON CR AU Number 22-51 County CASWELL Subbasin 4 Latitude Most Abundant Species 2009 Crescent Shiner (21%), Bluehead Chub (18%) Exotic Species 2009 Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Redear Sunfish 05/21/09 Date Station ID 36.5075 Good Bioclassification ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.7 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 CASWELL Good Bioclassification Level IV EcoregionLongitude -79.29333333 05/21/09 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody RATTLESNAKE CR AU Number 22-52 No Reference Site Subbasin 4 Latitude 36.50777778 Elevation (ft) 8 digit HUC 03010104 Northern Inner Piedmont 05/21/09 NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 6 05/25/04 NF26 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 00 0.2 Agriculture Other (describe) None Watershed -- drains northwestern Caswell County with its headwaters arising in the Town of Yanceyville; tributary to the Dan River, site is ~0.2 miles above the creek's confluence with the river. Habitats -- very shallow and sandy runs, a couple of large boulder outcrops in the channel, riparian zones intact providing good shading to the stream; but stream is impacted by very substantial nonpoint source erosion. 2009 -- 5 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (929 vs. 184), especially Satinfin Shiner, Eastern Silvery Minnow, Swallowtail Shiner, Bluehead Chub, Speckled Killifish, and Rosefin Shiner (86% of all the fish collected); very high percentage of tolerant fish (53%). 2004 & 2009 -- 25 species known from the site, including 12 species of cyprinids and 3 species of darters; dominant species is the Satinfin Shiner; very dynamic community, the close proximity to the river may influence the community (i.e., schooling species such as Eastern Silvery Minnow and Satinfin Shiner migrating back and forth from the creek to the river). Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Crescent Shiner, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Creek Chub, V-lip Redhorse, Eastern Mosquitofish, Fantail Darter. Losses -- Golden Shiner, Channel Catfish, Redfin Pickerel, Warmouth. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-9 fish/species, except for Eastern Mosquitofish and Fantail Darter (n=14 and 17, respectively). 46 48 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 100 15.1 4 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 350 Drainage Area (mi2) 23.7 5 5 6 Red Shiner, Green Sunfish, Bluegill Bioclassification Good Good NCIBI 7 Sample ID 10 8.8 120 6.6 Clear 5 14 SandSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 21 192004-57 2009-43 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1523 Location Satinfin Shiner (46%) Most Abundant Species 2009 65 3 6 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.8 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)23.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)126 pH (s.u.)6.4 Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)7 Bank Erosion (7)0 Bank Vegetation (7)5 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)4 Right Riparian Score (5)1 Total Habitat Score (100)69 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification COUNTRY LINE CR NC 57 NB40 08/12/09 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion CASWELL 4 03010104 36.537778 -79.201111 22-56-(3.7)Northern Inner Piedmont Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 138.0 395 10 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)70 30 0 Site Photograph Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Substrate The channel substrata consisted of mostly sand and gravel. Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) None ------ Bioclassification 08/12/09 10808 ---28 ---4.31 Excellent Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Good 08/24/94 6691 ---14 ---4.55 Good-Fair 07/01/04 9400 ---24 ---4.82 Taxonomic Analysis Several pollution sensitive EPT taxa were collected at this site in 2009 such as the stoneflies Paragnetina fumosa,Pteronarcys spp ., and long-lived Acroneuria abnormis. Intolerant caddisflies collected included Brachycentrus numerosus ,Nyctiophylax moestus, and Pycnopsyche spp. The mayfly Plauditus cestus and caddisfly Ceraclea mentiea are listed by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as Significantly Rare (2006) and were collected from this location in 2009. Data Analysis This site received a bioclassification of Excellent in 2009 for the first time since sampling began in 1983. Decreases in EPTBI from 4.82 in 2004 to 4.31 in 2009 in addition to the highest EPT taxa richness (28) on record from this location continue to suggest better water quality. Pollution sensitive macroinvertebrate communities were collected at this site despite evidence of habitat degradation due to increased erosion leading to in-channel sedimentation, scouring, and increased bar development from nonpoint sources. Good 07/23/87 4158 ---26 ---5.15 Good 07/10/90 5337 ---26 ---4.53 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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) 05/21/09 2009-44 15 38 Fair County PERSON Fair Bioclassification Level IV EcoregionLongitude -79.10777778 05/21/09 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle (2009 vs. 2004) Waterbody S HYCO CR AU Number 22-58-4-(3) No Reference Site Subbasin 5 Latitude 36.38527778 Elevation (ft) 8 digit HUC 03010104 Southern Outer Piedmont 06/16/10 NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 8 04/30/04 NF30 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 025 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) None Watershed -- drains northwest Orange, southeastern Caswell, and southwestern Person counties; no municipalities within the watershed; site is ~ 4.5 miles downstream from Roxboro Lake dam and ~ 1.5 miles above the backwaters of Hyco Reservoir, an impoundment of the Hyco River; stream is classified as High Quality Waters based upon its WS-II supplemental classification. Habitats -- very low flow; coarse woody debris in the channel, riparian bottomlands, snag debris dams, stream exhibits substantial nonpoint source erosion. 2009 -- 2.3 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (556 vs. 237), especially Swallowtail Shiner, Satinfin Shiner, Eastern Mosquitofish, and Bluegill (75% of all the fish collected), 1 of 2 sites where suckers were absent; very skewed trophic structure with only 3% omnivores+herbivores; lingering drought impacts. 2004 & 2009 -- despite a large drainage area, only 24 species are known from the site; including just 2 species of darters; dominant species is the Swallowtail Shiner; old weir below the bridge at the old gage may be an impediment to fish movement at low flow; recolonization avenues are limited by the upstream and downstream reservoirs. Note: the site was re-sampled in 2010 following a wetter winter and spring flow period and the community was rated Good-Fair. Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Crescent Shiner, Eastern Mosquitofish, Black Crappie. Losses -- Mountain Redbelly Dace, White Sucker, Notchlip Redhorse, V-lip Redhorse, Margined Madtom, Yellow Bullhead, Redfin Pickerel, Speckled Killifish, Yellow Perch. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-6 fish/species, except for Crescent Shiner, V-lip Redhorse, and Eastern Mosquitofish (n=11, 13, and 36, respectively). 44 52 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 75 18.7 3 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 430 Drainage Area (mi2) 56.5 5 5 6 Green Sunfish, Bluegill Bioclassification Good-Fair Good NCIBI 5 Sample ID 7 7.3 110 6.7 Clear, slightly tannin stained 5 13 Gravel, sand, woody debrisSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 21 212004-30 2010-48 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-II,HQW,CA US 158 Location Swallowtail Shiner (32%) Most Abundant Species 2009 58 2 7 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.10 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)24.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.8 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)139 pH (s.u.)6.5 Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)10 Bank Erosion (7)1 Bank Vegetation (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)72 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification MARLOWE CR SR 1322 NB43 08/12/09 Fair County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion PERSON 5 03010104 36.483333 -78.979444 22-58-12-6b Northern Inner Piedmont Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 17.8 390 9 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)60 0 40 Site Photograph Water Clarity turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Substrate This channel was dominated by mostly sand and gravel. Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Roxboro WWTP NC0021024 5.0 Bioclassification 08/12/09 10809 59 10 6.25 6.01 Fair Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Good-Fair 08/25/99 7988 53 9 6.35 5.74 Fair 06/30/04 9397 56 13 6.43 5.93 Taxonomic Analysis This sampling location was dominated by pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates such as the mayflies Baetis flavistriga and Maccaffertium modestum; and the caddisflies Cheumatopsyche spp. and Hydropsyche betteni. The root mat-dwelling caddisflies Oecetis persimilis and Trianodes ignitus were rare at the site. The somewhat tolerant riffle beetle taxa Macronychus glabratus was abundant and the intolerant Psephenus herricki was rare at this sampling location. Eight odonate taxa were collected in addition to 26 chironomid taxa. Polypedilum flavum was the only abundant chironomid taxa collected. No stoneflies were collected at this site in 2009. Data Analysis This benthic montitoring station received a bioclassification of Fair in 2009 suggesting a transition back to degraded water quality found in 1999. EPTBI increased slightly and EPT richness decreased from the 2004 sample. In 2009, EPT taxa richness returned to the levels observed in 1999. Chironomid taxa richness (26) was the highest of all other sampling years at this site. Only one chironomid taxa was abundant at the site in 2009. The high chironomid taxa richness could be due to increased drift from the rain event that occurred the night before sampling. Conductivity was lower suggesting improvements from 2004 when levels were between 220 and 340 µS/cm. This stream drains northern portions of urban Roxboro and active row crop agriculture was noted upstream. This site may suffer from several variables including both point and nonpoint source pollution in addition to lack of substrate favorable to many rheophilic EPT taxa. Poor08/24/94 6692 33 5 6.91 6.49 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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 GRANVILLE Good Bioclassification Level IV EcoregionLongitude -78.73916667 05/26/09 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody AARONS CR AU Number 22-59 Yes Reference Site Subbasin 6 Latitude 36.53166667 Elevation (ft) 8 digit HUC 03010104 Carolina Slate Belt 05/26/09 NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 8 04/28/04 NF31 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 00 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) None Watershed -- drains the extreme northeast corner of Person and the extreme northwest corner of Granville counties; no municipalities in the watershed; Habitats -- regional reference site, a typical Carolina Slate Belt-type stream with high quality instream and riparian habitat characteristics; shallow pools and riffles, undercuts, clay banks, blow-out on upper left bank at end of reach. 2009 -- one-half the number of fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (397 vs. 791), especially Crescent Shiner (111 vs . 321); Carolina Darter [Special Concern] collected for the first time; a slight increase in the overall diversity and diversity of darters increased the NCIBI score, but not the rating; no change in the other metrics, trophic metrics very stable. 2004 & 2009 -- only 19 species known from this site, including 5 species of sunfish and 3 species of darters, but no intolerant species; dominant species is the Crescent Shiner; very possible that the flow in this stream becomes very reduced during dry periods and this may have caused the lower than expected NCIBI score and rating for a reference site. Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Whitemouth Shiner, Pirate Perch, Redear Sunfish, Carolina Darter, Losses -- Rosyside Dace, Eastern Mosquitofish. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-5 fish/species. 50 46 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 100 21.1 12 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 370 Drainage Area (mi2) 27.6 5 8 Bioclassification Good Good NCIBI 12 Sample ID Most Abundant Species 2009 Fantail Darter (30%), Crescent Shiner (28%) 10 7.2 76 6.0 Clear, easily silted 5 18 5 Cobble, boulder, gravelSubstrate Species Total 16 152004-25 2009-45 Exotic Species 2009 Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Redear Sunfish FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1400 Location 88 6 7 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.12 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.1 appenDix 2-c AmBIENt mONItORINg SyStEmS StAtION DAtA ShEEtS FOR thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.2 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N3500000 Location:DAN RIV AT NC 57 AT VA LINE AT MILTON Stream class:C NC stream index:22-(39) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010104 Latitude:36.54079 Longitude:-79.21422 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 6 6.6 7.3 9.5 11.4 13 13.957000 <5 6 6.6 7.3 9.5 11.4 13 13.957000 pH (SU)<6 6.4 7 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.8 8.257000 >9 6.4 7 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.8 8.257000 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 68 84 102 127 165 258 293560 Water Temperature (°C)>32 4.4 7.2 10.6 17.3 25.1 27.2 29.857000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 3 5.8 8.9 12 18.2 172 185204 Turbidity (NTU)>50 2.5 3.7 5.9 11 35.5 164 2405713022.8 99.9 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 120 120 335 515 2480 5100 510080 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 4 6 69050 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 410 410 755 1000 3575 7100 710083037.5 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 15 46 469060 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 57 95 13 22.8 76.2 01/12/2005Time 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.3 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N4250000 Location:HYCO RIV BELOW AFTERBAY DAM NR MCGHEES MILL Stream class:C NC stream index:22-58-(9.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010104 Latitude:36.52353 Longitude:-78.99600 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 6.7 7.1 9 10.9 11.8 12.646000 <5 6.3 6.7 7.1 9 10.9 11.8 12.646000 pH (SU)<6 5.9 6.4 6.6 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.848102.1 >9 5.9 6.4 6.6 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.848000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.180 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 104 107 110 124 178 255 285470 Water Temperature (°C)>32 5.2 7.9 9.5 17.3 23.3 26.1 28.948000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 3 3.7 4.7 6.2 6.6 10.2 12187 Turbidity (NTU)>50 2.3 3.2 4 4.9 5.9 8.5 9.747000 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 160 160 160 215 368 410 41080 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 29060 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 250 250 275 405 520 860 8608000 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 12 17 179070 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 44 9.1 0 0 01/10/2005Time period:11/16/2009to 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.4 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N4400000 Location:MARLOWE CRK AT SR 1322 NR WOODSDALE Stream class:C NC stream index:22-58-12-6 Hydrologic Unit Code:03010104 Latitude:36.48325 Longitude:-78.97941 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 6.9 7.6 9.3 12.1 13.5 14.246000 <5 6.5 6.9 7.6 9.3 12.1 13.5 14.246000 pH (SU)<6 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.848000 >9 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.848000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.380 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 114 156 184 263 405 582 729470 Water Temperature (°C)>32 2.2 6.2 9.9 15.1 21.9 23.6 26.348000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 3.7 6.2 7 12.5 22.8 66188 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.9 8.8 21 6547204.3 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0211 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.8710 TKN as N N/A 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.5310 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.310 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 100 100 170 360 755 1000 100090 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 4 4 7 16 1692122.2 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 190 190 415 570 845 2200 220091011.1 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 12 12 26 46 57 630 63094044.4 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 47 81.7 5 10.6 01/10/2005Time period:11/16/2009to 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.5 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N4510000 Location:HYCO RIV AT US 501 NR DENNISTON VA Stream class:III NT NC stream index: Hydrologic Unit Code:03010104 Latitude:36.58805 Longitude:-78.89814 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)N/A 5.9 6.4 6.9 8.7 10.8 11.7 12.6460 pH (SU)N/A 6.2 6.2 6.7 7 7.2 7.5 7.9480 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.180 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C) N/A 102 130 144 168 193 234 265470 Water Temperature (°C)N/A 3.9 5.7 9 15.3 23.6 26 27.2480 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3.9 6.2 6.9 21.5 351810 Turbidity (NTU)N/A 1.7 2.8 4.1 6.3 10 27 95470 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 87 87 109 200 660 1600 160090 Arsenic, total (As)N/A 5 5 5 5 5 5 599 Cadmium, total (Cd)N/A 1 1 2 2 2 2 299 Chromium, total (Cr)N/A 10 10 25 25 25 25 2599 Copper, total (Cu)N/A 2 2 2 2 3 4 493 Iron, total (Fe)N/A 99 99 470 580 1095 2300 230090 Lead, total (Pb)N/A 10 10 10 10 10 10 1099 Manganese, total (Mn)N/A 120 120 128 155 160 160 16040 Mercury, total (Hg)N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.288 Nickel, total (Ni)N/A 10 10 10 10 10 10 1099 Zinc, total (Zn)N/A 10 10 10 10 16 41 4196 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 47 61 1 2.1 01/10/2005Time period:11/16/2009to 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.6 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N4590000 Location:MAYO CRK AT SR 1501 NR BETHEL HILL Stream class:C NC stream index:22-58-15-(3.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010104 Latitude:36.54021 Longitude:-78.87362 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 6.4 7 8.1 9.5 11.1 11.6 12.646000 <5 6.4 7 8.1 9.5 11.1 11.6 12.646000 pH (SU)<6 6.1 6.4 6.5 7 7.3 7.7 8.448000 >9 6.1 6.4 6.5 7 7.3 7.7 8.448000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.180 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 92 97 113 119 128 140 160470 Water Temperature (°C)>32 4.7 7.2 9.8 16.3 22.1 24.9 31.648000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 6.3 71814 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1 1 1.3 2 2.9 3.9470100 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 50 50 50 58 76 210 21093 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 39070 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 50 50 50 72 102 670 6709030 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 11 14 149070 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 46 7.6 1 2.2 01/10/2005Time period:11/16/2009to 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.1 appenDix 2-D 10-DIgIt WAtERShED mAPS FOR thE LOWER DAN RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.3 Smith Riv e r D A N R I V E R ROCKINGHAM GUILFORD CASWELL ALAMANCE ORANGEPERSON Yanceyville ReidsvilleJ o n e s C r. H o g a n s C r. M o o n C r. DAN RIVE R C o u n t r y L in e C r CountryLine C r HycoCr HycoLake Lake Roxboro ROA030DE ROA030DC ROA030DAROA030CROA030E ROA027GROA027J ROA027L Farmer Lake NF30 S o uthHycoCr NB40 NB22 N3500000 NF26 NF24 NF15 NB116 NB84 NF35 N3410000 RattlesnakeCr. HogansCr. ROCKINGHAM CASWELL Eden Wentworth Reidsville ROCKINGHAM US-29 US-158 NC-62 NC-119 NC-700 N C -86 N C -1 5 0 U S-2 9-B U S NC-87 NC-57 NC-770 N C -1 4 N C -87 ,15 0 U S-2 9-B U S N C -8 6 NC-150 US-29 NC-87 Hogan Creek-Dan River Watershed (0301010401) 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 August 2011 ¯ 0 2 4 6 8 1 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.4 ROCKINGHAM GUILFORD ALAMANCE ORANGE PERSON Yanceyville Reidsville Jo n e s C r. H o g a n s C r. M o o n C r. DAN RIVE R C o u n tr y Lin e C reek CountryLine C r e e k HycoCr Hyco Lake Lake Roxboro Lake Issac Walton MarloweCr ROA031H ROA031E ROA031C ROA030DE ROA030DC ROA030DA ROA030C ROA030E ROA030F ROA030G ROA027G ROA027J ROA027L Farmer Lake N4250000 N4400000 NB43NB85 NF30 S o uth HycoCr NB40 NB22 N3500000 NF26 NF24 NF15 NB116 NB84 NF35 N3410000 Rattlesna k e C r. HogansCr. ROCKINGHAM CASWELL US-158 NC-62 NC-119 NC-57 NC-86 US-29 N C-4 9 N C-1 5 0 NC-700 NC-87 U S-2 9 - B U S NC-86 U S-2 9 Country Line Creek Watershed (0301010402) 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 BasinwidePlanning Unit October 2011 ¯ 0 2 4 6 8 1 Miles SouthCountryL ineCreek H ostler B r. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.5 ROCKINGHAM GUILFORD ALAMANCE ORANGE PERSON Yanceyville Roxboro ReidsvilleJ o n e s C r. H o g a n s C r. M o o n C r. DANRIV E R C o u n tr y Lin e Creek CountryLin e C r e e k HycoCr Hyco Lake Lake Roxboro Lake Issac Walton M a rlo w e Cr MayoCrN4590000ROA0343AROA0342AROA0341A ROA031H ROA031E ROA031C ROA030DE ROA030DC ROA030DA ROA030C ROA030EROA030F ROA030G ROA027G ROA027J ROA027L Farmer Lake N4250000 N4400000 NB43 NB85 NB118 NB119 NF30 S o uth HycoCr NB40 NB22 NF26 NF24 NF15 NB116 NB84 NF35 N3410000 RattlesnakeCr. HogansCr. ROCKINGHAM CASWELL ReedyForkCr. NC-119 NC -8 9 NC - 4 9 US-158 N C -5 7 US-158 NC-62 NC-119 N C-57 NC-49 NC-157 N C -86 US-29 N C - 1 5 0 US-501 N C-87 NC-700 U S -1 5 8,5 01 NC-86 NC-86 N C-57 N C-49 US-29 US-501 Hyco Lake Watershed (0301010405) 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.6 Rattlesn a k e Cr Roxboro HycoLake Lake Issac Walton MarloweCreek M ayoCreek Mayo Reservoir CrookedFk AaronsCr NF31 NB112 N4590000 ROA0343A ROA0342A ROA0341A ROA031H ROA031E ROA031C ROA030CROA030E ROA030F ROA030G N4250000 N4400000 NB43 NB85NB118 NB119 NF30 US-158 NC-57 Roxboro PERSON GRANVILLE G hentCr. MillCreek CastleCr. Hyco Lake Big BluewingCr. BlueCre e k MountainCreek Johnso n Creek Littl e Johnson C r e e k NC-49 US-501 NC-96 NC-57 US-158 NC-157 US-158,501 US-501 NC-49 US-158 Hyco River Watershed (0301010406) 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.7 Rattles n a k e Cr KerrReservoir M a rl o w e C r e e k MayoCreek Mayo Reservoir CrookedFk AaronsCreek NF31 NB112 N4590000 ROA0343A ROA0342A ROA0341A NB118 NB119 PERSON GRANVILLE MillCreek C a stle C r . Big BluewingCr. NB64 NB87 NB86 BlueCre e k MountainCreek Johnson Creek Little J ohnsonCreek N C-9 6 NC-49 US-501 NC-49,96 Aarons Creek-Dan River Watershed (0301010407) 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 : L OW E R D AN R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.8 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.1 suBBasin WateR Quality oveRvieW The Middle Roanoke River Subbasin located around the middle of the basin along the North Carolina/Virginia state line, contains one Impaired stream; Nutbush Creek is Impaired for biological integrity. During this assessment cycle (2004-2009), the subbasin experienced prolonged drought between 2007 and 2008. The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is partially located in this subbasin. The project area also includes HUCs 03010106 and 03010107. The study has focused on examining the feasibility of addressing downstream environmental resource concerns in the Lower Roanoke River drainage area through changes in operations or structures at the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir. Along with USACE, the non-federal cost sharing partners for this study are Virginia, and North Carolina. The process includes forming diverse workgroups, conducting a wide range of studies and developing a plan of recommendations. The project is currently completing phase 2 and beginning phase 3, the final phase. A more detailed description of the project is found in the Additional Study section. suBBasin at a Glance counties: Granville, Vance, & Warren municipalities: Stovall, Henderson, & Middleburg ecoReGions: Southern Outer Piedmont, & Northern Outer Piedmont peRmitteD Facilities: NPDES Dischargers: ................5 Major ...........................................1 Minor ...........................................2 General .......................................2 NPDES Non-Dischargers: .........4 Stormwater: ............................13 General .....................................13 Individual .....................................0 Animal Operations: ...................2 population: 2010 Census ....................22,444 2006 lanD coveR: Open Water .........................5.4% Developed ...........................6.0% Forest ...............................60.5% Agriculture .........................15.2% Wetlands .............................1.9% Barren Land ........................0.2% Shrub/Grassland ...............10.8% CHAPTER 3 miDDle Roanoke RiveR suBBasin HUC 03010102 Includes: Grassy Creek, Island Creek, Little Island Creek, Nut- bush Creek & John H. Kerr Reservoir ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.2 FIguRE 3-1: mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN (03010102) VANCE GRANVILLE Ratt l esn a k e Cr Kerr Reservoir Island C ree k L it tle I s l an d Creek NutbushCreek Newmans Creek Kerr Reservoir Henderson Stovall MiddleburgVANCE GRANVILLE WARREN PERSON Roxboro Norlina WARREN PERSON N6400000 N4590000 N6400000 N5000000 N4590000 N6400000 N4590000 N6400000 N4590000 NF38 NF37 NF36 NF22 NF33 NF31 NB89 NB90 NB64 NB49 NB48 NB88 NB87 NB45 NB86 NB112 AaronsCreek Flat C r e e k BlueCre e k MountainCreek Smith Creek G r a s s y C r e e k C rooked R u n Johnson Creek Littl e Johnson Cr e e k Michael Creek Crook e dFork BearskinCreek W olfpit R u n GilliamsBranch LickBranch MillCreek CedarBranch LittleNutbushCreek ROA037I ROA037E ROA037A ROA037IJ I-85 NC-39 US-15 U S - 1 5 8 US-1 NC-96 U S - 1 ,1 5 8 U S-1-B U S N C-49 US-401 US-158-BUS U S - 1 5 8 I-85 NC-96 US-158-BUS US-158-BUS Middle Roanoke River Subbasin (03010102) 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 2.5 5 7.5 10 1.25 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.3 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 3-2). 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 3-2: yEARLy FLOW RAtES (CFS) OF thE uSgS gAgE StAtIONS IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2068500 2070500 2071000 2074000 2077200 02077303 02077670 2080500 208111310 Indicates periods of drought in the Roanoke River Basin From Left to Right: • 2068500: Dan River (Francisco) • 2070500: Mayo River • 2071000: Dan River (Wentworth) • 2074000: Smith River • 2077200: Hyco Creek (Leasburg) • 2077303: Hyco Creek (McGehees) • 2077670: Mayo Creek • 2080500: Roanoke River • 208111310: Cashie River 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, seven biological sampling sites were monitored within the Middle Roanoke River Subbasin. The ratings for each station can be seen in Appendix 3-B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 3-3 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 3-5 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 4 £Total Samples Taken 4 £Number of New Stations 1 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.4 FIguRE 3-3: BENthIC StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN Benthos 2004-2009 Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Not Impaired Not Rated FIguRE 3-4: CuRRENt BENthIC SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 3-5: 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 3-6 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 3-7 shows the percentages of each rating given during this sampling cycle within this subbasin. Figure 3-8 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. Even though there was a 33% decline in ratings, overall the community is relatively stable. Fish com. samplinG summaRy £Total Stations Monitored 3 £Total Samples Taken 4 £Number of New Stations 0 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.5 FIguRE 3-6: FISh COmmuNIty StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN Fish 2004-2009 Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair FIguRE 3-7: CuRRENt FISh COmmuNIty SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 3-8: 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 3-B. Fish Kills/Spill Events During This Cycle UT to Crooked Creek: A pond located on a spring fed tributary to Nutbush creek experienced a fish kill event with a mortality count of about 500. A failing septic system from upstream had been piped into a tributary by a property owner for undetermined length of time. Low DO and Nitrates were noted in water samples taken by a private pond management company prior to calling DWQ. Aerators had been put in the pond by the time DWQ was contacted so DO levels were acceptable upon investigation. DWQ followed the progression of the pond for several weeks. Correcting the upstream problem appeared to solve the problems in the pond. 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 3-A and the full 2010 IR can be found on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.6 One Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) station is located in the Middle Roanoke River subbasin (see Figure 3-1 for the station location). 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 ambient station N5000000 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. 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 3-9, 10% of samples taken at station N5000000 during this cycle, resulted in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml. The geometric mean (calculated average) for this basinwide cycle was 115.9 colonies/100 ml at this station. When the geometric mean breaches 200 colonies/100 ml at a station, it is very likely a 5-in-30 study would result in an impairment. Possible sources of the elevated FCB levels at this station are discussed in the watershed section. Figure 3-10 shows the yearly geometric mean for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Middle Roanoke River subbasin. The highest yearly geometric mean was recorded in 2003 (222 colonies/100 ml). For additional data from this site, see Appendix 3-C. FIguRE 3-9: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES WIth ELEVAtED FCB LEVELS (2004- 2008) <6.9% 6.9%-10% 10.1%-20.0% >20.0% FIguRE 3-10: SummARIzED FECAL COLIFORm BACtERIA VALuES FOR DAtA COLLECtED At thE AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtION IN huC 03010102 0 50 100 150 200 250 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.7 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. 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 3-11). 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 3-A. Each monitored stream segment is given an overall category number which reflects the highest individual parameter category. Figure 3-12 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 3-11) 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 3-11: 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 3-12: 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.8 aDDitional stuDies John H. Kerr Dam & Reservoir Virginia & North Carolina (Section 216) Feasibility Study Summary The purpose of the feasibility study is to review the operation of the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir and provide recommendations to Congress on the advisability of modifying the structure or the structure’s operation for improving the quality of the environment in the overall public interest, as authorized under Section 216 of Public Law 91-611, the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970. Based on the interests of the Sponsors and opportunities for improvement identified to date, the study has focused on examining the feasibility of addressing downstream environmental resource concerns in the Lower Roanoke River 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 the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of North Carolina. The study area encompasses the John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr Reservoir) and approximately 1,917 square miles of watershed downstream of the John H. Kerr Dam (Kerr Dam), and is shown in Figure 3-14. The Kerr Dam is located on the Roanoke River, about 178.7 river-miles above the mouth (Figure 3-13). It is in Mecklenburg County, Virginia, 20.3 miles downstream from Clarksville, Virginia, 18 miles upstream from the Virginia-North Carolina border, and 80 miles southwest of Richmond, Virginia. Kerr Reservoir covers nearly 50,000 acres at its normal summer pool and extends about 39 miles up the Roanoke River. The study area includes the Kerr Dam and Reservoir project and the Roanoke River Basin from the Dam downstream to the Albemarle Sound. For this study, the area will be referred to as the Lower Roanoke River Basin. The study area is located in Charlotte, Halifax, Mecklenburg, and Brunswick Counties of Virginia, and in Granville, Vance, Warren, Halifax, Northampton, Bertie, Martin and Washington Counties of North Carolina, and it is located in the 4th and 5th Congressional District of Virginia and the 1st and 13th Congressional Districts of North Carolina. FIguRE 3-13: LOCAtION OF JOhN h. KERR RESERVOIR AND DAm AND DOWNStREAm DAmS This feasibility study has proceeded in a 3 phase process. In the first phase, 11 subject area work groups were formed, consisting of members from state and federal agencies and non- profit and business organizations. These groups identified problems and opportunities in the watershed, provided input regarding planning objectives and identified constraints for the study, collected existing data, and identified needs for additional data and study. In Phase 2, which is ongoing but nearing completion, technical studies, data collection, and modeling were undertaken to address the needs identified in Phase 1. Phase 3, also currently ongoing, includes the formulation and evaluation of alternative plans, leading to the selection of a tentatively recommended plan and approval of an integrated feasibility report and NEPA Document. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.9 The major problems of interest in the study area that have been identified are: £Degradation of the lower Roanoke River bottomland hardwood ecosystem due to long-term inundation during flood operations, potentially leading to a 60% decline in habitat quality over the next 50 years in the without project condition. £Impaired dissolved oxygen (DO) levels below Kerr Dam and in the lower Roanoke River, which has degraded in-stream habitat to a condition which is expected to persist in the future without project condition. £Bank erosion in the lower Roanoke River, which is estimated at between 27 – 60 mm a year depending on location, and which will continue in the without project condition. £Loss of connectivity in the Roanoke River due to the presence of the dams, which in particular have prevented and continue to prevent the American shad and American eel from populating upstream areas where they have historically occurred. Based on the identified problems, opportunities, constraints, and established study planning objectives, a series of management measures, consisting of both structural and operational changes and activities, have been proposed. These measures have undergone a preliminary screening process based on the study planning constraints as well as a simplified cost-effectiveness analysis. The measures that remain from the screening process and that will require more detailed evaluation are: £Measure 6B with potentially a duration of release trigger. This operational measure would allow for more frequent 35,000 cfs releases at the reservoir from January 1st to June 30th, thus reducing the duration of 20,000 cfs releases during the growing season, with adjustments to the reservoir guide curve meant to minimize impacts to hydropower revenue. £Quasi run of the river measure. Under this operational measure, releases from the reservoir would equal the inflows into the reservoir, up to 35,000 cfs, and would be implemented year round. £Short bursts of higher (>20,000 cfs) releases from Roanoke Rapids Dam. This operational measure would involve having pulses of shorter duration releases at higher flows during the growing season. £Plug man-made canals that breach the river levee. This structural change would involve identifying and plugging man-made canals that breach the natural river levee and currently allow high flows to enter the floodplain. £Use Roanoke River Basin Reservoir Operations Model (RRBROM) probabilistic model forecasting. Use of the forecasting component of this model could be used to supplement to assist in water management decisions that could affect the duration of flooding in downstream areas. FIguRE 3-14: LOCAtION OF OVERALL PROJECt AREA ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.10 £Place a fabric weir upstream of Kerr Dam. This is a structural measure for improving DO between Kerr and Gaston Dams. £Oxygen or air injection upstream of Kerr Dam. This is a structural measure for improving DO between Kerr and Gaston Dams. £Implement actions indicated by USGS water quality modeling. Ongoing USGS modeling efforts may suggest additional measures that could improve DO conditions in lower Roanoke River. Adaptive management, which would include monitoring of project performance, would be a fundamental aspect of any of the remaining measures if they were to be implemented. The benefits of measures identified to date are non-monetary, National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) benefits and will be quantified in terms of increases over the no-action alternative in average annual ecosystem habitat outputs. The models used for measuring benefits are Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models, and a Roanoke River riparian wetland assessment model, based on Hydogeomorphic (HGM) principles, that was developed and calibrated specifically for use on this study. Additionally, some measures may result in a loss of National Economic Development (NED) hydropower or flood risk management benefits. Measures will be compared against each other using a trade-off analysis, as gains in one benefit category (NER/ecosystem restoration) will, in some cases, need to be compared to losses in other benefit categories (NED/hydropower and flood damage reduction, for example). The trade-off analysis will be displayed in a system of accounts format. An appropriate NEPA (EA or EIS) document will be prepared, and will be integrated into the feasibility report. Additional information can be found on the US Army Corps of Engineers website or the Kerr 216 Water Wiki site. Schedule A schedule of completed and anticipated major study milestones over the next 2 years is below: tASK DAtE Feasibility Scoping Meeting June 22, 2011 Alternative Formulation Briefing Meeting April 2012 Submittal of Draft Feasibility Report to SAD/ HQ, USACE December 2012 Distribute Draft Feasibility Report for NEPA/Public review February 2013 Submit Final Feasibility Report to SAD July 2013 SAD Submits Final Report to HQ, USACE August 2013 RecommenDations & action plans at the suBBasin scale DWQ pRioRity summaRy Table 3-1 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. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.11 tABLE 3-1: NOtABLE WAtERS IN thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN (NOt RANKED) StREAm NAmE Au#CLASS.POtENtIAL StRESSOR(S) POtENtIAL SOuRCE(S) QuALItAtIVE StAtuS ACtIONS NEEDED Grassy Creek 23-2-(1) & (6)C Low DO, Turbidity --Not Rated -- Johnson Creek 23-2-7-(1)C Low DO, Low Flows --Supporting SS Little Island Creek 23-4-3 C --Inactive Hazardous Site Not Rated M Nutbush Creek 23-8-(1)a & b C Specific Conductivity, Nutrients Urban Runoff Impaired SS Kerr Reservoir (Nutbush Creek Arm) 23-8-(2)B ----Improving -- 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), . ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.12 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 3-1, 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 3-2). 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 3-2 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 3-2) 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 3-2: 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% GRassy cReek-john h keRR ReseRvoiR (0301010208) Includes: Grassy Creek [AU#: 23-2-(1) & (6)], Johnson Creek [AU#: 23-2-7-(1) & (2)], & Rattlesnake Creek [AU#: 23-2-5] Watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forested and some residential areas. There is one permitted swine animal operation located in the watershed and no point source discharger permits. There are also no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. Grassy Creek [AU#: 23-2-(1) & (6)] The first segment of Grassy Creek [AU#: 23-2-(1)] is approximately 18.3 miles from source to the second segment, which is the Grassy Creek arm of John H Kerr Reservoir [AU#: 23-2-(6)]. The majority of the drainage area is forestry uSE SuPPORt: not RateD(18.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.3 2010 IR Cat.3 Benthos (NB86)Not Rated (2004) Fish Com (NF33)Good (2009) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.13 and agriculture with spots of residential areas. There is one two-house swine farm operation in the Grassy Creek drainage area. Both segments of the creek were given a Not Rated use support category for the 2010 Integrated Report (IR) based on the 2004 benthic sample. Water Quality Status Grassy Creek was monitored once during this sampling cycle. The fish site (located at Cornwall Rd; SR 1300) was somewhat effected by low flow conditions when sampled in 2009. This site had the lowest DO concentration (4.3 mg/l) and the fewest fish collected of any other site in the basin. During a sampling event at this site in 1999, 650 fish were collected where as the 2009 sample only collected a total of 81. Specific conductivity and turbidity levels were elevated. The habitat score was low (64 out of 100) mostly due to no riffle habitat and poor bottom substrate. However, it is estimated that the 2009 rating will move the segments from the Not Rated (3) use support category into the Supporting (2) category on the 2012 Integrated Report (IR). Recommendations The fish community site is a regional reference site and is suggested to be re-evaluated in 2014 or during a more normal flow year to determine if reference site status is still warranted. Johnson Creek [AU#: 23-2-7-(1)] Johnson Creek is approximately 8.3 miles from source to John H Kerr Reservoir [AU#: 23-2-(6)]. The majority of the drainage area is forestry and agriculture with spots of residential areas. The creek is in the Supporting use support category for the 2010 Integrated Report based on the 2004 fish community sample. Water Quality Status The fish community site located on Johnson Creek was monitored in 2004 as well as 2009. Results from these two samples were very similar in ratings; however, the 2009 sample had one-third fewer fish than the 2004 sample and the lowest number of fish species collected in the basin. The site had the highest specific conductivity (127 µS/cm) of any other fish community site in the basin and recorded low DO levels (5.6 mg/l). Overall habitat was good but lacked adequate riffle habitat and had poor bottom substrate. Low flows during drought conditions and limited downstream re-colonization sources are suggested to be partial causes of the this lower rating. Johnson Creek will likely continue to be placed in the Supporting (2) category for the 2012 Integrated Report based on the 2009 fish community sample. Rattlesnake Creek [AU#: 23-2-5] Rattlesnake Creek is approximately 2.3 miles from source to Grassy Creek [AU#: 23-2-(1)]. The majority of the drainage area is agriculture and forestry with spots of residential areas. This creek was placed in the Supporting use support category of the 2010 IR due to the Not Impaired rating received in 2005. 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 (79 out of 100) and the benthic community showed no signs of being impacted. Mountain Creek [AU#: 23-2-3] Mountain Creek is approximately 8.1 miles from source to Grassy Creek [AU#: 23-2-(1)]. The land use in this drainage area is largely agriculture with some forestry and residential areas. This creek was placed under the Not Rated use support category of the 2010 IR due to the benthic rating in 2004. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (8.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Fish Com (NF36)Good-Fair (2009) uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (2.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (NB64) Not Impaired (2005) uSE SuPPORt: not RateD (8.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.3 2010 IR Cat.3 Benthos (NB87)Not Rated (2004) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.14 Water Quality Status This site was sampled as a one time event in 2004 as part of a special study. However, the stream had very low flow even after a fair amount of rain four days prior to the sample being taken. Deeply incised and eroding banks suggested flashiness and unstable hydrology. For these reasons, the site was given a Not Rated and will remain in this use support category on the 2012 Integrated Report. ButcheR cReek john h keRR ReseRvoiR (0301010209) Includes: Island Creek [AU#: 23-4] & Little Island Creek [AU#: 23- 4-3] This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, forested and some residential areas. There are no permitted facilities within this watershed. There are also no waters which appear on the 2010 Impaired Waters List. Island Creek [AU#: 23-4] Island Creek is approximately 6.4 miles from the confluence of Gill Creek [AU#: 23-4-1] and Michael Creek [AU#: 23-4-2] the North Carolina-Virginia state line. The land use in this drainage area is predominantly agriculture with some forestry and residential areas. This segment was placed under the Supporting use support category of the 2010 IR as a result of the Good-Fair benthic rating it received in 2004. Water Quality Status Island Creek was sampled twice during this sampling cycle. The benthic sample showed overall improved in the benthic community from the last time it was sampled in 2004 when it received a Good-Fair rating. The 2009 Good rating reflects an increase in the number of pollution intolerant species collected. The fish community sample; however, did not show the same improvement. The rating actually fell from an Excellent in 1999 to a Good-Fair in 2009. The total number of fish collected for the sample dropped by three- fourths. There was still diversity among those captured but there were no pollution intolerant species. The site was re-evaluated in 2010 following a wetter winter and spring and received a Good rating. This stream is expected to remain under the Supporting use support category on the 2012 IR. Little Island Creek [AU#: 23-4-3] Little Island Creek is approximately 11.8 miles from source to Island Creek [AU#: 23-4]. The majority of the drainage area is agriculture and forestry with residential areas mixed in. This segment was placed in the Not Rated use support category of the 2010 IR based on the 2004 fish community sample. Water Quality Status This site and the lower part of the adjacent Island Creek watershed encompass the defunct Tungsten Queen Mine, an inactive hazardous site. The mine ceased operations in 1971 but at one time was one of the largest tungsten mines in the country. The tailings (sands) in Little Island Creek appear to be similar to those at the tungsten mine and may have similar contaminant metals of concern including lead, arsenic, antimony, cadmium, and zinc. The surface water, ground water, sediments, and fish in Little Island Creek have not been monitored but have the potential to be contaminated with these metals. Currently, the area including the tailings (sands) is under a remedial action by the Inactive Hazardous Site Branch of Superfund. Recommendations If resources allow, benthic site NB38 should be sampled to ensure the water quality has not degraded since the previous sample was taken. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (6.4 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (NB45)Good (2009) Fish Com (NF22) Good-Fair (2009) Good (2010) uSE SuPPORt: not RateD (11.8 mI) 2008 IR Cat.3 2010 IR Cat.3 Benthos (NB38)Good-Fair (1988) Fish Com (NF37)Not Rated (2004) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.15 nutBush cReek-john h keRR ReseRvoiR (0301010210) Includes: Nutbush Creek Arm of John H Kerr Reservoir [AU#: 23-8-(2)], Nutbush Creek [AU#: 23-8-(1)a, b & c], & Anderson Swamp Creek [AU#: 23-8-6-(1)] The majority of this watershed contains the John H Kerr Reservoir and is a mix land use of agriculture, residential and some forested areas. There are two minor NPDES permitted facilities and one permitted swine animal operation within the watershed. Nutbush Creek is the only waterbody on the 2010 Impaired Waters List. Nutbush Creek Arm of John H Kerr Reservoir [AU#: 23-8-(2)] The Nutbush Creek arm of John Kerr Reservoir is approximately 9,690 acres from Crooked Run [AU#: 23-8-3] to North Carolina-Virginia state line. The majority of the land use draining to the lake consist of agriculture and forestry with some residential area. The John H. Kerr Reservoir (also called Kerr Lake) is a multipurpose impoundment constructed and operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers to provide flood control, recreation and hydroelectric power. The reservoir crosses the North Carolina-Virginia state line with the majority of the lake located in Virginia. Kerr Reservoir is the first of three chain lake impoundments on the Roanoke River in North Carolina. Water Quality Status The Nutbush Creek arm of Kerr Reservoir was monitored at four lake monitoring stations during this sampling cycle. Parameters monitored all resulted in normal levels. Historically, the lake has either had high (eutrophic) or medium (mesotrophic) biological productivity. It was again found to be mesotrophic during the majority of the sampling season with exception of June. June 2009 was the first time the lake has ever recorded low (oligotrophic) productivity levels. Section 216 Feasibility Study This 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 the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of North Carolina. It is a three phase process that includes forming diverse workgroups, conducting a wide range of studies and developing a plan of recommendations. The project is currently completing phases 2 and beginning phase 3. A more detailed description of the project is found in the Additional Study section. Nutbush Creek [AU#: 23-8-(1)a & b] Nutbush Creek is approximately 3.3 miles from source within the Town of Henderson to SR 1317. The land use in this drainage area is urban in the headwaters and transitions to farm land outside of the Town of Henderson’s city limits. This creek has been on the Impaired Waters list since 1998 based on benthic monitoring data. Water Quality Status The first segment of Nutbush Creek ([AU#: 23-8-(1)a], 1.7 stream miles) was monitored once during this sampling cycle in 2006. This segment is almost entirely within the Town of Henderson’s city limits. 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 Rated rating since the studies proposed criteria has yet to be approved. Habitat was poorly rated (58 out of 100) and the benthic community showed definite signs of being impacted. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (9,690 ACRES) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Lake (ROA037A) (ROA037E) (ROA037I) (ROA037IJ) No Exceedances uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (3.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (NB48) (NB49)Not Rated (2006)Fair (2009) Fish Com (NF38)Fair (2004) AMS (N5000000)No Exceedances ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) 3.16 The second segment of Nutbush Creek’s ([AU#: 23-8-(1)b], 1.6 stream miles) benthic community was also monitored once during this sampling cycle in 2009. This segment begins just outside of the Town of Henderson’s city limits and receives discharge from the towns Water Reclamation Facility. This benthic site has been monitored six times since 1988 and has received a Fair rating each time, with exception to the 1988 Poor rating. The 2009 sample continued to show a pollution tolerant macroinvertebrate community. This includes a species rarely collected here in the past but common within this sample that is generally collected only in degraded streams, as well an increase in the abundance of organic pollution tolerant species. Habitat at the site ranked fairly high, scoring 86 out of 100; indicating the community is more likely being impacted by instream water quality pollution rather than poor habitat. This is reflected in the specific conductivity measured at the site which was the highest of any biological site within the basin (416 µS/cm). However, that level has been dropping since 1999 when it was measured at 633 µS/cm. A slight increase in benthic quality and an increase in dissolved oxygen may be a result of this decrease in specific conductivity. An Ambient Monitoring Systems station is sampled monthly at this same location, about a mile downstream of the WRF. No parameters exceed the state standards at this station. Between 2005 and the end of 2009, fecal coliform bacteria levels, along with some nutrients (ammonia and TKN) levels had decrease. The fiftieth percentile for specific conductivity results reflects what was measured at the benthic site (458 µS/cm) with the highest result of 693 µS/cm. Other nutrient parameters (total phosphorus and NO2 + NO3) averages increased during this cycle. More detailed information about this AMS site as well as the biological site can be found on the site data sheets in Appendix 3-B. Nutbush Creek is expected to remain on the Impaired Waters list in 2012. 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. ESS. BAU. April 2005. Basinwide Assessment Report: Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC. ____. DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2010. Lake & Reservoir Assessments Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC. ____. 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) 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-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 3-a uSE SuPPORt RAtINgS FOR ALL mONItORED WAtERS IN thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-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  Grassy Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010208Roanoke River Basin Watershed John H Kerr Reservoir-Roanoke River 03010102Roanoke River Basin Subbasin Grassy Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010208Roanoke River Basin Watershed Grassy Creek (Grass Creek) 23-2-(1)From source to John H. Kerr Reservoir at Granville County SR 1431 18.3 FW Miles C  3a Johnson Creek23-2-7-(1)From source to Little Johnson Creek 5.3 FW Miles C  1 Mountain Creek23-2-3 From source to Grassy Creek 8.1 FW Miles C  3a Rattlesnake Creek23-2-5 From source to Grassy Creek 2.3 FW Miles C  1 Butcher Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010209Roanoke River Basin Watershed Island Creek (Island Creek Reservoir) 23-4 From source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line, including that portion of Island Creek Reservoir in North Carolina below normal operating elevation 6.4 FW Miles C  1 Little Island Creek (Vance County) 23-4-3 From source to Island Creek Reservoir, Island Creek 11.8 FW Miles C  3a Nutbush Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010210Roanoke River Basin Watershed Nutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool elevation) 23-8-(1)a From source to NC 39 1.7 FW Miles C   5 10/20/2010 Page 220 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-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  Nutbush Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010210Roanoke River Basin Watershed Nutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool elevation) 23-8-(1)b From NC 39 to SR 1317 1.6 FW Miles C   5   5  1  1 Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir (below normal pool elevation 300 feet MSL or as this elevation may be adjusted by the Corps of Engineers) 23-8-(2)From Crooked Run to North Carolina- Virginia State Line 9,690.1 FW Acres B  1 10/20/2010 Page 221 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-A.4 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.1 appenDix 3-B BIOLOgICAL SAmPLINg SItE DAtA ShEEtS (BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE & FISh COmmuNIty) FOR thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.3 Biological Samples Taken During this Assessment Cycle StAtION ID WAtERBODy COuNty SItE LOCAtION SAmPLE RESuLtS Benthic Sample Sites NB45 ISLAND CR GRANVILLE SR 1445 09 - Good NB48 NUTBUSH CR VANCE NC 39 06 - Not Rated NB49 NUTBUSH CR VANCE SR 1317 09 - Fair NB64 RATTLESNAKE CR GRANVILLE SR 1437 05 - Not Impaired Fish Community Sample Sites NF22 Island Cr Granville SR 1445 09 Good-Fair NF33 Grassy Cr Granville SR 1300 09 - Good NF36 Johnson Cr Granville SR 1440 09 - Good-Fair ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.4 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 GRANVILLE Good Bioclassification Level IV EcoregionLongitude -78.66444444 05/26/09 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody GRASSY CR AU Number 23-2-(1) Yes Reference Site Subbasin 6 Latitude 36.47222222 Elevation (ft) 8 digit HUC 03010102 Carolina Slate Belt 05/26/09 NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 8 06/09/99 NF33 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 00 0.5 Agriculture Other (describe) None Watershed -- drains central Granville County, no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to Kerr Reservoir. Habitats -- primarily a run and slow moving pool upstream from the bridge, riffles absent, not much habitat in mid-channel, no coarse woody debris snags, some Justicia at the bridge, good riparian zones. Water Quality -- due to the low flow and pool conditions, the dissolved oxygen concentration was low, only at 48% of saturation. 2009 -- fewest fish collected at any site in 2009 (n=81), more than 650 fish were collected in 1999; metric scores and ratings for 2009 may be biased by this small sample size; Carolina Darter [Special Concern] collected for the first time. 1999 & 2009 -- only 19 species known from the site, including 3 species of darters, but no intolerant species; because it is a regional reference site, this site should be re-evaluated in 2014 or during a more normal flow year to determine if reference site status is still warranted. Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Golden Shiner (n=11), Green Sunfish (n=6), Pumpkinseed (n=7), Warmouth (n=3), Carolina Darter (n=1). Losses -- Crescent Shiner (n=31), Margined Madtom (n=3), Fantail Darter (n=54). 46 46 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 100 20.4 4 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 340 Drainage Area (mi2) 20.9 5 5 10 Green Sunfish, Bluegill Bioclassification Good Good NCIBI 0 Sample ID 10 4.3 104 6.4 Turbid 5 12 Cobble, gravelSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 16 1599-43 2009-47 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1300 Location Highfin Shiner Most Abundant Species 2009 64 6 7 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.5 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 1440 Location Fantail Darter (46%) Most Abundant Species 2009 78 5 7 Cobble, gravelSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 13 132004-26 2009-46 10 5.6 127 6.3 Clear, easily silted 5 18 5 5 10 Green Sunfish, Bluegill Bioclassification Good-Fair Good-Fair NCIBI 5 Sample ID Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 95 19.7 8 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 325 Drainage Area (mi2) 7.6 Watershed -- drains the extreme north-central part of Granville County and a small portion of southeast Mecklenburg County, VA; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to Grassy Creek and Kerr Reservoir, site is ~ 3.8 miles above the creek's confluence with the reservoir. Habitats -- a regional reference site, a typical Carolina Slate Belt-type stream with very shallow pools and many riffles out of water; very low flow. Water Quality -- specific conductance has always been slightly elevated (129 µS/cm in 2004), the highest of any site in the basin in 2009. 2009 -- one-third fewer fish in 2009 than in 2004 (232 vs. 339), noticeably absent were Margined Madtom, and the number of Fantail Darters decreased from 190 to 107; fewest species of any site in 2009 (n=13); Carolina Darter [Special Concern] was collected for the first time; greater darter diversity and a higher percentage of omnivores+herbivores were offset by lower percentages of piscivores and species with multiple ages classes; lingering effects from drought may still be evident. 2004 & 2009 -- 18 species known from this site, including 3 species of darters; dominant species is the Fantail Darter; lower than expected metric scores for this small drainage area reference site are attributable to the very low flows during droughts and limited downstream re-colonization sources. Rural Residential 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Golden Shiner, Chain Pickerel, Warmouth, Carolina Darter, Johnny Darter. Losses -- Satinfin Shiner, Margined Madtom, Snail Bullhead, Redbreast Sunfish. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-3 fish/species, except for Golden Shiner and Margined Madtom (n=8 and 53, respectively). 44 4404/28/04 NF36 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 05 0.3 Agriculture Other (describe) None 36.53222222 Elevation (ft) 8 digit HUC 03010102 Carolina Slate Belt 05/26/09 NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 7 Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody JOHNSON CR AU Number 23-2-7-(1) Yes Reference Site Subbasin 6 LatitudeCounty GRANVILLE Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV EcoregionLongitude -78.65861111 05/26/09 Date Station ID ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.6 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)22.7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)103 pH (s.u.)6.7 Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)7 Bank Erosion (7)2 Bank Vegetation (7)5 Light Penetration (10)9 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)72 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification ISLAND CR SR 1445 NB45 08/13/09 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion GRANVILLE 6 03010102 36.495240 -78.504200 23-4 Carolina Slate Belt Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 32.5 330 9 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)80 0 0 20 (Fallow Fields) Site Photograph Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Substrate Mostly sand and silt with one long cobble riffle. Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) None ------ Bioclassification 08/13/09 10811 ---21 ---5.05 Good Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Good-Fair 08/24/94 6693 ---17 ---5.12 Good-Fair 06/29/04 9421 ---17 ---5.48 Taxonomic Analysis Four additional EPT taxa were collected since sampling began in 1994. The pollution sensitive edge-dwelling caddisfly Mystacides sepulchralis was common at this site in 2009. Additionally, the intolerant mayfly taxa Acerpenna macdunnoughi and Leucrocuta spp. were collected at this location. Other taxa not previously collected from this site include the Slate Belt Ecoregion endemic Stenonema femoratum ; the stonefly Leuctra spp.; and the caddisflies Pycnopsyche spp. and Hydroptila spp . Data Analysis An improvement in water quality from Good-Fair in both 1994 and 2004 to Good in 2009 was observed at this sampling location. The EPTBI was the lowest and EPT taxa richness was the highest on BAU record at this sampling location suggesting a more intolerant benthic community and overall improved water quality. Upstream portions of this catchment are mostly rural with some agricultural land use. The site was not sampled in 1999 due to low flow conditions. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.7 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 2009-49 21 44 Good-Fair 05/27/09 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle (2009 vs. 2004) Waterbody ISLAND CR AU Number 23-4 County GRANVILLE Subbasin 6 Latitude 36.495 Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Carolina Slate Belt Longitude -78.50444444 NF22 94-25 24 Site Photograph Forested/Wetland 015 0.5 Agriculture Other (describe) No Watershed -- drains northeastern Granville and and northwestern Vance counties; no municipalities in the watershed; tributary to Kerr Reservoir. Habitats -- root mats, snags, pools, short, shallow riffles. Water Quality -- specific conductance has ranged from 90 to 106 µS/cm. 2009 -- the number of fish collected in 2009 was one-fourth the number in 1999 (208 vs. 895); the Crescent Shiner, the dominant species in 1999, was essentially absent in 2009 (435 vs . 1); greatest diversity of sunfish than at any other site (n=6); very skewed trophic structure along with decreases in the total number of fish and diversity of suckers were responsible for the decline in the NCIBI score and rating; lingering drought impacts. 1994 - 2009 -- diverse community with 30 species known from the site, including 6 species of sunfish, 3 species of suckers, and 3 species of darters including the Carolina Darter [Special Concern]; but no intolerant species; in 1994 and 1999 the dominant species was the Crescent Shiner. Note: the site was re-sampled in 2010 following a wetter winter and spring flow period and the community was rated Good. Rural Residential 10 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Comely Shiner, Pirate Perch, Eastern Mosquitofish, Pumpkinseed, Redear Sunfish. Losses -- Rosyside Dace, Rosefin Shiner, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Golden Redhorse, Creek Chubsucker, Margined Madtom, Brown Bullhead, Flat Bullhead, Chain Pickerel. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-6 fish/species, except for Pirate Perch, Rosefin Shiner, and Golden Redhorse (n=13, 59, and 91, respectively). 06/16/10 06/09/99 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 10 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 75 Elevation (ft) Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Redear Sunfish Bioclassification Good Excellent NCIBI 46 54 50 Good 18 3 5 10 5.5 102 6.4 6 7 8 06/02/94 99-44 3 Sample ID None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 20.6 10 Slightly turbid, easily silted 5 Cobble, gravel, sand, clay, boulderSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 19 24 2010-49 Johnny Darter (20%) Most Abundant Species 2009 75 290 Drainage Area (mi2) 33.1 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C SR 1445 Location 8 digit HUC 03010102 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-B.8 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)25.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.0 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)416 pH (s.u.)7.4 Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)20 Bottom Substrate (15)13 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)12 Bank Erosion (7)3 Bank Vegetation (7)5 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)86 Taxonomic Analysis A tolerant macroinvertebrate community was observed at this Basinwide sampling location in 2009. No stoneflies were collected at the site. Maccaffertium modestum and Baetis flavistriga were the abundant tolerant mayflies collected at the site. These mayfly species commonly occur in NC peidmont streams. The tolerant filter-feeding caddisfly taxa Cheumatopsyche spp . and Hydropsyche betteni were also abundant. A rarely collected mayfly Paracloeodes fleeki was common at this location. This taxa is generally collected in degraded streams. The organic pollution tolerant Dicrotendipes neomodestus was abundant along with other tolerant chironomids such as Phaenopsectra punctipes gr.,Polypedilum illinoense gr., and P. scalaenum gr. Only two intolerant taxa were collected including the caddisfly Chimarra spp. and the beetle Psephenus herricki . Data Analysis This stream received a bioclassification of Fair in 2009 despite the highest EPT taxa richness and lowest EPTBI and NCBI on record at this station. A generally tolerant benthic community was found at this location. A more diverse macroinvertebrate community would be expected due to adequate habitat found at the site. Conductivity was the highest compared to all other Roanoke Basinwide sites at 416 µS/cm. This is most likely due to the WWTP located approximately 1 mile upstream. In 2009, the elevated conductivity was lower than in 1999 (633 µS/cm) and in 2004 (501µS/cm) and dissolved oxygen was higher in 2009 potentially parallelling decreases in biotic indices. This site has been issued permit violations in the past and continues to suffer degraded conditions most likely from point source inputs. Fair 08/24/94 6694 44 8 6.84 6.89 Fair 10/28/94 6738 50 8 6.74 6.31 Fair 08/25/99 7989 41 8 6.73 6.75 Fair 06/29/04 9420 64 9 7.00 6.70 Bioclassification 08/12/09 10810 57 12 6.54 6.03 Fair Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Site Photograph Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Substrate Good mix of bedrock, boulder, rubble, and sand. Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Henderson Water Reclamation Facility NC0020559 6.0 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)80 20 0 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 7.0 330 8 0.2 County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion VANCE 6 03010102 36.368770 -78.408520 23-8-(1)b Northern Outer Piedmont BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification NUTBUSH CR SR 1317 NB49 08/12/09 Fair ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-C.1 appenDix 3-c AmBIENt mONItORINg SyStEmS StAtION DAtA ShEEtS FOR thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-C.2 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N5000000 Location:NUTBUSH CRK AT SR 1317 NR HENDERSON Stream class:C NC stream index:23-8-(1) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010102 Latitude:36.36914 Longitude:-78.40834 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 6.6 7 7.5 9.7 12.5 13.5 14.947000 <5 6.6 7 7.5 9.7 12.5 13.5 14.947000 pH (SU)<6 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4 7.7 7.8 8.647000 >9 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4 7.7 7.8 8.647000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.390 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 221 300 360 458 572 630 693480 Water Temperature (°C)>32 5.9 7.5 10 14.9 22.5 24.3 26.148000 Other Chlorophyll a (ug/L)>40 4 4 4 7 10 10 102000 TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.2 12 13 151910 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 4.8 8.7 3148010 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.084736 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 4.1 5.99 7.5 11 15 18 23460 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.35 0.55 0.6 0.69 0.89457 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.06 0.17 0.21 0.36 0.54 0.75 1450 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 84 84 98 140 185 320 32090 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 3 4 5 59020 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 130 130 190 270 330 640 6409000 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 15 15 16 18 23 34 349000 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 48 115.9 4 8.3 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-D.1 appenDix 3-D 10-DIgIt WAtERShED mAPS FOR thE mIDDLE ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-D.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-D.3 "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à) [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ VANCE GRANVILLE Rattles n a ke C r Kerr Reservoir IslandCre e k LittleIslandCreek NutbushCreek LittleJohnson Cre e k N C -9 6 US-15 Henderson Stovall Middleburg GRANVILLE PERSON N4590000 N5000000 N4590000N4590000 N4590000 NF38 NF37 NF36 NF22 NF33 NF31 NB64 NB49 NB48 NB87 NB45 NB86 NB112 AaronsCreek F lat C r e e k BlueCre e k MountainCreek G r a s s y C r e e k C rooked R u n Johnso n Creek MichaelCreek Crook e d Fork BearskinCreek W olfpit R u n G illia m s B r a n c h LickBranch MillCreek CedarBranch LittleNutbushCreekROA037IROA037E ROA037AROA037IJ Grassy Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir (0301010208) 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 March 2011 ¯ 0 1 2 3 4 0.5 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-D.4 Rattlesnak e Cr Kerr Reservoir IslandCr e e k L it tl e I s l a n d C r e e k NutbushCreek NewmansCreek US-15 GRANVILLE VANCE Kerr Reservoir Henderson Stovall MiddleburgVANCEWARREN N5000000 NF38 NF37 NF36 NF22 NF33 NB64 NB49 NB48 NB88 NB87 NB45 NB86 F lat Cre e k BlueCre e k MountainCreek Smith Creek GrassyCreek C ro o ked R un JohnsonCreekLittleJohnsonCreek MichaelCreek GilliamsBranch LickBranch MillCreek CedarBranch LittleNutbushCreek ROA037A Butcher Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir (0301010209) 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-D.5 VANCE Rattl e s nak e C r Kerr Reservoir Island C re e k LittleIslandCreek NutbushCreek Newmans Creek John H. Kerr Reservoir U S - 1 5 8 I-85 US-158 US-1 NC-39 Henderson Stovall Middleburg VA N C E GRANVILLE WA R R E N N5000000 N6400000 NF38 NF37 NF36 NF22 NF33 NB89NB90 NB51 NB51 NB64 NB49 NB48 NB88 NB87 NB37NB37 NB45 NB86 NB113 Flat C r e e k BlueCre ek MountainCreek SmithCreek C rooked R u n MichaelCreek G illia m s B r a n c h LickBranch MillCreek CedarBranch ROA037I ROA037E ROA037A ROA037IJ Nutbush Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir (0301010210) 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 : mID D L E R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) APP E N D I C E S 3-D.6 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : R OA N O K E R AP I D S S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 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 S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 4-D.6 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.1 CHAPTER 5 loWeR Roanoke RiveR suBBasin HUC 03010107 Includes: Roanoke River, Quankey Creek, Cashie River & Welch Creek suBBasin at a Glance counties: Bertie, Halifax, Martin, Northampton & Washington municipalities: Askewville, Aulander, Garysburg, Gaston, Halifax, Hamilton, Hassell, Hodgood, Jackson, Kelford, Lewiston Woodville, Oak City, Plymouth, Rich Square, Roanoke Rapids, Roxobel, Scotland Neck, Weldon, Williamston & Windsor, ecoReGions: Northern Outer Piedmont, Rolling Coastal Plain, Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces, Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods, Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces & Chesapeake- Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes peRmitteD Facilities: NPDES Dischargers: ..............................24 Major .............................................................7 Minor ...........................................................11 General .........................................................6 NPDES Non-Dischargers: ........................11 Stormwater: ............................................58 General .......................................................50 Individual .......................................................8 Animal Operations: .................................46 Aquaculture .................................................45 population: 2010 Census .....................................78,568 2006 lanD coveR: Open Water .................................................1.7% Developed ...................................................6.1% Forest .......................................................25.9%Agriculture .................................................26.0%Wetlands ...................................................29.6% Barren Land ................................................0.1% Shrub/Grassland .......................................10.5% suBBasin WateR Quality oveRvieW The Lower Roanoke River Subbasin is the eastern most subbasin and empties into Albemarle Sound. The subbasin contains three Impaired stream: one segment of Quankey Creek is Impaired for biological integrity; Welch Creek is Impaired for dioxin and low pH. One of the two most downstream segments of the Roanoke River is Impaired for low DO and the other is Impaired for dioxin. During this basinwide 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 showed only a small percent declined and some improved. There were no major ambient monitoring violations. The John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir Section 216 Feasibility Study project is partially located in this subbasin. The project area also includes HUCs 03010102 and 03010106. 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.2 FIguRE 5-1: LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN (03010107) HALIFAXWARREN NorlinaMacon SmithCrSixpoundCrJordanCr Hub q u a rte r C r ROA038A NB113 NB37 NB51 NB52N6400000NB90 NORTHAMPTON HERTFORD BERTIE HERTFORD PITT MARTIN WAS HING TO N C H OW A N Roanoke Rapids Aulander Roxobel Windsor Oak City JacksonRich Square Williamston Jamiesville Scottland Neck Plymouth ROANOKERIV ER Conoconna r a S w ROANOKERIVER R O A N O KE RIVER QuankeyCr KehukeeSw C a shieRi ConohoCr RoquistCr Hogg a r d Mill C r HardisonMillCr CashieRiver WelchCr N9250000 N9600000 N9685000 NB69 N8550000 NB67 NB80 NB78 NB76 NB93 N8950000 NB75 N8300000 NB55ROA0491A ROA0492A N8200000 NB53 N7300000NF46 NB91 NB59NB60 NB59 BEAUFORT Lower Roanoke River Subbasin (03010107) 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 BasinwidePlanning Unit August 2011 ¯ 0 4 8 12 16 2 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.3 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 5-2). 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 5-2: yEARLy FLOW RAtES (CFS) OF thE uSgS gAgE StAtIONS IN thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2009 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 208111310 Indicates periods of drought in the Roanoke River Basin From Left to Right: • 2080500: Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids • 208111310: Cashie River (Windsor) BioloGical Data Biological samples were collected mostly 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, 10 biological sampling sites were monitored within the Roanoke Rapids Subbasin. The ratings for each of the sampling stations can be seen in Appendix 5-B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 5-3 and color coded based on the current rating. Each of the sites are discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 5-5 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 9 £Total Samples Taken 9 £Number of New Stations 0 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.4 FIguRE 5-3: BENthIC StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN Benthos 2004-2009 Excellent/Natural Good Good-Fair/Moderate Fair Not Impaired Not Rated FIguRE 5-4: CuRRENt BENthIC SItE RAtINgS Excellent/Natural Good Good-Fair/Moderate Fair Poor/Severe Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 5-5: 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 5-6 and color coded based on the current rating. The site is discussed in more detail in the watershed section below. Figure 5-7 shows the percentages of each rating given during this sampling cycle within this subbasin. Figure 5-8 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. Fish com. samplinG summaRy £Total Stations Monitored 1 £Total Samples Taken 1 £Number of New Stations 0 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.5 FIguRE 5-6: FISh COmmuNIty StAtIONS COLOR CODED By CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN Fish 2004-2009 Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair FIguRE 5-7: CuRRENt FISh COmm SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 5-8: 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 5-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 5-A and the full 2010 IR can be found on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website. Seven Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) station is located in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin (see Figure 5-1 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 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.6 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. pH Three out of the seven stations measured samples below the standard range in 1% to 4% of samples taken during this cycle. This is represented in Figure 5-9 by the yellow dots. No samples measured above the standard range which are represented by the green dots (0%). Figure 5-10 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Roanoke River Subbasin. The pH pattern seen in this subbasin during this time period appears to be closely linked with flow levels. As flow levels go up pH levels appear to fall. This could be caused by the saltwater wedge traveling more upstream during these times. FIguRE 5-9: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE Ph StANDARDS (2005-2009) 0% <7% 7%-10% >10% FIguRE 5-10: SummARIzED Ph VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010107 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 pH Median Mean * NC pH Standard: Between 6.0 and 9.0 su for Class C; 4.3 and 9.0 for SW Turbidity One of the seven stations in the Roanoke Rapids subbasin exceeded the state’s turbidity standard in 6 percent of samples, as seen in Figure 5-11 indicated by the yellow dot. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 10-digit watershed section. Figure 5-12 shows the mean and median turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Roanoke River subbasin. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs but have slightly increased over the years. 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.7 FIguRE 5-11: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE tuRBIDIty StANDARD (2005-2009) 0% <7% 7%-10% >10% FIguRE 5-12: SummARIzED tuRBIDIty VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010107 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Median Mean * NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUT Dissolved Oxygen As seen in Figure 5-13, one of the seven sites exceeded the DO standard in 2% of samples during this moni- toring cycle. Figure 5-14 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Roanoke River subbasin. These averages are well within the normal DO range; however, a slight decline is seen in the last four years. FIguRE 5-13: PERCENtAgE OF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE DO StANDARD (2005-2009) 0% <7% 7%-10% >10% FIguRE 5-14: SummARIzED DO VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010107 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DO ( m g / l ) Median Mean * NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.8 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 5-15, all seven sites had less than 6% of samples over 400 colonies/100 ml. Possible sources of elevated levels of FCB are discussed in the subwatershed sections. Figure 5-16 shows the yearly geometric mean (calculated average) for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Lower Roanoke River 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 5-2, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels. FIguRE 5-16: SummARIzED FECAL COLIFORm BACtERIA VALuES FOR ALL DAtA COLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIONS IN huC 03010107 WIth OVERLAyINg FLOW 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s h c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 208111310 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s h c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 208111310USGS Flow Gage Stations: 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Di s h c h a r g e , c u b i c f e e t / s e c o n d 2080500 208111310 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. FIguRE 5-15: 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.9 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 5-17). 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 5-A. Each monitored stream segment is given an overall category number which reflects the highest individual parameter category. Figure 5-18 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 5-17) 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 5-17: 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 5-18: 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.10 RecommenDations & action plans at the suBBasin scale DWQ pRioRity summaRy Table 5-1 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 5-1: NOtABLE WAtERS IN thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN (NOt RANKED) StREAm NAmE Au#CLASS.POtENtIAL StRESSOR(S) POtENtIAL SOuRCE(S) QuALItAtIVE StAtuS ACtIONS NEEDED Roanoke R 23-(26)b3 C Low DO --Impaired SS Quankey Cr 23-30b C ----Impaired M Hardison Mill Cr 23-50-3 C ----Supporting SS Cashie R 24-2-(1)a, b, (9), (11) & (15)C;SW Low pH --Supporting -- 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), . ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.11 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 5-1, 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 5-2). 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 5-2 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 5-2) 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 5-2: 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% Roanoke RiveR Within 03010107 AU#’s: 23-(26)a, 23-(26)b1 & 23-(26)b2 These three segments are approximately 103.8 miles combined. They begin 50 feet downstream of the Roanoke Rapids dam and run to the Highway 17 bridge in Williamston. The drainage area is mostly agricultural with some forest and urban areas. There are four major and eight minor NPDES permitted facilities as well as several permitted aquaculture and animal operations. The three segments were on the Impaired Waters List from 2000 to 2008 for fish consumption due to mercury as well as dioxin fish consumption advisor for the lower segment 23-(53). Aquatic life and recreation assessments for the segments were Supporting during that time. Water Quality Status During this sampling cycle, three AMS stations were monitored along these three segments. There were no exceedances during this time and results showed similar water quality as found during the previous cycle. The segments are therefore Supporting of aquatic life and recreational parameters. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (103.8 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.2 AMS (N8200000) (N8300000) (N8550000)No Exceedances ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.12 The Town of Weldon’s WWTP discharges effluent about 30 miles upstream of AMS station N8200000. Between 2004 and 2010, this facility has had several permit violations. Majority of these violations were for exceeding the BOD weekly average limits and resulted in enforcement cases. The facility had eight FCB violations several times greater than permit limits which also resulted in enforcement cases. By July 2009, the facility had solved the issue and no longer received violations for elevated BOD or FCB. These segments were delisted in 2010 from the Impaired Waters List due to the development of a Statewide Mercury TMDL. The fish consumption advisory for this area is no longer in place, and the river will no longer be listed due to this advisory. AU#: 23-(26)b3 This segment is approximately 18 miles long from the Town of Halifax to the southeast corner of the Town of Jamesville. The drainage area has a mixture of forest and agricultural lands. As seen in Figure 5-19, majority of the forested land is located in the flood plain of the river. This segment of the river has been on the Impaired Waters List for low DO since 2008. Water Quality Status During the previous planning cycle, US Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study entitled “Relations Among Floodplain Water Levels, Instream Dissolved-Oxygen (DO) Conditions, and Streamflow in the Lower Roanoke River, NC, 1997-2001”. Data from this study indicated that from September 1999 through August 2004, 16.3% of the samples taken were below the continuous monitoring DO standard for the daily average of 5 mg/l. Therefore, this segment of the Roanoke River was placed on the Impaired Waters List in 2008 for low DO. Data from the same station located on the eastern edge of the Town of Jamesville, showed an increase in DO levels between 2006 and 2010. During that time only 3.78% of samples were below the daily average of 5 mg/l. This slight increase can be seen in Figure 5-20 which displays the daily DO averages between 1998 to 2011. It was reported in the last plan that the McMurray Fabrics Inc. facility had significant noncompliance for their Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing. In 2005, the facility passed two tests and failed two test. By the end of 2005, the facility ceased discharging to the Roanoke River. The Town of Williamston WWTP (NC0020044) was also reported on in the previous plan. The facility had chronic problems exceeding their discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) and total suspended solids (TSS). A Special Order of Consent (SOC) was issued in February 2006 allowing the facility to monitor FCB levels without being penalized for exceeding the FCB limit assigned in their permit until December 2007. This provided time for the facility to make the necessary upgrades to reduce risk of further violations. All upgrades were completed within the period of the SOC and previous FCB permit limits once again applied. The facility has had no FCB or TSS violations since that time. uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (17.8 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 FIguRE 5-19: 2010 SAtELLItE ImAgE OF huC 0301010706 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.13 FIguRE 5-20: DAILy AVERAgE DO DAtA tAKEN At uSgS gAgE StAtION 02081094 (1998-2011) AU#: 23-(53) This is the last segment (18.3 miles) of the Roanoke River before it empties into Swan Bay of the Albemarle Sound. This drainage area is mostly agriculture with some forested area in the floodplain and urban areas in and around the Town of Plymouth. There is one major and two minor NPDES permitted facilities along this segment of the Roanoke River. This segment has been on the Impaired Waters List since 2000 for fish consumption-dioxins. Water Quality Status During this sampling cycle, this segment was monitored at two AMS stations. There were no exceedances during this time and results showed similar water quality as found during the previous cycle. The segments are there for Supporting of aquatic life and recreational parameters. This segment was also listed in 2002 for fish consumption-mercury. The mercury portion of the Impairment was removed in 2010 due to development of a Statewide Mercury TMDL. However, it remains on the Impaired Waters List for the fish consumption-dioxin Impairment. Dioxins are a by-product in some manufacturing processes, herbicide productions and used for bleaching paper. There is no current indication of the specific source of dioxins in this segment. The fish consumption advisory for catfish and carp along this segment was issued by the NC Department of Health and Human Resources. Quankey cReek-Roanoke RiveR (0301010701) Includes: Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(26)a], Quankey Creek [AU#: 23-30b] & Chockoyotte Creek [AU#: 23-29] This watershed contains a mix land use of urban, agriculture, residential and some forested areas. There are three major and two minor NPDES permitted facilities along with one permitted swine animal operations located within the watershed. There is only one stream segment (Quankey Creek) within this watershed on the 2010 Impaired Waters List. uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (18.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.4t AMS (N9250000) (N9600000)No Exceedances ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.14 Quankey Creek [AU#: 23-30b] This segment of Quankey Creek is approximately 3.4 miles from the confluence of Little Quankey Creek [AU#: 23-30-1] to the Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(26)a]. The majority of the drainage area is agricultural lands with some residential and commercial land cover. The Town of Halifax runs along a portion of this segment. The Halifax WWTP holds a Minor NPDES permit to discharge to the creek. The creek was placed on the Impaired Water List in 1998 for Biological Integrity/Benthos. Water Quality Status A fish community sample was taken at this site for the first time and resulted in a Good rating. The habitat scored high due to high quality instream and riparian buffer habitat. pH levels were below the state standard of 6.0; however, the upstream watershed is swamp-like where low pH values are to be expected. The types of fish collected show some signs of nutrient enrichment. Recommendations It is recommended that the benthic station NB60 be sampled during the next monitoring cycle to determine if benthic conditions have improved. conoconnaRa sWamp-Roanoke RiveR (0301010702) Includes: Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(26)a], Conoconnara Swamp [AU#: 23-33], & Wheeler Creek [AU#: 23-32] This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential, wetlands, forested and some urban areas. There is one minor NPDES permitted facility along with five swine and one cattle permitted animal operations located within the watershed. There are no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. kehukee sWamp-Roanoke RiveR (0301010703) Includes: Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(26)a & b1], Kehukee Swamp [AU#: 23-42], & Sandy Run [AU#: 23-37] This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential, wetlands and forested areas. There are four minor NPDES permitted facilities along with seven swine, one poultry and one cattle permitted animal operations located within the watershed. There are no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. sWeetWateR cReek (0301010704) Includes: Sweetwater Creek [AU#: 23-50], Hardison Mill Creek [AU#: 23-50-3], & Peter Swamp [AU#: 23-50-4] This watershed contains agriculture with some residential and forested areas. There is one minor NPDES permitted facility along with eight aquaculture permits located within the watershed. There are no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (3.4 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (NB60)Fair (1999) Fish Com (NF46)Good (2009) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.15 Hardison Mill Creek [AU#: 23-50-3] Hardison Mill Creek is approximately 20 miles from source to Sweetwater Creek [AU#: 23-50]. Land cover for the majority of this drainage area is agriculture. This creek is currently supporting all designated uses. Water Quality Status This creek was monitored at Yarrell Creek Road (SR 1528) for the third time since 1999 and has been rated Moderate for all three samples. However, during the 2009 sample there was a noticeable decline in benthic health and population. There was a total absence of the flow-dependent blackflies that have been abundant or common in all previous collections. There was also a drastic decrease in the diversity of chironomid larvae. These declines may be due to the drastically higher specific conductivity in 2009 (179 µS/cm) versus levels measured in 2004 (58 µS/cm) as well as the decline in pH (4.3). The absence of the blackflies also suggests the stream is experiencing low flow conditions. conoho cReek-Roanoke RiveR (0301010705) Includes: Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(26)b2], Conoho Creek [AU#: 23-49a & b], & Coniott Creek [AU#: 23-48] This watershed contains agriculture and wetlands with some residential, urban and forested areas. There two major and one minor NPDES permitted facilities along with seven swine permitted animal operations and nine aquaculture permits located within the watershed. There are no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. GaRDeneR cReek-Roanoke RiveR (0301010706) Includes: Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(26)b3 & (53)], Devils Gut [AU#: 23-52], & Gardners Creek [AU#: 23-52-1] This watershed contains agriculture and wetlands with some residential, urban and forested areas. There two minor NPDES permitted facilities along with 21 aquaculture permits located within the watershed. The two segments of the Roanoke River in this watershed are on the 2010 Impaired Waters List and are discussed at the beginning of this section. heaDWateRs cashie RiveR (0301010707) Includes: Cashie River [AU#: 24-2-(1)a & (1)b], Connaritsa Swamp [AU#: 24-2-3], & Wahtom Swamp [AU#: 24-2-2] This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential, wetlands and forested areas. There are two minor NPDES permitted facilities along with three permitted swine animal operations located within the watershed. There are no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (19.9 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (NB69)Moderate (2009) ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.16 Cashie River [AU#: 24-2-(1)a & (1)b] These two segments of Cashie River are approximately 45 miles from source to just upstream of the Bertie County line. However about 15 miles of the second segment is located in the Outlet Cashie River Watershed (0301010708). The majority of the drainage area is agriculture with some residential areas and a small amount of urban area downstream. There is one minor NPDES permitted facility and three permitted swine operations discharging to the river. The Cashie River was placed on the 2002 Impaired Waters List due to a NC DHHS fish advisory-mercury; however, the advisory was lifted and the river was removed from the list in 2010. The river is currently supporting all uses. Water Quality Status Cashie River was monitored at two benthic stations within this watershed. Location of these stations can be seen in Figure 5-1. Both sites had decent habitat ratings, long term decreasing pH levels, increasing specific conductivity and signs of possible upstream point or nonpoint source pollution inputs. The downstream site (NB76) dropped a rating from Natural to Moderate due to the lower number and pollution tolerance level of the taxa collected. An AMS station was also monitored during this sampling cycle and is located at the upstream benthic station (NB75). Parameters monitored at the station were consistent with those results from the previous cycle with the exception of pH levels. Long term monitoring results (1998-2009) showed a slight decrease from the mid 6’s to roughly 5.7. Since 2002, the Cashie River has been on the Impaired Waters List due to a fish consumption advisory. This advisory was put in place by NC DHHS as a result of a 2003 study of mercury in fish tissue. This advisory has been lifted causing the river to be removed from the list. A Statewide Mercury TMDL is also in development stages to address this issue. Need to make this more consistent with text above in Roanoke River write up. Recommendations A source study is recommended to determine the source of increasing conductivity levels and decreasing pH levels. outlet cashie RiveR (0301010708) Includes: Cashie River [AU#: 24-2-(1)b, (9), (11) & (15)], Roquist Creek [AU#: 24-2-7], & Hoggard Mill Creek [AU#: 24-2-6] This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, residential, wetlands and forested areas. There are one minor and one major NPDES permitted facilities along with five permitted aquaculture operations located within the watershed. There are no waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. Cashie River [AU#: 24-2-(9), (11) & (15)] These three segments of the Cashie River are approximately nine miles from just downstream of the Bertie County line to the Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay) [AU#: 24]. The majority of the drainage area is agriculture and forested area. Water Quality Status Since 2002, the Cashie River has been on the Impaired Waters List due to a fish consumption advisory. This advisory was put in place by NC DHHS as a result of a 2003 study of mercury in fish tissue. This advisory has been lifted causing the River to be removed from the list. A Statewide Mercury TMDL is also in development stages to address this issue. uSE SuPPORt: suppoRtinG (45.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (NB75) (NB76) Moderate (2009) Moderate (2009) AMS (N8950000)No Exceedances uSE SuPPORt: no Data (9.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.3c ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.17 These three segments have moved from the Impaired category to No Data because there are not current monitoring stations along this stretch of river. plymouth-Roanoke RiveR (0301010709) Includes: Welch Creek [AU#: 23-55], Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(53)], & Conaby Creek [AU#: 23-56] This watershed contains a mix land use of agriculture, urban, residential, and wetland areas. There are two minor and one major NPDES permitted facilities along with two permitted aquaculture operations located within the watershed. Two streams (Welch Creek and the downstream most segment of the Roanoke River) are on the 2010 Impaired Waters List within this watershed. Welch Creek [AU#: 23-55] Welch Creek is approximately 13 miles from source to the Roanoke River [AU#: 23-(53)]. The majority of the drainage area is agriculture with some industrial and a small percentage of urban area. Welch Creek is currently Impaired for dioxin due to a fish consumption advisory. Water Quality Status Welch Creek was not monitored during this cycle. 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. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4295: “Relations Among Floodplain Water Levels, In- stream DO Conditions, and Streamflow in the Lower Roanoke River, NC, 1997-2001” uSE SuPPORt: impaiReD (13.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) 5.18 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-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 5-a uSE SuPPORt RAtINgS FOR ALL mONItORED WAtERS IN thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-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  Quankey Creek-Roanoke River 0301010701Roanoke River Basin Watershed Roanoke River 03010107Roanoke River Basin Subbasin Quankey Creek-Roanoke River 0301010701Roanoke River Basin Watershed Chockoyotte Creek23-29 From source to Roanoke River 10.6 FW Miles C  1  3a Little Quankey Creek23-30-1 From source to Quankey Creek 9.5 FW Miles C  1 Quankey Creek23-30a From source to Little Quankey Creek 16.0 FW Miles C  1 Quankey Creek23-30b From Little Quankey Creek to Roanoke River 3.4 FW Miles C   5 ROANOKE RIVER23-(25.5)From a point 0.6 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 48 bridge to a line across river 50 feet downstream of N.C. Hwy. 48 (City of Roanoke Rapids, Town of Weldon water supply intakes) 1.7 FW Miles WS-IV;CA  1  1  1 ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)a From a line across the river 50 ft downstream of NC Hwy 48 bridge to the confluence of Sandy Run Cr at the Bertie Northampton Halifax Co. line 50.1 FW Miles C  1  1 Conoconnara Swamp-Roanoke River 0301010702Roanoke River Basin Watershed Conoconnara Swamp23-33 From source to Roanoke River 17.7 FW Miles C  1 Kehukee Swamp-Roanoke River 0301010703Roanoke River Basin Watershed Kehukee Swamp (White Millpond) 23-42 From source to Roanoke River 10.6 FW Miles C  1 10/20/2010 Page 233 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-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  Kehukee Swamp-Roanoke River 0301010703Roanoke River Basin Watershed ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)b1 From the confluence of Sandy Run Cr at the Bertie/Northampton/Halifax Co. line to subbasin 8/9 boundary 24.8 FW Miles C  1  1 Sweetwater Creek 0301010704Roanoke River Basin Watershed Hardison Mill Creek23-50-3 From source to Sweetwater Creek 19.9 FW Miles C  1 Conoho Creek-Roanoke River 0301010705Roanoke River Basin Watershed Conoho Creek23-49a From source to Martin Co 1417 below Beaverdam Cr 24.5 FW Miles C  1 Conoho Creek23-49b From Martin Co 1417 to Roanoke River 7.0 FW Miles C  1 ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)b2 From subbasin 8/9 boundary to Hwy 17 Bridge in Williamston 28.9 FW Miles C  1  1 ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)b3 From Hwy 17 bridge at Williamston to the 18 mile marker at Jamesville 17.8 FW Miles C  5 Headwaters Cashie River 0301010707Roanoke River Basin Watershed Cashie River24-2-(1)a From source to Bertie County SR 1225 15.2 FW Miles C;Sw  1  1  1 Outlet Cashie River 0301010708Roanoke River Basin Watershed Cashie River24-2-(1)b From Bertie County SR 1225 to a point 1 mile upstream from Bertie Co. SR 1500 30.1 FW Miles C;Sw  1 Hoggard Mill Creek24-2-6 From source to Cashie River 7.4 FW Miles C;Sw  1 Roquist Creek24-2-7 From source to Cashie River 26.3 FW Miles C;Sw  1 Plymouth-Roanoke River 0301010709Roanoke River Basin Watershed 10/20/2010 Page 234 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-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  Plymouth-Roanoke River 0301010709Roanoke River Basin Watershed ROANOKE RIVER23-(53)From 18 mile marker at Jamesville to Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay) 18.3 FW Miles C;Sw   4t  1  1 Welch Creek23-55 From source to Roanoke River 13.3 FW Miles C;Sw   4t  1  5 10/20/2010 Page 235 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.1 appenDix 5-B BIOLOgICAL SAmPLINg SItE DAtA ShEEtS (BENthIC mACROINVERtEBRAtE & FISh COmmuNIty) FOR thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.3 Biological Samples Taken During this Assessment Cycle StAtION ID WAtERBODy COuNty SItE LOCAtION SAmPLE RESuLtS Benthic Sample Sites NB55 KEHUKEE SWP HALIFAX SR 1804 09 - Natural NB59 QUANKEY CR HALIFAX NC 903 09 - Natural NB67 CONOHO CR MARTIN SR 1417 09 - Natural NB69 HARDISON MILL CR MARTIN SR 1528 09 - Moderate NB75 CASHIE R BERTIE SR 1219 09 - Moderate NB76 CASHIE R BERTIE SR 1257 09 - Moderate NB78 HOGGARD MILL CR BERTIE SR 1301 09 - Moderate NB80 ROQUIST SWP BERTIE US 17 09 - Natural NB93 CONOHO CR MARTIN NC 11-42 09 - Moderate Fish Community Sample Sites NF46 Quankey Cr Halifax US 301/NC 903/NC 125 09 - Good ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.4 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)6.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)74 pH (s.u.)5.4 Channel Modification (5)15 Instream Habitat (20)18 Site Photograph Water Clarity Tannic 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 (NC 903) Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 33.6 113 5 0.5 AU Number Level IV Ecoregion HALIFAX 8 03010107 36.353333 -77.643889 23-30a Rolling Coastal Plain County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude  Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification QUANKEY CR NC 903 NB59 02/03/09 Natural Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)15 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)0 Bank Erosion (7)6 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 Pollution tolerant taxa present in 1999 but absent from 2004 and 2009 include the oligochaete Limnodrilus spp., the gastropod Physa spp ., the beetle Tropisternus spp ., and the chironomids Dicrotendipes neomodestus, and D. nervosus . Conversely, many pollution intolerant taxa were present in 2004 and 2009 but absent in 1999 and included the mayfly Ephemerella doris, the caddisfly Ceraclea transversa and Polycentropus spp . Most notably, the 1999 sample lacked nine stonefly taxa collected from the subsequent samples that included Allocapnia spp ., Suwallia basalis, Leuctra spp., Shipsa rotunda , Perlesta spp ., Perlinella drymo, Clioperla clio, Isoperla namata , and I. transmarina . Data Analysis The 2009 sample continues the trend of improving benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics from the first sample here in 1999. The S, EPTS, BI and EPTBI have all improved in 2004 and 2009 from the initial assessment. Although specific conductance has been fairly stable here with the 1999 sample resulting in a measurement of 70 µS/cm, 61 µS/cm in 2004, and 74 µS/cm in 2009, the benthic macroinvertebrate data suggest improving physical conditions at this site since 1999. Natural02/16/99 7823 40 9 6.66 5.93 Natural02/23/04 9351 52 17 5.81 4.05 Bioclassification 02/03/09 10528 51 15 5.80 4.77 Natural Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Substrate Gravel, sand, silt, and detritus. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.5 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)6.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.8 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)93 pH (s.u.)5.4 Channel Modification (5)15 Bioclassification KEHUKEE SWP SR 1804 NB55 02/03/09 Natural  Waterbody Location Station ID Date AU Number Level IV Ecoregion HALIFAX 8 03010107 36.129167 -77.363333 23-42 Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude C 19.2 44 6 0.6 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) None --- --- Site Photograph Water Clarity Clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)15 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)10 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)82 Substrate Sand, silt, and detritus, Bioclassification 02/03/09 10598 66 12 6.79 6.06 Natural Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Moderate02/24/04 9343 46 7 7.08 5.89 Taxonomic Analysis The 2009 sampled produced the highest EPT taxa richness and the lowest BI since sampling commenced here in 1999. EPT taxa present in 2009 but absent previously included the intolerant caddisflies Triaenodes ignitus , Ptilostomis spp., and Chimarra spp. Additionally, several tolerant taxa that were either abundant or common in previous collections were absent or rare in 2009 including the molluscs Physa spp ., Micromenetus dilatatus , and Sphaerium spp . Data Analysis The 2009 collection established the highest EPT, ST and the lowest BI since sampling first started here in 1999 and resulted in a subsequent improvement in the bioclassification to Natural. Although the specific conductance was somewhat higher in 2009 (92 µS/cm) relative to 2004 (78 µS/cm) and 1999 (74 µS/cm), the evidence based on the shift from a facultative benthic macroinvertebrate community to a slightly more pollution intolerant community suggest an overall improvement in conditions at this site from previous samples. This improvement may be related to a decrease in non-point pollution as a result of the drought. Moderate02/11/99 7811 59 8 7.11 6.64 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.6 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)3.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)11.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)143 pH (s.u.)5.2 Channel Modification (5)15  Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification CONOHO CR NC 11-42 NB93 02/03/09 Moderate County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion Martin 9 03010107 35.971667 -77.295278 23-49a Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 38.5 42 6 0.6 --- Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 --------- Water Clarity clear/tannic Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none --- Site Photograph Channel Modification (5)15 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)5 Pool Variety (10)9 Riffle Habitat (16)0 Bank Erosion (7)10 Bank Vegetation (7)10 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)84 Substrate Mostly silt with detrital pools, some sand. Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI 7.10 Bioclassification 02/03/09 10599 29 3 7.20 6.78 Moderate Sample Date Taxonomic Analysis Only the second time sampled, there was a 25% reduction in EPT taxa richness from 4 species obtained in 2004 to 3 species in 2009. The winter stonefly Taeniopteryx and the silt-loving mayfly Caenis were absent in 2009 while the caddisfly Polycentropus was collected for the first time. Additionally, fewer tolerant crustaceans, oligochaetes, and midges were also collected in 2009 leading to a decrease in the overall benthic biotic index. Data Analysis Located just northeast of Oak City, this headwater segment of Conoho Creek is mostly forested in the immediate vicinity of the sampling site although the catchment is overwhelmingly dominated by agricultural farms. A total absence of NPDES permitted dischargers indicates the high specific conductance measured is a result of nonpoint source runoff. Despite the presence of good macroinvertebrate habitat and decent flows, Conoho Creek received a Moderate bioclassification, driven in part by the paucity of EPT taxa. However, this Moderate rating is on the cusp of a Natural rating, as it was in 2004, leading to the conclusion that the water quality in this stream has not changed since that time. Moderate02/25/04 9345 31 4 7.70 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.7 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)4.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)177 pH (s.u.)5.3 Channel Modification (5)15 Instream Habitat (20)16  Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification CONOHO CR SR 1417 NB67 02/04/09 Natural County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion Martin 9 03010107 35.885556 -77.124444 23-49b Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C 98.2 12 8 0.6 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 --------- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Site Photograph Water Clarity clear/tannic Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)5 Pool Variety (10)9 Riffle Habitat (16)0 Bank Erosion (7)10 Bank Vegetation (7)10 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)85 ST EPT BI EPT BI Substrate Detritus with silt, some sand Bioclassification 02/04/09 10600 32 6 6.43 5.23 Natural Sample Date Sample ID 4.80 Natural 02/24/04 9344 38 6 6.80 5.40 Taxonomic Analysis This sampling site maintained it's EPT richness of 6 taxa from the previous sampling event. Two species of mayflies collected in 2004, Caenis and Eurylophella doris were absent in 2009 as was the caddisfly Platycentropus. Ironoquia punctatissima , a caddisfly often found in swamp-like conditions, was collected for the first time in 10 years. Additionally, total taxa richness decreased from 2004 levels reflected in fewer tolerant midges, oligohaetes and crustacea collected. Although still higher than that measured in 1999, the biotic index was lower than in 2004 due in part to the more intolerant EPT community observed. Data Analysis This sampling site is low in the watershed of Conoho Creek and is very large. Much like the upstream site, agriculture dominates the landuse of Conoho Creek's watershed. Non-point source pollutants are likely diluted by the time they reach this segment and thereby have less impact on the macroinvertebrate community. Although this site did receive a Natural rating compared to the upstream rating (Moderate), the upstream site very nearly obtained a Natural rating suggesting water quality differences between these two sites are not so great. The macroinvertebrate community here appears to be relatively stable. Natural 02/24/99 7834 39 5 6.27 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.8 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)5.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.0 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)179 pH (s.u.)4.3 Channel Modification (5)11 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)5 Pool Variety (10)6 Bioclassification HARDISON MILL CR SR 1528 NB69 02/04/09 Moderate  Waterbody Location Station ID Date AU Number Level IV Ecoregion MARTIN 9 03010107 35.764722 -77.006111 23-50-3 Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude C 49.7 18 11 0.7 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) None --- --- Site Photograph Water Clarity Clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)0 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)71 Substrate Detritus and silt. 7.54 5.20 Bioclassification 02/04/09 10601 15 1 7.61 6.40 Moderate Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Taxonomic Analysis The 2009 sample produced a drastic decline in chironomid taxa relative to previous collections. Given the increase in specific conductance, it would have been expected that the diversity of the generally pollution tolerant chironomids would have increased or at least maintained levels previously recorded from this station. It is unclear as to why this reduction was observed in 2009 but it might be related to the very low pH (4.3) which was lower than previous collections (4.6 in 2004, 5.5 in 1999). However, the most significant change in this community was the total absence of the flow-dependent blackflies Simulium spp. and Stegopterna spp . which were both abundant or common from all previous collections. Their absence in 2009 strongly suggests that poor flows have been persistent at this location and may have had a role in the lowered ST and higher BI although the extremely low pH likely exacerbated this condition. Data Analysis Although the ST and EPT metrics reached all time lows for 2009, the BI, although higher, was generally comparable to previous collections. Moreover, the EPTBI in 2009 was intermediate between the two previous records. The primary difference in the benthic macroinvertebrate community observed at this location in 2009 relative to previous assessments was the drastic decrease in the diversity of chironomid larvae. Indeed, only two chironomid taxa were collected in 2009 versus 20 in 2004 and seven in 1999. The absence of the flow-dependent blackflies suggest that there have been persistent low flow conditions at this site. Indeed, flow conditions were marginal at the time of sampling. This likely explains, at least in part, the increased BI and lowered ST. However, specific conductance at this site was drastically higher in 2009 (179.1 µS/cm) versus levels measured in 2004 (58 µS/cm) and 1999 (65µS/cm). Consequently, deleterious anthropogenic influence at this station cannot be ruled out. In addition to the low flows and elevated conductivity, the very low pH likely played a role in the decline in the invertebrate community. Indeed, benthic macroinvertebrate communities are known to degrade with very low pH . Moderate 02/12/99 7817 27 3 7.32 7.67 Moderate 02/24/04 9331 36 2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.9 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)2.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.1 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)190 pH (s.u.)4.7 Channel Modification (15)15 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)4 Site Photograph Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Lewiston-Woodville WWTP (~2.5 miles upstream)NC0023116 0.15 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;Sw 35.4 45 6 0.6 County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion BERTIE 10 03010107 36.123611 -77.121667 24-2-(1)a Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods  Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification CASHIE R SR 1219 NB75 02/05/09 Moderate Bottom Substrate (15)4 Pool Variety (10)9 Left Bank Stability (10)10 Right Bank Stability (10)10 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)84 Taxonomic Analysis A mostly tolerant benthic community was observed at this sampling location in 2009. No stoneflies or mayflies were collected at this monitoring station. Caddisflies present in the sample included Ironoquia punctatissima and Ptilostomis spp. These are common somewhat tolerant caddisflies found in North Carolina swamp benthic communities. Chironomid taxa richness was also low (8) with only two taxa that were common and abundant including Orthocladius obumbratus and the recently described Tvetenia sp. NC (Epler 2001) respectively. Data Analysis A Moderate bioclassication was retained at this site in 2009. Total taxa richness (26) and EPT taxa richness (2) dropped slightly compared to 2004. The NCBI was elevated from the 2004 sample. Despite the Moderate bioclassification, water quality parameters suggests some degradation. Conductivity was twice as high (190 µS/cm) and acidic conditions (pH=4.7) were observed in 2009 compared to 1999 (82 µS/cm, pH=6.2). Physico-chemical data was not collected at this site in 2004. The elevated conductivity suggest the possibility of upstream point source pollution inputs from the Lewiston-Woodeville WWTP. Additionally, naturally acidic waters occur in North Carolina swamp ecosystems and can lead to reductions in benthic taxa richness. A small beaverdam was observed within the sampling area in 2004 and 2009 and low flow conditions with nearly homogenous detrital substrate were noted in 2009 compared to other Roanoke Basinwide swamp sites. This lack of flow and lack of mixed substrate could lead to the absence of some mayflies and stoneflies adapted to those conditions. Not Rated 07/14/83 3057 34 2 8.55 7.00 Not Rated 06/26/84 3242 41 2 8.20 7.00 Moderate 02/11/99 7812 41 6 7.51 7.24 Natural 02/23/04 9328 29 3 7.49 7.03 Bioclassification 02/05/09 10602 26 2 8.15 7.10 Moderate Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Substrate Detritus and fine particulate organic matter was dominant. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.10 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)4.4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)133 pH (s.u.)5.1 Channel Modification (15)15 Instream Habitat (20)17 Site Photograph Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Lewiston-Woodville WWTP (>4 miles upstream)NC0023116 0.15 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;Sw 108.6 10 8 0.7 County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion BERTIE 10 03010107 36.047778 -76.985556 24-2-(1)b Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces  Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification CASHIE R SR 1257 NB76 02/09/09 Moderate Instream Habitat (20)17 Bottom Substrate (15)5 Pool Variety (10)9 Left Bank Stability (10)10 Right Bank Stability (10)10 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)86 Taxonomic Analysis EPT taxa collected at this station were similar to that upstream including the caddisflies Ironoquia punctatissima and Ptilostomis spp . Additionally, the winter stonefly Taeniopteryx spp. was collected in abundance at this monitoring station. A low chironomid taxa richness (11) was present at this location similar to upstream, however, intolerant chironomid taxa were present in the sample including Eukiefferiella devonica gr. and Lopescladius spp . Rarely collected chironomid taxa in the sample included Parakiefferiella sp. D and Tvetenia sp. NC . The swamp endemic megalopteran Chauliodes rasticornis was found rare at the site. Data Analysis Total taxa richness remained similar to samples in the past, however, EPT taxa richness dropped from seven taxa in 1999 and 2004 to only three in 2009. This drop in EPT richness in addition to the highest NCBI and EPTBI recorded from this site lowered the bioclassification from Natural in 2004 to Moderate in 2009. Habitat parameters in 2009 (86) were higher than that observed in 2004 (70), yet similar to that observed in 1999 (85) suggesting no reduction in the bioclassification due to physical parameters. More acidic conditions were found in 2009 (pH=5.1) compared to 2004 (pH=5.6) and 1999 (pH=6.4) which could lead to the recent depletion of EPT taxa. Additionally, conductivity was elevated in 2009 (133 µS/cm) compared to in 2004 (64 µS/cm) and 1999 (72 µS/cm) similar to the upstream site at SR 1219 suggesting inputs from an upstream discharger or another unknown source. Natural 02/15/99 7827 34 7 6.80 6.09 Natural 02/24/04 9330 35 7 6.59 4.90 Bioclassification 02/09/09 10603 34 3 7.40 6.59 Moderate Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Substrate Fine particulate organic matter and detritus was dominant. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.11 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)3.4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)10.2 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)89 pH (s.u.)5.1 Channel Modification (5)12 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Site Photograph Water Clarity Tannic 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 10 0 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C; Sw 48.2 5 4 0.5 AU Number Level IV Ecoregion BERTIE 10 03010107 36.025000 -76.951389 24-2-6 Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude  Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification HOGGARD MILL CR SR 1301 NB78 02/05/09 Moderate Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)9 Riffle Habitat (16)0 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)77 Taxonomic Analysis The 2009 sample continues the trend observed here since the 1999 collection in that there has been a decline in intolerant taxa and an increase in tolerant taxa. For 2009, this trend in reduced presence (or total absence) of intolerant taxa is exemplified by the lack of the stonefly Amphinemura spp., a substantial decrease in the abundance of the stonefly Taeniopteryx spp. (abundant in 1999 and 2004, rare in 2009), the absence of the caddisfly Platycentropus spp, and the first time appearance of the the tolerant beetle Coptotomus spp ., the hemipteran Pelocoris spp., as well as the tolerant chironomids Cricotopus annulator and Cricotopus bicinctus. Data Analysis As can be seen from the BI (and to a lesser extent the EPTBI data), as well as the ST and (to a lesser extent) the EPTS, the benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics continue to decline at this site since its first assessment in 1999. The data show a continuing shift from pollution intolerant taxa to more pollution tolerant taxa. It is possible that the prolonged drought may have resulted in very low flow conditions at this site for much of the year before the February sample and that may have caused natural stress due to lowered dissolved oxygen levels. Although dissolved oxygen data is extremely variable, it does not support this conclusion as the dissolved oxygen levels in 2009 (10.2 mg/l) was higher than in either 2004 (8.9 mg/l) or 1999 (8.6 mg/l). Conversely, the much higher specific conductance at this location (89.4 µS/cm) in 2009 relative to levels measured from previous observations in 2004 (60 µS/cm) and 1999 (70 µS/cm) may suggest a possible anthropogenic component to the increasing biotic indicies observed at this location since 1999. Moderate 02/15/99 7826 46 7 6.81 6.38 Natural 02/23/04 9327 30 3 7.18 5.65 Bioclassification 02/05/09 10604 24 3 7.40 7.57 Moderate Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Substrate Sand, silt, and detritus. ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.12 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)0.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.8 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)83 pH (s.u.)5.0 Channel Modification (5)13 Bioclassification ROQUIST SWP US 17 NB80 02/06/09 Natural  Waterbody Location Station ID Date AU Number Level IV Ecoregion BERTIE 10 03010107 35.941667 -76.962222 24-2-7 Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude C; Sw 45.7 10 6 0.6 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (US 13/17) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) None --- --- Site Photograph Water Clarity Clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)13 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)9 Riffle Habitat (16)0 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)78 Substrate Sand, silt, and detritus. 7.14 6.46 Bioclassification 02/06/09 10605 30 3 6.73 2.28 Natural Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Taxonomic Analysis The 2009 collection produced the first record at this location for the facultative caddisfly Ptilostomis spp . and the intolerant caddisfly Lepidostoma spp . In addition, the previous two collections included the collection of the pollution tolerant mayfly Caenis spp. but was absent in 2009. Other pollution tolerant taxa collected from 1999 and 2004 but absent from 2009 sample included the chironomids Kiefferulus spp , Procladius spp, as well as the gastropods Micromenetus dilatatus and Ferrissia spp. Data Analysis Although the ST and EPT have been relatively stable at this site since sampling commenced in 1999 the EPTBI and BI both dropped in 2009 with the EPTBI dropping substantially. The decline in both the EPTBI and BI were due to the presence of several intolerant taxa collected for the first time in 2009 and the lack of several pollutant tolerant taxa absent from the 2009 collection but present in the previous samples. The shift in the benthic macroinvertebrate community represented by these taxa from 2009 relative to the 2004 and 1999 collections may reflect the drought and the reduced presence of non-point runoff at this site. Natural 02/11/99 7813 31 4 6.99 5.50 Natural 02/24/04 9329 38 4 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-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) HALIFAX Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Rolling Coastal Plain Longitude 06/18/09 Date Station ID NF46 Subbasin Site Photograph Good --- 6 Average Depth (m) AU Number 0 Agriculture --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 8 Latitude 36.318589 No Reference SiteStream Width (m) -77.594832 23-30b 0.4 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site. Watershed -- drains east-central Halifax County including the southern portion of the Town of Halifax; tributary to the Roanoke River; site is ~ 2 miles upstream of the creek's confluence with the river. Habitat -- upstream from the bridge Coastal Plain-like, downstream from the bridge Piedmont-like gorge with very high quality instream and riparian habitats -- riffles, runs, pools, Podostemum, and bluffs along both banks. Water Quality -- dissolved oxygen saturation only 62%; pH less than 6 s.u., but upstream watershed is swamp-like where low pH values are to be expected. 2009 -- a very diverse fish community with Coastal Plain and Piedmont species present, but only one species of sucker, one intolerant species, and only two species of darters; some evidence of nutrient enrichment based upon the high percentage of omnivores+herbivores collected such as Eastern Silvery Minnow, Bluehead Chub, and Spottail Shiner. Residential 5 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Species Change Since Last Cycle N/A 06/18/09 NPDES Number 95 Elevation (ft) 65 Drainage Area (mi2) 33.6 Forested/Wetland Bioclassification Good NCIBISample Date Other (describe) None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 22.0 12 0 5 5 10 15 Sample ID 2009-66 7 7 7 5.4 120 5.6 Clear, tannin stained 5 19 Eastern Silvery Minnow (16%), Redbreast Sunfish (15%), Bluehead Chub (14%) Most Abundant Species 2009 92 Gravel, cobble, boulder, clay, siltSubstrate Exotic Species 2009 Species Total 24 50 Bluegill FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C US 301/NC 903/NC 125 Location 8 digit HUC 03010107 Waterbody QUANKEY CR County ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-B.14 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.1 appenDix 5-c AmBIENt mONItORINg SyStEmS StAtION DAtA ShEEtS FOR thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.2 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N7300000 Location:ROANOKE RIV AT NC 48 AT ROANOKE RAPIDS Stream class:WS-IV CA NC stream index:23-(25.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:36.48151 Longitude:-77.64526 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 4.8 5.2 6.6 9.1 11.3 12.6 15.643000 <5 4.8 5.2 6.6 9.1 11.3 12.6 15.643204.7 pH (SU)<6 6 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.7 847000 >9 6 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.7 847000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.190 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 90 97 102 109 113 119 139480 Water Temperature (°C)>32 4.2 6.8 9.4 17.1 24.8 27.3 29.848000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 5 6.2 7 12 121911 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1.3 1.6 2.2 3.5 5.5 11.2 2248000 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.044839 NO2 + NO3 as N >10 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.23 0.2948040 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.44472 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.19488 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 50 50 78 120 230 1000 100091 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59080 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 39070 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 57 57 105 200 355 1200 120091011.1 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090 Manganese, total (Mn)>200 38 38 40 57 76 190 1909000 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 10 18 189080 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 48 7.4 0 0 01/27/2005Time period:11/23/2009to 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.3 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N8200000 Location:ROANOKE RIV AT US 258 NR SCOTLAND NECK Stream class:C NC stream index:23-(26) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:36.20925 Longitude:-77.38387 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 5.9 6 6.6 8.5 10.6 12.2 14.843000 <5 5.9 6 6.6 8.5 10.6 12.2 14.843000 pH (SU)<6 5.9 6.4 6.6 7 7.3 7.5 7.647102.1 >9 5.9 6.4 6.6 7 7.3 7.5 7.647000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.190 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 95 100 110 118 128 133 143480 Water Temperature (°C)>32 4.8 7.2 9.7 17.7 25.2 27.8 29.748000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 6 7.8 11 12 15 21 47191 Turbidity (NTU)>50 3.6 6.3 7.6 9.9 13.8 22.1 3348000 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.034833 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.08 0.1 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.36471 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.23 0.27 0.3 0.34 0.36 0.5461 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08470 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 150 150 380 430 540 1200 120090 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 3 4 49040 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 390 390 515 610 750 1500 150091011.1 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 10 109090 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 48 35.6 0 0 01/27/2005Time period:11/23/2009to 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.4 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N8300000 Location:ROANOKE RIV AT NC 11 NR LEWISTON Stream class:C NC stream index:23-(26) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:36.01400 Longitude:-77.21487 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 6.1 6.6 6.8 8.4 10.4 12.6 15.229000 <5 6.1 6.6 6.8 8.4 10.4 12.6 15.229000 pH (SU)<6 6.4 6.8 7 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.229000 >9 6.4 6.8 7 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.229000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07290 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 93 100 102 112 122 130 146290 Water Temperature (°C)>32 4.4 7.6 10.1 17.8 25.7 28.7 30.129000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 12 12 13 17 29 60.4 68110 Turbidity (NTU)>50 7.1 9.4 11.5 15 19 24 4829000 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.042921 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.22 0.29 0.31 0.44281 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.23 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.4 0.44281 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.1 0.27290 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 190 190 400 550 775 1700 170090 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 3 3 39040 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 610 610 715 850 1150 2600 260093033.3 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 14 22 229060 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 29 38.9 0 0 01/19/2005Time period:10/17/2007to 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.5 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N8550000 Location:ROANOKE RIV AT US 13 AND US 17 AT WILLIAMSTON Stream class:C NC stream index:23-(26) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:35.85986 Longitude:-77.04009 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 5.4 6.2 6.7 7.8 10 11.1 13.159000 <5 5.4 6.2 6.7 7.8 10 11.1 13.159000 pH (SU)<6 5.8 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.6 859101.7 >9 5.8 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.6 859000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06590 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 92 100 104 117 126 132 138590 Water Temperature (°C)>32 4.2 7.7 10.5 17.7 26 28.3 30.259000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 6.2 6.4 10.1 14.5 21.8 38 39202 Turbidity (NTU)>50 6.2 9.4 12 15 19 26.8 4161000 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.055836 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.34580 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.38 0.46 0.63572 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.1590 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 200 200 395 650 850 1700 170090 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 39050 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 540 540 670 1000 1300 2000 200093033.3 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 11 14 149070 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 60 30.7 1 1.7 01/19/2005Time 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.6 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N8950000 Location:CASHIE RIV AT SR 1219 NR LEWISTON Stream class:C Sw NC stream index:24-2-(1) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:36.12376 Longitude:-77.12140 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)N/A 0.2 0.7 1.3 3.7 6.8 9.9 12.6520 pH (SU)<4.3 3.9 4.8 5.5 5.9 6.2 6.5 7.852203.8 >9 3.9 4.8 5.5 5.9 6.2 6.5 7.852000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.25520 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 54 68 78 100 116 177 493520 Water Temperature (°C)>32 0.1 4.6 8.3 14.8 21.8 24.8 27.352000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.9 5.6 9.2 18 35.4 39187 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1.8 2.9 5.3 10.1 31.5 50 9552407.7 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.245133 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.435242 TKN as N N/A 0.35 0.51 0.62 0.91 1.4 1.82 2.4470 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.2 0.43 0.59 1.5520 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 93 93 180 220 270 310 31070 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 57070 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 27070 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 257070 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 2 27060 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 560 560 760 1700 3400 8600 860074057.1 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 107070 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26060 Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 107070 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 12 20 207050 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 52 64.8 4 7.7 01/19/2005Time 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.7 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N9250000 Location:ROANOKE RIV 1.3 MI UPS WELCH CRK NR PLYMOUTH Stream class:C Sw NC stream index:23-(53) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:35.86767 Longitude:-76.78541 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)N/A 4.4 5.9 6.8 7.6 9.8 11.3 11.9590 pH (SU)<4.3 4.5 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.659000 >9 4.5 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.659000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06590 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 80 94 106 116 125 134 140590 Water Temperature (°C)>32 5.1 6.9 10.2 18.6 25.8 29.1 31.559000 Other Chlorophyll a (ug/L)>40 1 1 2 4 8 9 1955000 TSS (mg/L)N/A 3.5 5.8 6.2 8.4 10.8 12.9 14206 Turbidity (NTU)>50 2.8 5.8 7.1 9.3 12 18 3059000 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.085935 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.09 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.29 0.39590 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.29 0.31 0.34 0.38 0.44 0.54581 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.12591 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 170 181 332 425 512 673 680100 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5100100 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1.1 2 2 2 6.5 710191073.6 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 21 25 25 25 25100100 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 3 310080 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 460 467 575 720 1025 1280 130010202093 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 11 16 1610070 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 59 8.7 0 0 01/11/2005Time period:12/07/2009to 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-C.8 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:N9600000 Location:ROANOKE RIV AT NC 45 AT SANS SOUCI Stream class:C Sw NC stream index:23-(53) Hydrologic Unit Code:03010107 Latitude:35.91469 Longitude:-76.72252 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)N/A 4 5.6 6.1 7.4 9.6 11 12590 pH (SU)<4.3 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.659000 >9 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.659000 Salinity (ppt)N/A 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.4590 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 104 108 126 149 185 222 763590 Water Temperature (°C)>32 5.4 7.6 10.2 19 25.5 29.6 31.659000 Other Chlorophyll a (ug/L)>40 1 1 2 3 6 10 1754020 TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 3.5 6 6.2 8 16 20199 Turbidity (NTU)>50 2 4.6 5.8 7.6 11 14 2559000 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.14 0.2597 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.02 0.1 0.15 0.19 0.24 0.28 0.32590 TKN as N N/A 0.29 0.32 0.36 0.42 0.48 0.52 0.61570 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.12590 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 61 61 210 270 415 850 85090 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 39070 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 120 120 505 810 955 1100 110091011.1 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 10 109090 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 59 7 0 0 01/11/2005Time period:12/07/2009to 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.1 appenDix 5-D 10-DIgIt WAtERShED mAPS FOR thE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER SuBBASIN ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.2 ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.3WARREN HubquarterCr ROA038A Roanoke Rapids Jackson RichSquare ROAN O K E RIVER ConoconnaraSw ROANOKERIVER QuankeyCr. KehukeeSw N8200000 NB53 N7300000 NF46 NB91 NB59 NB60 NB59 Lake Gaston Roanoke Rapids Gaston Garysburg Halifax Weldon NORTHAMPTON HALIFAX LittleQuan k e y C r. C h o c k oyotte Cr. I-95 N C-4 8 NC-46 NC-4 NC-903 US-3 01 US-158N C -1 86 NC-125 NC-305 NC-561 NC-4,561 U S - 1 5 8 ,3 0 1 US-301-BUS I-95 NC-561 US-158 NC-9 0 3 US-301 N C-5 6 1 N C-5 6 1 Quankey Creek-Roanoke River Watershed (0301010701) 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.4 NORTHAMPTON HERTFORD Roanoke Rapids Aulander Roxobel Jackson Rich Square Scottland Neck ROANOKERIVER ConoconnaraSw ROANOKERIVER QuankeyCr. KehukeeSw C a s h i e Ri N8950000 NB75 NB55 ROA0491A N8200000 NB53 N7300000NF46 NB91NB59NB60 NB59 Gaston Garysburg Halifax Weldon NORTHAMPTON HALIFAX LittleQuankeyCr.ChockoyotteCr. OcconeecheeCr. GumberrySwampLookingGlass R u n Bridge r s C r. NORTHAMPTON HERTFORD BERTIE US-158 US-258 US-301 NC-561 N C-481 NC-1 86 I-95 NC-305 NC-308 NC-46 NC-125,903 NC-35N C-305,561 NC-125 NC-11-BUS NC-903 NC-11,42 U S-1 5 8,3 0 1 US-158,258 US-301-BUS US-158 I-95 NC-561 NC-305 NC-305 US-301 NC-35 Conoconnara Swamp-Roanoke River Watershed (0301010702) 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.5 NORTHAMPTON HERTFORD Aulander Roxobel Oak City Rich Square Scottland Neck ConoconnaraSw R O A N O K E R I V E R KehukeeSw C a s hieRi ConohoCr R o quistCrNB76 NB93 N8950000 NB75 N8300000 NB55 ROA0491A ROA0492A N8200000 NB53 NF46NB59NB60 NB59 Halifax HALIFAX OcconeecheeCr. Looking Glass R u n Bridge r s C r . NORTHAMPTON HERTFORD BERTIE R O A N O K E R I V E R Kelford Roxobel Lewiston Woodville Hobgood C y p r e s s S wamp BullN e c k S w. S a n dy Run Canal G u t US-258 NC-30 8 NC-11,42 NC-903 N C-9 7 NC-561 NC-125 N C-1 2 5,9 0 3 N C-481 NC-305 US-301 N C-305,561 NC-122 NC-33 NC-11-BUS NC-561 NC-305 Kehukee Swamp-Roanoke River Watershed (0301010703) 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.6 PITT MARTIN OakCity Williamston Jamiesville R O A N O K E R I V E R Conoho Cr HardisonMillCr CashieRiver WelchCr N9250000 N9600000 N9685000 NB69 N8550000 NB67 NB80 NB93 S w e e t w ater Cr. L o n g Creek Smithwick Cr. ReadyBr. DogBr. M A R T I N B E A U F O R T R O AN O KE RIVER US-17 US-64 N C-1 7 1 NC-903 US-13,64 NC-125 NC-30 US-64-ALT US-13,17 US-64-BUS US-13,17,64 US-17-BUS NC-125 US-13,17 US-13,64 Sweetwater Creek Watershed (0301010704) 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.7 PITTMARTIN Roxobel Windsor Oak City Williamston Jamiesville Scottland Neck R O A N O K E R I V E R KehukeeSw C a s h i e River Conoho Creek R o quistCr Hoggard Mill C r Hardison MillCr CashieRiver WelchCr NB69 N8550000 NB67 NB80 NB78 NB76 NB93 N8950000 NB75 N8300000 NB55 ROA0491A ROA0492A RO A N O K E R I V E R Kelford Lewiston Woodville Hobgood Cy p r e s s S w amp SandyRun Canal G u t Sweetwater Cr. Smithwick C r. R e a dy Br. Do g B r. ROANOKERIVER Hassell Hamilton Askewville Etheridge S w . IndianCr. Coniott C r. Beaverd a m Cr. M ARTIN BERTIE H A LIF A X NC-903 N C-308 US-13,64 NC-11,42 US-64-ALT U S-1 3 US-64 US-13,17 N C-42 NC-125 N C-11 NC-111 NC-142 NC-305 US-17 N C-125,903 NC-122 U S-1 3-B U S US-13,17,64 NC-42,142 US-17-BUS US-64 NC-142 US-13,17 US-1 7 NC-903 N C-125 US-64 U S -1 3 NC-125 NC-308 US-13,64 Conoho Creek-Roanoke River Watershed (0301010705) 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.8 Windsor Williamston Jamiesville Plymouth ROANOKERIVER ConohoCreek RoquistCr Hardison MillCr CashieRiver WelchCr N9250000 N9600000N9685000 NB69 N8550000 NB67 NB80 NB78 N8300000 S w e e t water Cr. L o n g Creek Smithwick C r. ReadyBr. DogBr. M A R T I N B E A U F O R T R O A N O KE RIVE R Hamilton ConiottCr. BeaverdamCr. ConineCr. DevilsGut LanierSw. DeepRunSwamp Cooper Sw. GardnersCr. US-17 US-64 N C-1 7 1 NC-32 US-13,17 NC -308 NC-125 US-13,64 US-64-ALT NC -45 NC-32,45 NC-45,308 NC-149 US-64-BUS US-13,17,64 NC-45,99 US-17-BUS US-13,64 US-13,17 NC-32 N C-125 NC-45 Gardener Creek-Roanoke River Watershed (0301010706) 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 : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.9 Roxobel Windsor Oak City Rich Square R O A N O K E R I V E R C a s h i e R iver R o quistCr Hoggard Mill C r CashieRiver NB80 NB78 NB76 NB93 N8950000 NB75 N8300000 NB55 ROA0491A ROA0492A N8200000Bridge r s C r. NORTHAMPTON HERTFORD BERTIE R O A N O K E R I V E R Kelford Aulander Lewiston Woodville Hobgood C y p r e s s S w am p BullNe c k S w. S a n d y Run Canal G u t Hamilton Askewville Etheridge S w . IndianCr. Coniott C r. M ARTIN BERTIE H A LIF A X Wahto m S w. Connaritsa S w . NC-308 U S -1 3 NC-305 NC-11,42 NC-42 NC-903 NC-561 N C-1 1-B U S US-17 US-258 N C -30 5, 5 61 U S -1 3 -B U S NC-305 Headwaters Cashie River Watershed (0301010707) 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 October2011¯ 0 2 4 6 8 1 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.10 WA SH IN GT ON Roxobel Windsor Williamston Plymouth ROANOKERIVER C a s h i e River ConohoCreek RoquistCreek CashieRiver N9250000 N9600000N9685000 N8550000 NB67 NB80 NB78 NB76 N8950000 NB75 N8300000 NORTHAMPTONHERTFORD BERTIE Kelford Aulander LewistonWoodvilleCanalGut Sweetwater Cr. ReadyBr. DogBr. R O AN O KE RIVE R Hamilton Askewville IndianCr. ConiottCr. BeaverdamCr. Conine Cr. DevilsGut GardnersCr. WahtomSw. ConnaritsaSw. H oggard MillCr.ChucklemakerSw. FlatSwampCr. Wadin g P l a c e C r. S u tton Cr. C h o o w atic Cr. US-17 NC-45 US-13 NC-3 08 NC-305 NC-32 US-13,17 NC-45,308 NC-11,42 US-13-BUS US-17-BUS N C-3 0 8 NC-308 NC-45 US-13,17 Outlet Cashie River Watershed (0301010708) 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 October2011 ¯ 0 2 4 6 8 1 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.11 WA S HI N G T O N C H OWA N Windsor Williamston Jamiesville Plymouth R O A N O K E R I V E R C a s h i e River R o quistCreek H ardisonMillCr CashieRiver WelchCreek N9250000 N9600000 N9685000 NB69 N8550000 NB67 NB80 NB78 NB76 Sweetwater Cr. L o n gCreek Smithwick C r. R e a dy Br. D o g B r. M A R T I N B E A U F O R T R O A N O KE RIVER ConineCr. D e vilsGut L a nierSw. Deep R u n S w a m p Cooper Sw. Gardn e r s C r. H oggard Mill Cr. Wadin g P l a c e Cr. S u tton Cr. C h o o w atic Cr. B E R T I E Albe m arle Sound Middle Riv e r ConabyCr. U S-64 NC-308 N C - 1 7 1 NC-32 N C-4 5,99 N C -45 US-17 U S-1 3,1 7 N C-45,308 NC-32,45 N C-3 2,9 4 U S-1 3 N C -1 4 9 U S-13-B U S US-64-BUS NC-45 NC-32 NC-32 NC-45 NC-308 N C-3 0 8 US-13,17 Plymouth-Roanoke River Watershed (0301010709) 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 October2011 ¯ 0 2 4 6 8 1 Miles ROA N O K E R IV E R B AS I N : L OW E R R OA N O K E R IV E R S uBB A S I N ( hu C 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 5-D.12 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.1 local initiatives In addition to local initiatives that have been planned or implemented throughout this planning cycle, this Section includes a list of watershed groups and natural resource agencies focused on improving water quality across the basin. There may be additional groups and agencies active within the basin. Please contact the DWQ Roanoke River Basin Planner to have your water quality improvement or protection program/projects listed here. the impoRtance oF local initiatives Local initiatives to protect water quality are essential to any community because local citizens make decisions that affect change in their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome including limited and diminishing state government budgets and staff resources, absence of regulations for land use management, and many others. Local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed, thus allowing groups to holistically understand the challenges and opportunities of different water quality efforts. Involving a wide array of people in water quality projects also brings together a wide range of knowledge and interests and encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects. By working in coordination across jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding opportunities may be realized. This potentially allows local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for ongoing success. The collaboration of local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the basin and specific groups and projects are discussed within each of the 10-digit watershed write ups in the Subbasin Chapters. Some of these groups are listed below. DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response of local watershed groups and local governments to address a number of water quality problems. CHAPTER 6 local initiatives & voluntaRy incentive pRoGRams IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN chapteR topics £Local Initiatives £CG&L £319 Grants £SWCD NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.2 lake Gaston WeeD contRol council *Information submitted by: Wally Sayko, Brunswick County (Va) Director, Chairman Public Affairs Committee August 8, 2011. Current activities by the LGWCC: The second chemical application has been applied to some 1,200 acres. This product is called Sonar and is a time released product that lasts for about 40 days. Three applications are applied about 30-35 days apart. During this period tests are run to assure that the proper level of product is present to provide continuous impact on the Hydrilla. Planned activity by LGWCC: A company is under contract to survey the lake in the fall to determine the amount of vegetation in the lake and determine how many acres of potential Hydrilla is present. This will provide three important pieces of data to us for the following year. First, it will verify the effectiveness of this year’s contracted treatment. Second, it will establish how many acres of Hydrilla still exists to determine if we need to add Grass Carp and the third is of course what areas of the lake that have Hydrilla that can be treated by chemical. Not all areas can be treated. Water over 10 feet deep for instance is not very effective and also the flow of water is critical since the chemical will be moved from the desired location. Completed activities by the LGWCC: We put into the lake this year over 8,400 grass carp. They were put into two locations - Big Stonehouse Creek in North Carolina and the Route 1 Bridge in Virginia. Based upon a formula that has been developed by NC Wildlife Resources Commission, this data is put into a program to determine the number of grass carp per infested acre of Hydrilla. The goal is to maintain grass carp at 15 per acre. Insertion of the 8,400 grass carp this year will bring the current rate to that level. Activities that did not happen by LGWCC: We were planning a significant effort to plant more controlled native plants in given areas of the lake. This effort was to be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because of a lack of funding for the COE this plan was not carried out. Activities by the Lake Gaston Association: (LGA) The LGA supports the Weed Control Council efforts in a number of ways. First, it lobbies the five county governments surrounding the lake to provide full funding ($116,000 each) for weed control efforts during the annual budgeting cycle. Second, it provides volunteers in support of a lake wide weed survey each year and the native plant re-vegetation program. Third, the LGA responds to inquiries from concerned property owners regarding weed control issues. This support is provided by the LGA’s Lake Environment Committee. Specifically this year, the Environment Committee: £Repaired over 50 native plant cages in the water on the lake in conjunction with the Corps’ re-vegetation program. Some of the cages suffered physical damage from boaters and some from animals. In one cage we found over 20 turtles that had to be released and in another a 3 foot Gar Fish. These areas were all repaired and any damage and plant success recorded for the COE. The monitoring and reporting of these locations is ongoing by the LGA. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.3 £Completed training of over 26 new volunteers to participate in our annual lake aquatic plant survey. Our goal this year is to survey more than 90% of the lake with volunteers. This data is then sent to NC State, to Rob Richardson and his organization for input into a map source. This data is then shared with the LGWCC for additional information into the annual lake survey they conduct. The survey will begin in late August. £Was instrumental in convincing two counties to maintain full weed control funding, another to restore full funding from none the previous year, and another to increase its funding from $25,000 to $75,000. £Responded to a number of concerns by property owners that were checked out by committee members and reported back to the proper organizations. These have included concerns over runoff from farms and a Moto Cross track, to questions about types of weeds they may have near their shoreline and the effort to remove an abandoned house boat on Poplar Creek. In May the LGA sponsored a Lake Clean Up campaign in all 5 counties. It was the first effort of this type on the lake. A lot of trash was cleaned from the lake. Partners on the lake: £Lake Gaston Weed Control Council, Dr. Elton Brown, President £Lake Gaston Association, Doug Hughes, President £Stake Holders, Pete Deschenes, Chairman £Technical Advisory Group (TAG), Rob Richardson, Chairman £North Carolina State University, Rob Richardson, Steve Hoyle £Virginia Tech. £Dominion Power, Jim Thornton £Virginia Dept. of Inland Fisheries, Vic Dicenzo £North Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources, Kirk Rundel FeDeRal, state & local incentive pRoGRams constRuction GRants & loans The NC Construction Grants and Loans (CG&L) Section of DWQ provides grants and loans to local government agencies for the construction, upgrades and expansion of wastewater collection and treatment systems. As a financial resource, the section administers five major programs that assist local governments. Of these, two are federally funded programs administered by the state, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). The STAG is a direct congressional appropriations for a specific “special needs” project within NC. The High Unit Cost Grant (SRG) Program, the State Emergency Loan (SEL) Program and the State Revolving Loan (SRL) Program are state funded programs, with the latter two being below market revolving loan money. The Section also received an additional Capitalization Grant authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the amount of $70,729,100. These funds are administered according to SRF procedures. All projects must be eligible under title VI of the Clean Water Act. For more information, please see the CG&L website. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.4 tABLE 6-1: Cg&L PROJECtS FuNDED DuRINg 2004-2009 IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN LOCAtION PROJECt DESCRIPtION DAtE AmOuNt 8 DIgIt huC FuNDINg Eden, City of Dry Creek and Smith River Sewer Rehabilitation 5/8/2009 $714,303 03010103 ARRA Rich Square, Town of Rich Square Collection System Rehabilitation 5/21/2009 $1,728,180 03010107 ARRA Roanoke Rapids SD Replace the Disinfection System 7/31/2009 $1,241,156 03010107 SRF Rich Square Sewer Rehabilitation and a Spray Irrigation System 4/14/2004 $2,999,940 03010107 SRG section 319 GRant pRoGRam Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and restoration projects. In 2009/2010, approximately $450,000 was available annually through base funding for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2 million was available annually through incremental funding for restoration projects on impaired waters statewide. All projects must provide non-federal matching funds of at least 40 percent of the project’s total costs. Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Workgroup, made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or research associated with nonpoint source pollution. Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program application process is available online as well as descriptions of projects and general Section 319 Program information. There were two projects in the Roanoke River basin that were funded through the Section 319 Program between 2004 and 2010. The first project, the Smith Creek Agricultural Sediment Initiative, was active from 2005 to 2008. The main objective of the project was to address severe sedimentation problems in the Smith Creek watershed in Warren County, specifically targeting segments of Smith Creek on North Carolina’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. The NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation contracted with the Warren Soil and Water Conservation District to prepare a comprehensive watershed restoration plan. The plan helped guide the installation of best management practices (BMPs) within the watershed to reduce sediment delivery to the impaired waters. Eighteen cooperating landowners were involved in implementing BMPs to improve water quality. The other project funded by the 319 Grant Program extends from 2008 to 2011 and is also with the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation, in partnership with Stokes, Rockingham, and Caswell County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The primary objective of this project is to install BMPs throughout the Dan River watershed to reduce sediment delivery and fecal coliform bacteria to help restore impaired waters on the state’s 303(d) list. BMPs to be installed include: livestock exclusion fencing, water tanks, field borders, grassed waterways, heavy use area protection, and non-agricultural BMPs such as wetlands and rain gardens. Installation of the proposed BMPs should help prevent the off-site movement of nutrients and pesticides, and improve streambank stability and habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. This project will build on earlier planning efforts by updating and supplementing existing documents to produce a watershed restoration plan that satisfies EPA’s nine required elements. Numerous outreach and educational opportunities are also being conducted during the project to inform local citizens, students and elected officials about the purpose and effectiveness of the BMPs. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.5 tABLE 6-2: 319 gRANt CONtRACtS IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN 2004 & 2009 FISCAL yEAR CONtRACt NumBER NAmE DESCRIPtION 8-DIgIt huC AgENCy FuNDINg 2005 EW06022 Smith Creek Agricultureal Sediment Initiative: Phase II Agricultural BMP Implementation 03010106 DSWC $130,000 2008 1585 Dan River Watershed BMP Implementation BMP Implementation 03010103 DSWC $399,900 Total Funded:$529,900 soil & WateR conseRvation The North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program The NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) helps reduce agricultural nonpoint runoff into the state’s waters. The program, administered by the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation (now within the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as of 2011) and managed by the local districts, helps owners and renters of established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by using best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs include vegetative, structural or management systems that can improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the potential for surface and groundwater pollution. A full listing of all the BMPs and the categories they are grouped in is available at the following link (under Section V: Best Management Practice Guidelines) Across the Roanoke River Basin, 4,167 individual Best Management Practices were installed from January 1, 2004 through August 1, 2011. Below is a map (Figure 6-1) showing the geographic location of those 4,167 practices installed. The western portion of the basin tends to have more Stream Protection practices installed than the eastern portion of the watershed. Moving east, there is a considerable shift into Erosion/Nutrient Reduction and Sediment/Nutrient Reduction practices. This is due to different ecoregions. tABLE 6-3: tOtAL BENEFItS DERIVED ACROSS thE ENtIRE BASIN FOR thOSE PRACtICES INStALLED thROugh thE NC AgRICuLtuRAL COSt ShARE PROgRAm BEtWEEN JANuARy 1, 2004 thROugh AuguSt 1, 2011: DERIVED BENEFItS BENEFIt PARAmEtER BENEFIt VALuE Acres Affected Acre 36,960 Nitrogen Saved Pounds 421,609 Phosphorus Saved Pounds 81,458 Soil Saved Tons 166,646 Waste-N Managed Pounds 341,306 Waste-P Managed Pounds 230,317 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.6 FIguRE 6-1: ACSP BmP INStALLAtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN JANuARy 2004 thROugh AuguSt 2011 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.7 clean WateR act, section 205(j) FunDeD pRojects The DWQ and EPA awarded the Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of $34,760 to complete the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission and North Carolina Roanoke River Advisory Committee Activity and Project Development Operational and Coordination Support Project. The North Carolina and Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committees and the Roanoke River Basin Bi- State Commission were created by the North Carolina and Virginia legislatures in 2003. Their purposes included addressing bi-state issues of water quality, quantity, assimilative capacity, developing policy recommendations and supporting coordination between the states. This grant which concluded in 2011, provided support for the planning activities to achieve the legislative intent of these committees and commission. Over the past few quarters the Committees and Commission have been actively reviewing the issues of lifting the 1982 ban on uranium mining in Virginia and developing a more detailed charge to the Ad hoc Water Allocation Committee concerning a water allocation proposal that is acceptable to both states. ameRican RiveRs In 2011 American Rivers ranked the Roanoke River as the third most endangered river in America due to the possibility of uranium mining. Extracting uranium ore requires intensive use of water and chemicals, and leaves behind massive amounts of radioactive and contaminated waste. The mining, processing, and waste disposal have the possibility of leave a toxic, radioactive legacy in the watershed for centuries if not done in an environmentally sensitive manner. More information about this ranking is found on the American Rivers website. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L OC A L I NI tIA tIV E S & V OL uNtAR y I NC E N tIV E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 6.8 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.1 natuRal ResouRce pRoGRams The efforts of several Natural Resource Programs are discussed throughout this basin plan. Many of these programs are mentioned in the Subbasin Chapters as part of a coordinated effort to protect and/or restore water quality and are locally based. Other programs which have similar purposes but have a basinwide, state or national focus are discussed in more detail in this chapter. This chapter is by no means a complete listing of Natural Resource Programs that are active in the Roanoke River basin, but rather a discussion of a few highly active programs and their involvement in restoration and/or protection efforts within the basin. Several locally based Natural Resource Programs and their efforts during this planning cycle are discussed in the Voluntary Incentive Programs & Local Initiatives Chapter. ecosystem enhancement pRoGRam (eep) EEP uses watershed planning at two scales (basinwide and local) to identify the best locations to implement stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration/enhancement and preservation projects. The planning process considers where mitigation is needed and how mitigation efforts might contribute to the improvement of water quality, habitat and other vital watershed functions in the state. Watershed planning requires GIS data analysis, stakeholder involvement, water quality monitoring, habitat assessment and consideration of local land uses and ordinances. It is a multi- dimensional process that considers science, policy and partnerships. chapteR topics £EEP £ForestryCHAPTER 7 otheR natuRal ResouRce pRoGRams IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.2 RiveR Basin RestoRation pRioRities EEP River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRPs) are focused on the identification of Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) within the 8-digit Cataloging Units (subbasins) that comprise individual river basins. TLWs represent priority areas (14-digit HUCs) for the implementation of stream and wetland mitigation projects. GIS screening factors considered in the selection of TLWs include (among others): documented water quality impairment and habitat degradation, the presence of critical habitat or significant natural heritage areas, the presence of water supply watersheds or other high quality waters, the condition of riparian buffers, estimates of impervious cover, existing or planned transportation projects, and the opportunity for local partnerships. Recommendations from local resource agency professionals and the presence of existing watershed projects are given significant weight in the selection of TLWs. RBRP documents (and TLW selections) for each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina are updated periodically to account for changing watershed conditions, increasing development pressures and local stakeholder priorities. The most recent updates to the Roanoke River Basin TLWs occurred in 2009. In total, 27 14-digit HUCs have been designated TLWs by EEP in the Roanoke Catalog Units (Table 7-2). This updated RBRP, including a summary table and map of Targeted Local Watersheds, can be found at EEP’s website for the 2009 report. local WateRsheD planninG EEP Local Watershed Planning (LWP) initiatives are conducted in specific priority areas (typically a cluster of two or three Targeted Local Watersheds) where EEP and the local community have identified a need to address critical watershed issues. The LWP process typically takes place over a two-year period, covers a planning area around 50 to 150 square miles, and includes three distinct phases: I - existing data review and preliminary watershed characterization (largely GIS-based); II – detailed watershed assessment (including water quality & biological monitoring and field assessment of potential mitigation sites); and III – development of a final Project Atlas and Watershed Management Plan. EEP collaborates with local stakeholders and resource professionals throughout the process to identify projects and management strategies to restore, enhance, and protect local watershed resources. Currently, EEP has not undertaken any LWP initiatives in the Roanoke River Basin. eep pRojects in the Roanoke RiveR Basin As of August 2011, EEP had a total of 19 mitigation projects in some stage of being completed in the Roanoke Basin. These stages include identification/acquisition; design; construction; monitoring (construction complete); and long-term stewardship. Table 7-3 provides details on these projects that include stream and wetland restoration/enhancement and preservation projects. In total, EEP is in some stage of restoration or enhancement on over 57,000 feet of stream and 403 acres of wetlands in the Roanoke. In addition, the program is in some stage of preservation on over 89,000 feet of stream and 5,200 acres of wetlands. For additional information about EEP’s Project Implementation efforts, go to the EEP Project Implementation webpage. To view the locations of these project sites, go to EEP’s Portal Map site. tABLE 7-1: ROANOKE RIVER tLWS & LWPS By SuBBASIN (AS OF OCtOBER 2009) huC tLWS (#)LWPS (# - NAmES) 03010102 1 None to date 03010103 7 None to date 03010104 3 None to date 03010106 1 None to date 03010107 15 None to date Total:27 0 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.3 tABLE 7-2: EEP PROJECtS IN SOmE StAgE OF COmPLEtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN By SuBBASIN huC PROJECtS (#) StREAm REStORAtION/ ENhANCEmENt (Ft) StREAm PRESERVAtION (Ft) WEtLAND REStORAtION/ ENhANCEmENt (AC) WEtLAND PRESERVAtION (AC) 03010102 1 2,539 12,710 0 0 03010103 5 15,666 9,575 0 0 03010104 4 18,033 15,623 89 19 03010106 1 5,062 0 0 0 03010107 8 16,199 51,911 314 5,232 Total:19 57,499 89,819 403 5,251 For more information on EEP Planning in the Roanoke, please call Rob Breeding at 919-733- 5311 or send email to rob.breeding@ncdenr.gov. For more on mitigation projects in the Roanoke, please call or email the following project managers: £Robin Hoffman (03010102) at 919-715-5836 or robin.hoffman@ncdenr.gov £Perry Sugg (03010103 & 03010104) at 919-715-1359 or perry.sugg@ncdenr.gov £Kristie Corson (03010104) at 919-715-1954 or kristie.corson@ncdenr.gov £Heather Smith (03010106 & 03010107) at 919-715-5590 or heather.c.smith@ncdenr.gov £Tracy Stapleton (03010107) at 919-715-1657 or tracy.stapleton@ncdenr.gov £Stephanie Horton (High Quality Preservation Projects in 03010103, 03010104, and 03010107) at 919-715-1263 or stephanie.horton@ncdenr.gov FoRestRy FoRestlanD oWneRship* Approximately 85% of the forestland in the basin is privately-owned. The most notable public forested lands in the basin include Hanging Rock State Park, Kerr Lake State Park, and the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. Within North Carolina’s portion of this river basin, there are no State Forest or National Forest lands. * The ownership estimates come from the most recent data published by the USDA-Forest Service (“Forest Statistics for North Carolina, 2002.” Brown, Mark J. Southern Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS-88. January 2004). FoRest WateR Quality ReGulations Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (Article 4-GS113A, referred to as “SPCA”). However, forestry operations may be exempted from specific requirements of the SPCA if the operations meet the compliance performance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1I .0100 - .0209, referred to as “FPGs”) and General Statutes regarding stream and ditch obstructions (GS 77-13 and GS 77-14). NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.4 The FPG performance standard rule-codes and topics include: £.0201: Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) £.0202: Prohibition of Debris Entering Streams and Waterbodies £.0203: Access Road and Skid Trail Stream Crossings £.0204: Access Road Entrances £.0205: Prohibition of Waste Entering Streams, Waterbodies, and Groundwater £.0206: Pesticide Application £.0207: Fertilizer Application £.0208: Stream Temperature £.0209: Rehabilitation of Project Site The NC Forest Service (NCFS) is delegated the authority to monitor and evaluate forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned laws and/or rules. In addition, the NCFS works to resolve identified FPG compliance questions brought to its attention through citizen complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be resolved by the NCFS are referred to the appropriate State agency for enforcement action. During the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2010 there were 2,782 sites in the basin inspected for FPG compliance; approximately 95% of the sites were in compliance upon the initial site inspection. otheR WateR Quality ReGulations In addition to the multiple State regulations noted above, NCFS monitors the implementation of the following Federal rules relating to water quality and forestry operations: £The Section 404 silviculture exemption under the Clean Water Act for activities in wetlands; £The federally-mandated 15 best management practices (BMPs) related to road construction in wetlands; £The federally-mandated BMPs for mechanical site preparation activities for the establishment of pine plantations in wetlands of the southeastern U.S. WateR Quality FoResteRs The entire river basin is included within the coverage area of a Water Quality Forester. Statewide, there is a Water Quality Forester position in 9 of NCFS 13 operating districts. Water Quality Foresters handle FPG inspection and follow-ups, assist with BMP implementation, develop pre-harvest plans, and provide training opportunities for landowners, loggers and the public regarding water quality issues related to forestry. These foresters also assist County Rangers on follow-up site inspections and provide enhanced technical assistance to local agency staff. Water Quality Foresters are the primary point of contact in their districts for responding to water quality or timber harvesting questions or concerns that are suspected to be related to forestry activities. FoRestRy Best manaGement pRactices Implementing forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) is strongly encouraged to efficiently and effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. In 2006, the first ever revision to the North Carolina forestry BMP manual was completed. This comprehensive update to the forestry BMP manual is the result of nearly four years of effort by the NCFS and a forestry Technical Advisory Committee consisting of multiple sector stakeholders, supported by two NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.5 technical peer-reviews. The forestry BMP manual describes measures that may be implemented to help comply with the forestry regulations while protecting water quality. Copies of the forestry BMP manual can be obtained at a County or District office, or online. In the basin during this period, the NCFS assisted with or observed more than 4,500 forestry activities in which BMPs were either implemented or recommended, encompassing a total area greater than 227,000 acres. From 2006 to 2008, the NCFS conducted its second cycle of BMP implementation site assessment surveys to evaluate the use of forestry BMPs, and qualitatively assess the strengths and weaknesses of BMPs in regards to protecting water quality. In total, the BMP evaluations were completed on 212 active logging sites, with 23 sites located in this river basin. The statewide average BMP implementation rate observed during this survey was 85%, while the rate of BMP implementation on those sites located in this river basin was 84%. A copy of the survey report (PDF, 5MB) is available from the website. These periodic, recurring BMP surveys serve as a basis for focused efforts in the forestry community to address water quality concerns through better and more effective BMP development, implementation and training. pRotectinG stReam cRossinGs With BRiDGemats The NCFS provides bridgemats on loan to loggers for establishing temporary stream crossings during harvest activities in an effort to educate loggers about the benefits of installing crossings in this manner. Temporary bridges can be a very effective solution for stream crossings, since the equipment and logs stay completely clear of the water channel. Bridgemats are available for use in this river basin, and have been for several years. Periodic status reports, a list of bridgemat suppliers, and additional information are available on the NCFS Bridgemat webpage. FoRest ReGeneRation & planninG Forest management is a valued and prevalent land-use across much of the river basin. As a testament to this, over 66,000 acres of land were established or regenerated with forest trees across the basin from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2010. During this same time period, more than 4,300 individual forestry-related plans were produced for landowners, encompassing nearly 242,000 of forestland. In 2010, a comprehensive long-range forest assessment and strategy report was completed, entitled North Carolina’s Forest Resource Assessment-2010. This report includes an overall assessment of the state’s forestland as well as strategies to promote long-term sustainability of the forests. As part of the assessment, a spatial analysis was conducted to identify forestlands that are critical for sustaining clean and abundant water supplies, and several sections of the Roanoke River basin were indicated as high priority (indicated by Figures 4f-8a and 4f-8b in the assessment report, Figure 7-1), including much of the Dan River system and portions of the central river basin near the existing lakes system. This statewide forest resource assessment is available on the 2010 NC Forest Assessment website. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.6 FIguRE 7-1: PRIORIty FOREStS FOR WAtER QuALIty AND QuANtIty, NCFS, D.JONES, 2010 BottomlanD haRDWooD/cypRess sWamps Across the lower reach of the Roanoke River basin, (and elsewhere in North Carolina) there are prime examples of high-quality and highly productive bottomland hardwood/cypress swamps. These swamps have provided a sustainable source of wood fiber for well over 200 years, and served as the foundation for the creation of the forest products industry in eastern North Carolina. Since the settlement of North Carolina in colonial times, our forests have been harvested multiple times, including these hard-to-access swamps. Practically-speaking, it is inconceivable that any “old growth” or “virgin” timber remain in this region. A diversity of forest tree species are adapted to grow in these bottomland swamps, some regenerating by seed and others primarily by sprouting from severed stumps. Nearly all swamp- adapted tree species require full sunlight to adequately regenerate, thus necessitating a removal of the shading overstory. The planting of trees to regenerate a swamp after a timber harvest is not commonly observed as a suitable or viable silviculture practice due to the cyclic nature of the hydrology in a specific swamp, fluctuations in the water table, and the obvious difficulty of site access for tree planting. Management of a swamp forest is relatively passive when compared with pine or upland hardwood forest areas. Once the new stand of trees has successfully regenerated, there is usually little need to conduct intermediate stand treatments that might otherwise be suitable on pine or upland hardwood forests. Implementing a silviculturally-sound swamp timber harvest in a manner that minimizes soil and water impacts has shown to be the practical and viable prescription for forest management in swamps. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.7 Regardless of the method used to harvest timber, measures should be taken to promote timely regeneration of native forest tree species in the harvested area. In addition, timber harvesting conducted during high water levels (such as flooding or seasonal high water tables) may create turbidity levels that can exceed natural background turbidity levels. Timber harvesting should ideally be conducted during relatively dry periods and should implement appropriate BMPs to minimize impacts to water and soil resources. noRth caRolina FoRest seRvice (nc-DFR) contacts FoR the Roanoke RiveR Basin: Additional contact information, including specific counties, is available online. tABLE 7-3: NC DIVISION OF FOREStRy RESOuRCES CONtACtS IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN OFFICE LOCAtION CONtACt PERSON PhONE Lexington District - D10 (upper Roanoke, Dan R.) Water Quality Forester (336) 956-2111 Hillsborough District - D11 (Caswell co. to Vance co.) Water Quality Forester (919) 732-8105 Rocky Mount District - D5 (Warren, Halifax, N-hampton co)Water Quality Forester (252) 442-1626 Elizabeth City District - D7 (lower Roanoke) Water Quality Forester (252) 331-4781 Eastern region - Region I Asst. Regional Forester for Forest Management (252) 520-2402 Central region - Region II Asst. Regional Forester for Forest Management (919) 542-1515 State Central Office, Raleigh Nonpoint Source Branch - Forest Hydrologist (919) 857-4856 Griffiths Forestry Center, Clayton Water Quality & Wetlands Staff Forester (919) 553-6178 Ext. 230 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : O th ER N Atu RA L R ES O uRC E P RO gRA mS 2 0 1 1 7.8 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.1 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 CHAPTER 8 2010 use suppoRt & methoDoloGy IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.2 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  Grassy Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010208Roanoke River Basin Watershed John H Kerr Reservoir-Roanoke River 03010102Roanoke River Basin Subbasin Grassy Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010208Roanoke River Basin Watershed Grassy Creek (Grass Creek) 23-2-(1)From source to John H. Kerr Reservoir at Granville County SR 1431 18.3 FW Miles C  3a Johnson Creek23-2-7-(1)From source to Little Johnson Creek 5.3 FW Miles C  1 Mountain Creek23-2-3 From source to Grassy Creek 8.1 FW Miles C  3a Rattlesnake Creek23-2-5 From source to Grassy Creek 2.3 FW Miles C  1 Butcher Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010209Roanoke River Basin Watershed Island Creek (Island Creek Reservoir) 23-4 From source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line, including that portion of Island Creek Reservoir in North Carolina below normal operating elevation 6.4 FW Miles C  1 Little Island Creek (Vance County) 23-4-3 From source to Island Creek Reservoir, Island Creek 11.8 FW Miles C  3a Nutbush Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010210Roanoke River Basin Watershed Nutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool elevation) 23-8-(1)a From source to NC 39 1.7 FW Miles C   5 10/20/2010 Page 220 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.3 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  Nutbush Creek-John H Kerr Reservoir 0301010210Roanoke River Basin Watershed Nutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool elevation) 23-8-(1)b From NC 39 to SR 1317 1.6 FW Miles C   5   5  1  1 Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir (below normal pool elevation 300 feet MSL or as this elevation may be adjusted by the Corps of Engineers) 23-8-(2)From Crooked Run to North Carolina- Virginia State Line 9,690.1 FW Acres B  1 10/20/2010 Page 221 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.4 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  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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.5 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  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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.6 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  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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.7 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  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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.8 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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.9 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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.10 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  Hogans Creek-Dan River 0301010401Roanoke River Basin Watershed Dan River 03010104Roanoke River Basin Subbasin Hogans Creek-Dan River 0301010401Roanoke River Basin Watershed Cane Creek22-54 From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River 0.8 FW Miles C  1 DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion) 22-(39)b From NC/VA crossing downstream of Wolf Island Creek to last crossing of North Carolina-Virginia State Line 9.6 FW Miles C  4t  5 Hogans Creek22-50 From source to Dan River 29.1 FW Miles C  1 Jones Creek (Lake Wade) 22-50-3 From source to Hogans Creek 7.6 FW Miles C  1 Moon Creek (Wildwood Lake) 22-51 From source to Dan River 17.0 FW Miles C  1 Rattlesnake Creek22-52 From source to Dan River 2.7 FW Miles C  1 Country Line Creek 0301010402Roanoke River Basin Watershed Country Line Creek22-56-(1)From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth of Nats Fork 10.5 FW Miles WS-II;HQW  1 Country Line Creek22-56-(3.7)From dam at Farmer Lake to Dan River 24.5 FW Miles C  1 Country Line Creek (Farmers Lake) 22-56-(3.5)a Upper reservoir- From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth Nats Fork to dam at Farmer Lake (Town of Yanceyville water supply intake located 1.8 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 62) 90.7 FW Acres WS- II;HQW,CA  5  5  1 10/20/2010 Page 228 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.11 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  Country Line Creek 0301010402Roanoke River Basin Watershed Country Line Creek (Farmers Lake) 22-56-(3.5)b Lower reservoir-From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth Nats Fork to dam at Farmer Lake (Town of Yanceyville water supply intake located 1.8 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 62) 271.1 FW Acres WS- II;HQW,CA  1  1 Hyco Lake 0301010405Roanoke River Basin Watershed Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek) 22-58-1 From source to Hyco Lake, Hyco River 16.8 FW Miles C  3a Hyco River, including Hyco Lake below elevation 410 22-58-(0.5)From source in Hyco Lake to dam of Hyco Lake, including tributary arms below elevation 410 4,297.9 FW Acres WS-V,B  1  1 South Hyco Creek22-58-4-(3)From a point 0.6 mile downstream of Double Creek to Hyco Lake, Hyco River (City of Roxboro water supply intake) 0.7 FW Miles WS- II;HQW,CA  1 South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro) 22-58-4-(1.4)From backwaters of Lake Roxboro to dam at Lake Roxboro 493.6 FW Acres WS-II,B;HQW  3n  1 Hyco River 0301010406Roanoke River Basin Watershed Hyco River22-58-(9.5)From dam of Hyco Lake to North Carolina- Virginia State Line, including all portions in North Carolina 6.8 FW Miles C  1  1 Marlowe Creek22-58-12-6a From source to Mitchell Creek 6.6 FW Miles C   5 10/20/2010 Page 229 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.12 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  Hyco River 0301010406Roanoke River Basin Watershed Marlowe Creek22-58-12-6b From Mithcell Creek to Storys Creek 4.5 FW Miles C  5  1  1  1  5 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) 22-58-15-(3.5)From dam of Mayo Reservoir to North Carolina-Virginia State Line 0.5 FW Miles C  1  1 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) (Mayo Reservoir) 22-58-15-(0.5)From source to dam of Mayo Reservoir 2,613.8 FW Acres WS-V  1  1 Storys Creek [Roxboro City Lake (Lake Issac Walton)] 22-58-12-(1.5)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of N.C. Hwy. 57 to Roxboro City Lake Dam 189.5 FW Acres WS- II;HQW,CA  1 Aarons Creek-Dan River 0301010407Roanoke River Basin Watershed Aarons Creek22-59 From source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line 8.6 FW Miles C  1 10/20/2010 Page 230 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.13 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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.14 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 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.15 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  Quankey Creek-Roanoke River 0301010701Roanoke River Basin Watershed Roanoke River 03010107Roanoke River Basin Subbasin Quankey Creek-Roanoke River 0301010701Roanoke River Basin Watershed Chockoyotte Creek23-29 From source to Roanoke River 10.6 FW Miles C  1  3a Little Quankey Creek23-30-1 From source to Quankey Creek 9.5 FW Miles C  1 Quankey Creek23-30a From source to Little Quankey Creek 16.0 FW Miles C  1 Quankey Creek23-30b From Little Quankey Creek to Roanoke River 3.4 FW Miles C   5 ROANOKE RIVER23-(25.5)From a point 0.6 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 48 bridge to a line across river 50 feet downstream of N.C. Hwy. 48 (City of Roanoke Rapids, Town of Weldon water supply intakes) 1.7 FW Miles WS-IV;CA  1  1  1 ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)a From a line across the river 50 ft downstream of NC Hwy 48 bridge to the confluence of Sandy Run Cr at the Bertie Northampton Halifax Co. line 50.1 FW Miles C  1  1 Conoconnara Swamp-Roanoke River 0301010702Roanoke River Basin Watershed Conoconnara Swamp23-33 From source to Roanoke River 17.7 FW Miles C  1 Kehukee Swamp-Roanoke River 0301010703Roanoke River Basin Watershed Kehukee Swamp (White Millpond) 23-42 From source to Roanoke River 10.6 FW Miles C  1 10/20/2010 Page 233 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.16 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  Kehukee Swamp-Roanoke River 0301010703Roanoke River Basin Watershed ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)b1 From the confluence of Sandy Run Cr at the Bertie/Northampton/Halifax Co. line to subbasin 8/9 boundary 24.8 FW Miles C  1  1 Sweetwater Creek 0301010704Roanoke River Basin Watershed Hardison Mill Creek23-50-3 From source to Sweetwater Creek 19.9 FW Miles C  1 Conoho Creek-Roanoke River 0301010705Roanoke River Basin Watershed Conoho Creek23-49a From source to Martin Co 1417 below Beaverdam Cr 24.5 FW Miles C  1 Conoho Creek23-49b From Martin Co 1417 to Roanoke River 7.0 FW Miles C  1 ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)b2 From subbasin 8/9 boundary to Hwy 17 Bridge in Williamston 28.9 FW Miles C  1  1 ROANOKE RIVER23-(26)b3 From Hwy 17 bridge at Williamston to the 18 mile marker at Jamesville 17.8 FW Miles C  5 Headwaters Cashie River 0301010707Roanoke River Basin Watershed Cashie River24-2-(1)a From source to Bertie County SR 1225 15.2 FW Miles C;Sw  1  1  1 Outlet Cashie River 0301010708Roanoke River Basin Watershed Cashie River24-2-(1)b From Bertie County SR 1225 to a point 1 mile upstream from Bertie Co. SR 1500 30.1 FW Miles C;Sw  1 Hoggard Mill Creek24-2-6 From source to Cashie River 7.4 FW Miles C;Sw  1 Roquist Creek24-2-7 From source to Cashie River 26.3 FW Miles C;Sw  1 Plymouth-Roanoke River 0301010709Roanoke River Basin Watershed 10/20/2010 Page 234 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.17 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  Plymouth-Roanoke River 0301010709Roanoke River Basin Watershed ROANOKE RIVER23-(53)From 18 mile marker at Jamesville to Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay) 18.3 FW Miles C;Sw   4t  1  1 Welch Creek23-55 From source to Roanoke River 13.3 FW Miles C;Sw   4t  1  5 10/20/2010 Page 235 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.18 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.19 Page 1 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2010 Use Assessment Methodology EPA Approved August 31, 2010 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.20 Page 2 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Table of Contents Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Assessment Units and Water Quality Classifications ...................................................................... 3 Data Window/Assessment Period ...................................................................................................... 4 Data Availability and Quality .............................................................................................................. 4 Use Support Categories and Water Quality Standards .................................................................. 4 Aquatic Life Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 4 Numerical Water Quality Standards .............................................................................................. 4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standards ............................................................................................ 5 Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class C, B, WS) ...................................... 5 Saltwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class SC, SB, SA) ..................................... 5 Trout Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Tr) ....................... 5 Swamp Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) ................. 5 pH ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 pH Standards ................................................................................................................................. 6 Low pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) ................................................................. 6 High pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) ................................................................ 6 Swamp Water Low pH Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) .............................................. 7 Temperature Use Assessment ........................................................................................................ 7 Temperature Standards ............................................................................................................... 7 Temperature Assessment ............................................................................................................ 7 Temperature Screening Criteria for Trout Waters (Supplemental Class Tr) ...................... 8 Assessment of Extreme Temperature Conditions ................................................................... 8 Chlorophyll a ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Chlorophyll a Standard ................................................................................................................ 8 Chlorophyll a Standards Assessment ........................................................................................ 8 Toxic Substances and Action Levels Metals ................................................................................. 9 Toxic Substances Numerical Standards .................................................................................... 9 Metals Action Level Standards .................................................................................................... 9 Toxic Substances and Action Level Metals Assessment ......................................................... 9 Turbidity ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Turbidity Standards .................................................................................................................... 10 Turbidity Assessment ................................................................................................................. 10 Ecological/Biological Integrity ....................................................................................................... 11 Aquatic Life Narrative Standards.............................................................................................. 11 Aquatic Life Assessment ............................................................................................................ 11 Recreation Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 11 Pathogen Indicator Standards ...................................................................................................... 12 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria .............................................................................. 12 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Assessment ......................................................................... 12 Enterrococci Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................. 12 Enterrococcus Screening Assessment ......................................................................................... 12 Advisory Posting Assessment ....................................................................................................... 12 Shellfish Harvesting Assessment Methodology ............................................................................. 13 Shellfish Harvesting Standards .................................................................................................... 13 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria .............................................................................. 13 DEH Shellfish Sanitation Growing Area Classification Assessment ........................................ 13 Water Supply Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................... 13 NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.21 Page 3 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Water Supply Standards ................................................................................................................ 13 Water Supply Assessment ............................................................................................................. 13 Fish Consumption Assessment Methodology ................................................................................. 14 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Assessment Criteria ............................................................ 14 Dioxin Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................... 14 Mercury Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................ 14 Purpose Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which Congress enacted in 1972 requires States, Territories and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limitations required by section 301 are not stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards, establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waterbodies, and submit, from time to time, the list of impaired waterbodies and TMDLs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Current federal rules require states to submit 303(d) lists biennially, by April 1st of every even numbered year. The “303(d) list” is technically considered the impaired waters listed as Category 5, requiring a TMDL. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the state-developed §303(d) list within 30 days. For each water quality limited segment impaired by a pollutant and identified in the §303(d) list, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed. Assessment Units and Water Quality Classifications Water quality assessments are based on water quality classifications as well as data availability. Water quality classifications are associated with a stream reach or area that is described in the schedule of classifications. Reaches vary in length or area and are sometimes split into smaller units to represent application of water quality data. Classifications are represented by a series of numbers called index numbers, 27-33-43-(1), as an example. Water quality assessments are applied to assessment units or AUs. AUs are, for the most part, the same as index numbers. When an AU is subdivided because of data applicability a letter is added to indicate this smaller unit. For example, if Index number 27-33-43-(1) (12 miles in length) is divided into three different segments because of three different available data types the new segments would be 27-33-43-(1)a, 27-33-43-(1)b and 27-33-43- (1)c. The combined mileage of the AUs would be 12 miles. Decisions on the length or area to apply data to are based on the data type, waterbody characteristics, stations indicating similar water quality, watershed information and landmarks on which to base descriptions. The AUs where water quality concerns are evident are used as markers. Solutions to water quality concerns, including TMDLs, typically encompass entire watersheds. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.22 Page 4 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Data Window/Assessment Period The data window for the 2010 Water Quality Use Assessment (305(b) and 303(d) Integrated Reporting) includes data collected in calendar years 2004 through 2008 (five years). Some AUs may have biological data collected earlier for waters that have not been resampled during this data window or where the current impairment is based on that sample. The data collection year is noted for each AU. Data Availability and Quality Data are collected by various state and federal agencies. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality (DWQ) collects most of the data used for water quality assessments. There are significant data sets collected by NCDENR Division of Environmental Health (DEH) for use in coastal water quality assessment. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) also provides data in several AUs. Local governments and environmental groups as well as industry, municipal and university coalitions also provide data. Submitted data sets must include an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) or other documentation to assure that the data were collected in a manner consistent with agency data. A standing solicitation for data is maintained on the DWQ website. DWQ evaluates all data and information submitted. Use Support Categories and Water Quality Standards There are numerical and narrative water quality standards that are in place to protect the various best uses of North Carolina waters. Best uses include aquatic life or biological integrity, recreation or swimming, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting and water supply. Water quality assessments are based on the standards and data availability for the applicable use support category- aquatic life, recreation etc. Dissolved oxygen standards are used to assess aquatic life and pathogen indicators are used to assess recreation for example. Standards assessment criteria have been developed for each parameter assessed. The standards assessment criteria are used to make water quality assessments- not the standards themselves. While the standards assessment criteria are based on the standards they are different in that a frequency term is included. The details of how each standard is assessed are discussed in the following sections. Aquatic Life Assessment Methodology Numerical Water Quality Standards The aquatic life numerical water quality standards are assessed using a 10% exceedance of the standard criterion. These assessments use ambient monitoring data from the five year assessment period (2004-2008). If no aquatic life numerical water quality standards exceed the 10% criterion then the AU is Supporting aquatic life water quality standards. This AU/multiple-parameters assessment is a Category 1 listing not requiring a TMDL. If greater than 10% of the NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.23 Page 5 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 samples exceed the numerical standard and there are at least 10 samples, then the AU is Impaired for that parameter. The AU/parameter assessment is listed in Category 5, requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. The NC DWQ “Redbook” contains the complete descriptions of water quality standards and surface water classifications [15a NCAC 02B .0200 - .0300] Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standards Freshwater dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for trout waters; for non-trout waters, not less than a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l; swamp waters, lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. Salt water dissolved oxygen: not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters, poorly flushed tidally influenced streams or embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class C, B, WS) A fresh non-swamp water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 4 mg/l for instantaneous samples (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples are below a daily average of 5mg/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Saltwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class SC, SB, SA) A saline/estuarine non-swamp water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 5 mg/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Trout Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Tr) A supplemental classified Trout water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 6 mg/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Swamp Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) A supplemental classified swamp (Sw) AU was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 4 mg/l (5 mg/l for salt) for instantaneous samples (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples were below a daily average of 5 mg/l (freshwater only). There is not a numerical standard for these waterbodies and natural background conditions cannot be determined. This is a category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. A swamp like AU (not classified Sw) was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 4 mg/l (5 mg/l for salt) for instantaneous samples NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.24 Page 6 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples were below a daily average of 5mg/l (freshwater only) and when greater than 10% of samples were below a pH of 6.0 (SU) for freshwater or 6.8 (SU) for saltwater. Geographic location, biological data, tributary classifications, discharges and land use were considered when assigning use support ratings to waters considered to be swamp like or receiving significant swamp water input. pH pH Standards Freshwater pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 9.0 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; Saltwater pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.8 and 8.5 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; Low pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) A non-swamp water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below a pH of 6.0 (SU) for freshwater or 6.8 (SU) for saltwater. A swamp like AU (not classified Sw) was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below a pH of 6.0 (SU) for freshwater or 6.8 (SU) for saltwater or when greater than 10% of samples were below a dissolved oxygen of 4 mg/l (5 mg/l for salt) for instantaneous samples (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples were below a daily average of 5mg/l (freshwater only) Geographic location, biological data, tributary classifications, discharges and land use were considered when making use support determinations on waters considered to be swamp like or receiving significant swamp water input. High pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than a pH of 9 (SU) for freshwater or 8.5 (SU) for saltwater. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.25 Page 7 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Swamp Water Low pH Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) A supplemental classified swamp (Sw) AU was assessed as Impaired when greater than 10% of samples were below 4.3 (SU). A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Temperature Use Assessment Temperature Standards For freshwaters- Temperature: not to exceed 2.8°C (5.04°F) above the natural water temperature, and in no case to exceed 29°C (84.2°F) for mountain and upper piedmont waters and 32°C (89.6°F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters. The temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) due to the discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20°C (68°F). Lower piedmont and coastal plain waters mean those waters of the Catawba River Basin below Lookout Shoals Dam; the Yadkin River Basin below the junction of the Forsyth, Yadkin, and Davie County lines; and all of the waters of Cape Fear, Lumber, Roanoke, Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Chowan, Pasquotank, and White Oak River Basins; except tidal salt waters which are assigned S classifications. Mountain and upper piedmont waters mean all of the waters of the Hiwassee; Little Tennessee, including the Savannah River drainage area; French Broad; Broad; New; and Watauga River Basins; and those portions of the Catawba River Basin above Lookout Shoals Dam and the Yadkin River Basin above the junction of the Forsyth, Yadkin, and Davie County lines. For saltwaters- Temperature: shall not be increased above the natural water temperature by more than 0.8°C (1.44°F) during the months of June, July, and August nor more than 2.2°C (3.96°F) during other months and in no cases to exceed 32°C (89.6°F) due to the discharge of heated liquids. Temperature Assessment A mountain or upper piedmont AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 29°C. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. A lower piedmont or coastal plain stream AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 32°C. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.26 Page 8 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the water was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Temperature Screening Criteria for Trout Waters (Supplemental Class Tr) A supplemental classified trout water (Tr) AU was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 20°C. The presence of heated discharges was not determined. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Assessment of Extreme Temperature Conditions A waterbody that exceeds the above criteria may be Not Rated for aquatic life because of meteorological conditions that occur on a regular basis. These conditions must be documented and reassessment will occur after more normal conditions return. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Examples of extreme conditions may include extreme drought, reservoir drawdown, hurricane impacts and flooding, dam failure, and saltwater encroachment. Other extreme conditions may be documented as needed for future assessments Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a Standard Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 g/l in sounds, estuaries, and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation. Other waters subject to growths are interpreted by DWQ to include dam backwaters, lakes and reservoirs. Chlorophyll a Standards Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 40 g/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. Some reservoirs in North Carolina are sampled fewer than 10 times during the assessment period. These data are used to document eutrophication issues. Reservoirs are targeted for increased monitoring to determine if there are standards violations using the above methodology. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.27 Page 9 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Toxic Substances and Action Levels Metals Toxic Substances Numerical Standards Refer to the NC DWQ “Redbook” for complete text of standards Arsenic: 50 ug/l Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l; Cadmium: 0.4 ug/l for trout waters and 2.0 ug/l for non-trout waters; Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l; Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l; Cyanide: 5.0 ug/l Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l; Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l; Mercury (assessed in fish consumption category) Nickel: 88 ug/l; 8.3 ug/l Chlorides: 230mg/l; (note this is an action level standard) Metals Action Level Standards Action Level Copper: 7 ug/l FW or 3 ug/l SW Action Level Silver: 0.06 ug/l; Action Level Zinc: 50 ug/l; Toxic Substances and Action Level Metals Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than the above standards or action level standards. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. These are Category 5 listings requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. The action level standard for Iron was not assessed during this assessment period because the standard is being reevaluated and the Iron exceedances of the Action Level have been shown to be a natural condition. Action levels are used for permitting purposes and are not used as the only information to assess aquatic life uses. Copper and Zinc may be indicators of potential impacts to aquatic life. DWQ will review Copper and Zinc assessments that result in Category 5 listings. The review will be used to determine if the Category 5 listing is appropriate. The following criteria will be used to determine if a review is warranted. 1. A collocated Good, Excellent, Natural or Not Impaired biological rating or NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.28 Page 10 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 2. A collocated Good-Fair, Moderate or Not Rated biological rating and less than 25% of Copper or Zinc samples exceed the evaluation level. 3. There are no biological data available and less than 25% of Copper or Zinc samples exceed the evaluation level. The Water Quality Assessment Team will evaluate and integrate the following lines of watershed information to determine if a Category 5 listing for Copper and/or Zinc is warranted. 1- Analysis of duration, frequency and magnitude of exceedances. 2- Historical data and trends for the parameter of interest. 3- Detailed assessment of all available biological data. 4- Qualitative aquatic habitat information. 5- Natural or background conditions assessment including current imagery. 6- Sample quality (note that Zinc samples can be easily contaminated) 7- Waterbody classifications and other designated uses. 8- Exceedances of other likely associated metals. 9- Biological data in nearby Assessment Units. 10- Potential Sources of metals 11- Site specific hardness After review the Assessment team will determine if the AU/parameter assessment is more appropriately listed in a Category other than 5. Each reviewed assessment will require documented justification for a final Integrate Report category other than Category 5. Turbidity Turbidity Standards Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level cannot be increased. Turbidity Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 50 NTU or 10 NTU for Tr waters or 25 NTU for lakes, reservoirs and estuarine waters. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.29 Page 11 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Ecological/Biological Integrity Aquatic Life Narrative Standards The aquatic life narrative water quality standard is assessed using a biological integrity index criterion (or bioclassification). Biological integrity means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced and indigenous community of organisms having species composition, diversity, population densities and functional organization similar to that of reference conditions. Waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sources of water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard. Aquatic Life Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when a fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community sample received a bioclassification of Severe, Poor or Fair and there were no other Aquatic Life standards violations. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when a fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community sample received a bioclassification of Severe, Poor or Fair and there were other Aquatic Life numeric standards violations. This is a Category 4s listing requiring a TMDL for the identified aquatic life numerical standards violation (Category 5 or 4t listing) impairing the ecological/biological integrity of the waterbody. An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when a fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community sample received a bioclassification of Severe, Poor or Fair and an approved TMDL for an aquatic life numerical water quality standard has been completely implemented. This is a Category 5s listing requiring a TMDL. Recreation Assessment Methodology Recreation standards were assessed using fecal coliform bacteria data collected at DWQ ambient stations and special study sites and enterrococci data collected at DEH Recreational Monitoring sites in coastal waters. Screening criteria were used to assess areas for potential standards violations. DEH advisory postings were also used for recreation assessments as well. The following criteria were used to assess waters for recreation. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.30 Page 12 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Pathogen Indicator Standards Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliforms not to exceed geometric mean of 200/100 ml (MF count) based on at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30-day period and not to exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period. Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus avium and Enterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per 100 ml based upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when the geometric mean was greater than 200 colonies/100ml or greater than 20% of the samples were higher than 400 colonies/100ml. At least 5 samples must have been collected within the same 30- day period. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Assessment An AU was Not Rated when the geometric mean was greater than 200 colonies/100ml or greater than 20% of the samples were higher than 400 colonies/100ml. Samples were not collected in the same 30-day period. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. These AUs are prioritized for resampling 5 times in 30 days based on classification and available resources. Data are reviewed yearly for prioritization. Enterrococci Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when the geometric mean was greater than 35 colonies/100ml. At least 5 samples must have been collected within the same 30- day period. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Enterrococcus Screening Assessment An AU was Not Rated when the geometric mean was greater than 35 colonies/100ml. Samples were not collected in the same 30-day period. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Advisory Posting Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired when a swimming advisory was posted for greater than 61 days in any 5 year period (includes permanent postings). This is a Category 4cr listing not requiring a TMDL. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.31 Page 13 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Shellfish Harvesting Assessment Methodology Shellfish Harvesting standards were assessed using DEH growing area classifications. The following criteria were used to assess waters for shellfish harvesting. Shellfish Harvesting Standards Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliform group not to exceed a median MF of 14/100 ml and not more than 10% of the samples shall exceed an MF count of 43/100 ml in those areas most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria DEH fecal coliform data were not assessed to determine standards violations. Category 5 impairments were based on Growing Area Classifications alone. DEH Shellfish Sanitation Growing Area Classification Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired when the DEH growing area classification was Prohibited or conditionally approved. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Water Supply Assessment Methodology Water Supply standards were assessed using data collected at DWQ ambient stations located in Class WSI-WSV waters. The following criteria were used to Impair waters for water supply. Category 5 listings were only made when Standards Assessment Criteria (SAC) were exceeded. Water Supply Standards Refer to Water Quality “Redbook” for complete text of standards Barium: 1.0 mg/l; Chloride: 250 mg/l; Manganese: 200 ug/l; (not human health or aquatic life- not assessed) Nickel: 25 ug/l; Nitrate nitrogen: 10.0 mg/l; 2,4-D: 100 ug/l; 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; Sulfates: 250 mg/l; Water Supply Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for water supply when greater than 10% of samples were greater than the above standards except for manganese. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. NC D W Q R O A N O K E R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP O R t 2 0 1 1 8.32 Page 14 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Fish Consumption Assessment Methodology Fish Consumption was assessed based on site-specific fish consumption advisories. The advisories were based on the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) consumption advisories developed using fish tissue data that exceed standards. The following criteria were used to Impair waters for fish consumption. Because of the statewide Mercury advice there were no use cases for Supporting fish consumption and therefore no overall Category 1 waters. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when a site-specific advisory was posted for PCBs. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Dioxin Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when a site-specific advisory was posted for dioxins. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Mercury Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired for fish consumption when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 0.012 g/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Statewide advice for Mercury in fish tissue was not assessed because it was not associated with a specific AU but was applied to all waters of the state. All AUs are considered Impaired and in Category 5 for the statewide Mercury fish consumption advice. Previous site specific listings for Mercury will no longer be listed in Category 5. DWQ continues to monitor mercury in fish tissue, and has identified specific locations where Mercury levels exceed 0.4mg/kg of fish tissue.