NC0026441_Correspondence_19950609

NPDES DOCYWEMT 5CAMMINC COVER :MEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0026441
Siler City WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
CI Speculative Limits
Correspondence
Re ` am " afety
Instream Assessment (6713)
Environmental -Assessment -(-EA) -
Permit
History
Document Date:
June 9, 1995
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on tiie reverse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
b 'I')050y) A
�4 ��— �s
�EHNF�
Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Town of Siler City
Post Office Box 769
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
RE: Rocky River.Reservoir Dam
(Siler City Water Supply Upper
Chatham County
DSO 94-1
LQD 94-026
94 EHR 0462
June 9; 1995
JUN 20 1995
DN OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGT
Lake Dam) DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
i
? tv;
JUN 201993
Dear Mr. Barefoot: WATER QUALITY
SrECT!0N
It is my understanding that the Town of Siler City has
completed the installation of the venturi-type flow meter and
associated piping in the old pump house adjoining the Lower
Diversion Dam. On April 26, 1995 Messrs. Jim Mead, Fred Tarver
and John D. Sutherland, P. E. with the Division of Water
Resources met with Messrs. John T. Grimes, P. E. with Hobbs,
Upchurch & Associates, P. A. and Terry Green with the Town of
Siler City to inspect the completed work and verify the
calibration of the flow meter. During the inspection it was
noted that the discharge through the flow meter appeared to be
accurately calibrated, and -the -minimum- -streamf-low -release -
exceeded the required quantity per the schedule outlined in the
"Minimum Streamflow Release Requirement Conditions for the Rocky
River Reservoir Dam" dated October 14, 1994. Also, I understand
that an improved staff gauge has been installed in the Lower
Diversion Dam impoundment for measuring the lake levels.
In accordance with Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 3 of
the "Minimum Streamflow Release Requirement Conditions for the
Rocky River Reservoir Dam" dated October 14, 1994, please submit
monthly reports of the daily discharge and lake level
measurements to this office and to Mr. Sutherland. Also, in
order to ascertain the safe yield of the Rocky River Reservoir
Dam, a safe -yield analysis should be evaluated as previously
requested in a letter to you from Mr..Sutherland dated July 20,
1994. Please advise when this study will be completed.
Geological Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Land Quality Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Geodetic Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Leonard O.
June 9, 1995
Page Two
Barefoot, Town Manager
Our office appreciates the Town of Siler City's cooperation
in meeting the minimum streamflow release requirements for the
Rocky.�River,..Reservoir Dam. Please contact Mr. James K. Leumas,
':P. El., ;State: D`am Safety Engineer at telephone number (919) 733-
4574•should'you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Gardner, P. G., P. E.
CHG/JKL/
cc: Mr.
James K.
Leumas, P. E.
Mr.
James S. Mead
Mr.
John L.
Holley, Jr., P. E.
Mr.
Steven E. Reed
Mr.
John N.
Morris
Ms.
Linda C. Sewall
Mr.
John D.
Sutherland, P. E.
Mr.
Terry Green
Mr.
Richard
J. Durham, P. E.
Mr.
Joel J. Brower
Mr.
W. L. Yonts,
Jr., P. E.
Ms.
Connie Allred
4�, Mr:
A. Preston
Howard, Jr., P E.
Mr.
John Runkle
Ms.
Kathryn
J. Cooper, Esq. ()
Ms.
Jill B. Hickey, Esq.
Mr.
John T.
Grimes, P. E.
Dr.
Charles H. Peterson

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
J(
Health and Natural Resources
1
Division of Lana Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary<
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
.rC..
Director and State Geologist '
October 14, 1994
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Leonard 0. Barefoot, Town Planager
Town of Siler City
Post Office Box 769
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
RE: Minimum Streamflow Release Requirement
For the Rocky River Reservoir Dam
(Siler City Water Supply Upper Lake Da
Chatham County
DSO 94-1
LQD 94-026
94 EHR 0462
Dear Mr. Barefoot:
�)Ai� I
" OCT 1 & t99.1
D;v. OF EW-MCAMENTAL f,Fc„iflUL
DIREC7Of;5 OFFICE
Conditions,
Oi � i'• � `
Pursuant to the Dam Safety Law of 1967 (General Statute
_.S_143-215.23 et seg.) and the rules promulgated thereunder (the
North Carolina Administrative Code; -Title-15A,_ Subchapter-2K)_,-
the minimum streamflow release requirements for the Rocky River
Reservoir Dam are as follows:
1. Minimum streamflow releases from the Rocky River Reservoir
Dam shall be made by the Town of Siler City such that the
minimum streamflow releases discharged from the Lower
Diversion Dam and appurtenant piping from the adjoining pump
house into Rocky River shall be in accordance with the "
following schedule:
a. During the months of June through November - 2.0 cubic
feet per second (cfs) when reservoir storage in the
Rocky River Reservoir Dam is greater. than or equal to
70 percent of its normal pool capacity.
Geological Survey Section Lana Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] Y.: 733-2876 FAX: 733-d407
P.C. Box 27687, Raleigh, Niorth Corclinc 276i 1-7 587 Telephone [phone] =AX 919-733-4407

Mr. Leonard
October 14,
Page Two
O. Barefoot, Town Manager
1994
b. During the months of June through November - 1.0 cfs
when reservoir storage in the Rocky River Reservoir Dam
is less than 70 percent of its normal pool capacity but
greater than or equal to 40 percent of its normal pool
capacity.
C. During the months of June through November - 0.3 cfs
when reservoir storage in the Rocky River Reservoir Dam
is less than 40 percent of its normal pool capacity.
d. During the months of December through May - 3.5 cfs
when reservoir storage in the Rocky River Reservoir Dam
is greater than or equal to 40 percent of its normal
pool capacity.
e. During the months of December through May - 0.3 cfs
when reservoir storage in the Rocky River Reservoir Dam
is less than 40 percent of its normal pool capacity.
2. A flow meter shall be installed by the Town of Siler City no
later than November 30, 1994 to monitor the minimum
streamflow releases through the piping. in_kthe pump house,
adjoining the Lower Diversion Dam which`di!sclarge into Rocky
River. The Town of Siler City shall record discharge
measurements daily and transmit records of the discharges
each month to this office and to Mr. John D. Sutherland, P.
E., Chief, Water Resources Planning Section, Division of
Water Resources, Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Car6rina-276T1=7687 fora -period of --two years The_ time at
which each discharge measurement is taken shall be reflected
in the records to be submitted. Following this two-year
period the minimum streamflow release requirements will be
reevaluated by the Division of Water Resources.
3. A staff gauge shall be installed by the Town of Siler City
no later than November 30, 1994 in the impoundment of the
Lower Diversion Dam for the purpose of ascertaining the flow
quantities over the spillway of the Lower Diversion Dam.
The Town of Siler City shall record the lake level daily and
transmit records of the lake level each month to this office
and to Mr. John D. Sutherland, P. E., Chief, Water Resources
Planning Section, Division of Water Resources, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Post Office Box
27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 for a period of
two years. The time at which each discharge measurement is

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, To::,.n. Manager
October 14, 1994
Page Three
taken shall be reflected in the records to be submitted.
Following this two-year period the minimum streamflow
release requirements will be reevaluated by the Division of
Water Resources.
Please contact Mr. James K. Leumas, P. E., State Dam Safety
Engineer at telephone number [phone] should you have any
questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Gardner, P. G., P. E.
CHG/JKL/
cc: Mr. F. M. Nevils, Jr., P. E. Mr. James S. Mead
Mr. James K. Leumas, P. E. Mr. Steven E. Reed
Mr. John L. Holley, Jr., P. E. Mr. John N. Morris
Mr. John D. Sutherland, P. E. Mr. Rick Rowe
Mr. W. L. Yonts, Jr., P. E. -��` Mr. W. E. Venrick,
Preston' Howard,./Ei': Ms. Connie Allred
Ms. Kathryn J. Cooper, Esq. Mr. John Runkle
Ms. Jill B. Hickey, Esq. Mr. Joel J. Brower
Mr. John T. Grimes, E.I.T. Mr. Terry.Green
P. E.

' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
/••
FI
K -I _
April 12, 1994;'
CERTIFIED MAIL / n �n�Sa?1�
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I lir f rf ;i ; r n r ? LS
Ar':e A
Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager APR ,-R 199
Town of Siler City ;+ rl 1�`tk�MNT•
Post Office Box 769
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
RE: Rocky River Reservoir Dam
(Siler City Water Supply Upper Lake Dam)
Chatham County
Dam Safety Order No. 94-1 =- ' n,., ;
Dear Mr. Barefoot:
Thank you for your letter dated April 8, 1994 regarding the
referenced dam. Your letter was received in this office on April
11, 1994. I will try in this letter to furnish you with the
additional information requested in your letter and per our
telephone conversation on April 11, 1994. Clarification of items
in the Dam Safety Order are as follows:
1. Please note that prior to installation of any measures to
_ provide the required minimum streamflow releases, plans and
spec ifications-should-be-submitted—to this office for review
and approval. After an approval is issued, then
installation of the minimum streamflow release mechanism can
be installed. The Dam Safety Order requires that the
minimum streamflow release mechanism be installed within 91
days of issuance of the Dam Safety Order. Thus, plans and
specifications should be submitted as soon as possible so
that our office can review same.
2. . Our office has no record of correspondence from the Division
of Environmental Health, Water Supply Section which would
indicate adverse impacts from implementation of the tiered
release schedule in Finding No. 5 or Finding No. 7. I have
been unable to get in touch with Mr. W. E. Venrick P. E.
with the Water Supply Section to determine if his office has
any correspondence regarding this issue- The Division of
Geological Survey Section Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687. Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal OpportunRy Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Leonard O.
April 12, 1994
Page Two
Barefoot, Town Manager
Water Resources also indicated that it had not received any
such correspondence.
The tiered release schedule was designed, in fact, to
protect water supply storage during critical periods and
contains provisions for reductions in the minimum streamflow
releases based on reservoir storage. Also, as. stated in
Finding No. 7.D. in the Dam Safety Order, "Under emergency
conditions, the Town (of Siler City) may request permission
from DWR [the Division of Water Resources] and the Division
of Land Resources' Dam Safety Program to reduce the minimum
flow to zero."
3.. The last paragraph in the Dam Safety Order indicates that
prior to October 1, 1993 civil penalties may be assessed for
violations of the Dam Safety Law .of 1967 or the rules
promulgated thereunder at a rate of $250.00 per day of
'.willful violation and at a rate of $500.00 per day of
willful violation on or after October 1, 1993 The reason
for the difference in the rate of assessment is that the
General Assembly passed amendments in 1993 which took effect
on October 1, 1993. The amendment regarding assessment of
civil penalties raised, the daily assessment amount from
$250.00 per day to $500.00 per day.
If the required minimum streamflow releases are not made by
the Town of Siler City in accordance with the requirements
of the Dam Safety Order, then enforcement actions which can
-be taken -against - the Town _of_Siler City include the
assessment of civil penalties and/or initiation -of -an -
injunctive relief action by the Attorney General's Office.
4. I have checked with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH) which informed me that if the Dam Safety Order (which
was received on April 4, 1994) were to be appealed, the
written and verified petition would have to be received in
the OAR no later than 5:30 p.m. on April 14, 1994. The
OAH's street address is 424 North Blount Street at the
corner of Polk Street in Raleigh.

• ti
Mr. Leonard O.
April 12, 1994
Page Three
Barefoot, Town Manager
Please advise if I may provide any further clarification or
answer any additional.questions.
Sincerely,
James K. Leumas, P. E.
Dam Safety Engineer
Land Quality Section
JKL/
cc: Mr.
John L. Holley, Jr., P. E.
Mr.
Rick Rowe
Mr.
W. E. Venrick, P. E.
Mr.
John N. Morris
Mr.
John D. Wray, P. E.
Mr.
James S. Mead
Mr.
John D. Sutherland, P. E.
Mr.
Steven E. Reed
Mr.
Woody L. Yonts,,Jr., P. E.
Mr.
A. Preston Howard
Ms.
Kathryn J. Cooper, Esq.
Mr.
Joel J. Brower
Mr.
John T. Grimes, E.I.T.
Mr.
Terry Green
Ms.
Connie Allred
Mr.
John Runkle
Mr.
M. Steve Cavanaugh, Jr., P.
E.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
dw � / c"Ob
��.� `,�
ccc/�
IDEHNF1
March 30, 1994
CERTIFIED MAIL_'•
1
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED C"
�FS � 1p,;Y
Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager DIV OF
kd"'•`��:!�- F':'iaiflL(�
Town of Siler City DIRfcTOR$5rt, <<
Post Office Box 769-
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
RE: Rocky River Reservoir Dam - c
(Siler City Water Supply Upper Lake Dam) G.FR i9fi4! ?
Chatham County
Dear Mr. Barefoot:
Attached is an order, issued under the authority of the
North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967, requiring that within 91
days the subject dam located on Rocky River in Chatham County be
repaired, altered, reconstructed, and/or breached pursuant to
plans developed by a North Carolina registered professional
engineer, and submitted to and approved by the Director of the
Division of Land Resources, and requiring that the subject dam be
operated -immediately in such a manner as to make the required
minimum streamflow release as directed -by -the -Director of -the - -
Division of Land Resources. A copy of the North Carolina Dam
Safety Law of 1967 is enclosed for your information.
If you wish to contest this Dam Safety Order, you must
request a contested case hearing within 10 days after receiving
this notice. This request must be in the form of a written and
verified petition which conforms to the requirements set forth in
North Carolina General Statute (G. S.) 150E-23. The original
petition and one copy must be filed as follows:.
Geological Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Office of Administrative Hearings
Post Office Drawer 27447
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447
Land Quality Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Geodetic Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
March 30, 1994 q
Page Two
Any questions about filing a petition may be directed to the
Clerk of the Office of Administrative Hearings by telephone at
telephone number [phone].
A copy of the petition must also be served on the Department
as follows:
Richard B. Whisnant
Registered Agent and General Counsel
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Please note that failure to comply with this Dam Safety
Order may result in:
1. the assessment of a civil penalty of not less than $100.00
nor more than $500.00. In the case of a willful failure to
comply with this Dam Safety Order, a civil penalty may be
im7osed in an amount up to $250.00 per day for each day of
violation prior to October 1, 1993 and $500.00 per day for
each day of violation on or after October 1, 1993. This
penalty will begin to run from the deadline established in
the Dam Safety Order; and/or
2. a request to the Attorney General's office for injunctive
relief.
If you have any questions, please contact either:
Mr. John L. Holley, Jr., P. E.
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Land Quality Section
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Or
James K. Leumas,.P. E.
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Land Quality Section
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
March 30, 1994
Page Three
We would appreciate you calling us as soon as you receive
this notice so that we can be aware of your plans and schedule.
Sincerely,
4--P� V
James K. Leumas, P. E.
Dam Safety Engineer
Land Quality Section
JKL/
Enclosure
--Cc: -Mr. John L. Holley, Jr., P. E.
Mr. Rick Rowe------ -
Mr. W. E. Venrick, P. E.
Mr. John N. Morris
Mr. John D. Wray, P. E.
Mr. John D. Sutherland, P. E.
Mr. James S. Mead
Mr. Steven E. Reed
Mr. Woody L. Yonts, Jr., P. E.
Ms. Kathryn J. Cooper, Esq.
Mr. A..Preston Howard
Mr. Joel J. Brower
Mr. Terry Green
Mr. M. Steve Cavanaugh, Jr., P. E.
Mr. John T. Grimes, E.I.T.
Ms. Connie Allred
Mr. John Runkle

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural'Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E. .
Director and State Geologist
DAM SAFETY ORDER
FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF -LAND RESOURCES
Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Town of Siler City
Post Office Box 769
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
RE: Rocky River Reservoir Dam
(Siler City Water Supply Upper Lake Dam)
Chatham County Order No. DS 94-1
Pursuant to the authority contained in North Carolina
General Statute (G. S.) 143-215.32 as delegated to the Director
of the Division of Land Resources in the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 2K, Section .0221 (15A
NCAC 2K .0221), I find the following: r
1. The Town of Siler City owns a dam (the dam) on Rocky River
in Chatham County. The dam is located east of Secondary
Road (S. R.) 1362, south of S. R. 1346, north of S. R. 1312,
and west of S. R. 1355.
The Town -of -Siler City-a-lso-owns- another -dam-(thediversion__
dam) downstream from the dam and upstream of the S. R. 1004
bridge (Snow Camp Road bridge) which serves as the point of
intake for the Town of Siler City's raw water supply.
2. The.dam is approximately 46 feet high and has an impoundment
capacity of approximately 1,400 acre-feet.
The Rocky River below the diversion dam is classified by the
Division of Environmental Management as Class C waters of
the State. Class C waters are defined as "freshwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic habitat
including propagation and survival, and wildlife; all
freshwaters are classified to protect these uses at a
minimum." (15A NCAC 2B .0101(c)(1))
Geological Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Land Quality Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Geodetic Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer W%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Order No. DS 94-1
Page Two
An "Approval to Repair" dated May 4, 1988 was issued to the
Town of Siler City to perform modifications to the dam in
order to_increase its height and expand its storage
capacity. This approval stated that a minimum streamflow
release would be required from the dam site at all times,
even during construction, and that the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, the predecessor agency
to the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR), would notify the Town of Siler City of
the minimum streamflow release required.
5. A letter from DEHNR dated December 15, 1992 was sent to the
Town of Siler City requiring.an interim minimum streamflow
release as a condition of operation of the dam in accordance
with the following schedule:
Reservoir Storage Required Minimum Streamflow Release
100% to 71% 2.4 cubic feet per second
70% to 40% .1.3 cubic feet per second
40% or less 0.3 cubic feet per second
This letter also recommended that the Town of Siler City
initiate measures to reduce water consumption when reservoir
storage is 70 percent or less, and required that the Town of
Siler City install staff gages to allow monitoring of the
minimum streamflow release. DEHNR requested that the staff
gages be installed within 75 days of receipt of the letter.
The letter was received by the Town of Siler City on
December 21, 1992.
6. A letter from DEHNR dated February 18, 1993 was sent to the
Town of Siler City responding to the Town of Siler City's
letter dated January 13, 1993 regarding the interim minimum
streamflow release requirements. DEHNRIs,letter confirmed
the interim minimum streamflow release requirements and
staff gage requirements in the letter to the Town of.Siler
City dated December 15, 1992.

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Order No. DS 94-1
Page Three
7. On July 28, 1993 a meeting was held at the Town of Siler
City where copies of the "Rocky River Instream Flow Study"
report (the report) were distributed for discussion, review
and comment. The report recommended the following:
A. When the volume of usable storage in the reservoir [of
the dam] is greater than or equal to an amount
i established between 70 and 80 percent of the total
usable capacity, the minimum flow regime being released
at the diversion dam will be:
- 2.0 cubic feet per second from June through
November
- 6.0 cubic feet per second from December through
May
B. When the volume of usable storage remaining in the
reservoir [of the dam] is less than an amount
established between 70 and 80 percent of total usable
capacity, and greater than or equal to an amount
established between 40 and 50 percent of total usable
capacity, the minimum flow released at the diversion
dam will be reduced to:
1.0 cubic feet per second from June through
November
3.5 cubic feet per second from December through
May
-- When _storage [in the reservoir of the dam] recovers to
levels greater -than -the -first-trigger--point,_the
_
minimum flow regime described in part 1 [Finding No.
7.A.] above will be reinstated.
C. When the volume of storage remaining in the reservoir
[of the dam] is less than an amount established between
40 and 50 percent of total usable capacity, the minimum
flow at the diversion dam will be reduced to:
0.3 cubic feet per second during any month
This flow of 0.3 cubic feet per second corresponds to
the 7 day, 10 year low flow (7Q10) in the Rocky River
which was used in developing effluent limits for the
Siler City wastewater treatment plant. As storage in
the reservoir [of the dam] recovers, the minimum flows
described in parts 2 and then 1 (Finding No. 7.B. and
then Finding No: 7.A. above] will be reinstated.

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Order No. DS 94-1
Page Four
D. Under emergency conditions, the Town [of Siler City)
may request permission from DWR [the Division of Water
Resources) and the Division of Land Resources' Dam
Safety Program to reduce the minimum flow to zero.
8. A letter from DEHNR dated August 5, 1993 was sent to the
Town of Siler City regarding the meeting held on July 28,
1993 and the report. This letter summarized actions to be
taken by the Town of Siler City regarding minimum streamflow
releases. Review comments regarding the report were to be
mailed to the Division of Water Resources no later than
October 4, 1993. The Town of Siler City responded to this
office's August 5, 1993 letter in a letter dated August 13,
1993.
9. A letter from DEHNR dated August 31, 1993 was sent to the
Town of Siler City acknowledging the Town of Siler City's
letter dated August 26, 1993 which included a schedule for
installation of the staff gage (at the Snow Camp Road
bridge), completion of work to define an accurate stage -
storage relationship for the Siler City Water Supply Upper
Lake Dam, and installation of the necessary means to make
the required minimum streamflow.releases.
10. A letter dated September 20, 1993 from the Town of Siler
City to DEHNR was received on September 22, 1993 indicating
that the minimum streamflow release mechanism for making the
minimum streamflow releases had been installed and the
-- .-mechanism__was_providing flow downstream, and that the
installation of a flowmeter-for-recording discharges was in -
progress.
11. An inspection of the diversion dam by duly authorized
representatives of the Division of Land Resources, Land
Quality Section (LQS) on October 29, 1993,revealed that a
flowmeter had not been installed on the minimum streamflow
release piping, and that the piping was not capable of
releasing the range of required minimum streamflow releases
in accordance with either the interim minimum streamflow
release schedule as described in Finding No. 5 above or the
minimum streamflow release schedule recommended in the
report as described in Finding No. 7 above.

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Order No. DS 94-1
Page Five
Also, this inspection revealed that no water was flowing
over the diversion dam's spillway crest, and the only
release being made from the diversion dam was from a four -
inch diameter pipe installed in the pump house adjacent to
the diversion dam's spillway. The four -inch diameter pipe
is located approximately five feet below the crest of the
diversion dam's spillway. The quantity of flow being
released at the time of inspection was estimated to be
approximately one cubic foot per second.
12. A letter dated November 3, 1993 from the Town of Siler
City's consultants, Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P. A to
Mr. James A. Leumas, P. E., Dam Safety Engineer, was
received on November 9, 1993 which furnished stage -storage
data for the Siler City Water Supply Upper Lake Dam. This
letter stated that the stage -storage data would be used in
conjunction with water quality data to determine the amount
of usable storage in the reservoir.
13. A letter dated November 16, 1993 from the Town of Siler City_
to DEHNR was received on November 22, 1993 offering review
comments regarding the report. The Division of Water
Resources responded to the Town of Siler City's review
comments in a letter dated February 28, 1994.
14. To date, DEHNR has not received any additional data from the
Town of Siler City or its consultants regarding usable
storage in the reservoir of the dam as it relates to water
quality or total storage in the reservoir.
15. Lack of adequate -minimum- streamflow- releases -f rom -the -dam -as.
it is operated by the Town of Siler City have an adverse
impact on the protection of the waters downstream from the
diversion dam which are classified as Class C waters of the
State by compromising secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic
life including propagation and survival, and wildlife.

Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, Town Manager
Order No. DS 94-1
Page Six
Therefore, by the authority of G. S. 143-215.32(b) and 15A
NCAC 2K .0221, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The Town of Siler City immediately begin making no less than
the required minimum streamflow releases as described in
Finding No. 5 above in the river reach just downstream from
the diversion dam.
At this time, the Town of Siler City may elect to make
minimum streamflow releases as described in Finding No. 7
above in lieu of the requirements as described in Finding
No. 5 above. DEHNR will not pursue enforcement actions if
the minimum streamflow releases are made in accordance with
the requirements described in Finding No.'7 above in lieu of
the requirements described in Finding No. 5 above, and
2. The Town of Siler Cit within 91 days of the issuance of
this order, to wit 24 14- make the necessary
maintenance, repair, alterat on, or reconstruction to
continue to provide the required minimum streamflow releases
below the diversion dam pursuant to engineering plans and
specifications submitted to and approved by Charles H.
Gardner, Director, Division of Land Resources, or
3. The Town of Siler CiV within 91 days of the issuance of
this order, to wit � 2 �- breach the dam
pursuant to plans and specificationsmitted to and
approved by Charles H. Gardner, Director, Division of Land
Resources, in such a manner that will preclude the washing
of sediment downstream.
Enforcement actions which could be taken if the minimum
streamflow releases are not being made in accordance with the
requirements described in Finding No. 5 or Finding No. 7 above,
or if the plans and specifications are not submitted to this
office within the specified time period, include (1) assessment
of civil penalties up to $250.00 per day of willful violation
prior to October 1, 1993 and $500.00 per day of willful violation
on or after October 1, 1993 of any provision of the Dam Safety
Law of 1967 (G. S. 143-215.23 et sea.) or the rules promulgated
thereunder, and/or (2) a request to the Attorney General's office
for injunctive relief.
Date Director
Division of Land Resources

LAND QUALITY SECTION HEADQUARTERS
Francis M. Nevils, Jr., P.E.
Section Chief
512 N. Salisbury Street
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E. - Assistant Section Chief
S. Craig Deal, P.E. - Sediment Specialist
David H. Ward -Assistant Sediment Specialist
Tracy E. Davis, E.I.T. - Minhig Specialist
Beth U. Chessun 7 Assistant Mining Specialist
Tony S. Sample -'Assistant Mining Specialist
James K. Leumas, P.E. - Dam Safely Engineer
Jack H. Palmer -'Assistant Dam Safely Eneinear
Jonathan Burtrult, Sediment Education Spec.
Secretaries
Roxaruu Evans - Lead Secretary
Stephanie lane - Sediment & Dams
Susan Edwards - Mining
LAND QUALITY SUCTION REGIONAL OFFICES
Courier - 52-01-00
(919) 7334574
FAX Y [phone]
---------------------
ASHEVILLE
RICHARD PHB-LIPS, P.E.
MOORESVILLE
WINSTON-SALEM
RALEIGH
Interchange Bldg.
JERRY COOK
919 North Main
DOUG MILLER, P.E.
JOHN HOLLEY, P.E.
59 WoodEn Place
Street
Mooresville, NC, 28115
8025 N. Point Blvd.
Suite N.
3 0
3800 Barrett Drive
BarrettDrive
Asheville, NC 28801
Box 687
Winston -Solent, NC 27106
Raleigh, NC 27611
COURIER - 06-78-16
2 8 - (52)
COURIER - 13-21-08
COURIER - 09.2746
INTEROFFICE
FAX (704)
FAX / Q04) 251-6452
[phone] = (54)
FAX p [phone]
[phone] - (58)
(919) 5714700 - 55
FAX q [phone]
FAX p (919) 5714718
Avery Buncombe Burke
Caldwell Cherokee ClayHalifax
Alexander Lincoln
Alamance Alleghany Aahe
Chatham Durham Ed e
Graham Haywood Henderson
Cabamrs Mecklenburg
Catawba 'Rowan
Caswell Davidson Davie
Franklin Granville Hali Cax
Jackson Macon Madison
Cleveland Stanly
Forsyth. Guilford Rockingham
Randolph Stokes Sorry
Johnston Lee Nash
McDowell Mitchell Polk
Gaston Union
Watauga Wilkes Yadkin
Northampton Orange Person
Rutherford Swain Transykvania
Iredell
Vance Wake '
Yancey
Warren Wilson
Don Holebrooks, Michael Goodson, Charles
Koontz, *Richard Moore, ODennis Owenby,
'Stephen Alircd; Daphne Cartner, Tony Johnson,
*Brian
"David Bowman, Gray Hauser, Lindy Leonard,
Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, Debra Barbee,
Bill Beck
North, Keith Bradford, Bryan Moore
Darrell Westmoreland, *Matthew Gantt, Brooks
• Wyatt Brown, *Tim Holland, Judy Weimer
Cola
FAYETTEVILLE
WILMINGTON
WASHDVGTON
JOE GLASS, P.E.
DAN SAMS, P.E.
12il Cardinal Drive,
FLOYD WILLIAMS, P.G.
t
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
W a Bldg.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
405-
1424 Carolina Avenue
'Washington, NC 27889
WESTERN OFFICE
Suite 71
Suite 714
Sueartna Sumpter
Fayetteville, NC 28301
i.
/ n
COURIER-48}7q+gg 1 &-VH-D
11 North Markel Street
COURIER - 04-06-25
COURIER - 0446-33
[phone] '(57)
[phone] (56)
Suite 203
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] (53)
FAX q [phone]
FAX p [phone]
FAX p [phone]
(J04) 25IL08J
Brunswick New Hanover
Beaufort Bertic Camden Chowan
FAX p [phone]
Anson Montgomery Scotland
Carteret i Onslow
Craven Currituck Dare Gates
Greene Hertford Hyde Jones
Bladen Moore
Cumberland Richmond
Columbus i Peader
Lenoir Martin Pamlico Pasquotank
Harnett Robeson
Duplin
Perquinuns Pitt Tyrrell
Hake Sampson
Washington Wayne
Steve Cook, *Gerald Lee, Dennis Shackelford
Gerald Kraynak, Carol Miller
Harry Barley, 'Patrick McClain, Richard Peed
x DENOTES ASSISTANT REGIONAL ENGINEERS
REVISED 10/13/93

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
August 2, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
FROM: John Sutherland, Chief
Water Planning Section
SUBJECT: Rocky River Instream Flow Study
We have completed the study of instream flows needed for
aquatic habitat in the Rocky River downstream of Siler
expanded reservoir and water supply intake. The attached report
describes the analysis and the resulting instream flow
recommendations.
Hobbs, Upchurch, and Associates, consultants for the Town,
are developing storage versus lake level information for the
expanded reservoir. Analysis of this relationship will allow the
lake levels which trigger reductions in minimum flows to be
--established.
Please contact Jim Mead, Steve Reed, or me if you have any ----- -
questions regarding the study or its recommendations.
Attachment
cc: Scott Van Horn, WRC
Monica Swihart, DEM
J. T. Grimes, Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
Leonard Barefoot, Town of Siler City
Connie Allred
John Runkle
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] \
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%posf-consumer paper

ROCKY RIVER INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
Division of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, & Natural Resources
July 1993
In 1988, the Town of Siler City applied for a dam safety
permit to increase the dam height and storage at their existing
reservoir. The Town had experienced serious water shortages
during drought periods in the summers of 1986 and 1987. These
' had required mandatory reductions in water use which affected
local businesses as well as domestic use. The Town urgently
requested permission to begin construction as quickly as possible
so that the additional reservoir capacity would be in place prior
to the dry months of summer.
In light of this situation, a dam safety permit was issued
authorizing a ten foot increase in the height of the existing
dam. To allow construction prior to another potential drought
period, it was agreed that an instream flow study would be
delayed until after completion of the reservoir expansion. The
dam safety permit states that the State will notify the Town of
the minimum release required (see Appendix).
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) made field observations
in 1990 which led to the design of the instream flow study. Data
collection for the study took place on four separate occasions
between December, 1991 and April, 1992. This report describes
the methods, results, and conclusions of that study.
Methodology
The method used to evaluate -flows- and _aquatic __ha_b_itat
downstream of the expanded reservoir is the Instream Flow -
Incremental Methodology (IFIM). This state of the art approach
was selected because it is able to compare alternatives and
evaluate trade-offs. Its application, though more complex and
costly than other methods, is preferred where various uses place
demands on a.limited supply of water. IFIM was developed by the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) at the National Ecology
;r
Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. A complete
description of the habitat modelling procedures in IFIM is
contained in "Physical Habitat Simulation.System Reference Manual
- Version II", Instream Flow Information Paper No. 26, USFWS
Biological Report 89(16), by R.T. Milhous, M.A. Updike, and D.M.
Schneider.
-1-

IFIM merges hydraulic modelling of the physical conditions in
a stream or river with the biological suitability of those
conditions for the different life stages of the aquatic species
chosen for evaluation. Habitat is defined as the combination of
current velocity, depth, and cover or substrate which is present.
Multiple stream cross -sections (transects) are selected to
represent the various habitat types occurring in the stream.
Velocity, depth, and cover/substrate data are then collected at
numerous points on each cross-section under different flow
conditions. Models use this field data to simulate the physical
conditions over a range of flows. After merging these simulated
conditions with suitability factors for each life stage and
species, habitat is totalled for all the points on all transects,
at each flow. The result is a habitat versus flow relationship
for each life stage and species, with habitat expressed as square
feet of weighted usable area (WUA) per 1000 feet of stream.
The next step in developing a recommended flow regime using
IFIM is referred to as a time series analysis. This technique
uses the habitat versus flow relationships to convert an
historical record of stream flows to records of habitat available'
over time for each life stage of each selected species.
Different flow records can be used to produce records of habitat
under "natural" conditions and for various "with -project"
alternatives. Duration analyses and other approaches are then
used to compare the habitat available under different
alternatives and develop an instream flow recommendation.
Field Data Collection
The first step in conducting the field component of the
instream flow study was mapping the different habitat types
present in the stream reach of interest. In November of 1990,
staff from DWR recorded habitat types between the diversion dam
and a point a short distance upstream of the SR 1004 bridge.
Observations regarding average depth, substrate, cover, and
transect type (run, pool, or riffle) were recorded every 30 feet
at a total of 181 locations. The Appendix contains a summary of
this habitat mapping data.
Study transects were selected to reflect the relative
percentages of the different habitat types determined by mapping.
Overall, the transects consisted of 3 riffles, 3 moderate depth
runs, 1 deep run, 5 shallow pools, and 2 deep pools. This
arrangement provided duplication of the most prevalent habitat
types and allowed for variations in substrate and cover. Five
additional cross -sections were added as 'hydraulic control
sections for upstream habitat transects. These five controls
were used.in the hydraulic component of modelling, but not in the
biological model. The study transects were clustered in two
locations shown on the map in Figure.l. Five were located a
short distance downstream of the diversion dam (Upper site), and
a group of nine others were farther downstream (Lower site). A
list of transects and habitat types is included in the Appendix.
Y
-2-

Cross -sectional profiles for each transect were surveyed
relative to benchmarks established for this study. Between 23
and 38 points (verticals) were surveyed at each of the 14
transects, with cover and substrate data also recorded at each of
these points. Price AA or pygmy current meters were used to
measure velocities at all verticals on the transects which were
in the water. Water surface elevations were also surveyed at
several spots along each transect, to allow calculation of the
water depth at each vertical. The total discharge in the stream
was measured at a section with a fairly uniform profile and
velocity distribution. This total discharge was used in
developing the water surface elevation (stage). versus discharge
relationship at each transect.
Water surface elevations, point velocities, and total
discharge were measured at three different flows. A'fourth data
set consisting of only water surface elevations and total
discharge was collected at a relatively high flow. The dates and
flow conditions for data collection were as follows.
DATE
UPPER SITE FLOW
LOWER SITE FLOW
December 11-13, 1991
0.5
cfs
0.3
cfs
January 8, 1992
20.5
cfs
18.1
cfs
February 20, 1992
35.2
cfs
33.6
cfs
April 20, 1992
7.5
cfs
2.9 to
6.8 cfs
Hydraulic Modelling
The hydraulic modelling component of an IFIM study involves
calibrating models which simulate water surface elevations and
point velocities at every transect for a series of specified
flows. Water surface elevation (WSL) prediction models are
calibrated to achieve the best agreement between simulated and
observed conditions. The simulation approach used at each
transect was selected from four options:
1:) An empirical log -transformed equation of WSL as a
function of discharge, based on measured data. This approach.is
possible at all transects, but may be unreliable for pools and
riffles, particularly at lower flows.
2.) The, use of Manning's equation. This model, known as
MANSQ, can only be used at transects where the WSL is not
influenced by channel conditions downstream; ie. MANSQ may work
for riffles, but is not appropriate for pools with downstream
controls.
3.) The use of the standard step backwater method. This
approach requires data from a downstream control and uses energy
loss to predict WSL. It can be applied to pool transects.
4.) An arithmetic plot of WSL as a function of discharge,
based on measured data. This approach is a possibility for any
type of transect.

The Appendix contains a table listing the WSL simulation
approach selected, and the observed versus predicted WSL's for
each transect. The selected simulation approach was chosen from
those which were hydraulically appropriate for each cross-section
(pools versus riffles, for example), and of these, which approach
produced the best agreement between observed and simulated WSL's.
Velocities were simulated at each vertical for specified
flows using the observed point velocities and Manning's equation.
A separate model was created for each of the flows for which
point velocities were measured, three in this case. A roughness
value or "Manning's n" is calculated by the model for each
vertical where a velocity was measured. This roughness is then
used to calculate the simulation velocities for that vertical at
other flows. Calibration of the velocity models consists of
adjustments to the roughness values so that velocities fall
within acceptable hydraulic parameters. Velocity simulation is
also strongly influenced by the simulated WSL's used, and the
calibration of velocity models may include re -calibration of the
WSL simulation for a particular transect.
Each of the three velocity simulation models created for the
Rocky River study was used for a range of specified flows. These
ranges.overlapped so that the subsequent biological model outputs
could be more accurately combined into a single habitat versus
flow relationship covering the entire range of specified flows.
The specified flows were selected to cover the range of flows
contained in the historic flow record for time series analysis.
They also were spaced at intervals to provide better definition
in the range of potential flow recommendations and existing
conditions. The Appendix lists these specified flows and the
velocity model brackets.
Biological Modelling
Fisheries--biologists--with -the -N.C..- Wildlife. _Resources
Commission (WRC) were consulted in selecting the species for
which habitat would be evaluated. Four life stages of redbreast
sunfish - spawning, fry, juvenile, and adult - were chosen as
indicators of overall aquatic habitat in this portion of the
Rocky River.
The model used in this part of the IFIM study is referred to
as HABTAV. It requires habitat suitability indices (HSI's) for
each life stage. These factors reflect the preference of each
life stage for different velocities, depths, and substrate/cover
using a scale of zero to one (one being the most suitable). The
HSI's used for redbreast sunfish in this study were developed
from literature sources and consultation with WRC fish biol-
ogists. The depth and velocity HSI's are the same as those used
in several other studies. The cover/substrate HSI's were adapted
to reflect the types available in the Rocky River. Plots and
tables of the HSI's are contained in the Appendix.
-5-

The habitat model (HABTAV) calculates the area of habitat
available at the combination of depth, velocity, and substrate/
cover which exist at each vertical at a specified flow. This is
the product of the width of the transect represented by a
vertical (referred to as a cell), multiplied by the length of the
study site represented by that transect, multiplied by each of
the HSI's for depth, velocity, and substrate/cover. The model
totals the habitat for all verticals at all transects to
determine the total habitat at a particular flow for each life
stage. This procedure is repeated at different flows to generate
the habitat versus flow relationship for each life stage.
Habitat is expressed in units of square feet of weighted usable
area (WUA) per 1000 feet of stream.
The habitat (in WUA) versus stream flow relationships for
each life stage of redbreast sunfish are shown in Figure 2.
A table containing the WUA versus flow relationships is included
in the Appendix.
A technique was used to check the accuracy of the simulation
of the physical conditions which produce habitat. This involves
running a model which calculates the amount of WUA at conditions
(depths, velocities, and substrate/cover) actually observed
during field data collection. The total WUA's at these three
data set flows were then overlaid on the overall habitat versus
flow relationships determined by the simulation model. As shown
in Figure 3, this indicates that the simulation of habitat is
very close to the actual conditions observed.
Time Series Analysis
The final step in the analysis of habitat versus stream flow
is to examine historically available habitat in the Rocky River
and compare this to various alternative flow regimes. The only
continuously recording stream flow gage in the Rocky River
watershed operated from July 1958 to October 1981 on Tick Creek
(USGS Gaging Station 02101800), a tributary of the Rocky. After
consultation with engineers in DWR's Hydrology and Management
Section, records from this gage were used to develop a record of
"natural" stream flows at the Rocky River study site. The 24
years of daily flows were ratioed by drainage area from the Tick
Creek gage at 15.5 square miles to the IFIM study site at 55.0
square miles.
Due to its small drainage area, the Tick Creek gage recorded
zero discharge during some drought periods. To compensate for
this, after ratioing to the Rocky River drainage area of 55
square miles, all daily flows less than 0.2 cubic feet per second
(cfs) were set equal to 0.2 cfs. Observations in the field at
0.3 cfs also indicated that the habitat present at 0.2 cfs would
be virtually the same as that existing at flows between 0.0 and
0.2 cfs.

REDBREAST SUNFISH, HABITAT vs FLOW
1.
ROCKY; RIVER INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
WUA. (SQ FT PER '1000 FT) (Thousands)
I
24
19
14-
4 -1`
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FLOW (CFS)
ADULT JUVENILE FRY SPAWNING
FIGURE 2

REDBREAST HABITAT, OBSERVED vs SIMULATED
ROCKY RIVER INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
WUA (SO FT PER 1000 FT) (Thousands)
24
19
14
I
9
0
r.
j
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FLOW (CFS)
ADULT ° JUVENILE ° FRY SPAWNING
MARKED POINTS= OBSERVED HABITAT, 3 FLOWS
LINES= SIMULATED HABITAT
FIGURE 3

The final adjusted record of daily flows was then converted
into a;record of 24 years of monthly median flows. The monthly
time step is appropriate for evaluating long term impacts of
projects which do not produce short-term flow fluctuations.
Using the median of the daily flows for each month, rather than
the mean, prevents skewing of the monthly flow value by
short-term storm events on a flashy stream such as the Rocky
River. Finally, the record of median monthly flows was converted
into a record of available habitat by interpolation from the WUA
versus flow relationship for each life stage of redbreast
sunfish.
A preliminary step in developing a recommended flow regime is
to determine what flow, for each month, would result in no loss
of habitat. This is accomplished by finding the range of flows,
by month, which provides habitat at levels equal to or in excess
of the median (50o exceedance) occurring during each month for
all years of record. An example of this procedure is illustrated
in Figures 4A and 4B. These monthly flow ranges are determined
for each life stage. The lower bounds of these flow ranges are
then combined into an overall minimum monthly flow by taking the
highest of the lower bounds, by month, for the various life
stages. The minimum monthly flow derived in this manner results
in zero habitat loss (see Figures 5 & 6).
."With -project" flows are needed to compare habitat levels
under different scenarios and assess the significance of
impacts. One method for generating different ".with -project"
flows would be to construct a hydrologic model incorporating
reservoir storage, inflows, evaporation, and water supply
withdrawals. However, in the absence of lake level readings and
a lake level versus storage relationship, such a model would have
a great deal of uncertainty. Instead, it was assumed that during
the critical low flow summer season the median monthly flow would
be whatever minimum release was proposed in a particular
scenario. Excess spillage from the diversion dam would be
relatively_.brief and so_infrequent during the summer and early.
fall, that the minimum release would be the only -flow-in-the--
river for easily more than half the time during each month.
Using this assumption, the habitat (WUA) available under
different minimum release scenarios was compared to that provided
by naturally occurring stream flows.

ROCKY RIVER HABITAT DURATION
ADULT REDBREAST SUNFISH, DUNE
% OF TIME EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5
WUA (SO FT PER 1000 FT)Thousands
FIGURE 4 A

i
ADULT REDBREAST SUNFISH, HABITAT vs FLOW
ROCKY RIVER INSTREAM FLOW STUDY
WLIA (SQ FT PER11000 FT) (Thousands)
18.5
iM71
14.5
.12.5
10.5
6.5 -C-
0
//500%1, EXCEEDANCE = 12,755 WUA IN JUNE
FOR REDBREAST SUNFISH DURING JUNE
THE MEDIAN HABITAT TARGET IS MET OR EXCEEDED
BY FLOWS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 6.6 CFS
6.6 CFS
10 20 30 40 50 60
FLOW (CFS)
FIGURE 4 B
70 80 90

ROCKY RIVER - REDBREAST SUNFISH
LOWER LIMIT OF FLOWS FOR MEDIAN HABITAT
FLOW (CFS)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
','
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
ADULT JUVENILE ------- FRY SPAWNING
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
HABITAT TARGET = MEDIAN MONTHLY HABITAT
FIGURE 5

ROCKY RIVER - REDBREAST SUNFISH
OVERALL MINIMUM FLOW FOR MEDIAN HABITAT
FLOW (CFS)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
HABITAT. TARGET= MEDIAN HABITAT, BY MONTH
OVERALL MIN= MAX LOWER LMT OF 4 STAGES
FIGURE 6

Conclusions
By examining the zero habitat loss analysis (Figures 5 & 6),
it was determined that adult redbreast sunfish are the first life
stage to experience habitat losses as flows are reduced.
Therefore, focusing on the adults should produce a flow
recommendation which is also appropriate for the other life
stages. The effects of several different minimum flows on adult
habitat were evaluated to narrow down the alternative flow
regimes to be considered for the other three life stages.
Figure 7 compares the median levels of habitat for 24 years
of record under natural flows, to the habitat provided by various
different minimum flows. Figures BA and 8B represent this
comparison as the percentage change in median habitat when the
flow regime is changed from natural to a set minimum flow. This
analysis indicates that a minimum flow of 2.0 cfs limits adult
habitat losses to'about 10o in July and August, and provides a
slight enhancement of habitat in September and October.
A slightly lower minimum flow than 2.0 cfs could be
considered for September and October if redbreast sunfish was the
only species present in this reach of the Rocky River. However,
during discussions with WRC fish biologists, it was decided that
a constant release of 2.0 cfs from July through October is
preferable when considering other species for which specific
habitat models were not developed. The unimpounded reaches of
the Rocky River upstream of U.S. Highway 64 provide important
habitat for the continued survival of freshwater mussels which
are experiencing serious population declines downstream of
highway 64.
In July of 1993, WRC biologists conducted a survey of mussel
populations in two areas above highway 64: downstream of the
upper storage reservoir; and upstream of SR 1004, including the
reach containing the lower IFIM study site (see correspondence in
Appendix). They found a significantly greater abundance of
mussels in the area downstream of the upper reservoir, and noted
that this coincided with more reliable flows than in the other
area surveyed which was downstream of the water supply intake.
Historic collection data indicates that those species which are
more dependent on flowing water are now present in much reduced
numbers in both of the areas sampled. A minimum flow of 2.0 cfs
from July through October will help maintain habitat for these
organisms and other macro -invertebrates when low flows, higher
temperatures, algal growth, and lower dissolved oxygen combine to
produce stressful conditions.
-14-

ADULT REDBREAST SUNFISH
ROCKY RIVER - MEDIAN HABITAT INDICES
WUA Thousands (SQ FT PER 1000 FT)
13
NATURAL
3.5 cfs
2.4 cfs y
2.0 cfs
1.5 cfs or
1.0 cfs ow
---- - -- - ---------------- ------------------------------------------ -- --- ----------------------------------
0.5 'cfs
0.2 cfs y
12-
10-
0
LIM
VA
6
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT NOV
HABITAT
BASED ON
MEDIAN MONTHLY
FLOWS
FIGURE 7

ADULT REDBREAST SUNFISH - ROCKY RIVER
CHANGE IN MEDIAN HABITAT INDICES
20%
10%
0 Rio
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
JUN
.2 CFS
W 2.0 CFS
JUL AUG
.5 CFS
2.4 CFS
SEP
1.0 CFS
3.5 CFS
OCT NOV
HU 1.5 CFS
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
PCT = (MIN FLOW - NATURAL)/NATURAL
FIGURE 8A

ADULT' REDBREAST SUNFISH - ROCKY RIVER
CHANGE IN MEDIAN HABITAT INDICES
0 Rio
-10%
MPZ•pn
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
.5. CFS 1.0 CFS EM 1.5 CFS M 2.0 CFS
® 2.4 CFS 3.5 CFS 6.0 CFS
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
!PCT = (MIN FLOW -- NATURAL)/NATURAL
FIGURE 8B

Extending the period of. the 2.0 cfs release to include June
and November limits habitat losses for adult redbreast sunfish to
about 20 percent during these two months at the beginning and end
of the low flow season. A minimum flow of 6.0 cfs in May and
December also limits habitat losses during these two months to
about 20 percent. Discussions with WRC staff indicate that this
reduction in habitat is acceptable during these less critical
months. Furthermore, a minimum release of 2.0 cfs in June will
help conserve reservoir storage - thus increasing the likelihood
that the minimum flow of 2.0 cfs can be maintained through the
summer.
Extending the minimum flow of 6.0 cfs to the period from
January through April appears to result in adult habitat losses
greater than 300. However, during these high flow months it is
unlikely that flows downstream of the diversion dam would be
restricted to a flat minimum release. Higher inflows to the
reservoir, intervening inflow between the reservoir and diversion
dam, and tributary inflow and runoff downstream of the diversion
dam all mean that flows in the river would often be significantly
higher than 6.0 cfs. A 6.0 cfs minimum release would not result
in a median monthly flow of 6.0 cfs in January through April, and
is therefore acceptable as a minimum release.
DWR typically recommends a set of tiered instream flows so
that the minimum flow can be reduced to protect water supply
storage when critical levels are reached. The effects of
reducing instream flows were evaluated to help determine the
amount of these cut -backs. If the minimum flow is reduced from
2.0 to 1.0 cfs during the months of July through October, the
percentage of habitat lost is approximately doubled. However,
these losses are still kept below 20 percent. A 1.0 cfs minimum
flow in June and November still keeps losses under 30 percent
during these less critical months.
If the minimum flow of 6.O cfs is reduced to 3.5 cfs during
December and May, habitat losses increase to approximately 30
percent. A flow of 3.5 cfs during January through April results
in habitat losses of 40 percent or more. However, during these
wet months the minimum flow is likely to occur only occasionally
for brief periods, rather than being the constant flow throughout
the month.
The low flow which occurs for 7 consecutive days, once every
10 years (7Q10) at this location in the Rocky River is 0.3 cfs.
Reducing the instream flow to the 7Q10 of 0.3 cfs causes
significant habitat losses during any month. However, during
drought conditions, a minimum release of 0.3 cfs will help
preserve water supply storage and maintain water quality
standards in the Rocky River. This low flow does occur
naturally, along with the resulting habitat losses. However, it
is important to remember that the 7Q10 flow and the accompanying
stress on aquatic life is an uncommon event in natural
watersheds. It is usually not appropriate to establish the 7Q10
as the long term minimum flow in a regulated watershed.

The reservoir on the Rocky River provides the only source of
water for the Town of Siler City. It will therefore be necessary
to reduce the minimum release when storage in the reservoir is
significantly depleted. The "triggers" for reductions in the
minimum flow will be determined by analyzing what reservoir
levels correspond to different amounts of remaining usable water
storage (not including sediment storage). For a municipal water
system of this size, the trigger points for minimum flow
reduction are typically 70 to 80 percent, and 40 to 50 percent of
usable storage remaining. Analysis of the number of days of
water supply represented by these volumes is also a factor in
setting the trigger points.
Any reductions in minimum flow should also be accompanied by
reductions in water withdrawals. Typically the first reduction
in minimum flow occurs when voluntary water conservation measures
are invoked. The second instream flow reduction coincides with
mandatory water use reductions.
Consultants for the Town of Siler City are currently
developing a reservoir level versus usable.storage relationship
for the upper storage reservoir. Analysis of this information
will allow the triggers for minimum flow reductions to be
established. Siler City also has an existing water conservation
ordinance which initiates voluntary water conservation when
reservoir levels are 5.0 feet below full pool. Progressive
restrictions on water use are invoked at three other lake levels
below this. After the trigger points for minimum flow reduction
are established, it may be necessary to modify the ordinance so
that voluntary and mandatory water use reductions parallel
reductions in instream flow.
The minimum flow recommendations based on this instream flow
study are described below, with the understanding that the
triggers for reductions in minimum flow will be finalized after
additional analysis of the reservoir level versus usable storage
relationship. ---It- is —essential_ -that an -accurate reservoir,
elevation versus volume of storage relationship be developed by
the Town and its consultants so that lake levels.which trigger
reductions in the minimum release can be identified.
1. When the volume of usable storage in the reservoir is
greater than.or equal to an amount established between 70 and 80
percent of total usable capacity, the minimum flow regime being
released at the diversion dam will be:
2.0 cfs from June through November
6.0 cfs from December through May
-19-

2. When the volume of usable storage remaining in the
reservoir is less than an amount established between 70 and 80
percent of total usable capacity, and greater than or equal to an
amount established between 40 and 50 percent of total usable
capacity, the minimum flow released at the diversion dam will be.
reduced to:
1.0 cfs during June through November
3.5 cfs during December through May
When storage recovers to levels greater than the first
trigger point, the minimum flow regime described in part 1 above
will be reinstated.
3. When the volume of storage remaining in the reservoir is
less than an amount established between 40 and 50 percent of
total usable capacity, the minimum flow at the diversion dam will
be reduced to:
0.3 cfs during any month
This flow of 0.3 cfs corresponds to the 7 day, 10 year low
flow (7Q10) in the Rocky River which was used in developing
effluent limits for the Siler City wastewater treatment plant.
As storage in the reservoir recovers, the minimum flows described
in parts 2 and then 1 will be reinstated.
4. Under emergency conditions, the Town may request
permission from DWR and the Division of Land Resources' Dam
Safety Program to reduce the minimum flow to zero.
The effects of these minimum flow recommendations on the
different life stages of redbreast sunfish are shown in Figures
9A - 9D. Only the months when spawning and fry occur are shown
for these two life stages.
Consultants for the Town are presently evaluating different
methods to reliably provide these flows below the diversion dam.
A properly calibrated release at the diversion dam will satisfy
the minimum flow requirements of the dam safety permit. In
addition, a staff gage calibrated to water levels corresponding
to 1.0, 2.0, 3.5, and 6.0 cfs will be installed and maintained at
the SR 1004 (Snow Camp Road) bridge. This gage will give an
indication of the flows being provided to this reach of the Rocky
River.
-20-

0 Rio
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
ADULT REDBREAST SUNFISH
CHANGE IN MEDIAN HABITAT, ROCKY RIVER
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY. JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MINREL=2.0, 6.0 MINREL=1.0, 3.5 _ MINREL=0.3
LOWER MIN FLOW IS JUN THRU NOV
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
% _ (MIN FLOW-NATURAL)/NATURAL.
FIGURE 9 A
i

N
N
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
JUVENILE REDBREAST SUNFISH
% CHANGE IN MEDIAN HABITAT, ROCKY RIVER
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG.SEP OCT NOV DEC
® MINREL=2.0, 6.0 IM MINREL=1.0, 3.5 MINREL=0.3
LOWER MIN FLOW IS JUN .THRU NOV
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
% = (MIN FLOW-NATURAL)/NATURAL
FIGURE 9 B

-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
FRY REDBREAST SUNFISH
% CHANGE IN MEDIAN HABITAT, ROCKY RIVER
MAY JUN JUL AUG
® MINREL=2.0, 6.0 MINREL=1.0, 3:5 MINREL=0.3
LOWER MIN FLOW IS JUN THRU NOV
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
% _ (MIN FLOW--NATURAL)/NATURAL
FIGURE 9 C

0 Rio
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
SPAWN REDBREAST SUNFISH
% CHANGE IN MEDIAN HABITAT, ROCKY RIVER
MAY JUN JUL
MINREL=2.0, 6.0 LMMINREL=1.0, 3.5 ® MINREL=0.3
LOWER MIN FLOW IS JUN THRU NOV
HABITAT BASED ON MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOWS
% = (MIN FLOW-NATURAL)/NATURAL
FIGURE 9 D

APPENDIX
1. Dam Safety Permit Correspondance
2, Habitat Mapping Summary
3. Transect Descriptions
4. Water Surface Elevation Simulations
5. Stream Flows for Habitat Simulation
6. Habitat Suitability Indices Tables
7. Habitat Suitability Indices Graphs
8- Habitat versus Flow Relationships
9. WRC Correspondence on Mussels in Rocky River
-25-

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Jame G. Martin, Governor Stephen C. Conrad
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secmrary May 4, 1988 Dir ctor
Mr. Ben Shivar, Town Manager
Town of Siler City
P.O. Box 769
Siler City, North Carolina 27344
RE: Approval to Repair
Siler City Water Reservoir Dam
Ch: than County
Dear Mr. Shivar:
This is in response to your submission on February 4, March 21, April 4
and Apr-1 10, 1988 of plans and design data for the modification of the subject.
dam in C:iatham County on Rocky River in compliance with the Dam Safety Law of
1967. 17nese plans have been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Joseph W.
McGougan, P.E. of Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates.
This letter constitutes approval of your proposal to modify the subject
dam according to the plans submitted to this Division on the above dates with
the following stipulations:
1. Minimum flow will be required to be released from the dam site -at -all -
times, even during construction. The Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development will notify you of the minimum flow release
required.
2. Project construction shall be supervised by Mr. Joseph W. McGougan,
P.E.
3. The rip rap layer shall coverall exposed fill areas on the
downstream abutments of the dam and shall be a minimum thickness of
27 inches or one,and one-half times the average diameter of the rip
rap, whichever is greater.
4. During ccestructi.on the Division of Land Resources may require such
progress reports as is deemed necessary.
=26-
PO. Box 27687, Raleigh, (Forth Camlina.27611-76V • Tdtphone 919-733 3833
An Equal Opro,wniry Affirmative Action Employer

u
Mr. Shivar
May 4, 1988
Pag 2
5. 'Upon completion of the project, Mr. Joseph W. McGougan, P.E. shall
inspect the completed work and upon finding (1) that the work has
been done as specified, (2) and the dam is safe, shall file with the
Division of Land Resources "As -Built" drawings and a certificate
stating that the work has been completed in accordance with approved
plans, specifications and other requirements.
6. The water level shall not be raised until after final approval is
issued by the Division of Land Resources for operation of this dam.
7. You must notify Mr. John Holley, P.E., 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box,
27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, [phone], ten days
before the start of construction.
The Dam Safety Law requires that project construction commence within one.
year from the date of this approval letter, or the approval is void.
SGC/JDS/s1
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E. J
Mr. Joseph McGougan, P.E.
Very truly yours,
S VijA, ,-? 'K. z-
Stephen G. Conrad
-27-

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
50. North Salishury Suet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
February 1.8, 1993
Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot
Town Manager
Town of Siler City
P. O. Box 769
Siler City, NC 27344
Dear Mr. Barefoot
Jonathan 13. Howes, Secretary
I am writing in response to your January 13, 1993 letter
requesting that the interim minimum release requirements for the
Rocky River Reservoir Dam (Siler City Water Supply Lake Dam) be
suspended until the more comprehensive instream flow study is
completed and reviewed by your consultants.
The Dam Safety Law (G.S. 143-215.23-.37) requires that
"minimum stream flows" be released from a dam to meet and
maintain stream classifications and water quality standards.
-When—the-dam:safety--permit for the Town of Siler City's Rocky
River Dam was modified in 1988, it stipulated -that -an -inf-l-ow_flow___
study would be conducted to determine a minimum flow for the
Rocky River downstream of the water supply intake.
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) began collecting field
data in November 1990 for an instream flow field study to
determine flows needed to maintain aquatic habitat. Data
collection was completed in April 1992. DWR is now in the
process of calibrating the hydraulic and habitat models that will
be used to make minimum flow recommendations to protect the
aquatic resources of Rocky River, both below the upstream water
supply reservoir and below the downstream diversion darn and
intake. During data collection, DWR measured flows as low as 0.2
cfs at the study site downstream of the diversion dam. Based on
observations made at this low flow, adverse impacts to aquatic
-28-.
P.O. I!os 27657, P.akil;n, North G,: o!ind i761l 7,687 'I i'Icphonc 919-733-491;4. --a.c k 919 733-0513
An 1_cu.)l Anion Fsjplow

Letter to Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, dated 2/18/93
Page Two
habitat occur when little or no water flows beyond the point of
water supply intake. Also, the same stream reach has been
proposed for designation as critical habitat for four threatened
or endangered species.
In October of 1992, DWR recommended that an interim minimum
flow of 2.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) be maintained downstream
of the diversion dam in order to reduce adverse impacts to
aquatic habitat during the time it would take to complete the
instream flow study. DWR plans to complete this study by May,
1993, and I will forward you a copy for your review prior to the
establishment of a permanent minimum stream flow below your dam.
At present, DWR has provided the enclosed data and analysis that
indicates how it arrived at the interim 2.4 cfs minimum flow.
I know you are concerned with having sufficient water for
the citizens and businesses of Siler City during periods of dry
weather. The tiered minimum flow schedule and local water
conservation measures of the interim plan are designed to help
insure that the Town has enough water. I would also suggest the
following actions to help the Town of Siler City cope with dry
weather.
1) Initiate a comprehensive leak detection program to
potentially reduce the Town's present amount of unaccounted
for water from about 20 percent tp about 5 percent.
2) Have your consulting engineers determine the safe yield of
your reservoir as it is now constructed by running a
simulation model to track reservoir storage during the
drought of record.
If you have questions on how to perform the above suggestions,
please contact Mac Denmark (leak detection) or Tom Fransen (safe
yield) in DWR at [phone].
In summary, the interim minimum flow of 2.4 cfs is necessary
to meet the stream classification of the Rocky River below Siler
City's intake and remains in effect. The Division of Land
Resources will allow the Town of Siler City to review DWR's
recommendation for a permanent minimum'flow recommendation prior
to its adoption.
Your dam safety permit also includes a provision requiring
installation and maintenance of a calibrated staff gage for
compliance monitoring. This downstream gage should be located in
an easily viewed location at the Snow Camp Road (SR 1004) Bridge
over Rocky River. The calibration of this gage should be
-29-

Letter to Mr. Leonard O. Barefoot, dated 2/18/93
Page Three
verified at least every two years. The exact gage location,
initial calibration and re -calibration measurements, including
field data, should be provided to DWR within 30 days of data
collection. Please be reminded of the deadline for installation
of the gage as requested in my December 15, 1992 letter. The
gage should be installed by March 6, 1993.
CHG/bb
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Morris, DWR
Ms. Linda Sewell;. DEH
Mr. Preston Howard, DEM
Sincerely,
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director, Division of Land Resources
-30-

u
ROCKY RIVER IFIM STUDY
Total Number of Observations = 181
Riffles
Total % Riffles = 140-
Cover Breakdown: No Cover = 56%
Cover = 44%
Substrate Breakdown: Cobble/Boulder = 60%
Cobble = 280-.
Cobble/Bedrock = 8%
Complex = 4%
Runs
Total o Runs = 341
Depth Breakdown: greater than 0.9 feet = 520-.
0.9 feet deep or less = 480-.
Cover Breakdown: No Cover = 531
Boulder Cover = 316
Other Cover = 16%
Substrate Breakdown: Cobble = 606
Cobble/Boulder = 271
Cobble/Boulder with Fines = 50-.
Complex = 51
Cobble/Bedrock = 3 %
Pools - -
Total % Pools = 52%
Depth Breakdown: 2.0 feet deep or less = 620-.
greater than 2.0 feet = 38%
Cover Breakdown: Snags, Roots, or Undercut Bank = 490-.
No Cover = 40%
Boulder Cover = 11%
Substrate Breakdown: Cobble 53%
Cobble/Boulder = 340-
Other = 13%
-31-

ROCKY RIVER IFIM STUDY
TRANSECT DESCRIPTIONS
Transect Description
Lower site
T1C
control for T1 and T2
T1
shallow pool; roots and undercut bank
T2
moderate shallow pool; no cover
T3
riffle; no cover
T4
riffle; boulder cover
T5C
control for T5 and T6
T5
run; no cover
T6
run; boulder cover .
T7C
control for T7
T7
deep run; no cover
T8C
control for T8
T8
shallow pool; boulder cover
T9
run;. limited boulder cover
Upper site
T1C shallow cobble run; control for T1 and T2
T1 deep pool; no bank cover
T2 deep pool; roots and snags
T3 shallow pool; no cover
T4 shallow pool; snag spawn area
T5 cobble riffle; no cover
-32-

Transect
Simulation
approach
Lower site
1C
arithmetic curve
1
step backwater
2
step backwater
3
empirical log -log
4
empirical log -log
5C
Manning's equation
5
step backwater
6
step backwater
7C
Manning's equation
7
step backwater
8C
arithmetic curve
8
step backwater
9
step backwater
Upper Site
1C
arithmetic curve
1
step backwater
2
step backwater
3
step backwater
4
step backwater
5
arithmetic curve
I
Rocky River
IFIM
Study -
uSL
Simulations
Low
flow
Middle
flow
Mid -high
flow
High
flow
observed
simulated
observed
simulated
observed
simulated
observed
simulated
94.07
94.10
94.48
94.48
94.81
94.83
95.01
95.02
94.07
94.10
94.48
94.48
94.82
94.85
95.05
95.06
94.07
�94.10
94.49
94.48
94.83
94.85
95.05
95.06
94.64
I
94.64
95.02
95.00
95.30
95.29
95.45
95.48
94.67
194.68
95.07
95.05
95.34
95.32
95.47
95.51
94.95
;94.94
95.28
95.28
95.52
95.52
95.68
95.68
94.95
94.94
95.28
95.29
95.55
95.54
- 95.72
95.73
94.95
94.94
95.28
95.29
95.56
95.55
95.74
95.75
95.45
95.42
95.98
96.01
96.34
96.33
96.60
96.60
95.45
95.42
95.98
96.01
96.34
96.34
96.62
96.60
95.64
95.64
96.02
96.03
96.40
96.38
96.65
96.65
95.64
95.64
96.04
96.04
96.42
96.40
96.70
96.68
95.64
95.64
96.04
.
96.04
96.42
96.41
96.70
96.70
92.33
92.33
92.60
92.62
93.01
93.01
93.29
93.29
92.33
92.33
92.60
92.62
93.01
93.01
93.29
93.29
92.33
I
92.33
92.60
92.62
93.01
93.01
93.29
93.29
92.34
92.33
92.62
92.62
93.04
93.02
93.34
93.30
92.34
92.33
92.62
92.62
93.04
93.02
93.34
93.31
96.81
i
96.81
i
96.97
96.97
97.23
97.24
97.57
97.56

ROCKY RIVER IFIM STUDY
STREAM FLOWS FOR HABITAT SIMULATION
Velocity Model Flow Brackets for:
Low
Moderate
High
flow model
flow model
flow model
(ft3/s)
----------
(ft3/s)
----------
(ft3/s)
0.2
----------
0.3
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.9
2.9
4.0
5.4
6.0
6.8
6.8
7.5
7.5
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
12.5
12.5
15.0
15.0
18.1
18.1
20.5
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
33.6
35.2
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
-34-

ROCKY RIVER IFIM STUDY
HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR REDBREAST SUNFISH
ADULT
DEPTH (ft)
HSI
0.0
0
0.2
0
1.2
.8
2.0
1.0
• 6.0
1.0
_ 7.2
.6
8.2
0
' 100
0
JUVENILE
DEPTH (ft)
HSI
0.0
0.
0.4
1.0
5.0
1.0
6.0
.6
7.4
0
100
0
FRY
DEPTH (ft)
HSI
0.0
0
1.5
1.0
3.5
1.0
- --- - ------------7.0
0
-
-----------
100
----p -- - -- -
SPAWNING
DEPTH (ft)
HSI
0.0
0
0.5
0
0.7
.8
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
3.1
.6
6.0
.12
7.0
0
100
0
VELOCITY (fps)
HSI
0.0
.8
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
.7
1.5
.3
2.0
.1
3.0
0
100
0
VELOCITY (fps)
HSI
0.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.5
.9
1.0
.15
1.4
0
100
0 .
VELOCITY (fps)
HSI
0.0
.8
0.1
.9
0.2
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
-0
.8
. 8 - -
- 4 --
1.0
.15
1.4
0
100
0
VELOCITY (fps)
HSI
0.0
.8
0.2
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
.9
1.0
.15
1.4
0
100
0
35-

ROCKY RIVER IFIM STUDY
HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR REDBREAST SUNFISH
SUBSTRATE/COVER
HABITAT
SUITABILITY INDICES
CODE
DESCRIPTION ADULT
JUVI
FRY
SPAWN
1.1
TERR VEG/NO COVER
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.2
SILT/NO COVER
.1
.1
.1
.2
1.3
SAND/NO COVER
.3
.2
.1
.5
1.4
GRAVEL/NO COVER
.5
.3
.4
1.0
1.5
COBBLE/NO COVER
.7
.8
1.0
.2
1.6
SMALL BOULDER/NO COVER
.4
.6
.4
.1
1.7
BOULDER/NO COVER
.3
.2
.2
.1
1.8
BEDROCK/NO COVER
.1
.1
.1
.1
2.2
SILT/SNAG
.9
.8
.2
.2
2.4
GRAVEL/SNAG
.9
.8
.4
1.0
2.8
BEDROCK/SNAG
.9
.8
.2
.1
3.2
SILT/NEARBY SNAG
.8
.7
.1
.2
3.4
GRAVEL/NEARBY SNAG
.8
.7
.4
1.0
3.5
COBBLE/NEARBY SNAG
.8
.7
1.0
.2
3.8
BEDROCK/NEARBY SNAG
.8
.7
.1
.1
4.2
SILT/UNDERCUT BANK
1.0
.8
.4
.1
5.1
TERR VEG/ROOTS
.1
.1
.1
.1
5.2
SILT/ROOTS
.9
.8
.4
.2
5.5
COBBLE/ROOTS
.9
.9
1.0
.2
6.2
SILT/NEARBY ROOTS
.8
.7
.2
.2
6.3
SAND/NEARBY ROOTS
.9
.8
.3
.5
6.4
GRAVEL/NEARBY ROOTS
9
.8
.5
1.0
6.5
COBBLE/NEARBY ROOTS
.9
.8
1.0
.2
6.6
SM BOULDER/NEAR ROOTS
.9
.8
.5
.1
6.7
BOULDER/NEARBY ROOTS
.9
.8
.4
.1
6.8
BEDROCK/NEARBY ROOTS
.8
.7
.1
.1
7.3
SAND/INSTREAM COVER
1.0
.9
.4
.5
7.5
COBBLE/INSTREAM COVER
1.0
.9
1.0
.2
7.6
SM BOULDER/INSTRM COVER
1.0
.9
.6
.1
7.7
BOULDER/INSTREAM COVER
1.0
.9
.5
.1
8.4
GRAVEL/NEARBY ISC
.9
.8
.5
1.0
8.5
COBBLE/NEARBY ISC
.9
.8
1.0
.2
8.6
SM BOULDER/NEARBY ISC
.9
.8
.5
.1
8.7
BOULDER/NEARBY ISC
.9
.8
.4
.1
NOTE: ISC = INSTREAM COVER, A ROCKY COVER OBJECT WHICH COULD
OFFER CONCEALMENT FOR A FISH
NEARBY = WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 1.0 METER
TERR VEG = TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
-36-

REDBREAST SUNFISH - ADULT
j
DEPTH HSI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
1
m
0.6
WA
a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DEPTH M
8 9 10

s
REDBREAST SUNFISH - ADULT
VELOCITY.FISI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
0.2
lo•
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
VELOCITY (fps)

I
REDBREAST SUNFISH - JUVENILE
DEPTH HSI'S
j
SUITABILITY INDEX
1
w
M
m
0.2
0
DEPTH 00
I

Y
REDBREAST SUNFISH - JUVENILE
VELOCITY HSI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
1
0.2
P•
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
VELOCITY (fps)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
REDBREAST SUNFISH FRY
DEPTH HSI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
0
3 4 5 6 7
DEPTH (ft)

REDBREAST SUNFISH - FRY
VELOCITY HSI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
1
m
A.
,s
0.2
I
0.25 0.5 0.75 1
VELOCITY (fps)
1.25 1.5

REDBREAST SUNFISH -
DEPTH HSI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
1 1.
m
14091
N"
0.2
1
3 .4 5
DEPTH (ft)
SPAWNING
6 7 8.

I
,REDBREAST SUNFISH - SPAWNING
VELOCITY HSI'S
SUITABILITY INDEX
WE
lelt 1
Lrox2
0.2
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
VELOCITY (fps)
1.25 1.5

ROCKY RIVER IFIM STUDY
HABITAT VERSUS FLOW RELATIONSHIPS
REDBREAST SUNFISH HABITAT
FLOW
WUA
SQ FEET
PER 1000 FEET
(cfs)
ADULT
JUVI
FRY
SPAWN
0.2
6654
16193
7906
4033
0.3
7292
17044
8613
4480
0.5
8518
18763
9896
5310
+ 1
9190
19642
10778
5721
2
10095
20634
11980
6263
2.4
10400
20956
12389
6448
2.9
10727
21267
12837
6648
4
11468
22186
13876
7071
5.4
12177
22730
14767
7508
6
12485
22860
15094
7697
6.8
12868
23177
15648
7955
7.5
13156
23286
15945
8120
9
13723
23450
16486
8391
10
14110
23559
16819
8557
12.5
14901
23563
17319
8820
15
15603
23453
17613
9007
18.1
16383
23184
17776
9150
20.5
16875
22872
17744
9235
22.5
17458
22724
18097
9365
25
17874
22257
17802
9307
27.5
18303
21835
17555
9210
30
18621
21315
17126
9032
33.6
19038
20613
16585
8765
35.2
19222
20295
16316
8636
-----40--____-19618
19310
15490
8240
50
19944-
- 17204----___13478
7333
60
19919
15429
11883
-6549-
70
19598
13968
10563
5883 -
80
19625
12864
9544
5353
90
18329
11975
8733
4920
150
14149
6642
3865
2324
w
-45-

jL. I: `l, ____.
I' l c M J R N r, U 1.- .
L.l'
'� anc. "-_____ _"-
_._ _1--i3i�
R>'
_.ha-h_m.
cct.
_e3alLc.
c.-.•__7-D J..
li L':1 -._�DV
SR. _U'_
J.
(RE Fr'iF�E.P
vIT (` - DETLU,^SIS
r
Eid nUSfDR _-
b:u_nS
=�„10 SFF. -_7.
__TOW SIT.ER
rT___
_'^.10E' SFEC.I ESJ -
-RESERi�GTR
— ------_
Vit•I,OS:'-`. D�LUMn=c�
-, -
SEHI,� D�tti I
-
ANODON=.-Ti
UNIOMERUS SF.
VII:TOS'�. CCISJ_ =T-.
Q; i_
SHE= FOiIiQD
_-TER)
a __'en m —` - -__-
Fait e?:4e'" .^.CE it '.3 Vverylikely `.112. C. �1-' OS '.qe dPC'.i •-• q•��-.r-_
_.._=.ualiy occur abo':e and I'Deiow the Siie_ .,_.-.._rawal areaF on =..�
Rocky, Rive_ .-.dd____nal surveys would _'o-_D__V .___-ti C..:_ t.his 7aLea.en
19 C'_'_'_e^_.L. i._a3L -ear dL;i _n._1 the Cape Fear 3Cr. eve Co.n.sL,'lfLc
was found above US in the Rockv River.)
_he__ are _roba;�Iv :._ significant differences _n -roc' resources or in
3Libs'.raLe charartF____.ics above ver3u3 e=r,:•: she .._„__-:^.drawal area _n
rile Rock-, Rlve-. }_.:^'GeV ei� there i3 signLcantl_ low in
area. Mu5se13 are a_so s ignificantl'v' :;L ahc- = versus L-+e - ow
ware' withdrawc a=ea. .

one state lisz_d threatened AJ.r�:
undulatus), is found in the Rocky F._.er a.__,._ Uc 04. T_h,_ species is
closel': associated with 1Ctic .^._..___._.-._.
Finally,.at least. two of the Ell_-- e:' __ in the .upper ROCK
River may
literature. represent_ _recognized
co: jack Dznnellv
a
—47—