Final Chowan 2007

Chowan River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan

August 2007
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Planning Unit

CHOWAN RIVER BASINWIDE
WATER QUALITY PLAN

2007

Prepared by:
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

[phone]

This document was approved and endorsed by the NC Environmental Management Commission on September
13, 2007 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality in carrying out its Water Quality Program
duties and responsibilities in the Chowan River basin. This plan is the third five-year update to the Chowan
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission in September
1997.

Table of Contents iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................13
What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?.....................................................................13
Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.....................................................................13
Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.................................................................14
How You Can Get Involved ..............................................................................................14
Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations.........................................................14
Reference Materials...........................................................................................................16
How to Read the Basinwide Plan.......................................................................................16
Chapter 1 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01............................................................................19
Including: Chowan River (Upper), Wiccacon River, Ahoskie Creek and Bennetts Creek
(Merchants Millpond)......................................................................................................19
1.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................19
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................24
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............25
1.3.1 Chowan River [AU# 25a1, a2a, a2b, a2c]....................................................25
1.3.2 Wiccacon River (Hoggard Swamp) [AU# 25-14]........................................26
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................27
1.4.1 Cole Creek (Lilley’s Millpond) [AU# 25-12-7]...........................................27
1.4.2 Ahoskie Creek [AU# 25-14-1]......................................................................28
1.4.3 Stony Creek [AU# 25-14-1-6]......................................................................29
1.4.4 Bennetts Creek (Merchants Millpond) [AU# 25-17]....................................29
Chapter 2 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02............................................................................31
Including: Meherrin River, Cutawhiskie Swamp and Potecasi Creek..................................31
2.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................31
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................35
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............36
2.3.1 Potecasi Creek [AU# 25-4-8a and AU# 25-4-8b].........................................36
2.3.2 Bells Branch [AU# 25-4-8-10] and Painter Swamp [AU# 25-4-8-5]...........37
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................37
2.4.1 Meherrin River [AU# 25-4-(5)]....................................................................37
2.4.2 Urahaw Swamp [AU# 25-4-8-4] ..................................................................38
2.4.3 Cutawhiskie Swamp [AU# 25-4-8-8]...........................................................38
Chapter 3 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03............................................................................39
iv Table of Contents
Including: Chowan River (Middle)...........................................................................................39
3.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................39
3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................42
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............43
3.3.1 Chowan River [AU# 25b].............................................................................43
Chapter 4 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04............................................................................45
Including: Chowan River (Lower), Eastmost Swamp and Albemarle Sound ......................45
4.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................45
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................49
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............50
4.3.1 Albemarle Sound [AU# 26]..........................................................................50
4.3.2 Chowan River [AU# 25c].............................................................................50
4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................51
4.4.1 Eastmost Swamp [AU# 25-24-1]..................................................................51
4.4.2 Pollock Swamp [AU# 26-1-1-1] and Rockyhock Creek [AU# 25-22].........52
Chapter 5 North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards..............................53
5.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards ...................................53
5.1.1 Statewide Classifications..............................................................................53
5.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards..............................................................53
5.1.3 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management .......................................................55
Chapter 6 Water Quality Stressors and Sources of Impairment in the Chowan River Basin57
6.1 Stressor and Source Identification............................................................................57
6.1.1 Stressors........................................................................................................57
6.1.2 Sources..........................................................................................................58
Chapter 7 Stormwater and Wastewater Management for Improved Water Quality...........59
7.1 Introduction to Stormwater Runoff...........................................................................59
7.2 Stormwater Programs................................................................................................59
7.3 Wastewater Management Programs .........................................................................60
7.3.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary.........................................60
7.3.2 Permitted Non-Discharge Waste Management Strategies............................61
7.3.3 On-Site Waste Management.........................................................................63
Chapter 8 Population and Natural Resources in the Chowan River Basin............................65
8.1 Population Growth and Development.......................................................................65
8.2 River Basin Hydrologic Units...................................................................................66
8.3 Water Resources and Water Supply Planning..........................................................67
8.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought.................................................................67

Table of Contents v
8.5 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies................................................68
8.5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................68
8.5.2 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas ..........................................68
8.5.3 Susceptibility Determination – North Carolina’s Overall Approach............69
8.5.4 Source Water Protection...............................................................................70
8.5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the Chowan River
Basin .............................................................................................................70
8.6 Changes in Land Cover.............................................................................................71
8.7 Forest Management...................................................................................................72
8.7.1 Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (FPGs).....................73
8.7.2 Forestry Best Management Practices............................................................73
8.7.3 Bridgemats....................................................................................................74
8.7.4 Forest Products Industry...............................................................................74
8.8 Public Lands..............................................................................................................74
8.9 Ecological Significance of the Chowan River Basin................................................74
8.9.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Chowan River Basin...................75
8.9.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species..................................76
8.10 Fisheries....................................................................................................................78
8.10.1 River Herring Fisheries Management Plan...................................................78
8.10.2 Fish Kill Summary........................................................................................78
Chapter 9 Agriculture and Water Quality................................................................................79
9.1 Animal Operations....................................................................................................79
9.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities .....................81
9.2.1 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program............................................................81
9.2.2 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)......83
9.2.3 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)................................83
9.3 SWCD Water Quality Strategy Plan.........................................................................84
Chapter 10 Water Quality Management Strategies.................................................................85
10.1 The Role of State Government .................................................................................85
10.2 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan................................................................................86
10.3 NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.....................................................................89
10.4 Community Conservation Assistance Program........................................................93
10.5 The Role of Local Government in Land Use Planning.............................................94
10.5.1 Land Use Plans .............................................................................................94
10.5.2 Land Use Plans for Communities in the Chowan River Basin.....................95
10.6 Management Recommendations for Local Governments.........................................97
10.7 Planning for Sea Level Changes...............................................................................99
10.8 Using Land Use Planning as a Tool to Reduce Impacts of Future Development.....99
10.9 The Importance of Local Initiatives........................................................................100
10.9.1 Federal Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program.......................................101
vi Table of Contents
10.9.2 NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs............................................101
10.9.3 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.....................................102
10.9.4 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program ...................................102
10.9.5 Clean Water Management Trust Fund........................................................102
10.9.6 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP)..........................104
Chapter 11 North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List.............................................................107
11.1 Introduction to North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List........................................107
11.2 Introduction to TMDLs.........................................................................................107
11.3 Contents of the Integrated Report.........................................................................107
11.4 How North Carolina Proposes Delisting Waters..................................................109
11.5 Scheduling TMDLs...............................................................................................110
11.6 Revising TMDLs ..................................................................................................110
References...................................................................................................................................113

Appendices vii
APPENDICES

I DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Chowan River Basin

II Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

III NPDES Discharge, Non-Discharge and Individual Stormwater Permits

IV Chowan River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

V Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

viii List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure i General Map of the Entire Chowan River Basin in NC...............................................11
Figure ii General Map of the Chowan River basin in North Carolina .......................................12
Figure 1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2005 to 2009).............................................................13
Figure 2 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices ...............................................................17
Figure 3 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01...............................................................................20
Figure 4 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02...............................................................................32
Figure 5 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03...............................................................................40
Figure 6 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04...............................................................................46
Figure 7 Animal Operations in the Chowan River basin...........................................................80

List of Tables ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table i Subbasin 03-01-01 DWQ Classifications........................................................................2
Table ii Subbasin 03-01-02 DWQ Classifications........................................................................2
Table iii Subbasin 03-01-03 DWQ Classifications........................................................................3
Table iv Subbasin 03-01-04 DWQ Classifications by Miles and Acres........................................3
Table v Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation Use Support Summary Information ......................4
Table 1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2004 to 2011).............................................................15
Table 2 Five-Year Planning Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan........15
Table 3 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-01.......................................................................................................21
Table 4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-01........................24
Table 5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-02.......................................................................................................33
Table 6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-02........................35
Table 7 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-03.......................................................................................................41
Table 8 Potential Biological Sampling Locations in Subbasin 03-01-03.................................42
Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-03........................42
Table 10 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-04.......................................................................................................47
Table 11 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-04........................49
Table 12 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications ..........................................54
Table 13 NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Chowan River Basin.....................61
Table 14 NPDES Non-Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Chowan River Basin.............63
Table 15 County Population and Growth Estimates...................................................................65
Table 16 Population Data by Municipality in the Chowan River Basin.....................................66
Table 17 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Chowan River Basin.................................................67
Table 18 Land Cover in the Chowan River Basin by Major Watersheds: 1982 vs. 1997..........72
Table 19 List of Rare Aquatic Species in the Chowan River Basin...........................................77
Table 20 Permitted Animal Operations. .....................................................................................79
Table 21 Summary of NCACSP projects in the Chowan River Basin (2000 to 2005)..............82
Table 22 CREP Acres.................................................................................................................84
Table 23 Local Planning Jurisdictions........................................................................................95
Table 24 Section 319 Grant Funded Projects in the Chowan River Basin...............................101
Table 25 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects in the Chowan River Basin.............103

x List of Figures

Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary

North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management

Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are
prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in
the state. Each basinwide plan is revised at five-year intervals. While these plans are prepared
by the DWQ, the implementation and the protection of water quality entails coordinated efforts
of many agencies, local governments and stakeholders in the state.

The goals of DWQ’s basinwide program are to:

• Identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters,
• Identify and protect high value resource waters, and
• Protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:
• Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution,
• Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers,
• Regulate point and nonpoint source pollution where other approaches were unsuccessful,
• Improve public awareness and involvement, and
• Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies to protect
and restore water quality. This includes providing agencies information related to
financial and funding opportunities.

This document is the third edition of the Chowan River Basinwide Water Quality Plan updated
on a five-year cycle. The first basinwide plan for the Chowan River basin was completed in
1997 and the second in 2002. The format of this plan was revised in response to comments
received during the first planning cycle. DWQ replaced much of the general information in the
first two plans with more detailed information specific to the Chowan River basin. For this plan,
a greater emphasis was placed on identifying water quality concerns on the watershed level in
order to facilitate protection and local restoration efforts.

Chowan River Basin Overview

The Chowan River basin is located in the northeastern coastal plain of North Carolina and
southeastern Virginia (Figure i). The North Carolina portion includes all or part of Northampton,
Hertford, Gates, Bertie and Chowan counties (Figure ii). The Chowan River is formed at the
border of Virginia and North Carolina by the confluence of the Nottoway and Blackwater Rivers,
and its streams flow southeastward towards the Albemarle Sound. Approximately 75 percent
(4,061 square miles) of the river’s watershed lies within the Virginia border.

The Chowan River basin in North Carolina is composed of two major drainages: Chowan River
and Meherrin River. The Chowan River basin is part of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
system, the second largest estuarine system in the United States. All of the waters in the basin
are designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Many waterbodies in this basin are transitional in
2 Executive Summary
nature (i.e., from Coastal A to Swamp) making water quality monitoring difficult. Some creeks
and rivers flushing rates are influenced by tides and wind, while others receive swamp drainage.
There are four waterbody segments that were not rated because DWQ criteria for Coastal B
waters have not been finalized. Overall, water quality in the Chowan River basin is generally
good.

Information presented in this basinwide water quality plan is based on information collected
from September 2000 to July 2007 to describe water quality conditions and issues in each of the
four subbasins. Specific water quality assessments were based on biological, chemical and
physical monitoring data collected between September 2000 and August 2005. A discussion of
conditions reflecting whether specific waterbodies support their best-intended use and maps of
each subbasin are included in each subbasin chapter.

Subbasin 03-01-01

The upper Chowan River is formed at the border of Virginia and North Carolina by the
confluence of the Nottoway and Blackwater Rivers. Major tributaries to the Chowan River in
this subbasin include the Wiccacon River and Ahoskie Creek, both having land use activities
influencing poor water quality conditions. The lower portion of the Wiccacon River is the only
Impaired waterbody for aquatic life in the Chowan River basin. Portions of Merchants Millpond
State Park and Chowan Swamp State Natural Area are also located in this subbasin. Merchants
Millpond supports a diverse assemblage of aquatic plants including several rare species. The
largest municipalities in this subbasin
include Ahoskie, Aulander, and Winton.
Surface water classifications and the
amount of miles in subbasin 03-01-01 are
listed in Table i. Chapter 1 presents
specific water quality information for each
monitored waterbody in the subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-02

Subbasin 03-01-02 contains 494 square miles of the Meherrin River and its tributaries, but much
of the river’s catchment is in Virginia. Major tributaries to the Meherrin River include Potecasi
and Kirbys Creeks. Aquatic habitats include streams that have been channelized and/or swamp
areas that cease to flow during dry periods and are expected to have very low dissolved oxygen
levels during low-flow periods. Significant natural heritage areas are located within the
watershed, including the Meherrin River Swamp and Meherrin River Slopes and Swamp. The
largest municipalities in this subbasin
include Murfreesboro and Rich Square.
Surface water classifications and the
amount of miles in subbasin 03-01-02 are
listed in Table ii. Chapter 2 presents
specific water quality information for each
monitored waterbody in the subbasin.

Table i Subbasin 03-01-01 DWQ Classifications
DWQ Classification Freshwater Miles
B; NSW 39.8
C; NSW 376.5
C = Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation
B = Primary recreation and Class C uses.
NSW = Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
Table ii Subbasin 03-01-02 DWQ Classifications
DWQ Classification Freshwater Miles
B; NSW 13.6
C; NSW 272.9
C = Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation
B = Primary recreation and Class C uses.
NSW = Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.

Executive Summary 3
Subbasin 03-01-03

This subbasin contains the middle section of the Chowan River, below Bennetts Creek
(Merchants Millpond) and above Rockyhock Creek and includes the Indian Creek and Catherine
Creek tributaries. Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp, a designated significant natural heritage area, is
found along much of the shoreline of the Chowan River and represents an important wetland
ecosystem within the Chowan River basin. Land use is mainly forested wetlands and
agricultural cropland. The largest
municipality in the subbasin is Colerain,
which has experienced an overall net
population decline since 1990. Surface
water classifications and the amount of
miles in subbasin 03-01-03 are listed in
Table iii. Chapter 3 presents specific
water quality information for each
monitored waterbody in the subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-04

Subbasin 03-01-04 contains the lower Chowan River and small tributaries including Salmon
Creek, Edenton Bay and Pembroke Creek. It also includes a small northwest portion of the
Albemarle Sound. Edenton is the largest municipality in the subbasin. This region of the
Chowan River basin is experiencing growth and development with proposed upscale housing
communities, golf courses and marinas. With this growth along the inland waterways, many
channels to the Chowan River are losing their riparian buffers and consequently water quality is
in jeopardy. Within this subbasin, a portion of the Albemarle Sound to the mouth of the Chowan
River is Impaired in the fish consumption
category because of a dioxin advisory for
these waters. Surface water classifications
and the amount of miles and acres in
subbasin 03-01-04 are listed in Table iv.
Chapter 4 presents specific water quality
information for each monitored waterbody
in the subbasin.

Waterbody Classifications and Use Support Assessment of Water Quality

Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended uses. Determining how well a
waterbody supports its designated uses (use support rating) is an important method of
interpreting water quality data to assess water quality. The terms Impaired and Supporting refer
to whether the classified uses (e.g., aquatic life protection, recreation, shellfish harvesting, and
fish consumption) of the water are being met. For example, waters classified for aquatic life
protection and secondary recreation (Class C for freshwater) are rated Supporting if data used to
determine use support did not exceed specific criteria. However, if these criteria were exceeded,
then the waters would be rated as Impaired. A single waterbody could have more than one use
support rating corresponding to one or more of the multiple use support categories. Use support
assessments based on surface water classifications form the foundation of this basinwide plan.
Chapter 5 presents more information about surface water classifications.

Table iii Subbasin 03-01-03 DWQ Classifications
DWQ Classification Freshwater Miles
B; NSW 27.0
C; NSW 4.2
C = Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation
B = Primary recreation and Class C uses.
NSW = Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
Table iv Subbasin 03-01-04 DWQ
Classifications by Miles and Acres
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Miles
Freshwater Acres
B; NSW 25.1 15,600.4
C; NSW 50.8 1,370.3
C = Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation
B = Primary recreation and Class C uses.
NSW = Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
4 Executive Summary
DWQ use support methods were developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk
through the development of use support ratings for five categories: aquatic life, fish
consumption, recreation, shellfish harvesting, and water supply. These categories are tied to the
uses associated with the primary classifications applied to North Carolina rivers, streams and
lakes. A full description of the classifications is available in the DWQ document titled
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina
(www.ncwaterquality.org/csu/).

Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 2002 revision of the Chowan River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. In the previous plan, surface waters were rated fully supporting
(FS), partially supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). The 2002 Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requests that states no longer subdivide the Impaired category. In
agreement with this guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Impaired category and
rates waters as Supporting (S), Impaired (I), Not Rated (NR), or No Data (ND). These ratings
refer to whether the classified uses of the water are being met. Detailed information on use
support methodology is provided in Appendix II.

Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation

The aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category is applied to all waters in North
Carolina. Therefore, this category is applied to the total number of stream miles (810 mi.) in the
Chowan River basin. A basinwide summary of current aquatic life/secondary recreation use
support ratings is presented in Table v.

Approximately 33 percent of stream miles
(268 mi.) were monitored for the protection of
aquatic life and secondary recreation by DWQ
during this basinwide planning cycle.
Impaired waters account for 2.8 percent of the
total stream miles and 8.4 percent of
monitored stream miles. Over 22 miles of the
Wiccacon River are Impaired for aquatic life
due to a Fair bioclassification as described in
Chapter 1.

Primary Recreation

There are 105.5 miles currently classified for primary recreation (Class B) and 704.4 miles
classified for secondary recreation (Class C) in the Chowan River basin. Approximately 14
percent of stream miles (810 mi.) were monitored for recreational uses by DWQ during this
basinwide planning cycle. Of the 73.4 monitored stream miles for primary recreation, all are
Supporting.

Fish Consumption

Like the aquatic life/secondary recreation use support category, the fish consumption use support
category is also applied to all waters in the state. Approximately one percent of stream miles in
the Chowan River basin were monitored for the fish consumption use support category during
Table v Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
Use Support Summary Information
Monitored
Streams Only* Aquatic Life/Secondary
Recreation
Use Support Ratings Miles %
Supporting 143.4 53.5%
Impaired 22.5 8.4%
Not Rated 102.1 38%
Total 268 -----
* = Percent based on total of all monitored waters.

Executive Summary 5
this basinwide cycle. Fish consumption use support ratings are based on fish consumption
advice and advisories issued by the NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS).
Currently, there is a statewide advice limiting consumption of several fish species, due to the
potential for elevated methylmercury levels; see the DHHS website for more information
(http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/). Because of this advice, all waters are considered Impaired
for the fish consumption category on an evaluated basis.

Currently, 7.8 miles of the Chowan River and 15,600 acres of the Albemarle Sound are Impaired
due to a dioxin fish consumption advisory by DHHS. The dioxin advisory recommends that
women of childbearing age and children should not eat catfish and carp and others should limit
their consumption of these bottom feeder fish species.

Water Quality Standards and Classifications

All waters in the basin have the supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW).
In response to this classification, nitrogen and phosphorus reductions have resulted in water
quality improvements with the implementation of agricultural best management practices, the
conversion of many wastewater treatment plants to land application systems, and the
implementation of more stringent permit limits for nutrients. Water quality standards and
classifications are discussed in Chapter 5.

Water Quality Stressors and Sources

DWQ identifies the stressors of water quality impact as specifically as possible depending on the
amount of information available in a watershed. Most often, the source of the stressor is based
on predominant land use in the watershed. In the Chowan River basin, agriculture and runoff
from WWTP land application sites were identified as possible sources of stressors to biological
(benthic and fish) communities or where water quality standards have been violated. In the fish
consumption category, mercury and dioxin are the noted stressors. However, unknown sources
of stressors impact many waterbodies. The accumulation of multiple stressors leads to water
quality degradation. In some way, every resident, tourist, landowner, industry and municipality
in the basin impacts water quality. Therefore, it is important that all stakeholders play a role in
management strategies designed to protect and restore water quality in the Chowan River basin.
More information about water quality stressors and sources can be found in Chapter 6.

Impacts from Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff is a primary carrier of nonpoint source pollution in both urbanized and rural
areas. Stormwater runoff is a particular concern in the agricultural based Chowan River basin.
Previous hydrologic alterations of the landscape have ditched and channelized the land to
improve drainage. Stormwater currently moves quickly off the land bypassing swamps and
enters directly into creeks and rivers untreated. The impact of stormwater runoff is also severe in
developing areas where recently graded lands are highly susceptible to erosion. Water quality
impacts are also evident in urbanized areas where stormwater runoff is increased by impervious
surfaces and is rapidly channeled through ditches, curb and gutter systems into nearby
waterbodies.

The goal of DWQ stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent
pollution from entering the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs
6 Executive Summary
accomplish this goal by controlling the source(s) of pollution. Currently, there are 23 individual
stormwater permit listed for the Chowan River basin. Chapter 7 contains more information
federal and state stormwater programs.

Wastewater Management

In the Chowan River basin, wastewater is treated by wastewater treatment plants, non-discharge
systems and on-site septic systems. Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or
other well-defined point of discharge are broadly referred to as 'point sources'. Wastewater point
source discharges include municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions and individual homes. Dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a
NPDES permit. Because of the nutrient sensitivity of the waters in this basin, dischargers are
permitted with set nitrogen and phosphorus limits at 3 and 1 mg/l, respectively. Currently, there
are 10 permitted wastewater dischargers in the Chowan River basin.

Many municipalities, residential developments, and commercial/industrial operations located in
northeastern North Carolina utilize wastewater treatment systems that dispose of the wastewater
through land application methods. Such systems are referred to as non-discharge systems, as
there is no direct discharge to surface water of the state. A large concentration of non-discharge
systems are located within the Chowan basin. Although non-discharge systems should not
present high potentials for surface water impacts, some systems within the Chowan basins have
problems that may result in impaired surface water quality. In the Chowan River basin, 21 non-
discharge (non-agricultural) permits have been issued. Some of these facilities have problems
due to direct discharges resulting from storm events, run-off, or continued inability to comply
with permit conditions.

Within the Chowan basin, it is important to note that there is a direct connection between
groundwater and surface water in many places. Drainage ditches and canals are widespread in
northeastern NC and function as a direct pathway for groundwater that may be impacted from
nutrients and coliform bacteria, especially in rural areas where agriculture is widespread, to enter
into the surface water system. In other cases, surface water bodies, directly border areas where
groundwater quality may be impaired. In many areas, the time it takes for groundwater to move
into the surface water system is brief. Although groundwater quality at non-discharge facilities
may be compliant with groundwater quality standards, groundwater flux moving into the surface
water system has the ability to transport contaminants into surface water bodies and add to total
mass loadings. It is recommended that research be conducted to better establish and understand
the relationship between groundwater and surface water in eastern North Carolina. Such
understanding would provide for more accurate assessment of surface water impairments
resulting from groundwater discharges and enable the state to make sound permitting judgments
and recommendations to better protect water quality in general.

On-site septic systems are common throughout the Chowan River basin. However, soil
conditions in the basin may limit the functionality of the septic system treatment allowing
untreated effluent to reach surface waters. Precautions should be taken by local septic system
permitting authorities to ensure that failing systems are repaired, older systems are updated and
new systems are sited and constructed properly allowing an adequate repair area.

Chapter 7 provides more information on wastewater permitting regulations.

Executive Summary 7
Population, Land Use Changes and Natural Resources

Based on the 2000 Census, the overall population of the Chowan River basin is 61,153, with
approximately 44-persons/square mile. Although this is a decrease from the 1990 census of
62,474 people, population growth and development is expanding inward from the rapidly
developing coastal areas. Two of the five counties in the basin are expected to experience
growth rates in excess of ten percent by 2020. As the counties in the Chowan River basin
continue to grow along the inner waterways there will likely be a loss of natural areas and an
increase in the amount of impervious surface associated with new homes and businesses.

Based on 1997 National Resources Inventory data, land cover in the basin is dominated by
forestland that covers approximately 54.9 percent of the land area. Agriculture (including
cultivated and uncultivated cropland and pastureland) covers approximately 32.8 percent. This
ten-year-old data reflects only 2.8 percent of the land area as being developed. To more
accurately describe land cover and land use changes updated data is needed. Approximately 86
percent of forestland in the Chowan River basin is privately owned, 12 percent is owned by
forest industry and the rest is publicly owned. A small percentage (1.2 percent) of the Chowan
River basin is publicly owned conservation land. More information on population, land use and
natural resources in the Chowan River basin is found in Chapter 8.

Public Water Supply

In the Chowan River basin, 75 public water supply sources were identified, all of which are
groundwater wells. Of the 75 groundwater sources, 4 of them have a Higher, 29 have a
Moderate and 42 have a Lower susceptibility rating. It is important to note that a susceptibility
rating of Higher does not imply poor water quality. Susceptibility is an indication of a water
supply's potential to become contaminated by the identified potential contaminant sources within
the assessment area. More information on water supply resources in the Chowan River basin is
found in Chapter 8.

Ecological Significance of the Chowan River Basin

Approximately 100 stream miles of the Chowan River are considered an Aquatic Significant
Natural Heritage Area by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The Chowan River
receives this designation because of the diversity of its freshwater mussel populations, many of
which are rare and vulnerable. The Chowan River and its tributaries provide critical habitat for
some anadromous fish species and is known for some of the best fishing in the state, with
largemouth bass, bluegill, chain pickerel, black crappie, and perch being some of the most sought
after species. Recent harvest restrictions were enacted on the river herring fishery due to the
declining stock, which may be associated with water quality conditions. The Chowan and
Meherrin Rivers still reflect the rural character of the basin where priority conservation activities
should include the establishment of buffer strips and conservation easements and continued
refinement and monitoring of BMPs on lands used primarily for agriculture and silviculture.
These activities are also needed for industrial and residential developments. More information
on natural resources in the Chowan River basin is found in Chapter 8.

8 Executive Summary
Agriculture and Water Quality

There are 101 animal operations in the Chowan River basin. Excess nutrient loading, pesticide
and/or herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination, and sedimentation are often associated
with agricultural activities, and all can impact water quality. In the Chowan River basin,
significant efforts have been made to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads originating from
agricultural land uses through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs).
Additional efforts are needed to redesign drainage from agricultural fields to help filter runoff.
During this five-year assessment period, the North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program
(NCACSP) funded BMPs totaling more than $2,400,000 throughout the Chowan River basin.
Chapter 9 provides information related to agricultural activities in the Chowan River basin and
also identifies funding opportunities for BMPs.

Land Use Planning and Sea Level Rise

The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires each of the 20 coastal counties to have a
local land use plan in accordance with guidelines established by the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC). A land use plan is a collection of policies, maps, and implementation
actions that serves as a community’s blueprint for growth. The management goal for water
quality is to maintain, protect, and where possible enhance water quality in all coastal wetlands,
rivers, streams and estuaries. The CRC’s planning objective is for communities to adopt policies
for coastal waters within the planning jurisdiction to help ensure that water quality is maintained
if not impaired and improved if impaired. Local communities are required to devise policies that
help prevent or control nonpoint source discharges (sewage and stormwater) through strategies
such as impervious surface limits, vegetated riparian buffers, maintenance of natural areas,
natural area buffers, and wetland protection. In the Chowan River basin, Gates County has
completed their land use plan and Bertie, Chowan and Hertford Counties are in the process.
Chapter 10 presents specific information regarding land use plans in communities of the Chowan
River basin.

Sea level rise has the potential to dramatically alter North Carolina’s coast and estuary systems.
Coastal infrastructure, residential properties and industry are threatened and water quality
conditions will change. Research is being conducted by several universities in North Carolina to
predict changes in our environmental and economic resources. Links to resources about sea
level rise are provided in Chapter 10.

Water Quality Management Strategies

The N.C. Divisions of Water Quality, Coastal Management, Land Resources, Marine Fisheries,
Soil and Water Conservation, Parks and Recreation and Environmental Health are responsible
for many natural resource use activities and policies including stormwater management,
development permits, erosion control programs, agriculture and land preservation, and recreation
monitoring. Additional state programs and many interagency and local group partnerships work
together to protect the resources found in the Chowan River basin. The Albemarle-Pamlico
National Estuary Program (APNEP) has supported a number of research, restoration, and
demonstration projects. Recently, in the Chowan River basin, the APNEP funded a Chowan
River Riparian Shoreline Assessment, environmental education projects and projects designed to
mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff and pollution. Over $20,000,000 in Clean Water
Management Trust Funds, and over $270,000 in Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants have been

Executive Summary 9
allocated for projects in the Chowan River basin. Chapter 10 presents more information local
initiative and state programs and strategies to preserve and protect water quality.

Restoring Impaired Waters

The long-range mission of basinwide planning is to provide a means of addressing the complex
problem of planning for increased development and economic growth while maintaining,
protecting and enhancing water quality and intended uses of the Chowan River basin’s surface
waters. Within this basinwide plan, DWQ presents management strategies and recommendations
for those waters rated Impaired or that exhibit some notable water quality problems.
There are eight waterbody segments consisting of 135 miles in the Chowan River basin that are
on the draft 2006 303(d) list of impaired waters. For the next several years, addressing water
quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s 303(d) list will be a DWQ priority. Section
303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting
water quality standards or which have impaired uses. The waters in the Chowan River basin that
are on this list are discussed in the individual subbasin chapters. States are also required to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed
waters to address impairment. EPA issued guidance in August 1997 that called for states to
develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list within 8-13 years.
More information on the TMDL process is found in Chapter 11.

Challenges and Recommendations for Achieving Water
Quality Improvements

The cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollution are the
primary threat to water quality and habitat degradation in
many areas across the state and throughout the Chowan River
basin. Nonpoint source pollution can be identified through
the basinwide plan, but actions to address these impacts must
be taken at the local level. Such actions should include:

• Require stormwater best management practices for existing and new
development,
• Develop and enforce buffer ordinances,
• Conduct comprehensive land use planning that assesses and reduces the impact of
development on natural resources, and
• Develop and enforce local erosion control ordinances.

Without proactive land use planning initiatives and local water quality strategies,
population growth and development in the basin increases the risk of waterbody
impairment. Balancing economic growth and water quality protection will continue to be
an immense challenge. This basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and
accomplishments that are underway throughout the basin. These actions provide a
foundation on which future initiatives can be built.

General Recommendations for the Chowan River Basin
Recent water quality data indicates water quality has improved in the Chowan River since the
algal bloom events of the 1970’s. However, maintenance and continual improvements in water
quality are dependent on proactive planning. The following recommendations are compiled
Cumulative Effects
While any one activity may not
have a dramatic effect on water
quality, the cumulative effect of
land use activities in a watershed
can have a severe and long-lasting
impact.
10 Executive Summary
from natural resource agencies and stakeholders working and/or living within the Chowan River
basin:

• Conduct additional research to understand possible surface-ground water interactions and
possible water quality issues associated with non-discharge wastewater disposal.
• Continue efforts to focus on proper training of facility operators to address non-
compliance issues associated with permitted facilities, both non-discharge and discharge,
often associated with operator mismanagement.
• Protect human health and maintain water quality by repairing failing septic systems,
update older systems, and eliminate straight pipes. Additional monitoring of fecal
coliform bacteria throughout tributary watersheds will aid in identifying where straight
pipes and failing septic systems are problems. Septic system maintenance outreach is
needed in rural areas dependent on on-site wastewater disposal.
• Develop stormwater management programs for new development and to retrofit existing
development.
• Develop additional outreach opportunities to incorporate smart growth technologies or
low impact development techniques for municipal planners to incorporate into land use
plans.
• Establish riparian buffers, as needed throughout the basin, both in residential and
agricultural land use areas.
• Reestablish natural drainage and associated wetlands to reduce stormwater runoff, assist
with flood control and improve water quality.
• Support the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to
help reduce nonpoint source pollution. Monitoring of these BMPs should also be
required to improve maintenance, design and functionality. BMPs applicable in
residential areas need to be encouraged through public education campaigns.
• Support the implementation of the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan at all levels of
government and amongst citizens.
• Continue collaborative efforts between natural resource agencies within North Carolina
and Virginia to improve adaptive management and policies on a watershed ecosystem
scale.

!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
Meherrin River
Butterwo o d Creek W
arwick Swamp
Three C r e e k
Potecasi C r eek
A h o s kie Cr e e k
C
H
O
W
AN
RIVER
Wsqua Creek
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
Brodnax
Lawrenceville
Emporia
Franklin
Courtland
Victoria
Blackstone
Stony Creek
Ivor
Murfreesboro
Ahoskie
Blackwater River
Notto
w
a
y
R
i
v
e
r
Foun t a i ns Cre e k
Kirbys Cre
e
k
A
s
s
a
m
o
osi
c
k

S
w
a
m
p
VA
NC
0 102030405
Miles
Legend
!.Municipality
Chowan River Basin
Hydrology
State Boundary Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
February 23, 2007
®
Figure i General Map of the Entire Chowan River Basin
HERTFORD
GATES
CHOWAN
BERTIE
NORTHAMPTON Corduroy Sw.Potecasi Cr.
U r ah a w S w .
C ypres s C r.Meherrin R
v.
C ut a w hi s kie S w.
A h o skie Cr.
Loosi
n
g Sw.
Beasle y Br.
Sarem C
r
.
W iccaco n Rv.
Chinka
p
i
n Sw.
C
ole Cr.
B e n n e t t s Cr.
Rocky
h
o
c
k Cr.Salm
on Cr.
C
H
O
W
AN RIVER
Como
Cofield
Edenton
Ahoskie
Gaston
Rich
Square
Conway
Aulander
Lasker
Severn
Murfreesboro
WintonJackson
Woodland
Seaboard
Gatesville
ColerainPowellsville
Harrellsville
03-01-0103-01-02
03-01-04
03-01-03
Figure ii General Map of the Chowan River Basin in North Carolina
®
0 7.5 15 22.5 303.75
Miles
Legend
Municipality
Hydrology
County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
February 23, 2007

Introduction 13
Introduction

What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?

Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina's surface waters. The NC Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) prepares Basinwide water quality plans for each of the seventeen major river basins in
the state (Figure 1 and Table 1). Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan is a five-year
process, which is broken down into three phases (Table 2). While these plans are prepared by
DWQ, their implementation and the protection of water quality entail the coordinated efforts of
many agencies, local governments and stakeholder groups throughout the state. The first cycle
of plans was completed in 1998. Each plan is updated at five-year intervals.

Figure 1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2005 to 2009)

Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

• Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters.
• Identify and protect high value resource waters.
• Protect unimpaired waters yet allow for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

• Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies. This
includes providing agencies information related to financial and funding opportunities.
• Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for discharges.
14 Introduction
• Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
• Improve public awareness and involvement.
• Regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not
successful.

Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

Basinwide planning and management benefits water quality by:

• Focusing resources on one river basin at a time.
• Using sound ecological planning and fostering comprehensive NPDES permitting by
working on a watershed scale.
• Ensuring better consistency and equitability by clearly defining the program's long-term
goals and approaches regarding permits and water quality improvement strategies.
• Fostering public participation to increase involvement and awareness about water quality.
• Integrating and coordinating programs and agencies to improve implementation of point
and nonpoint source pollution reduction strategies.

How You Can Get Involved

To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and local stakeholders to participate in all phases of the planning process. You may
contact the basinwide planner responsible for your basin anytime during the plan’s development.
Upon request, the basin planner can also present water quality information and basin concerns to
local stakeholder groups.

To make the plan more inclusive, DWQ is coordinating with the local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), council of governments, NC Cooperative Extension Service, the
county Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and stakeholder groups to develop
language and identify water quality concerns throughout the basin. Citizens and local
communities can also be involved during the planning process by contacting their county
extension service or local SWCD.

During the public comment period, the draft plan is available online and by request for a period
of at least 30 days. DWQ welcomes written comments and questions during this phase of the
planning process and will incorporate comments and suggestions when appropriate.

Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations

For more information on the basinwide planning process, DWQ activities, or contacts, visit
www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/ or call [phone] and ask for the basin planner
responsible for your basin of interest. You can also contact the appropriate Regional Office
(Figure 2) for additional information. For general questions about the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, contact the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748.

Introduction 15
Table 1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2004 to 2011)

Basin DWQ Biological
Data Collection
Draft Out For
Public Review
Final Plan
Receives EMC
Approval
Begin NPDES
Permit Issuance
Chowan Summer 2005 7/2007 9/2007 11/2007
Pasquotank Summer 2005 7/2007 9/2007 12/2007
Neuse Summer 2005 11/2007 3/2008 1/2008
Broad Summer 2005 3/2008 5/2008 7/2008
Yadkin-Pee Dee Summer 2006 3/2008 5/2008 9/2008
Lumber Summer 2006 3/2008 5/2008 7/2009
Tar-Pamlico Summer 2007 3/2009 5/2009 9/2009
Catawba Summer 2007 3/2009 5/2009 12/2009
French Broad Summer 2007 3/2009 5/2009 7/2010
New Summer 2008 6/2010 5/2010 1/2011
Cape Fear Summer 2008 6/2010 9/2010 2/2011
Roanoke Summer 2004 7/2006 9/2006 1/2007
White Oak Summer 2004 3/2007 5/2007 6/2007
Savannah Summer 2004 1/2007 3/2007 8/2007
Watauga Summer 2004 11/2006 1/2007 9/2007
Hiwassee Summer 2004 1/2007 3/2007 8/2007
Little Tennessee Summer 2004 1/2007 3/2007 10/2007
Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during the second cycle (1998 to 2003).

Table 2 Five-Year Planning Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan

Years 1 – 2

Water Quality Data Collection and
Identification of Goals and Issues
• Identify sampling needs
• Conduct biological monitoring activities
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies to continue to
implement goals within current basinwide plan
Years 2 – 3

Data Analysis and Collect
Information from State and
Local Agencies
• Gather and analyze data from sampling activities
• Develop use support ratings
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Work with state and local agencies to establish goals and objectives
• Identify and prioritize issues for the next basin cycle
• Develop preliminary pollution control strategies
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other state/local agencies
Years 3 – 5

Preparation of
Draft Basinwide Plan,
Public Review,
Approval of Plan,
Issue NPDES Permits,
and
Begin Implementation of Plan
• Develop draft basinwide plan based on water quality data, use
support ratings, and recommended pollution control strategies
• Circulate draft basinwide plan for review and present draft plan for
public review
• Revise plan (when appropriate) to reflect public comments
• Submit plan to Environmental Management Commission for
approval
• Issue NPDES permits
• Coordinate with other agencies and local interest groups to prioritize
implementation actions
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities

16 Introduction
Reference Materials

There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about
basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality. These include:

• Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Watershed Planning: Support Document for
Basinwide Water Quality Plans (January 2007). This document includes general
information about water quality issues and programs to address these issues. It is
intended to be an informational document on water quality. This document can be
viewed at website: http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm .
• Chowan River Basinwide Assessment Report (April 2006). This technical report presents
physical, chemical, and biological data collected in the Chowan River basin. This report
can be found on the DWQ Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) website:
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/esb/bar.html.
• Chowan River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (September 1997; July 2002). These first
basinwide plans for the Chowan River basin present water quality data, information, and
recommended management strategies for the first two five-year cycles.
• North Carolina's Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program
Description (Creager and Baker, 1991). NC DWQ Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

How to Read the Basinwide Plan

Chapters 1 - 4: Subbasin and Watershed Information
Summarizes information and data by subbasin, including:
• Recommendations from the previous basin plan
• Achievements, current priority issues and concerns
• Impaired waters and water with notable impacts
• Goals and recommendations for the next five years by subbasin

Chapter 5 – 11
Presents information on various topics of interest to the protection and restoration of
water quality in the basin, including:
• Stream classifications
• Water quality stressors
• Population and land cover changes
• Agricultural, forestry, water and natural resources
• Permitting activities in the basin
• Local, State and Federal initiatives
• Managing Impaired waters and TMDL process

Appendices
• Water quality data collected by DWQ
• Use support methodology
• NPDES discharger, non-discharge and general stormwater permits
• Points of contact
• Glossary of terms and acronyms
Asheville Mooresville
Fayetteville
Wilmington
WashingtonRaleighWinston-Salem
WAKE
NASH
HALIFAX
CHATHAM
JOHNSTON
LEE
WARREN
FRANKLIN
PERSON
G
R
A
N
VILLE
WILSON
ORANGE
VA
NCE
EDGECOMBE
NORTHAMPTON
DURHAM
BLADENROBESON
SAMPSON
MOORE
ANSON
HOKE
HARNETT
CUMBERLANDRIC
H
M
O
N
D
M
O
N
T
G
O
M
E
R
Y
SC
OTLAN
D
WILKES
ASHE SURRY
GUILFORD
STOKES
YADKIN
DAVIE
RANDOLPH
DAVIDSON
CASWELL
FORSYTH
ROCKINGHAM
AL
A
M
A
N
C
E
WATAUGA
ALLEGHANY
UNION
ROWANCATAWBA
LINCOLN
IREDELL
STANLYGASTON
CLEVELAND
MECKLENBURG
CABARRUS
A L E X A N D E R
SWAIN
BURKE
MACON
POLK
CLAY
BUNCOMBEHAYWOOD
JACKSON
MADISON CALDWELL
CHEROKEE
RUTHERFORD
MCDOWELL
YANCEY
AVERY
GRAHAM HENDERSON
TR ANSYLVANIA
MI
T
C
HEL
L
PITT
HYDE
DUPLIN
PENDER
BERTIE
ONSLOW
COLUMBUS
WAYNE
JONES
BRUNSWICK
LENOIR
GATES
MARTIN
CARTERET
DARE
BEAUFORT
TYRRELL
HERTFORD
GREENE
CRAVEN
C
AM
DE
N
W A S HIN G T O N
CHOWAN
PER
Q
UIMA
NS
P
A
S
Q
U
O
TA
N
K
CU
RRITUCK
NEW
HANOVER
Yadkin Pee-Dee
Neuse
Cape Fear
Tar-Pamlico
Lumber
New ChowanRoanoke
Catawba
Pasquotank
Broad
French Broad
White Oak
Little Tennessee
Hiwassee
Watauga
Savannah
Planning SectionBasinwide Planning UnitJanuary 2007
®
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality Regional Offices
Al Hodge, Surface Water Protection SupervisorDavid May, Aquifer Protection Supervisor943 Washington Square MallWashington, NC 27889COURIER 16-04-01Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Washington Regional Office (WaRO)
Beaufort
Bertie
Camden
Chowan
CravenCurrituckDare
Gates
Greene
Hertford
Hyde
JonesLenoirMartin
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Pitt
TyrrellWashingtonWayne
Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Andrew Pitner, Aquifer Protection Supevisor
610 East Center Avenue / Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
COURIER 09-08-06
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
AlexanderCabarrusCatawbaClevelandGaston
Iredell
Lincoln
MecklenburgRowanStanlyUnion
Ed Beck, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Charlie Stehman, Aquifer Protection Supervisor
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-2845COURIER 04-16-33Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO)
BrunswickCarteretColumbusDuplin
New HanoverOnslowPender
Chuck Wakild, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Jay Zimmerman, Aquifer Protection Supervisor
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
COURIER 52-01-00
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO)
ChathamDurham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Granville
Halifax
JohnstonLee
Nash
Northampton
Orange
Person
VanceWake
Warren
Wilson
Belinda Henson, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Art Barnhardt, Aquifer Protection Supervisor
225 Green Street
Systel Building Suite 714Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043COURIER 14-56-25Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO)
AnsonBladen
Cumberland
Harnett
Hoke
Montgomery
MooreRichmond
Robeson
Sampson
Scotland
Asheville Regional Office (ARO)
Roger Edwards, Surface Water Protection Supevisor
Landon Davidson, Aquifer Protection Supervisor2090 US Highway 70Swannanoa, NC 28778COURIER 12-59-01Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
AveryBuncombeBurkeCaldwell
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
HaywoodHendersonJacksonMacon
Madison
McDowell
Mitchell
PolkRutherfordSwainTransylvania
Yancey
Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO)
Steve Tedder, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Sherri Knight, Aquifer Protection Supervisor
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
COURIER 13-15-01
Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Alamance
AlleghanyAsheCaswellDavidsonDavie
Forsyth
GuilfordRandolphRockinghamStokesSurry
Watauga
WilkesYadkin
Central Office
DENRDIVISION OF WATER QUALITY1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
COURIER 52-01-00
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
18 Introduction

Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01 19
Chapter 1
Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01
Including: Chowan River (Upper), Wiccacon River, Ahoskie Creek and Bennetts Creek
(Merchants Millpond)

1.1 Subbasin Overview

The upper Chowan River subbasin is located in the Middle
Atlantic Coastal Plains ecoregion of North Carolina. The
Chowan River is formed at the border of Virginia and North
Carolina by the confluence of the Nottoway and Blackwater
Rivers. It then flows southeastward toward Albemarle
Sound. The Chowan River basin includes 1,315 square miles
in North Carolina, but the largest part of the drainage basin
(3,575 mi²) drains from Virginia. Major tributaries to the
Chowan River in this subbasin include the Wiccacon River
and Ahoskie Creek. A map of this subbasin including water
quality sampling locations is presented as Figure 3.

Portions of Merchants Millpond State Park and Chowan
Swamp State Natural Area are also located in this subbasin.
The Chowan Swamp State Natural Area, administered by the
Division of Parks and Recreation, protects more than 6,000
acres. Merchants Millpond supports a diverse assemblage of
aquatic plants including several rare species.

The largest municipalities in this subbasin include Ahoskie,
Aulander, and Winton. Based on 2000 census data, Winton’s
population grew 20 percent since 1990, but the other
municipalities’ populations declined. Refer to Chapter 8 for
more information about population growth and trends.

There are five minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permits
in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 0.04 MGD.
The largest facility is Aluminum Casting Technology in
Hertford County. Aluminum Casting Technology, permitted
to discharge 0.024 MGD of industrial process and
commercial waste into Ahoskie Creek (Section 1.4.3), has
discontinued its operation and will likely apply to rescind its
NPDES permit. There are ten non-discharge permits and nine stormwater permits in this
subbasin. Refer to Appendix III for the listing of NPDES permit holders.

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 3. Table 3 contains a summary of monitored waterbodies with their
associated assessment unit numbers (AU#) and lengths, monitoring data types, locations and
results, along with use support ratings.
Subbasin 03-01-01 at a
Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 579 mi2
Land area: 569 mi2
Water area: 10 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 73%
Cultivated Crop: 24%
Surface Water: 2%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 1%

Counties
Bertie, Gates and Hertford

Municipalities
Ahoskie, Aulander, Cofield,
Como, Gatesville and Winton

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 137.7 mi
Total Supporting: 70.6 mi
Total Not Rated: 44.6 mi
Total Impaired: 22.5 mi

Recreation:
Total: 39.8 mi
Total Supporting: 39.8 mi
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Section
February 21, 2007
®
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¡~¡~
¡~
¡~
!(à!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
¡~!(à
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L #I
#I
#I
%L
%L
HERTFORD
GATES
BERTIE
Chowan River
Duke
S
wamp
Ahoskie C r e e k
Chinkapin Creek
W i c cacon River
W
ild
c
a
t

S
w
amp
Ra
y
n
or S
w
amp
Sare
m Cree
k
B
a
r
beque
S
w
amp
Como
Winton
Cofield
Ahoskie
Aulander
S
t
ony Cr.
B
e
a
s
ley B
r
a
nch
C
o
le
Cre
ek B
e
nn
e
tt
s

Cre
e
k
US-258
US-13
NC-37
NC-32
US-158
NC-137
NC-45
NC-561
NC-305 N C -4 2
US-13
Gatesville
De e p Cr.
Riddicksville
Harrellsville
Powellsville
DA6
DB8
DB7
DB6
DB5
DB4
DB3
DB2
DB1
DA8
DA7
DA4
DA3
DB11
Figure 3 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01
04812162
Miles
Non-Dischargers
%L Major
#I Minor
NPDES Dischargers
XY Major
#*Minor
Legend
Monitoring Stations¡~Ambient Monitoring Station
!(à Benthic Community
¾r Recreation Locations
Aquatic Life Rating
Impaired
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-01SubbasinTable 3
Ahoskie Creek (Ahoskie Swamp, Bear Swamp)
25-14-1
From source to Wiccacon River
33.3 FW MilesC;NSW NR
DB1 NR 2005
DB1 NR 2005
Nutrient Impacts WWTP NPDES
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Bennetts Creek (Merchants Millpond)
25-17
From source to Chowan River
23.3 FW MilesC;NSW S
DB2 M 2005
Chinkapin Creek (Cessons Millpond)
25-14-3
From source to Wiccacon River
7.1 FW MilesC;NSW S
DB3 N 2005
CHOWAN RIVER
25a1
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to near
Riddicksville
1.8 FW MilesB;NSW NR+SDA1 NCE
DA2 NCE
DA3 CE Low DO 15.1
DA4 NCE Low DO 9.3
DB5 G 2005
DA1 NCE
DA2 NCE
DA3 NCE
DA4 NCE
Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
25a2a
From near Riddicksville to Deep Creek
24.4 FW MilesB;NSW S SDA7 NCE DA7 NCE
25a2b
From Deep Creek to Wiccacon River
9.5 FW MilesB;NSW NR+S
DB4 F 2005
25a2c
From Wiccacon River to the subbasin 03-01-01/03-01-03
boundary
4.1 FW MilesB;NSW S SDA8 NCE DA8 NCE
CHO Subbasin 03-01-01
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-01SubbasinTable 3
Cole Creek (Lilleys Millpond)
25-12-7
From source to Sarem Creek
9.5 FW MilesC;NSW S NR
DB6 M 2005
Nutrient Impacts Agriculture
Low Dissolved Oxygen Agriculture
Total Suspended Solids WWTP NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Stony Creek
25-14-1-6
From source to Ahoskie Creek
2.2 FW MilesC;NSW S
DB7 M 2005
Wiccacon River (Hoggard Swamp)
25-14
From source to Chowan River
22.5 FW MilesC;NSW I
DB8 F 2005
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Nutrient Impacts Agriculture
Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
CHO Subbasin 03-01-01
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-01SubbasinTable 3
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2005:
AL - Aquatic Life DF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation DB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
DA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
DL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor NR+-Not Rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m- Monitored N- Natural
FW- Fresh Water e- Evaluated M- Moderate CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
S- Severe NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID- Insufficeint Data Available
Results:
Results
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 70.6 FW Milesm
NR 11.3 FW Milesm
NR 33.3 FW Milesm
I 22.5 FW Milesm
278.5 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
39.8 FW MilesSm
9.5 FW MilesNR e
367.0 FW Miles
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
416.3 FW MilesIe
CHO Subbasin 03-01-01
24 Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01
There were eight benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected during this assessment period. Six
of the sites sampled in 2005 were also sampled in 2000. Overall, conditions in the subbasin
appear similar to the samples collected in 2000; however, four sites showed a decrease in biotic
index. Sites sampled indicated better water quality in the upper Chowan River than in the
Wiccacon River or the middle reaches of the Chowan River near Gatesville. The benthic sample
collected in the Wiccacon River indicated problems associated with nutrient enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen.

All of the basinwide swamp streams in this subbasin were sampled at least twice. Three of the
four streams sampled during the winter period rated Moderate in 2005. No swamp water quality
trends were identified. Data were also collected from four ambient monitoring stations. Refer to
the 2006 Chowan River Basinwide Assessment Report
(http://www.ncwaterquality.org/esb/Basinwide/ChowanBASINWIDEFinal.pdf) and Appendix I
for more information on monitoring.

All waters in this subbasin receive the supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) in addition to the primary classification of Class C or Class B. See Chapter 5 for more
information on water classifications.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 3 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.

1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

All surface waters in the state are assigned a
classification appropriate to the best-intended use of
that water. Waters are regularly assessed by DWQ
to determine how well they are meeting their best-
intended use. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of use
support for waters in subbasin 03-01-01.

In this subbasin, use support was assigned for
aquatic life, recreation, and fish consumption
categories. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not
Rated, and No Data in the aquatic life and recreation
categories on a monitored or evaluated basis.
Waters are Impaired in the fish consumption
category on an evaluated basis based on fish
consumption advice issued by the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS).

For more information about use support
determinations, refer to Appendix II or the
Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide
Water Quality Plans found at DWQ’s website:
Table 4 Summary of Use Support
Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-01
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Monitored Waters
Supporting 70.6 mi 39.8 mi
Impaired*
22.5 mi
(16.3%) 0
Not Rated 44.6 mi 0
Total 137.7 mi 39.8 mi
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 0 9.5 mi
No Data 278.5 mi 376.0 mi
Total 278.5 mi 376.5 mi
All Waters 416.2 mi 416.3 mi
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored
mile/acres only.
** Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All
Waters.

Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01 25
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm. Appendix V provides
definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.

1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Chapter 11.

1.3.1 Chowan River [AU# 25a1, a2a, a2b, a2c]

2002 Status
The Chowan River was listed on the 2002 and 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters for low
dissolved oxygen (DO). Potential sources included agriculture and intensive animal feeding
operations. Through the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program, North Carolina signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation to reduce nutrient levels crossing the state line and facilitate discussions to protect
and restore water quality along the coastal rivers and sounds. It was recommended that DWQ
continue to participate in the MOA and include the upper Chowan River in a swamp water study
plan to determine natural DO and pH levels in the river.

Current Status
The upper Chowan River [AU# 25a1], from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to near
Riddicksville (1.8 miles), is Not Rated+ in the aquatic life category. Site DB5 was sampled using
draft criteria for Coastal B Rivers. Coastal B rivers are defined as waters in the coastal plain that
are deep (nonwadeable), freshwater systems with little or no visible current under normal or low
flow conditions. Other characteristics may include an open canopy, low pH and low DO. Boat
sampling is required for these waters. Site DB5 received a Good benthic bioclassification based
on draft criteria for Coastal B rivers. Any bioclassification derived from sampling data should be
considered draft and not used for use support decisions; therefore the upper Chowan River is Not
Rated (BAU, July 2006).

The four ambient monitoring stations in this subbasin are located in the upper Chowan
watershed. Three of these ambient stations are located in Virginia. The fourth is located near
Riddicksville, near the benthic sampling site. The sampling locations are approximately one
mile downstream of the confluence of the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers. The drainage area
above the sampling point is over 2,400 square miles. The substrate of this large, slow-moving
coastal river is mostly sand with some silt. Riparian vegetation appeared natural and undisturbed
and the stream banks were stable. No water quality standards were exceeded at the ambient
station near Riddicksville (DA4); however, the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen was
exceeded near the confluence of the Nottaway and Blackwater Rivers (DA3). This exceedence is
likely associated with swamp water drainage and is considered a natural condition. No water
quality standards were exceeded further upstream on the Nottaway (DA1) or Blackwater (DA2)
Rivers in Virginia. Heavy flooding events have been noted as a reoccurring problem on the
26 Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01
Virginia side of the Chowan River basin. This may be associated with the development and the
loss of permeable surface.

The Chowan River [AU# 25a2b], from Deep Creek to the Wiccacon River (9.5 miles), is Not
Rated+ in the aquatic life category. A Fair benthic bioclassification at site DB4 was given based
on draft criteria for Coastal B rivers. This is a decrease of two bioclassifications from the Good
rating it received in 2000. In 2000 and 2005, the benthic site was rated on draft criteria for
Coastal B rivers. The Gatesville site is located approximately 15 miles downstream of the
Riddicksville site, and approximately three miles upstream of where the Wiccacon River joins
the Chowan. The drainage area is over 2,500 square miles. This sampling area is within one
mile downstream of CF Industries and Nucor Corporation. Currently, CF Industries, a closed
fertilizer plant superfund site, is being monitored and considered stable. This section of the river
is very different from the Riddicksville site mostly because of the slower velocities and a notably
greater depth in the channel. Benthic substrate consisted of mostly sand with some silt, and both
banks were dominated by forested wetlands.

Two other segments (AU#s 25a2a and 25a2c) are Supporting due to no criteria exceeded at
ambient stations DA7 and DA8.

2007 Recommendations
DWQ recommends that the upper Chowan River [AU# 25a1] be removed from the 2008 303(d)
list of impaired waters for water quality standards. Ambient monitoring indicates that no criteria
were exceeded beyond natural conditions. Benthic sampling also shows that the biological
community has improved since the previous assessment period. Increased interaction and
cooperation with Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation is necessary to develop
appropriate strategies to manage potential pollutant runoff associated with increased flooding
events in the upper watershed.

1.3.2 Wiccacon River (Hoggard Swamp) [AU# 25-14]

2002 Status
The Wiccacon River was listed on the 2002 and 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters for aquatic
life. Potential sources were not identified; however, the watershed consists primarily of
agricultural land and many of the tributaries have been channelized throughout the years. DWQ
recommended the implementation of nonpoint source best management practices (BMPs) to
reduce nutrient and sediment loads.

Current Status
The Wiccacon River (Hoggard Swamp), from source to the Chowan River (22.5 miles), is
Impaired in the aquatic life category due to a Fair bioclassification at site DB8. A total of eight
benthic samples have been collected from the Wiccacon River since 1983, with all eight samples
remaining Fair and/or Poor. Benthic species collected in 2005 suggested nutrient enrichment,
degraded water quality and low dissolved oxygen. Further evidence of low dissolved oxygen in
the river was the abundance of freshwater sponges growing on snags in both 2000 and 2005.

The sample site for the Wiccacon River is located near a NC Wildlife Resources Commission
boat ramp off SR 1433. The drainage area (253 sq mi.) is partially channelized and ditched. The
water is cloudy and has a tannic color and conditions reflect an ongoing algal bloom. Benthic
substrate is dominated by silt and clay with a small amount of gravel present.

Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01 27
Farming activities are considered more intense here than in other areas of the basin, with
predominantly poultry and hog operations. Within in the Wiccacon River watershed, there are
13 poultry operations, with eight of them having poultry litter drystacks, five without drystacks
and one is planned for installation in 2007. There are five operating swine facilities and one
facility is in the process of closure. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) has
contracted to maintain over 851 acres in trees for at least five years within this watershed.

2007 Recommendations
This segment of the Wiccacon River will remain on the draft 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters
and will be placed on a schedule for TMDL development. DWQ continues to recommend the use
of nonpoint source BMPs to reduce nutrient and sediment loads. Funds should be appropriated
to encourage more traditional BMPs (strip planting, no-till, cover crops) and new technologies.
DWQ will work closely with other resource agencies to prioritize implementation of efforts to
address agriculture impacts within this watershed.

1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

Based on DWQ’s most recent use support methodologies, the surface waters discussed in this
section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality problems and concerns were
documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and resources should be focused
on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate water quality improvements.
DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns and work with them to conduct
further assessments and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally,
education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions are useful tools to prevent water
quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. The current status and recommendations for
addressing these waters are presented below, and each is identified by an AU#. Refer to Section
1.1 for more information about AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in
Appendix IV.

1.4.1 Cole Creek (Lilley’s Millpond) [AU# 25-12-7]

Cole Creek, from source to Sarem Creek (9.5 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life category
due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site DB6. This is the same rating it
received in 2000; however, benthic species collected during the 2005 biological sampling
indicated nutrient enrichment and lower dissolved oxygen levels. Significant noncompliance
issues were also identified at the permitted wastewater treatment facility for Buckland
Elementary School (Gates County Schools Permit NC0043974). Levels for total suspended
solids (TSS) and fecal coliform bacteria exceeded permit limits during the last two years of the
assessment period.

The sampling location of Cole Creek at US 158 in 2000 was erroneously labeled as NC 58 in the
prior basinwide report. This swamp stream was sampled at the same location in 2005. It is an
eastern tributary of Sarem Creek, and has a braided channel that flows into a single cut
(approximately five to seven meters wide) before flowing under US 158. In the past, the creek
has been straightened and channelized (>2 meters deep) from this channel cut downstream. The
swamp above this point appears to be in a more natural condition, averaging 0.5 to 1 meter in
depth. The drainage area here is 32 square miles. The landscape and lack of flow causes this
creek to appear lake-like (>20 meters wide) before exiting through an artificial cut. Thick
28 Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01
filamentous algae had formed on woody surfaces such as logs and tree trunks. The benthic
surface was a muck of silt and clay.

2007 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with the County School System to improve the function and
compliance of the permitted WWTP. Agriculture and forestry BMPs are encouraged to limit
nutrient and sediment runoff from these predominant land use activities in Cole Creek’s
watershed. Residential development has increased in this watershed, creating the potential to
increase water quality degradation associated with residential areas (e.g., impervious surface
runoff, ineffective sewage treatment, lawn runoff). Local governments and agencies are
encouraged to proactively plan and implement conservation strategies to prevent water quality
degradation.

1.4.2 Ahoskie Creek [AU# 25-14-1]

Ahoskie Creek (Bear Swamp), from source to the Wiccacon River (33.3 miles), is Not Rated in
the aquatic life category due to Not Rated benthic bioclassifications at site DB1. Ahoskie Creek
was sampled twice in 2005 – once in February during the swamp sampling period and once in
August during the summer basinwide sampling period. The stream was rated based on swamp
criteria in the past (1995), but due to its transitional nature (from Coastal A to Swamp), a Not
Rated bioclassification was assigned until additional data can be collected from this site.
This section of Ahoskie Creek is located at NC 42 and has a drainage area of 125 square feet.
The stream has deep carvings and lacks in-stream habitat such as logs, snags and leaf packs.
Along one side of the channelized stream, the riparian zone showed little to no native woody
vegetation. The benthic substrate was made up of sand.

2007 Recommendations
The Town of Ahoskie holds Permit No. WQ0003855 for the continued operation of a 901,000
GPD wastewater treatment and disposal system that utilizes spray irrigation for disposal
purposes. The spray irrigation fields are incapable of handling the amount of wastewater that is
land applied. Because the hydraulic loading rates are higher than what the fields can accept,
significant runoff occurs. Recent investigations report average daily runoff to be approximately
200,000 to 300,000 GPD. Ahoskie Creek is the receiving waterbody for the runoff. Ahoskie
currently operates the facility under a Special Order by Consent due to the inability to maintain
permit compliance. Ahoskie has evaluated multiple alternatives or potential modifications to
bring the facility into compliance. However, no simple solution has been identified. Improving
inflow and infiltration will aid in eliminating non-wastewater from being processed by the
WWTP. DWQ will continue to work with the town to develop appropriate long-term wastewater
treatment facilities. As of July 2007, a draft permit for the Town of Ahoskie has been issued for
discharge into Ahoskie Creek.

The Town of Powellsville received a Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant to construct a
wastewater treatment facility that will help reduce pollutant delivery to Ahoskie Creek. The
project is to eliminate 168 failing septic tanks in the town by constructing a collection system
and land application waste treatment facility.

Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01 29
1.4.3 Stony Creek [AU# 25-14-1-6]

Stony Creek, from source to Ahoskie Creek (2.2 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life category
due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site DB7. This is the same
bioclassification it received in 2000 where no serious water quality problems were identified. As
in 2000, no serious water quality problems were identified in 2005 and the biological community
did not indicate nutrient enrichment or low dissolved oxygen problems. There were even a few
aquatic species that are unique to the Chowan River basin.

Stony Creek is a southern tributary of Ahoskie Creek and drains an area of 39 square miles. The
habitat in this stream includes extensive cypress wetlands adjacent to the stream on both banks.
This watershed has active forestry operations and clear-cutting can be seen on the eastern
riparian zone of this site. The benthic surface consists of about 95 percent silt and fine particles
and five percent sand particles.

1.4.4 Bennetts Creek (Merchants Millpond) [AU# 25-17]

Bennetts Creek (Merchants Millpond) was not sampled during the last assessment period;
however, aquatic weeds were a noted impact in the 1997 basinwide water quality plan. Bennetts
Creek was sampled as part of a special study requested by the DWQ Washington Regional
Office (WaRO) during this assessment period to assess biological water quality conditions.

Bennetts Creek (Merchants Millpond), from source to the Chowan River (23.3 miles) is
Supporting in the aquatic life category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site
DB2, with the lowest total taxa of any stream or river in the Chowan River basin. The benthic
community represented a highly pollution tolerant community. Three permitted dischargers
(Gatesville and T.S. Cooper Elementary and Sunbury Primary Schools) are located in this
watershed and all have a history of noncompliance.

The sampling location of Bennett’s Creek is just below the outfall of the millpond, downstream
of SR 1400, and drains an area of 74 square miles. The sampling of this site was done in
February 2005 (during the swamp sampling period) upstream of one discharger (Gatesville
Elementary School WWTP), but downstream of the other two.

The biological community in Bennetts Creek did not contain pollution intolerant species as were
found in similar streams nearby. DWQ was unable to determine to what extent the millpond
itself was affecting the biological community. Impoundments such as a millpond can result in
downstream reaches having lowered dissolved oxygen levels and flows, as well as increased
temperatures. In winter, those affects are minimized and this sampling effort would likely not
have recorded these effects. Also, the large size of the millpond relative to Bennetts Creek could
act as a sink for upstream pollutants and mask the effects from the two dischargers noted above.

2007 Recommendations
Infrastructure and flow problems have been resolved with the Gatesville schools. Gates County
middle and high schools have tied into the Department of Correction Prison non-discharge
system (WQ0000267). Gully formation outside the facility shows signs of effluent leaking
(runoff) to surface waters. Better management of sprayfield operations is needed to help meet
compliance standards. DWQ recommends the facility seek additional land to expand sprayfield
application and to assess and manage for the amount of flows received from the schools.
30 Chapter 1 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-01
Agriculture and forestry are the predominant land use activities in this watershed and the SWCD
has identified this drainage as an area of concern. Implementation of agricultural BMPs are
needed to continue to protect the waters of Bennett Creek, a popular recreational area.

Chapter 2 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02 31
Chapter 2
Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02
Including: Meherrin River, Cutawhiskie Swamp and Potecasi Creek

2.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-01-02 contains the Meherrin River and its
tributaries, but much of the river’s catchment is in Virginia.
Major tributaries to the Meherrin River include Potecasi
and Kirbys Creeks. This subbasin is located in the Middle
Atlantic Plain and the Southeastern Plain ecoregions and
contains 494 square miles.

Significant natural heritage areas are located within the
watershed, including the Meherrin River Swamp and
Meherrin River Slopes and Swamp. Most of the land
within this subbasin is forested, but cropland and pasture
are also common. Aquatic habitats include streams that
have been channelized and/or swamp areas that cease to
flow during dry periods and are expected to have very low
dissolved oxygen levels during low-flow periods. The
northern part of the subbasin contains well-drained, loamy
soils, while to the south there are poorly drained clay soils.
These regional differences can have substantial effects on
both the amount of direct runoff into streams and stream
flows throughout the year.

Agriculture waste management is of particular concern in
this subbasin. Efforts need to be taken to properly manage
poultry application and to provide covered poultry litter
storage. Maintaining adequate storage capacity in lagoons
to accommodate for high rainfall events also needs to be
improved upon. BMP inspections need to occur to ensure
the BMPs are properly functioning and to identify areas
requiring design improvements.

The largest municipalities in this subbasin include
Murfreesboro and Rich Square. Each of these municipalities experienced a net decline in
population over the 1990 to 2000 time period. Additional information regarding population and
land use changes can be found in Chapter 8. There are no permitted wastewater dischargers in
this subbasin, but there are nine permitted stormwater discharges. There are eight non-discharge
facilities; four have had direct discharges resulting from storm events, run-off, or continued
inability to comply with permit conditions. See Appendix III for a list of NPDES permits.

A map including the locations of the water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure 4.
Table 5 contains a summary of monitored waterbodies with their associated assessment unit
numbers (AU#) and lengths, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin.
Subbasin 03-01-02 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 494 mi2
Land area: 491 mi2
Water area: 3 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 65%
Cultivated Crop: 32%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 1%

Counties
Hertford and Northampton

Municipalities
Como, Conway, Murfreesboro,
Rich Square, Seaboard, Severn
and Woodland

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 99.3 mi
Total Supporting: 49.6 mi
Total Not Rated: 49.7 mi

Recreation:
Total: 54.2 mi
Total Supporting: 54.2 mi
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Section
February 21, 2007
¾r
¾r%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
%L
¡~¡~
¡~
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à!(à
NORTHAMPTON
HERTFORD
Seaboard
Severn
Conway
Lasker
Woodland
Rich
Square
Como
Murfreesboro
Cypress C ree k Meherrin River
Corduroy Swamp
K
ir
b
ys Cr e e k
U r a h a w S w a m p
R
a
m
s
e
y
Cree
k
Wildca t S wam
p
C ut a w his k i e Sw
a m p
M e h e r rin River
J a c ks Sw a m p
Pain
t
e
r
Sw.Panther S wamp Bells B r.
Potecasi Creek
US-301
N C-18 6
NC-35
US-158
U S -2 5 8
U S -2 5 8
N
C-11
N C-4 61DB9
DA5
DB13
DB12
DB11
DB10
Figure 4 Chowan RIver Subbasin 03-01-02
0369121.5
Miles
®
Non-Dischargers
%L Major
#I Minor
NPDES Dischargers
XY Major
#*Minor
Legend
Monitoring Stations¡~Ambient Monitoring Station
!(à Benthic Community
¾r Recreation Locations
Aquatic Life Rating
Impaired
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-02SubbasinTable 5
Cutawhiskie Swamp
25-4-8-8
From source to Potecasi Creek
17.0 FW MilesC;NSW NR
DB9 NR 2005
DB9 NR 2005
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Kirbys Creek
25-4-4
From source to Meherrin River
13.7 FW MilesC;NSW S
DB10 M 2005
Meherrin River
25-4-(5)
From a point 1.0 mile upstream from U.S. Highway 258 to
Chowan River
11.7 FW MilesB;NSW NR+SDA6 NCE
DB11 GF 2005
DA6 NCE
Potecasi Creek
25-4-8a
From source to Cutawhiskie Creek
21.5 FW MilesC;NSW S S
DB12 M 2005
25-4-8b
From Cutawhiskie Creek to Meherrin River
21.0 FW MilesC;NSW NR SDA5 CE Low DO 25.4
DA5 CE Low pH 22
DA5 NCE Low pH Natural Conditions
Low Dissolved Oxygen Natural Conditions
Urahaw Swamp
25-4-8-4
From source to Potecasi Creek
14.4 FW MilesC;NSW S
DB13 M 2005
CHO Subbasin 03-01-02
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-02SubbasinTable 5
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2005:
AL - Aquatic Life DF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation DB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
DA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
DL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor NR+-Not Rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m- Monitored N- Natural
FW- Fresh Water e- Evaluated M- Moderate CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
S- Severe NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID- Insufficeint Data Available
Results:
Results
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 49.6 FW Milesm
NR 11.7 FW Milesm
NR 38.0 FW Milesm
187.3 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
54.2 FW MilesSm
232.3 FW Miles
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
286.5 FW MilesIe
CHO Subbasin 03-01-02

Chapter 2 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02 35
There were five benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected in this subbasin during this
assessment period. Overall, biological data shows little change in the benthic communities since
the basin was last sampled in 2000; however, ambient monitoring shows that Potecasi Creek
(AU# 25-4-8b) is not meeting water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or pH. Refer to the
2006 Chowan River Basinwide Assessment Report
(http://www.ncwaterquality.org/esb/Basinwide/ChowanBASINWIDEFinal.pdf) and Appendix I
for more information on monitoring.

All waters in this subbasin have the supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) in addition to the primary classification of Class C or Class B. See Chapter 5 for more
information on water classifications.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 5 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.

2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

All surface waters in the state are assigned a
classification appropriate to the best-intended
use of that water. Waters are regularly
assessed by DWQ to determine how well they
are meeting their best-intended use. Refer to
Table 6 for a summary of use support for
waters in subbasin 03-01-02.

In subbasin 03-01-02, use support was
assigned for aquatic life, recreation and fish
consumption categories. Waters are
Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and No Data
in the aquatic life and recreation categories on
a monitored or evaluated basis. Waters are
Impaired in the fish consumption category on
an evaluated basis based on fish consumption advice issued by the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS).

For more information about use support determinations, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality
Plans found at DWQ’s website:
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm. Appendix V provides
definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.

Table 6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by
Category in Subbasin 03-01-02
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Monitored Waters
Supporting 49.6 mi 54.2 mi
Not Rated 49.7 mi 0
Total 99.3 mi 54.2 mi
Unmonitored Waters
No Data 187.3 mi 232.3 mi
Total 187.3 mi 232.3 mi
All Waters** 286.6 mi 286.5 mi
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored
mile/acres only.
**Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
36 Chapter 2 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Chapter 11.

2.3.1 Potecasi Creek [AU# 25-4-8a and AU# 25-4-8b]

2002 Status
The entire length of Potecasi Creek (from source to the Meherrin River) was listed on the 2002
and 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters for aquatic life. Water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen (DO) and pH were violated and potential sources included agricultural land use. DWQ
recommended that Potecasi Creek be included in a Swamp Waters Study Plan to determine if the
low DO and pH were associated with naturally occurring swamp conditions.

Current Status
Upper Potecasi Creek [AU# 25-4-8a], from source to Cutawhiskie Creek (21.5 miles), is
Supporting in the aquatic life category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site
DB12. This location was Not Rated when sampled in 2000. Both the 2000 and 2005 samples
used the Swamp criteria. Unlike other swamp sites that have been channelized, Potecasi Creek
exhibits natural channel morphology, intact riparian zones with a mature forest on either side,
and a large percentage of the reach is available for benthic colonization. Potecasi Creek has a
drainage area of 32 square miles at site DB12.

Lower Potecasi Creek [AU# 25-4-8b], from Cutawhiskie Creek to Meherrin River (21.0 miles),
is Not Rated in the aquatic life category due to water quality standards violations at the ambient
monitoring station DA5 that are likely due to natural swamp conditions. Site DA5 was sampled
59 times over the course of the five-year assessment period. Over 44 percent of the samples
were below 5.0 mg/l and over 25 percent were below the 4.0 mg/l standard for dissolved oxygen.
The pH was below the standard of 6.0 s.u. in 22 percent of the samples.

2007 Recommendations
DWQ recommends that the upstream portion of Potecasi Creek [AU# 25-4-8a] be removed from
the 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters. Potecasi Creek [AU# 25-4-8b], from Cutawhiskie Creek
to Meherrin River should remain on the 303(d) list for water quality standards violations for
dissolved oxygen and pH, until it can be further determined that these conditions represent
natural swamp drainage. Agriculture and intensive livestock operations are potential sources of
water quality impacts and therefore BMPs need to be encouraged and implemented.

Chapter 2 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02 37
2.3.2 Bells Branch [AU# 25-4-8-10] and Painter Swamp [AU# 25-4-8-5]

2002 Status
Bells Branch, from source to Potecasi Creek (4.8 miles), and Painter Swamp, from source to
Potecasi Creek (3.7 miles), were both listed on the 2002 and 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters
for biological integrity. These are historic listings from 1998.

2007 Recommendations
Bells Branch and Painter Swamp will be recommended for removal from the 2008 303(d) list of
impaired waters because the waters were likely inappropriately labeled as impaired for biological
integrity in previous 303(d) lists of impaired waters. Bells Branch and Painter Swamp were not
sampled during the last assessment period and a review of DWQ biological data reflects no
previous sampling of these waterbodies has occurred.

2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions
are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. The current
status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and each is
identified by an AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix IV.

2.4.1 Meherrin River [AU# 25-4-(5)]

The Meherrin River, from a point 1.0 mile upstream from U.S. Highway 258 to the Chowan
River (11.7 miles), is Not Rated+ in the aquatic life category. A Good-Fair benthic
bioclassification at site DB11 was issued based on draft Coastal B criteria. Coastal B rivers are
defined as waters in the coastal plain that are deep (nonwadeable), freshwater systems with little
or no visible current under normal or low flow conditions. Other characteristics may include an
open canopy, low pH and low DO. Boat sampling is required for these waters. Any
bioclassifications derived from sampling data should be considered draft and not used for use
support decisions; therefore the Meherrin River is Not Rated (BAU, July 2006). No criteria were
exceeded for water quality standards at the ambient monitoring station DA6.

Since 1983, the Meherrin River has been sampled eight times, seven of which were during the
summer basinwide sampling period. Over the years, several rare or unusual species have been
collected; however, species collected in 2005 indicate that slow-moving or stagnant conditions
may persist during long periods of the year.

This sampling site is located at the Meherrin River at SR 1175, upstream of the NC DOT ferry
operation. It has a drainage area of 143 square miles and the habitat is mostly forested with few
breaks in the riparian zone. The substrate consisted of 70 percent sand and 30 percent silt and
other fine particles.

38 Chapter 2 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-02
2007 Recommendations
DWQ will work with other agency staff to determine if current conditions represent natural
conditions related to swamp drainage or flows, or if there are land use impacts that need to be
addressed. The Town of Severn non-discharge facility (WQ0003299) has had noncompliance
issues that may be impacting surface water quality. Additional research of possible surface and
ground water interactions is recommended.

2.4.2 Urahaw Swamp [AU# 25-4-8-4]

Urahaw Swamp, from source to Potecasi Swamp (14.4 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life
category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site DB13. This site was first
sampled in 2000 when it also received a Moderate bioclassification. An increase in the biotic
index in 2005, however, indicates that there are more pollution tolerant species residing in the
swamp.

Urahaw Swamp joins Potecasi Creek near Woodland, approximately 1.5 miles downstream of
NC 35. The drainage area of the swamp at NC 35 is 55 square miles. Riparian vegetation was
noted as absent from one side of the stream. South of NC 35, the habitat appears to be in a more
pristine condition. Benthic substrate consists of an even mixture of sand and silt.

2.4.3 Cutawhiskie Swamp [AU# 25-4-8-8]

Cutawhiskie Swamp, from source to Potecasi Creek (17.0 miles), is Not Rated in the aquatic life
category due to Not Rated bioclassifications at site DB9. Cutawhiskie Creek was sampled twice
in 2005, once in February during swamp sampling period and once in August during the summer
basinwide sampling period. The stream was rated based on swamp criteria in the past (1995),
but due to its transitional nature (from Coastal A to Swamp), a Not Rated bioclassification was
assigned until additional data can be collected from this site.

Cutawhiskie Creek has been sampled five times, during February and August 1995, in February
2000 and during February and August 2005. Each time, the swamp has been Not Rated. During
the most recent sampling, the biotic index indicates that there is a fairly pollution tolerant
macroinvertebrate community in Cutawhiskie Swamp.

This sample site has a drainage area of 36 square miles. The riparian zone is lacking adequate
tree cover needed to prevent streambank erosion. Incised channels with a lack of pools and turbid
waters were found at this site during the February sampling.

Chapter 3 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03 39
Chapter 3
Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03
Including: Chowan River (Middle)

3.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin contains the middle section of the Chowan
River, below Bennetts Creek (Merchants Millpond) and
above Rockyhock Creek and includes the Indian Creek and
Catherine Creek tributaries. The entire subbasin is
designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. This subbasin
contains the Colerain/Cow Island Swamp and Slopes
Natural Heritage Area. Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp, a
designated significant natural heritage area, is found along
much of the shoreline of the Chowan River and represents
an important wetland ecosystem within the Chowan River
basin.

Land use is mainly forested wetlands and agricultural
cropland. The largest municipality in the subbasin is
Colerain with a population of approximately 221 persons
and has experienced an overall net decline since 1990.
Additional information regarding population and land use
changes throughout the entire basin can be found in
Chapter 8.

One minor and one major NPDES permit have been issued
in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 1.52 MGD.
Perry-Wynns Fish Company in Bertie County is permitted
to discharge 0.02 MGD. It is classified as a minor
industrial process and commercial NPDES facility and is
currently in compliance. Edenton Dyeing and Finishing
LLC in Chowan County is permitted to discharge 1.5
MGD. It is classified as a major industrial process and
commercial NPDES facility. By permit, Edenton Dyeing
and Finishing must also conduct whole effluent toxicity
(WET) testing. The facility failed seven WET tests during
the last two years of the assessment period and enforcement was taken on five separate
occasions. Edenton Dyeing and Finishing is currently in compliance with their permit limits, but
the facility has recently closed. There are no permitted non-discharge systems or stormwater
discharges in this subbasin. For the listing of NPDES permit holders, refer to Appendix III.

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 5. Table 7 contains a summary of monitored waterbodies with their
associated assessment unit numbers (AU#) and lengths, monitoring data types, locations and
results, along with use support ratings for waters in the subbasin.
Subbasin 03-01-03
at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 123 mi2
Land area: 100 mi2
Water area: 23 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 40%
Cultivated Crop: 40%
Surface Water: 19%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1%

Counties
Bertie, Chowan, Hertford and
Gates

Municipalities
Colerain

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 14.1 mi
Total Supporting: 14.1 mi

Recreation:
Total: 14.1 mi
Total Supporting: 14.1 mi
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Section
February 23, 2007
¾r
¾r
¾r¡~
¡~
#*#*#*XY
GATES
CHOWAN
HERTFORD
BERTIE
Colerain
Chowan River
I ndian Creek
W
a
l
t
on P
o
nd Warwick Creek
Trot m a n Creek
NC-37
NC-32
NC-32
NC-45
DA9
DA10
024681
Miles
Figure 5 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03
Non-Dischargers
%L Major
#I Minor
NPDES Dischargers
XY Major
#*Minor
Legend
Monitoring Stations¡~Ambient Monitoring Station
!(à Benthic Community
¾r Recreation Locations
Aquatic Life Rating
Impaired
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-03SubbasinTable 7
CHOWAN RIVER
25b
From the Subbasin 03-01-01/03-01-03 boundary to the
Subbasin 03-01-03/03-01-04 Boundary
14.1 FW MilesB;NSW S SDA9 NCE
DA10 NCE
N59 NCE
DA9 NCE
DA10 NCE
Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES
Ammonia WWTP NPDES
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2005:
AL - Aquatic Life DF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation DB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
DA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
DL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor NR+-Not Rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m- Monitored N- Natural
FW- Fresh Water e- Evaluated M- Moderate CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
S- Severe NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID- Insufficeint Data Available
Results:
Results
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 14.1 FW Milesm
17.1 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
14.1 FW MilesSm
17.1 FW Miles
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
31.2 FW MilesIe
CHO Subbasin 03-01-03
42 Chapter 3 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03
No biological (benthic or fish community) samples were collected in this subbasin; however,
DWQ conducted a reconnaissance in 2005 to identify potential sampling sites during the next
basinwide assessment period. These potential sampling sites are listed in Table 8.

Table 8 Potential Biological Sampling Locations in Subbasin 03-01-03

Waterbody Location County
Chowan River Holiday Island Chowan
Chowan River Below Arrowhead Beach Chowan
Indian Creek NC 32 (Welch Road) Chowan
UT Warwick Creek NC 32 (Welch Road Chowan
Warwick Creek SR 1232 (Cannon Ferry/Catherine’s Creek Road) Gates/Chowan
Trotman Creek SR 1100 (Carters Road) Gates

Data were collected from two ambient monitoring stations (DA9 and DA10). No criteria were
exceeded at either site. Some salinity occurs in this stretch of the Chowan River, with readings
as high as 3.0 parts per trillion (ppt). Refer to the 2006 Chowan River Basinwide Assessment
Report (http://www.ncwaterquality.org/esb/Basinwide/ChowanBASINWIDEFinal.pdf) and
Appendix I for more information on monitoring.

All waters in this subbasin have the supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) in addition to the primary classification of Class C or Class B. See Chapter 5 for more
information on surface water classifications.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 7 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.

3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

All surface waters in the state are assigned a
classification appropriate to the best-intended
use of that water. Waters are regularly
assessed by DWQ to determine how well they
are meeting their best-intended use. Refer to
Table 9 for a summary of use support for
waters in subbasin 03-01-03.

In subbasin 03-01-03, use support was
assigned for aquatic life, recreation and fish
consumption categories. Waters are
Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and No Data
in the aquatic life and recreation categories on
a monitored or evaluated basis. Waters are
Impaired in the fish consumption category on an evaluated basis based on fish consumption
advice issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by
Category in Subbasin 03-01-03
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Monitored Waters
Supporting 14.1 mi 14.1 mi
Total 14.1 mi 14.1 mi
Unmonitored Waters
No Data 17.1 mi 17.1 mi
Total 17.1mi 17.1mi
All Waters** 31.2 mi 31.2 mi
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored
mile/acres only.
**Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

Chapter 3 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03 43
For more information about use support determinations, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality
Plans found at DWQ’s website:
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm. Appendix V provides
definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.

3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Chapter 11.

3.3.1 Chowan River [AU# 25b]

2002 Status
The Chowan River was listed on the 2002 and 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters. It was listed
based on 1998 historical listing for nutrients, with industrial and municipal facilities identified as
potential sources. Previous basinwide water quality plans had identified historic algal blooms
and dioxin as water quality concerns. Algal blooms were the result of excess nutrients and low
pH levels; however, the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and NPDES
permitting strategies throughout the watershed resulted in a decrease in nutrients and therefore a
reduction in the frequency and intensity of algal blooms.

DWQ recommended that wastewater and land application requirements and permits be evaluated
to reduce the impact from point sources and that an analysis of nutrient reduction efforts be
conducted throughout the entire river basin.

Current Status
The Chowan River, from the subbasin 03-01-01 and 03-01-03 boundary to the subbasin 03-01-03
and 03-01-04 boundary (14.1 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life category due to ambient
water quality data collected at sites DA9 and DA10. No water quality standards were exceeded
at either of the two ambient monitoring stations.

2007 Recommendations
DWQ will recommend removal of this segment of the Chowan River from the 303(d) list of
impaired waters based on current noted water quality improvements. However, Edenton Dyeing
and Finishing has a history of effluent limit violations; yet, even with recent monitoring and
aquatic toxicity violations, the facility is not considered to be causing substantial harm to water
quality. The DWQ regional office reports the facility has recently closed.

44 Chapter 3 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-03

Chapter 4 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04 45
Chapter 4
Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04
Including: Chowan River (Lower), Eastmost Swamp and Albemarle Sound

4.1 Subbasin Overview

Subbasin 03-01-04 contains the lower Chowan River and
small tributaries including Salmon Creek, Edenton Bay and
Pembroke Creek. It also includes a small northwest
portion of the Albemarle Sound. This subbasin contains
portions of the Chowan Game Land, a track managed by
the Wildlife Resources Commission. This property is one
of four publicly owned conservation lands in the subbasin.

Edenton is the largest municipality in the subbasin with a
population of 5,394. Between the years of 1990 and 2000,
Edenton grew by approximately 2.4 percent. Additional
information regarding population and land use changes
throughout the entire basin can be found in Chapter 8.

This region of the Chowan River basin is experiencing
growth and development with proposed upscale housing
communities, golf courses and marinas. With this growth
along the inland waterways, many channels to the Chowan
River are losing their riparian buffers and consequently
water quality is in jeopardy.

There are three minor NPDES dischargers in this subbasin
with a total permitted flow of 0.02 MGD. All three permits
are associated with water treatment plants (WTP) and all
are in compliance with their effluent limits. There are three
non-discharge permits and five general stormwater permits
in this subbasin (see Appendix III). Many of the permitted
discharge violations result from facility mismanagement.
Assuring managers have adequate training and understand
the financial and environmental repercussions of facility
violations are essential to prevent future degradations to water quality.

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 6. Table 10 contains a summary of monitored waterbodies with their
associated identification assessment unit numbers (AU#) and lengths, monitoring data types,
locations and results, along with use support ratings for waters in the subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-04
at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 177 mi2
Land area: 152 mi2
Water area: 45 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 41%
Cultivated Crop: 31%
Surface Water: 25%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 2%
Counties
Bertie and Chowan

Municipalities
Edenton

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total: 16.9 mi/15,600.4 ac
Total Supporting: 9.1 mi/
15,600.4 ac
Total Not Rated: 7.8 mi
Recreation:
Total: 7.8 mi/15,600.4 ac
Total Supporting: 7.8 mi/
15,600.4 ac
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Section
February 23, 2007
Figure 6 Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04
¾r
¾r
¾r
¡~
¡~
¡~
!(à!(à
XY
#*
#*
#*
%L
%L %L
BERTIE
CHOWAN
Edenton
Rockyhock Cre
e
k
Pollock Swamp
Eastmost S
w
a
m
p
Salmon
C
r
e
ek
Cricket Sw
a
m
p
C
H
O
W
A
N

R
I
V
E
R
Albemarle Sound
Edenton
Bay
B l a c k Wlanu t S w am p
NC-32
NC-32
U S-1 7
NC-45
DB15 DB14
DA13
DA12
DA11
02.557.5101.25
Miles
®Non-Dischargers
%L Major
#I Minor
NPDES Dischargers
XY Major
#*Minor
Legend
Monitoring Stations¡~Ambient Monitoring Station
!(à Benthic Community
¾r Recreation Locations
Aquatic Life Rating
Impaired
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-04SubbasinTable 10
ALBEMARLE SOUND
26
From mouth of Chowan River, defined by a line extending
in a southerly direction from Reedy Point on the north shore
of Albemarle Sound to a point of land on the south side of
Black Walnut Swamp to a line running across Albemarle
Sound in a southerly dire
15,600.4 FW AcresB;NSW S SDA12 NCE
DA13 NCE
DA12 NCE
DA13 NCE
Dioxin WWTP NPDES
CHOWAN RIVER
25c
From the Subbasin 03-01-03/03-01-04 Boundary to mouth
defined by a line extending in a southerly direction from
Reedy Point on the north shore of Albemarle Sound to a
point of land on the south side of the mouth of Black
Walnut Swamp
7.8 FW MilesB;NSW NR+SDA11 NCE
DB14 G 2005
DA11 NCE Dioxin WWTP NPDES
Eastmost Swamp
25-24-1
From source to Salmon Creek
9.1 FW MilesC;NSW S
DB15 M 2005
CHO Subbasin 03-01-04
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
CHO 03-01-04SubbasinTable 10
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2005:
AL - Aquatic Life DF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation DB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
DA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
DL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor NR+-Not Rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m- Monitored N- Natural
FW- Fresh Water e- Evaluated M- Moderate CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
S- Severe NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID- Insufficeint Data Available
Results:
Results
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 9.1 FW Milesm
NR 7.8 FW Milesm
S 15,600.4 FW Acresm
58.9 FW Miles
1,370.3 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
7.8 FW MilesSm
15,600.4 FW AcresSm
68.1 FW Miles
1,370.3 FW Acres
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
7.8 FW MilesIm
15,600.4 FW AcresIm
68.1 FW MilesIe
1,370.3 FW AcresIe
CHO Subbasin 03-01-04

Chapter 4 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04 49
There were two benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected in subbasin 03-01-04 during this
assessment period, and overall, biological data suggest little change in water quality since the
basin was last sampled in 2000. Benthic macroinvertebrates collected in 2005 were diverse and
indicated no problems with dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients or pH. Refer to the 2006 Chowan
River Basinwide Assessment Report
(http://www.ncwaterquality.org/esb/Basinwide/ChowanBASINWIDEFinal.pdf) and Appendix I
for more information on monitoring.

Four ambient monitoring stations were also sampled during this assessment period. Three are
located in the Albemarle Sound (DA12, DA13 and MA13) and one is located in the Chowan
River (DA11). DO and pH do not appear to be a problem, but salinity readings have been as
high as 3.63 parts per trillion (ppt).

All waters in this subbasin have the supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) in addition to the primary classification of Class C or Class B. See Chapter 5 for more
information on water classifications.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 10 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.

4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

All surface waters in the state are assigned a
classification appropriate to the best-intended
use of that water. Waters are regularly
assessed by DWQ to determine how well they
are meeting their best-intended use. Refer to
Table 11 for a summary of use support for
waters in subbasin 03-01-04.

In subbasin 03-01-04, use support was
assigned for aquatic life, recreation and fish
consumption. Waters are Supporting,
Impaired, Not Rated, and No Data in the
aquatic life and recreation categories on a
monitored or evaluated basis. Waters are
Impaired in the fish consumption category on
an evaluated basis based on fish consumption
advice issued by the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS).

For more information about use support determinations, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality
Plans found at DWQ’s website:
Table 11 Summary of Use Support Ratings by
Category in Subbasin 03-01-04
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Monitored Waters
Supporting
9.1 mi
15,600.4 ac
7.8 mi
15,600.4 ac
Not Rated 7.8 mi 0
Total
16.9 mi
15,600.4 ac
7.8 mi
15,600.4 ac
Unmonitored Waters
No Data
58.9 mi
1,370.3 ac
68.1 mi
1,370.3 ac
Total
58.9 mi
1,370.3 ac
68.1 mi
1,370.3 ac
All Waters**
75.8 mi
16,970.7 ac
75.9 mi
16,970.7 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored
mile/acres only.
**Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
50 Chapter 4 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm. Appendix V provides
definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.

4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Chapter 11.

4.3.1 Albemarle Sound [AU# 26]

The Albemarle Sound is Supporting in both the aquatic life and recreation categories. However,
the waters are Impaired for fish consumption based on the dioxin advisory issued by the
Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. Dioxins are the byproducts of industrial
processes and are formed during the chlorine bleaching process at pulp and paper mills. The
advisory is for the consumption of catfish and carp in the Albemarle Sound from Bull Bay to
Harvey Point; West to the mouth of the Roanoke River and to the mouth of the Chowan River to
the U.S. Highway 17 Bridge (Perquimans, Chowan, Bertie, Washington, and Tyrrell Counties).
Women of childbearing age and children should not eat any catfish or carp from this area until
further notice. All other persons should eat no more than one meal per month of catfish and carp
from this area. For more information on this advisory please visit the DHHS website
http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/.

4.3.2 Chowan River [AU# 25c]

2002 Status
The lower section of the Chowan River was listed on the 2002 and 2004 303(d) list of impaired
waters based on 1998 historical listing for nutrients. No potential sources were identified.

Current Status
The lower Chowan River, from the subbasin boundary to the Albemarle Sound (7.8 miles), is
Not Rated+ in the aquatic life category. A Good benthic bioclassification at site DB14 was given
based on draft Coastal B criteria. Coastal B rivers are defined as waters in the coastal plain that
are deep (nonwadeable), freshwater systems with little or no visible current under normal or low
flow conditions. Other characteristics may include an open canopy, low pH and low DO. Boat
sampling is required for these waters. Any bioclassifications derived from sampling data should
be considered draft and not used for use support decisions; therefore the lower Chowan River is
Not Rated (BAU, July 2006).

Since 1983, the lower Chowan River has been sampled nine times. Bioclassifications have
ranged from Fair to Good. Since 1995, the river has been rated using draft criteria for Coastal B
rivers. The 2005 Good bioclassification is an improvement from the Good-Fair it received
during 2000. The improvement was noted in the number of species collected in 2005 compared
to 2000.

Chapter 4 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04 51
No water quality standards were exceeded at the ambient monitoring station (DA11); however,
salinity values over 3.0 parts per trillion (ppt) have been recorded 10 percent of the time.
Because salinity can be above 3.0 ppt, the lower Chowan River has historically been classified as
both freshwater and oligohaline. Oligohaline is an estuarine classification for waters with
salinity between 0.5 and 5.0 ppt. Due to the low salinity during this assessment period, however,
the bioclassification at site DB14 was based on draft criteria for Coastal B rivers. The lower
Chowan River will continue to be sampled as a freshwater site with saltwater intrusions from 0.5
to 5.0 ppt (oligosaline).

This segment of the Chowan River (7.8 mi.) is Impaired in the fish consumption category
because of a dioxin advisory issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001.
For more information on this advisory please visit DHHS website
http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/ and Section 4.3.1 above.

2007 Recommendations
Water quality conditions appear to be improving in the Chowan River, but AU # 25c will remain
on the 303(d) list of impaired waters because of the dioxin advisory and until Coastal B rating
criteria have been finalized and approved.

4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions
are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. The current
status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and each is
identified by an AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix IV.

4.4.1 Eastmost Swamp [AU# 25-24-1]

Eastmost Swamp, from source to Salmon Creek (9.1 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life
category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site DB15. Little water quality or
biological changes were noted between the 2000 and 2005 samples.

The drainage area of this site is 12 square miles. Due to a beaver dam (that was present during
the 2000 sampling as well as the most recent sampling period), the stream channel has been
altered and there are fewer pools downstream of the dam. Riparian and some in-stream habitat
has been limited by recent desnagging operations upstream. Other in-stream habitat, such as
undercut banks, detritus and aquatic weeds, and filamentous algae are common. The benthic
substrate is mostly silt and clay with 30 percent sand.
52 Chapter 4 – Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04
4.4.2 Pollock Swamp [AU# 26-1-1-1] and Rockyhock Creek [AU# 25-22]

Pollock Swamp drains to Edenton Bay and Rockyhock Creek is a tributary to the Chowan River.
These waters were not monitored and are therefore not given use support ratings. Water quality
conditions are of concern here because Valhalla WTP (NC0032719) is discharging to an
unnamed tributary to the Pollock Swamp when they are permitted to discharge to Rockyhock
Creek. The facility is currently out of compliance with toxicity issues; the lagoon is leaking to
old borrow pits on the south side and may be contaminating surface waters. The plant holds a
temporary permit for the new discharge site, while the renewal permit is being processed for
discharge into the unnamed tributary of Pollock Swamp. The new permit will require toxicity
monitoring. DWQ recommends the lagoon be repaired and excess solids be cleaned out.

Pollock Swamp drains into Pembroke Creek (AU# 26-1-1) along the western edge of Edenton
and Queen Ann’s Creek (AU # 26-1-2) flows along the eastern side of Edenton. Resource
agencies have identified these creeks as priority in need of riparian buffers, stormwater wetlands
and critical area plantings to improve water quality.

Water Quality Classifications and Standards 53
Chapter 5
North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards

5.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards

North Carolina’s Water Quality Standards Program adopted classifications and water quality
standards for all the state’s river basins in 1963. The program remains consistent with the
Federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. Water quality classifications and standards have
also been modified to promote protection of surface water supply watersheds, high quality waters
(HQW), and unique and special pristine waters with outstanding resource values (ORW).

5.1.1 Statewide Classifications

All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best
uses of that water. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a
supplemental classification. Most supplemental classifications have been developed to provide
special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Table 12 briefly describes the
best uses of each classification. A full description is available in the document titled:
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of
North Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ, 2004). Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s
website: www.ncwaterquality.org/csu/.

5.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards

Each primary and supplemental classification is assigned a set of water quality standards that
establish the level of water quality that must be maintained in the waterbody to support the uses
associated with each classification. Some of the standards, particularly for HQW and ORW
waters, outline protective management strategies aimed at controlling point and nonpoint source
pollution. These strategies are discussed briefly below. The standards for C and SC waters
establish the basic protection level for all state surface waters. The other primary and
supplemental classifications have more stringent standards than for C and SC, and therefore,
require higher levels of protection.

Some of North Carolina’s surface waters are relatively unaffected by pollution sources and have
water quality higher than the standards that are applied to the majority of the waters of the state.
In addition, some waters provide habitat for sensitive biota such as trout, juvenile fish, or rare
and endangered aquatic species.

Primary Recreation (Class B)
There are 105.5 freshwater miles and 15,600 freshwater acres classified for primary recreation in
the Chowan River basin. Waters classified as Class B are protected for primary recreation,
including frequent and/or organized swimming, and must meet water quality standards for fecal
coliform bacteria. Sewage and all discharged wastes to Class B waters must be treated to avoid
potential impacts to the existing water quality.
54 Water Quality Classifications and Standards
Table 12 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications
PRIMARY FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER CLASSIFICATIONS
Class* Best Uses
C and SC Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation.
B and SB Primary recreation and Class C and SC uses.
SA Suitable for commercial shellfish harvesting and SB and SC uses.
WS Water Supply (WS): Assigned to watersheds based on land use characteristics. The WS classifications have
management strategies to protect the surface water supply. For WS-I through WS-IV, these include limits on
point source discharges and local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater runoff. A WS Critical
Area (CA) has more stringent protection measures and is designated within one-half mile from a WS intake
or WS reservoir. All WS classifications are suitable for Class C uses.
WS-I Generally located in natural and undeveloped watersheds.
WS-II Generally located in predominantly undeveloped watersheds.
WS-III Generally located in low to moderately developed watersheds.
WS-IV Generally located in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
WS-V Generally upstream of and draining to Class WS-IV waters. No categorical restrictions on watershed
development or treated wastewater discharges.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses
Sw Swamp Waters: Waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from
adjacent streams (i.e., lower pH, lower levels of dissolved oxygen).
Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
HQW High Quality Waters: Waters that have excellent water quality, primary nursery areas and other functional
nursery areas, WS-I and WS-II or SA waters.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters: Unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or
ecological significance which require special protection.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Waters subject to excessive plant growth and requiring limitations on nutrient
inputs.
* Primary classifications beginning with "S" are assigned to saltwaters.

Aquatic Life Propagation and Secondary Recreation (Class C)
There are 704 freshwater miles and 1,370 freshwater acres classified for aquatic life
propagation/protection and secondary recreation in the Chowan River basin.

Nutrient Sensitive Waters (Class NSW)
Nutrient sensitive water (NSW) is a supplemental classification that the EMC may apply to
surface waters that are experiencing or are subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation. In 1979, all waters of the Chowan River basin were designated as NSW. The
Chowan River basin was the first waterbody in the state to receive the supplemental
classification because of water quality problems associated with nutrient enrichment. In
response to nuisance algal blooms and fish kills in North Carolina’s waters, the EMC established
the NSW supplemental classification in May 1979 as a legal basis for controlling the discharge
of nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, into surface waters. This classification took
effect in September 1979 for the Chowan River; thereby, enabling nutrient limits to be included
in the NPDES permits of wastewater treatment plants that discharge in the river basin. Of the
Class B and C waters in the Chowan River basin, all receive supplemental NSW classification
for a total of 810 miles and 16,970 acres. The implementation of the NSW strategy continues to
be successful, with a reduction in Impaired waterbodies from 135 Impaired miles on the 2006
303(d) list to 22.5 miles on the draft 2008 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Water Quality Classifications and Standards 55
5.1.3 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management

Although there have been gains in nutrient reductions and associated water quality benefits,
continued implementation of the nutrient reductions and conservation measures are
recommended. A Nutrient Sensitive Waters strategy was initially adopted in 1982 and updated
in 1990. Overall, as of 1990, the nitrogen reduction goal of 20 percent had been accomplished
and total phosphorus had been reduced by 29 percent (goal of 35 percent). Major points of the
1990 management strategy include:

• Reduction in phosphorus inputs from point and nonpoint sources by 35-40 percent
¾ Point Sources
♦ Land application systems for municipal wastewater treatment plants
♦ Phosphorus limits of 1 mg/l in the North Carolina portion of the basin
¾ Nonpoint Sources
♦ Target funds from the Agriculture Cost Share Program to the Chowan River basin
• Reduction of nitrogen inputs from all sources by 20 percent
¾ Point Sources
♦ Land application systems for municipal wastewater treatment plants
♦ Nitrogen limits of 3 mg/l in the North Carolina portion of the basin
¾ Nonpoint Sources
♦ Target funds from the Agriculture Cost Share Program to the Chowan River basin

As a result of the NSW strategy, many wastewater treatment plants that were previously
discharging to surface waters converted their plants to land application. These non-discharge
systems that treat domestic wastewater are required to meet total nitrogen and total phosphorus
limits. It is recommended that new dischargers be required to model nutrient impacts on water
quality to ensure chlorophyll a standards are not exceeded. Also, Agricultural Cost Share
Program monies have resulted in the application of best management practices in the basin (see
Chapter 9) and are also contributing to the reduction of over-enrichment conditions. Such efforts
need to continue to further improve the water quality of the Chowan River basin.

For more information on NSW waters and nutrient strategies refer to administrative code 15A
NCAC 2B .0223 for specifics on NSW rules.
56 Water Quality Classifications and Standards

Water Quality Stressors and Sources 57
Chapter 6
Water Quality Stressors and Sources of Impairment in the
Chowan River Basin

6.1 Stressor and Source Identification

Human activities can negatively impact surface water quality, even when the activity is far
removed from the waterbody. The many types of pollution generated by human activities may
seem insignificant when viewed separately, but when taken as a whole can result in significant
stress to the aquatic ecosystem. Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been
noted to biological (fish and benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated.
Stressors apply to one or more use support categories and may be identified for Impaired, as well
as Supporting waters with noted impacts.

For specific discussion of stressors and sources of the Impaired or waters with Noted Impacts,
refer to the subbasin chapters. More information regarding aquatic life, recreation, fish
consumption and shellfish harvesting stressors and sources can be found in Chapter 3 of the
Supplemental Guide to North Carolina's Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide
Water Quality Plans http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

6.1.1 Stressors

Identifying stressors is challenging because direct measurements of the stressor may be difficult
or prohibitively expensive. DWQ staff use field observations from sample sites, special studies
and data from ambient monitoring stations, as well as information from other agencies and the
public to identify stressors and their potential sources. It is important to identify stressors and
potential sources of stressors so that water quality programs can target limited resources to
address the stressor.

Stressors to recreational use include pathogenic indicators such as fecal coliform bacteria,
escheria coli (E. coli), and enterrococci. In the fish consumption category, mercury and dioxin
are the noted stressors. Other substances may also result in the issuance of a fish consumption
advisory or advice by the NC Division of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS).

Most stressors to the biological community are a complex grouping of many different stressors
that individually may not degrade water quality or aquatic habitat, but together can severely
impact aquatic life. Sources of stressors are most often associated with land use in a watershed,
as well as the quality and quantity of any treated wastewater that may be entering a stream.
During naturally severe conditions such as droughts or floods, any individual stressor, or group
of stressors, may have more severe impacts to aquatic life than during normal climatic
conditions. The most common source of stressors is from altered hydrology.

In the fish consumption category dioxin is a stressor resulting in the Impairment of waters in
Albemarle Sound to the mouths of the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers. Dioxins are the byproducts
of industrial processes and are formed during the chlorine bleaching process at pulp and paper
mills. The current dioxin advisory was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services
in 2001. The advisory is for the consumption of catfish and carp in the Albemarle Sound from
58 Water Quality Stressors and Sources
Bull Bay to Harvey Point; West to the mouth of the Roanoke River and to the mouth of the
Chowan River to the U.S. Highway 17 Bridge (Perquimans, Chowan, Bertie, Washington, and
Tyrrell Counties). Women of childbearing age and children should not eat any catfish or carp
from this area until further notice. All other persons should eat no more than one meal per month
of catfish and carp from this area. For more information on this advisory please visit the DHHS
website http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/.

6.1.2 Sources

Pollutants fall into two general categories: point sources and nonpoint sources. DWQ identifies
the source of a stressor, point or nonpoint, as specifically as possible depending on the amount of
information available in a watershed. Most often the source is based on the predominant land
use in a watershed. Many point sources were removed from the Chowan River due to the NSW
management strategy with the conversion of municipal wastewater treatment plants to land
application. Stressors sources identified in the Chowan River basin during this assessment
period include agriculture and runoff from WWTP land application sites. In addition to these
sources, many impacts originate from unknown sources.

Stormwater and Wastewater Management 59
Chapter 7
Stormwater and Wastewater Management for Improved
Water Quality

7.1 Introduction to Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surfaces (e.g.,
buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.). In some cases, it drains directly into streams, rivers, lakes,
and oceans. In other cases, particularly in urbanized areas, stormwater drains into streets and
manmade drainage systems consisting of inlets and underground pipes, commonly referred to as
a storm sewer system. Storm sewer systems are designed simply to capture the stormwater and
convey it to the nearest surface water without treatment. These sewers should not be confused
with sanitary sewers, which transport human and industrial wastewater to a treatment plant
before discharging into surface waters.

Common stormwater pollutants include sediment, nutrients, organic matter, bacteria, oil and
grease, and toxic substances (e.g., metals, pesticides, herbicides, hydrocarbons). Stormwater can
also impact the temperature of a surface waterbody, which can affect the water’s ability to
support certain fish and aquatic communities.

Uncontrolled stormwater runoff has many impacts on both humans and the environment.
Cumulative effects include flooding, undercut and eroding streambanks, widened stream
channels, threats to public health and safety, impaired recreational use, and increased costs for
drinking and wastewater treatment. For more information on stormwater runoff, visit the DWQ
Stormwater Permitting Unit at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/stormwater.html or Chapter 5 of the
Supplemental Guide to North Carolina's Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide
Water Quality Plans http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

7.2 Stormwater Programs

The goal of the DWQ stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent
pollution from entering the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs try to
accomplish this goal by controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I and II regulations, HQW/ORW
stormwater requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply Watershed
Program. Currently, there are 23 individual stormwater permits listed for the Chowan River
basin and Phase I regulations are not applicable. However. there are a few local governments
and/or counties that are affected by other water quality protection programs.

DWQ’s Stormwater Permitting Unit webpage: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/index.htm provides
links to the stormwater BMP manual, a map tool to identify where file a permit and guidance on
North Carolina’s evolving stormwater programs. A description of Federal and State stormwater
regulations and programs are also described in detail in Chapter 5 of the Supplemental Guide to
North Carolina's Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

60 Stormwater and Wastewater Management
Stormwater Regulation Challenges

One challenge in meeting the goal of enhancing and protecting water quality is the State’s
inaccurate or lack of location data to identify permitted stormwater discharges. This permit data
is important to DWQ for both tracking and renewing permits, assessing the program, and
determining potential cumulative impacts. Discharge outfall locations are also important to
compliment protection and restoration efforts by other organizations.

To correct this problem, updating discharge locations began in 2005 to include GPS coordinates
of outfalls and digital photographs. A temporary administrative staff position has been requested
to begin updating or correcting coastal stormwater permit data in DWQ’s Basinwide Information
Management System (BIMS) database. DWQ is working with regional offices to ensure data
entry is consistent and that protocol exists for collecting GPS coordinates in a consistent manner
at permitted sites. There were 15 untreated stormwater outfalls detected in Edenton as a result of
the 2005-2006 municipal outfalls survey.

2007 Recommendations
DWQ recommends that local government and county officials in the basin develop stormwater
management programs for new development and to retrofit existing development. In particular,
Chowan County and Edenton would improve water quality in their jurisdiction if they were to
voluntarily begin developing stormwater programs with Phase II standards. DWQ and other
NCDENR agencies will continue to provide information on funding sources and technical
assistance to support local government and county stormwater program development.

7.3 Wastewater Management Programs

7.3.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary

Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as 'point sources'. Wastewater point source discharges include
municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small domestic
wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential subdivisions and
individual homes. Stormwater point source discharges include stormwater collection systems for
municipalities and stormwater discharges associated with certain industrial activities. Point
source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a NPDES permit. Discharge
permits are issued under the NPDES program, which is delegated to DWQ by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

Currently, there are 10 permitted wastewater dischargers in the Chowan River basin. Table 13
provides summary information (by type and subbasin) about the discharges. The types of
dischargers listed in the table are described in the inset box. Facilities are mapped in each
subbasin chapter, and a complete listing of permitted facilities is included in Appendix III.

Stormwater and Wastewater Management 61
Table 13 NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Chowan River Basin
(August 2006).
Facility Categories 03-01-01 03-01-02 03-01-03 03-01-04 TOTAL
Total Facilities 5 0 2 3 10
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 44,000 0 1,524,000 20,000 1,588,000
Facilities Grouped by Size
Major Discharges 0 0 1 0 1
Permitted Flow (MGD) 0 0 1,500,000 0 1,500,000
Minor Discharges 5 0 1 3 9
Permitted Flow (MGD) 44,000 0 24,000 20,000 88,000
Facilities Grouped by Type
100% Domestic Waste 4 0 0 0 4
Permitted Flow (MGD) 2,000 0 0 0 2,000
Municipal Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Permitted Flow (MGD) 0 0 0 0 0
Nonmunicipal Facilities 1 0 2 3 0
Permitted Flow (MGD) 24,000 0 1,524,000 20,000 1,568,000

7.3.2 Permitted Non-Discharge Waste Management Strategies

Due to the nutrient sensitivity of the waters in the Chowan River basin and the strict effluent
limits on discharges, non-discharge wastewater treatment systems are more common. The Land
Application Unit (LAU) in the Aquifer Protection Section of DWQ oversees non-discharge
wastewater treatment and recycle systems including land application of wastewater and
residuals. The program has operational and monitoring requirements similar to those of the
NPDES wastewater program; however, the primary difference is that the treated effluent is not
discharged to surface waters. Instead, it is usually discharged to a spray irrigation system for land
application. Some other options for the land application of effluent include rapid infiltration
basins and drip irrigation systems.

Systems that are reviewed and permitted by LAU include spray irrigation systems, animal waste
management systems, rapid infiltration basins, drip irrigation systems, land application of
residuals, wastewater collection systems, and beneficial reuse of wastewater effluent. The non-
discharge program and all associated permits, is regulated by North Carolina General Statutes
143.215.1 and Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2T .0100 - Waste Not Discharged to
Surface Waters. These sections not only give DWQ the authority to issue permits; they also
provide details on the permitting process and information that must be submitted with a permit
application.

Every wastewater treatment facility in the State of North Carolina, including large NPDES
facilities, pretreatment systems and non-discharge systems, produce some form and amount of
wastewater residuals. DWQ requires a permit for the land application of these residuals. The
program was developed around the EPA rules 40 CFR Part 257 and 40 CFR Part 503. These
treatment systems are designed to satisfy at least the minimum permitting requirements for
protection of the surface and ground waters that they could potentially impact. The new rules for
waste not discharged to surface waters can be found at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/documents/2Tbook.pdf as 15A NCAC 02T. Numerous
non-discharge systems and necessary treatment requirements are described at this website.
These rules replaced the earlier 15A NCAC 02H .0200 rule version.
62 Stormwater and Wastewater Management
Setbacks are required for all irrigation sites near for surface waters, drainage ditches and
waterways. The land surface provides a final "treatment" phase in the disposal process, allowing
for uptake and often vegetative removal of nutrients and/or fecal coliform bacteria that may be
present in plant effluent depending on the level of treatment permitted for a given facility.
However, the effectiveness of this treatment depends upon the ability of the cover crops to take
up the nutrients. In additional, the coarse grain sands do not always provide adequate adsorption,
and the retention time before it enters groundwater is minimal so soil bacteria do not provide
much treatment. With the promulgation of the Subchapter 02T rules, high-rate systems must
meet more stringent effluent limitations and/or increased setbacks.

Within the Chowan basin, it is important to note that there is a direct connection between
groundwater and surface water in many places. Non-discharge systems work well when the site
is conducive to infiltration. However, problems can arise when the site is a low-lying area with a
high groundwater table (thereby inhibiting infiltration), or with nearby wetlands or ditches that
can act as a ready conduit for runoff. Most non-discharge spray irrigation sites have storage
ponds that would allow the wastewater to be held until appropriate to spray. If the water table is
high in a disposal area, water level meters are installed to prevent irrigation until there is a
certain vertical separation between the land surface and the water table. Runoff is a real concern
at any irrigation site, but it can be prevented with proper hydraulic loading (water balance),
buffering, and storage.

It is recommended that research be conducted to better establish and understand the relationship
between groundwater and surface water in eastern North Carolina. Such understanding would
provide for more accurate assessment of surface water impairments resulting from groundwater
discharges and enable the state to make sound permitting judgments and recommendations to
better protect water quality in general.

Many non-discharge systems are constructed by the developer and turned over to a homeowners
association (HOA) after completion. If there is a major problem, the HOA is responsible for the
repair bill and funding the repair can be an issue. For systems that will be or are owned by a
HOA, the statutes and rules require special accounts be set up by the HOA for the operation of
the treatment system. In addition, the HOA must set up a reserve fund for major repairs.

Non-discharge systems create some challenges for the DWQ regional offices in terms of
inspections and assuring permit and compliance conditions are met. DWQ may seek additional
staffing resources to meet these challenges. One of DWQs goals is to better review covenants
and bylaws upon permit review to make sure that HOAs are adhering to the financial assuredness
requirements under the permit.

In the Chowan River basin, 21 non-discharge permits have been issued (Table 14). More
information about non-discharge permits can be found on the DWQ LAU Web site
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/lau/main.html) and in the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s
Basinwide Planning document
(http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm).

Stormwater and Wastewater Management 63
Table 14 NPDES Non-Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Chowan River Basin.
Facility Categories 03-01-01 03-01-02 03-01-03 03-01-04 TOTAL
Total Facilities 10 8 0 3 21
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1,413,692 1,583,204 0 1,176,040 4,172,936
Facilities Grouped by Size
Major Discharges 7 8 0 3 18
Permitted Flow (MGD) 1,409,192 1,583,204 0 1,176,040 4,186,436
Minor Discharges 3 0 0 0 3
Permitted Flow (MGD) 4,500 0 0 0 4,500
Facilities Grouped by Type
Government-Municipal 3 6 0 1 10
Permitted Flow (MGD) 1,242,000 1,568,204 0 1,076,000 3,886,204
Government-County 2 0 0 0 2
Permitted Flow (MGD) 29,500 0 0 0 29,500
Government-State 1 0 0 0 1
Permitted Flow (MGD) 25,000 0 0 0 25,000
Non-Government 4 2 0 2 8
Permitted Flow (MGD) 117,192 15,000 0 100,040 232,232

7.3.3 On-Site Waste Management

North Carolina has enacted laws and adopted rules that mandate significant requirements for
inspection and review of On-site Waste System (OSWS) performance. Siting, sizing,
inspections, approvals, and permitting are the responsibilities of County Health Departments
through their local authorized agents, but engineers and regional soil specialists are called upon
for training, authorization, informal appeals, and consultation with Environmental Health
Specialists. Enforcement of on-site wastewater rules and laws is the responsibility of the local
environmental health specialists. For more information on State rules pertaining to site
evaluations and soil suitability for septic systems see
http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/osww_new/images/Rules/1900RulesJune2006.pdf.

Septic Systems and Straight Piping

With the increase in development there is an increase in demand for individual wastewater
treatment systems requiring higher flows on smaller tracks of land. Wastewater from many
households is not treated at wastewater treatment plants associated with NPDES discharge
permits. Instead, it is treated on-site through the use of permitted septic systems. Poorly planned
and/or maintained systems can fail and contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Wastewater
from some of these homes illegally discharges directly to streams through what is known as a
"straight pipe". In other cases, wastewater from failing septic systems makes its way to streams
or contaminates groundwater. Straight piping and failing septic systems are illegal discharges of
wastewater into waters of the State.

With on-site septic systems, the septic tank unit treats some wastes and the drainfield provides
further treatment and filtration of the pollutants and pathogens found in wastewater. A septic
system that is operating properly does not discharge untreated wastewater to streams and lakes or
to the ground’s surface where it can run into nearby surface waters. Septic systems are a safe
and effective long-term method for treating wastewater if they are sited, sized and maintained
properly. If the tank or drainfield are improperly located or constructed, or the systems are not
64 Stormwater and Wastewater Management
maintained, nearby wells and surface waters may become contaminated, causing potential risks
to human health. Septic tanks must be properly installed and maintained to ensure they function
properly over the life of the system. Information about the proper installation and maintenance
of septic tanks can be obtained by calling the environmental health sections of the local county
health departments. See Appendix IV for contact information.

The discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage can be extremely harmful to humans and
the aquatic environment. Pollutants from illegally discharged household wastewater contain
chemicals, nutrients, disease pathogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Although DWQ’s
ambient monitoring of the waters in the Chowan River basin show a relatively small percentage
of fecal coliform bacteria samples exceeding state standards for primary recreation, smaller
streams may contain a higher concentration of bacteria and other pollutants. The economies of
the counties in this basin are highly dependent upon river recreation, especially for tourists and
seasonal residents.

2007 Recommendations
In order to protect human health and maintain water quality, failing septic systems should be
repaired, older systems must be updated, and straight pipes must be eliminated. Additional
monitoring of fecal coliform bacteria throughout tributary watersheds will aid in identifying
where straight pipes and failing septic systems are problems. Furthermore, precautions should
be taken by local septic system permitting authorities to ensure that new systems are sited and
constructed properly and that adequate repair area is also available. County, town and city
planners need to understand the economic and human health ramifications caused by
unsatisfactory septic systems and plan for long-term septic system sustainability. In areas where
soils prevent individual septic systems a collective community septic system in appropriate soils
may allow for sustainable development where a centralized sewer system is not available.
Educational information should be provided to new septic system owners regarding the
maintenance of these systems over time. For more information please see Chapter 9 in the
Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide
Water Quality Plans: http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

On-going on-site waste management activities in the Chowan Basin are led by the Albemarle
Regional Health Services (ARHS), a district Board of Health for Bertie, Gates, Pasquotank,
Perquimans, Camden, Tyrrell, and Washington counties, which conducts annual inspections on
all 3,500 innovative and alternative systems. In addition, Chowan, Currituck, Hertford, and
Martin counties contract with ARHS for their services. They follow-up on all on-site waste
system repairs and are responsible for conventional systems within the 7-county district.

DENR On-Site Wastewater System Management
DENR has several initiatives related to on-site wastewater education, including current literature
and scientific evaluation of potential pollutants from On-site Wastewater Systems. The DEH
On-Site Wastewater Section has an active grant-seeking program. Current successful grants
include those to the Wastewater Discharge Elimination (WaDE) program for eliminating straight
pipes and failing systems, NPS coordinator grants for fate and transport of microbes in the
shellfish areas, endocrine disrupting chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and an on-site management
grant. The Division of Waste Management oversees the septage management firms and septage
disposal in NC.

Population and Natural Resources 65
Chapter 8
Population and Natural Resources in the Chowan River Basin

8.1 Population Growth and Development

North Carolina’s coastal counties are some of the fastest growing areas in the state and the
associated development is impacting water quality. Two of the five counties in the basin are
expected to experience growth rates in excess of ten percent by 2020 (Table 15). As the counties
in the Chowan River basin continue to grow along the inner waterways there will likely be a loss
of natural areas and an increase in the amount of impervious surface associated with new homes
and businesses.

County population data present projected county growth estimates based on Office of State
Planning information (June 2006) (Table 15). Counties with the highest expected growth are
associated with the largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins with in the
basin.

Table 15 County Population and Growth Estimates
County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦
1990
Population
2000
Population
Estimated %
Growth 1990-
2000
Estimated
Population 2020
Estimated %
Growth 2000-
2020
Bertie 30 20,388 19,757 -3.2 18,668 -5.8
Chowan 67 13,506 14,150 4.6 15,154 6.6
Gates 80 9,305 10,516 11.5 12,962 18.9
Hertford 100 22,317 22,977 2.9 25,062 8.3
Northampton 65 21,004 22,086 4.9 25,062 11.9
Subtotals 86,520 89,486 20.6 96,908 39.9
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997.
Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin.

Table 16 presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities located
wholly or partly within the basin. Data presented by municipality summarize information on
past growth of urban areas in the basin.

66 Population and Natural Resources
Table 16 Population Data by Municipality in the Chowan River Basin
Municipality County April
1980
April
1990
April
2000
Percent Change
(1980-1990)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Ahoskie Hertford 4,887 4,535 4,523 -7.2 -0.3
Aulander* Bertie 1,214 1,209 888 -0.4 -26.6
Cofield Hertford 465 407 347 -12.5 -14.7
Colerain Bertie 284 241 221 -15.1 -8.3
Como Hertford 89 102 78 14.6 -23.5
Conway Northampton 678 759 734 11.9 -3.3
Edenton Chowan 5,357 5,268 5,394 -1.7 2.4
Gaston* Northampton 883 1,003 973 13.6 -3.0
Gatesville Gates 363 308 281 -15.2 -8.8
Harrellsville Hertford 151 106 102 -29.8 -3.8
Jackson* Northampton 720 592 695 -17.8 17.4
Lasker Northampton 96 139 103 44.8 -25.9
Murfreesboro Hertford 3,007 2,580 2,045 -14.2 -20.7
Powellsville Bertie 320 279 259 -12.8 -7.2
Rich Square* Northampton 1,057 1,058 931 0.1 -12.0
Seaboard Northampton 687 791 695 15.1 -12.1
Severn Northampton 309 260 263 -15.9 1.2
Winton Hertford 825 796 956 -3.5 20.1
Woodland Northampton 861 760 833 -11.7 9.6
* The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin

Population trends in the Chowan basin show a decline in rural areas and an increase in
population and development along inland waterways. While in most towns population decreased
between 1990 and 2000, the overall basinwide population is expected to increase. Planning for
sustainable growth in the Chowan River basin requires awareness, understanding and
implementation of sound design and management options. The natural resources and waterways
contribute to our quality of life while supporting and promoting economic growth. Communities
should anticipate growth while incorporating Low Impact Development technologies in their
planning to promote long-term sustainability of our natural resources. The NC Division of
Coastal Management with NC Sea Grant and NCSU College of Design developed The
Soundfront Series, informational guides to assist property owners and community planners and
managers. The guides are available in print and on the web. http://www.ncseagrant.org/.

8.2 River Basin Hydrologic Units

Under the federal system, the Chowan River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred to as
cataloging units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). Cataloging units are further divided into
smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic units) that are used for smaller scale (Table 17).

Population and Natural Resources 67
Table 17 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Chowan River Basin
Watershed Name and Major
Tributaries
DWQ
Subbasin 6-
digit Codes
USGS 8-
digit
Hydrologic
Units
USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Units*
Chowan River 03010203
010010, 020010, 030010, 030020, 030030, 040010,
040020, 040040, 050010, 050011, 050012, 050020,
050030, 060010, 060011, 060012, 060020, 060030,
060040, 090010, 040030, 070010, 070020, 080020,
090015, 100010
Upper Chowan River and
Ahoskie Creek 03-01-01
Middle Chowan River and
tributaries 03-01-03
Lower Chowan and
tributaries 03-01-04
Meherrin River and tributaries
03-01-02 03010204
140010, 140020, 140030, 180010, 180020, 180030,
180040, 190010, 200010, 210010, 210020, 210030,
210040
*Numbers from the 8-digit and 14-digit column make the full 14-digit HU.

8.3 Water Resources and Water Supply Planning

NC DENR Division of Water Resources (DWR) administers programs for river basin
management, water supply assistance, water conservation, and water resources development. The
Division conducts special studies on instream flow needs and serves as the State liaison with
federal agencies on major water resources related projects. The DWR also administers two
environmental education outreach programs, Stream Watch and Project WET. For more
information about the Chowan River basin visit http://www.ncwater.org/basins/Chowan/.

8.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought

Water quality problems associated with rainfall events usually involve degradation of aquatic
habitats because the high flows may carry increased loadings of substances like metals, oils,
herbicides, pesticides, sand, clay, organic material, bacteria and nutrients. These substances can
be toxic to aquatic life (fish and insects) or may result in oxygen depletion or sedimentation.
During drought conditions, these pollutants become more concentrated in streams due to reduced
flow. Summer months are generally the most critical months for water quality. Dissolved
oxygen is naturally lower due to higher temperatures, algae grow more due to longer periods of
sunlight, and streamflows are reduced. In a long-term drought, these problems can be greatly
exacerbated and the potential for water quality problems to become catastrophic is increased.
This section discusses water quality problems that can be expected during low flow conditions.

The frequency of acute impacts due to nonpoint source pollution (runoff) is actually minimized
during drought conditions. However, when rain events do occur, pollutants that have been
collecting on the land surface are quickly delivered to streams. When streamflows are well
below normal, this polluted runoff becomes a larger percentage of the water flowing in the
stream. Point sources may also have water quality impacts during drought conditions even
though permit limits are being met. Facilities that discharge wastewater have permit limits that
are based on the historic low flow conditions. During droughts these wastewater discharges
68 Population and Natural Resources
make up a larger percentage of the water flowing in streams than normal and might contribute to
lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations and increased levels of other pollutants.

As streamflows decrease, there is less habitat available for aquatic insects and fish. There is also
less water available for irrigation and for water supplies. The dry conditions and increased
removal of water for these uses further increases strain on the resource. With less habitat,
naturally lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher water temperatures, the potential for large
kills of fish and aquatic insects is very high. These conditions may stress the fish to the point
where they become more susceptible to disease and where stresses that normally would not harm
them result in mortality.

These are also areas where longer retention times due to decreased flows allow algae to take full
advantage of the nutrients present resulting in algal blooms. During the daylight hours, algae
greatly increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, but at night, algal respiration and
die off can cause dissolved oxygen levels to drop low enough to cause fish kills. Besides
increasing the frequency of fish kills, algae blooms can also cause difficulty in water treatment
resulting in taste and odor problems in finished drinking water.

8.5 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies

8.5.1 Introduction

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 emphasize pollution
prevention as an important strategy for the protection of ground and surface water resources.
This focus promotes the prevention of drinking water contamination as a cost-effective means to
provide reliable, long-term and safe drinking water sources for public water supply (PWS)
systems. In order to determine the susceptibility of public water supply sources to
contamination, the amendments also required that all states establish a Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP). Specifically, Section 1453 of the SDWA Amendments require that states
develop and implement a SWAP to:

• Delineate source water assessment areas;
• Inventory potential contaminants in these areas; and
• Determine the susceptibility of each public water supply to contamination.

In North Carolina, the agency responsible for the PWS is the Public Water Supply (PWS)
Section of the DENR Division of Environmental Health (DEH). The PWS Section received
approval from the EPA for their SWAP Plan in November 1999. The SWAP Plan, entitled
North Carolina’s Source Water Assessment Program Plan, fully describes the methods and
procedures used to delineate and assess the susceptibility of more than 9,000 wells and
approximately 207 surface water intakes. To review the SWAP Plan, visit the PWS website at
http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/index.htm.

8.5.2 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas

The SWAP Plan builds upon existing protection programs for ground and surface water
resources. These include the state’s Wellhead Protection Program and the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Program.

Population and Natural Resources 69
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program
North Carolinians withdraw more than 88 million gallons of groundwater per day from more
than 9,000 water supply wells across the state. In 1996, Congress passed Amendments to the
SDWA requiring states to develop wellhead protection programs that reduce the threat to the
quality of groundwater used for drinking water by identifying and managing recharge areas to
specific wells or wellfields.

Defining a wellhead protection area (WHPA) is one of the most critical components of wellhead
protection. A WHPA is defined as “the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or
wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to
move toward and reach such water well or wellfield.” The SWAP uses the methods described in
the state's approved WHP Program to delineate source water assessment areas for all public
water supply wells. More information related to North Carolina’s WHP Program can be found
at: http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/swap.

Water Supply Watershed Protection (WSWP) Program
DWQ is responsible for managing the standards and classifications of all water supply
watersheds. In 1992, the WSWP Rules were adopted by the EMC and require all local
governments that have land use jurisdiction within water supply watersheds adopt and implement
water supply watershed protection ordinances, maps and management plans. SWAP uses the
established water supply watershed boundaries and methods established by the WSWP program
as a basis to delineate source water assessment areas for all public water surface water intakes.
Additional information regarding the WSWP Program can be found at
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/wswp/.

8.5.3 Susceptibility Determination – North Carolina’s Overall Approach

The SWAP Plan contains a detailed description of the methods used to assess the susceptibility
of each PWS intake in North Carolina. The following is a brief summary of the susceptibility
determination approach.

Overall Susceptibility Rating
The overall susceptibility determination rates the potential for a drinking water source to become
contaminated. The overall susceptibility rating for each PWS intake is based on two key
components: a contaminant rating and an inherent vulnerability rating. For a PWS to be
determined “susceptible,” a potential contaminant source must be present and the existing
conditions of the PWS intake location must be such that a water supply could become
contaminated. The determination of susceptibility for each PWS intake is based on combining
the results of the inherent vulnerability rating and the contaminant rating for each intake. Once
combined, a PWS is given a susceptibility rating of higher, moderate or lower (H, M or L).

Inherent Vulnerability Rating
Inherent vulnerability refers to the physical characteristics and existing conditions of the
watershed or aquifer. The inherent vulnerability rating of groundwater intakes is determined
based on an evaluation of aquifer characteristics, unsaturated zone characteristics and well
integrity and construction characteristics. The inherent vulnerability rating of surface water
intakes is determined based on an evaluation of the watershed classification (WSWP Rules),
intake location, raw water quality data (i.e., turbidity and total coliform) and watershed
70 Population and Natural Resources
characteristics (i.e., average annual precipitation, land slope, land use, land cover, groundwater
contribution).

Contaminant Rating
The contaminant rating is based on an evaluation of the density of potential contaminant sources
(PCSs), their relative risk potential to cause contamination, and their proximity to the water
supply intake within the delineated assessment area.

Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources (PCSs)
In order to inventory PCSs, the SWAP conducted a review of relevant and available sources of
existing data at federal, state and local levels. The SWAP selected sixteen statewide databases
that contained usable geographic information related to PCSs.

8.5.4 Source Water Protection

The PWS Section believes that the information from the source water assessments will become
the basis for future initiatives and priorities for public drinking water source water protection
(SWP) activities. The PWS Section encourages all PWS system owners to implement efforts to
manage identified sources of contamination and to reduce or eliminate potential threats to
drinking water supplies through locally implemented programs

To encourage and support local SWP, the state offers PWS system owners assistance with local
SWP as well as materials such as:

• Fact sheets outlining sources of funding and other resources for local SWP efforts.
• Success stories describing local SWP efforts in North Carolina.
• Guidance about how to incorporate SWAP and SWP information in Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCRs).

Information related to SWP can be found at http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/swap.

8.5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the Chowan River Basin

In April 2004, the PWS Section completed source water assessments for all drinking water
sources and generated reports for the PWS systems using these sources. A second round of
assessments were completed in April 2005. The results of the assessments can be viewed in two
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 the PWS web page (http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/swap). To view a report, select
the PWS System of interest by clicking on the “SWAP Reports” icon.

In the Chowan River basin, 75 public water supply sources were identified, all of which are
groundwater wells. Of the 75 groundwater sources, 4 of them have a Higher, 29 have a
Moderate and 42 have a Lower susceptibility rating. It is important to note that a susceptibility
rating of Higher does not imply poor water quality. Susceptibility is an indication of a water
supply's potential to become contaminated by the identified PCSs within the assessment area.

Population and Natural Resources 71
8.6 Changes in Land Cover

Land cover can be an important way to evaluate the effects of land use changes on water quality.
Unfortunately, the tools and database to do this on a watershed scale are not yet available. Land
cover information from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) published by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is presented only at an 8-digit hydrologic unit scale.
This information is presented to provide a picture of the different land covers and developing
land use trends in the Chowan River basin, while noting that the data is outdated and does not
reflect recent development along North Carolina’s waterways.

Land cover information in this section is from the most current NRI, as developed by the NRCS
(USDA-NRCS, June 2001). The NRI is a statistically based longitudinal survey that has been
designed and implemented to assess conditions and trends of soil, water and related resources on
the Nation’s nonfederal rural lands. The NRI provides results that are nationally and temporally
consistent for four points in time -- 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. The USDA is working to
provide updates to land cover data in the near future.

In general, NRI protocols and definitions remain fixed for each inventory year. However, part of
the inventory process is that the previously recorded data are carefully reviewed as
determinations are made for the new inventory year. For those cases where a protocol or
definition needs to be modified, all historical data must be edited and reviewed on a point-by-
point basis to make sure that data for all years are consistent and properly calibrated. The
following excerpt from the Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory provides
guidance for use and interpretation of current NRI data:

The 1997 NRI database has been designed for use in detecting significant changes
in resource conditions relative to the years 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. All
comparisons for two points in time should be made using the new 1997 NRI
database. Comparisons made using data previously published for the 1982, 1987
or 1992 NRI may provide erroneous results because of changes in statistical
estimation protocols, and because all data collected prior to 1997 were
simultaneously reviewed (edited) as 1997 NRI data were collected.

Table 18 summarizes acreage and percentage of land cover from the 1997 NRI for the major
watersheds within the basin, as defined by the USGS 8-digit hydrologic units, and compares the
coverages to 1982 land cover.

72 Population and Natural Resources
Table 18 Land Cover in the Chowan River Basin by Major Watersheds: 1982 vs. 1997
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS *
Chowan River Meherrin River
Watershed Watershed 1997 TOTALS 1982 TOTALS
Acres Acres Acres % of Acres % of
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL
%
change
since
1982
Cultivated. Crop 142.4 30.3 119.6 35.8 262.0 32.6 264.1 32.8 -0.8
Uncultivated. Crop 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 150.0
Pasture 3.1 0.7 4.9 1.5 8.0 1.0 10.5 1.3 -23.8
Forest 266.7 56.7 174.8 52.3 441.5 54.9 445.9 55.4 -1.0
Urban & Built-Up 11.2 2.4 11.5 3.4 22.7 2.8 14.0 1.7 62.1
Federal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 45.7 9.7 23.2 6.9 68.9 8.6 70.3 8.7 -2.0
Totals 470.6 100.0 334.0 100.0 804.6 100.0 804.8 100.0
Percent of Total Basin 58.5 41.5 100.0
03-01-01
SUBBASINS 03-01-03 03-01-04 ** 03-01-02
8-Digit Hydraulic
Units 03010203 03010204

* = Watershed areas defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ.
** A small portion of subbasin 03-01-04 is contained in hydrologic unit 03010205.
It is not currently feasible to estimate the land use in that portion to include the Chowan land cover estimates.
The hydrologic unit 03010205 is discussed in the Pasquotank River Basin Water Quality Plan.

Forest and wetlands (both private and federal forests) cover approximately 55 percent of the
basin. Agriculture (including cultivated and uncultivated cropland and pastureland) covers
approximately 34 percent of the land area. The urban and built-up category comprises roughly 3
percent. Cultivated cropland and forestland cover both decreased in the basin. Uncultivated
cropland and pastureland cover had the most significant changes.

8.7 Forest Management

Approximately 86 percent of forestland in the Chowan River basin is privately owned;12 percent
is owned by forest industry and the rest is publicly owned. These ownership estimates comes
from the most recent Forestry Inventory and Analysis 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).

At least 44,933 acres of land were planted or regenerated with forest trees across the basin from
September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2005. During this same time period, the North Carolina
Division of Forest Resources (DFR) provided individual forest plans for landowners that
encompassed over 83,959 acres in the basin. This includes 2,078 plans, such as pre-harvest,
rehabilitation and forest stewardship plans, which provide site specific guidance for water quality
protection.

The DFR operates a 700+ acre tree nursery in Goldsboro. The nursery grows 9 species of
conifers and 51 species of hardwoods that are available for forest management and stream/
wetland restoration projects. There is a distribution center located in Edenton where these
seedlings can be picked up once they are purchased. Call 1-888-NC TREES (628-7337) for
more information or visit the Web site noted above.

Uncontrolled high intensity fires can combust excessive amounts of ground cover and vegetation
and have the potential to negatively impact water quality. DFR performs hazard reduction burns

Population and Natural Resources 73
to reduce fuel load and therefore wild fire hazard. During the period covered by this Plan, nearly
3,000 acres of land were either prepared or burned for the reduction of hazardous fuels.

8.7.1 Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (FPGs)

The DFR is delegated the authority to monitor and evaluate forestry operations for compliance
with laws and/or rules. Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) of 1973. However, forestry operations are exempt
from the permit and plan requirements of the SPCA if the operations meet the compliance
standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (FPG) and
General Statutes regarding stream obstruction. For more information regarding forest practices
guidelines related to water quality please visit Chapter 7 in the Supplemental Guide to North
Carolina’s Basinwide Planning: Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans:
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

DFR has personnel in all 100 counties who perform FPG inspections and handle other basic
water quality related tasks on a daily basis. In addition, ten of its thirteen Districts across the
State also have specialists known as Water Quality Foresters. The entire Chowan River basin
now has coverage by Water Quality Foresters, thanks to a new position that was established in
2005, which is based out the Elizabeth City District Office. Water Quality Foresters conduct
FPG inspections, survey BMP implementation, check for compliance with forest harvest
requirements of state buffer rules, develop pre-harvest plans, provide training opportunities for
landowners, loggers, and the public regarding water quality issues related to forestry, and assist
other DFR staff with more technical water quality issues.

During the period September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2005 the DFR inspected 1,400 forestry
sites for FPG compliance in the basin; 96 percent of the sites inspected were in compliance. In
addition, 121 re-inspections were performed to ensure that sites continued to be or were brought
into compliance with the FPGs.

8.7.2 Forestry Best Management Practices

Implementing Forestry BMPs is strongly encouraged by DFR in order to efficiently and
effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina and help maintain compliance with the
FPGs. During this Plan’s reporting period, DFR provided 700 written or verbal BMP
recommendations on tracts totaling 32,733 acres in the Chowan River Basin. To further assess
BMPs, the DFR conducted a detailed, statewide BMP Implementation Survey from March 2000
through March 2003 to evaluate Forestry BMPs on active harvest operations. During that time
period, 23 of those surveys were performed in the Chowan River basin. On those sites,
implementation of recommended BMPs was 83 percent. Eight percent of the conditions on those
sites had potential to degrade water quality. Forestry BMP implementation in the Chowan River
basin was close to the statewide survey average of 82 percent. The problems most often cited in
this survey relate to stream crossings, skid trails, and site rehabilitation. This survey, and future
surveys to be conducted, will serve as a basis for focused efforts in the forestry community to
address water quality concerns through better and more effective BMP implementation and
training.

74 Population and Natural Resources
8.7.3 Bridgemats

To help prevent water quality problems associated with stream crossings, the DFR has been
loaning bridgemats to loggers for establishing temporary stream crossings during harvesting
activities. Temporary bridges are usually the preferred solution for stream crossings instead of
culverts or hard-surfaced ‘ford’ crossings. Bridgemats are available upon request from any
District Office. In 2005, the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program provided grant
funding for the purchase of two steel sets of 30-foot bridgemats for use in northeastern North
Carolina, with one set dedicated specifically to the Chowan River basin. There may be situations
whereby the bridgemats are used in neighboring river basin areas, if the customer demand
warrants. More information about using bridgemats, and the above noted BMP survey, is
available on the ‘Water Quality’ section of the DFR’s website: http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/.

8.7.4 Forest Products Industry

The forest industry is a vital economic driver throughout the Chowan River basin, with
significant forest industry operations located in the basin. In the Chowan River basin, seven
different businesses are considered “Primary Processors” of forest products raw material, which
represents three percent of the total number of primary processors in the state. While one of the
state's five pulp/paper mills is located in Plymouth, just beyond the boundary of the Chowan
River basin, the economic importance of the mill's demand for raw materials and its employment
value circulates across river basin boundaries, throughout northeastern North Carolina. Other
examples of primary processors in this basin include pine sawmills operated by Weyerhaeuser,
International Paper and Georgia Pacific. All primary processors pay an assessment to the State,
which is then combined with annual legislative appropriations to fund the “Forest Development
Program - FDP”, which provides cost-share reforestation assistance for forest landowners.

8.8 Public Lands

A small percentage (1.2 percent) of the Chowan River basin is publicly-owned conservation
land. The Chowan Swamp State Natural Area, administered by the Department of Parks and
Recreation, protects more than 6,000 acres. Merchants Millpond State Park encompasses about
3,300 acres, and offers an excellent natural experience with a wide variety of plant and animal
life. Wildlife Resources Commission has two small game lands within the basin: the Chowan
Game Lands and the Chowan Swamp Game Lands.

8.9 Ecological Significance of the Chowan River Basin

The Chowan and Meherrin rivers still reflect the rural character of the basin. The Chowan River
is known for some of the best fishing in the state, with largemouth bass, bluegill, chain pickerel,
black crappie, perch and herring being some of the most sought after species. However, the
Chowan River is noteworthy for more than good fishing with approximately 100 stream miles of
the Chowan River are considered an Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Areas by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The NHP is working to catalog North Carolina’s
Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Areas, identifying stretches of river and streams that
contain viable populations of rare aquatic species. The Chowan River receives this designation
because of the diversity of its freshwater mussel populations, many of which are rare and
vulnerable.

Population and Natural Resources 75
8.9.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Chowan River Basin

The NHP inventories areas for natural diversity, and catalogs rare plant and animal species and
natural communities. As previously mentioned, the Chowan River is for much of its length in
North Carolina considered a state significant Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Area. There
are a number of other significant natural areas in the Chowan River basin, some of which are
described below. Inclusion on the list does not imply that protection or public access exists.
More complete information on natural areas may be obtained from the NHP.

A number of identified natural areas contribute to water quality, including wetland natural
communities adjoining tributary streams and the mainstem rivers. Perhaps the most important
wetland community in this basin is the Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp, which is found along much
of the shoreline of the Chowan River, extending as far upriver as the Chowan Swamp area of
southern Gates County. Tidal swamps are distinguished by flooding caused primarily by regular
or irregular (such as wind) tides rather than seasonal river flooding. This situation modifies the
water quality of both brownwater and blackwater rivers and produces a different hydrologic
regime (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

The Chowan Swamp/Bennetts Creek/Catherine Creek Swamps natural area contains some of
the largest areas of Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp in the state. The natural area consists of
approximately 16,000 acres along the northern floodplain of the Chowan River.

The Colerain/Cow Island Swamp and Slopes natural area is similar to the Chowan Swamp, in
that it lies in the floodplain of the Chowan River and features Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp along
the shoreline, as well as other wetland communities farther from the river. This natural area is
located downstream from the Chowan Swamp, on the western shore of the river in Hertford and
Bertie Counties.

The Rocky Hock Swamp Forest contains remnants of an Atlantic White Cedar Forest
community. It is significant for having the only population of whisk-fern (Psilotum nudum) in
North Carolina and represents a major range extension for this species.

The Chinkapin Creek Hardwood Forest, is over three square miles in area, contains one of the
most extensive areas of mature upland hardwood forest natural communities remaining in the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina. It also contains one of the few remnants in the state for
Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill (Northern Subtype).

The Reedy Point Swamp is a good example of Pond Pine Woodland, and is among the best in
the region north of Albemarle Sound.

The Wiccacon River Bluffs and Swamp consists of a series of bluffs and dissected lands along
the lower Wiccacon River. The spectacular bluffs support a band of mesic forests, and while no
rare plant species are known, the Basic Mesic Forest supports a large number of species that are
typical of the Piedmont and even Mountains but are quite rare in the Coastal Plain.

There are six natural areas identified as significant along the Meherrin River. The entire portion
of the Meherrin River in North Carolina is also considered a regionally significant Aquatic
Significant Natural Heritage Area, primarily due to high quality habitat for rare mussels. Those
Significant Natural Heritage Areas important to water quality include the Meherrin River
76 Population and Natural Resources
Swamp in Hertford County and the Meherrin River Slopes and Swamp in Northampton
County.

The Meherrin River/Banks Creek Natural Area contains one of the best occurrences of
mature mesic mixed hardwood forest in the region. In addition, two outcrops of Yorktown fossil
deposits occur in the bluffs.

The Chowan River/Bartonsville Natural Area is a State-Significant site that is located along
the western margin of the Chowan River floodplain, just north of the confluence with the
Meherrin River. The natural area includes representative examples of mature, old-growth
swamp forest (with cypress and gum) and upland loblolly pine plant communities. Old-growth
examples of these communities are rare on the coastal plain, and within the natural area one can
find the former National Champion loblolly as well as significant wildlife habitat. A portion of
the site was protected by a 1965 agreement with the Society of American Foresters.

Merchants Millpond was constructed in 1811 as a source of waterpower, but has not been used
as such for a long time. Now Merchant’s Millpond State Park’s shallow pond supports an
excellent Piedmont/Coastal Plain Semi-permanent Impoundment community, believed to
resemble those in the large, mature beaver ponds that were eliminated from the state when
beavers were extirpated. The pond has an open canopy of stunted cypress and tupelo trees, and
supports a diverse assemblage of aquatic herbs. Several rare species are present: yellow
water-crowfoot (Ranunculus flabellaris), American featherfoil (Hottonia inflata), pale
mannagrass (Torreyochloa pallida), and conferva pondweed (Potamogeton confervoides).
Upstream of the pond, in Lassiter Swamp, is an excellent quality blackwater Cypress--Gum
Swamp, including an area of virgin water tupelo. The state champion water tupelo can be found
in this area. The diversity of habitat supports a tremendous variety of animal life. Over 190
species of birds have been recorded in the park. Diverse populations of reptiles and amphibians
and numerous mammals such as beaver, mink and river otter are also found here.

The Wyanoke Sandhills natural area is the northernmost longleaf pine community in the state,
unusual in that it lies north of the range of wiregrass (Aristida stricta), which is a groundcover
commonly associated with longleaf pine communities. The site also contains good examples of
other uncommon natural communities, including wetlands, and a significant historical site
containing Civil War earthworks.

8.9.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species

Table 19 below lists the rare aquatic species found in the Chowan River basin. For more
information on rare plant and animal species, visit the NHP website: www.ncnhp.org.

Population and Natural Resources 77

Table 19 List of Rare Aquatic Species in the Chowan River Basin
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status
Animals
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon E LE
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle Floater T
Anodonta implicata Alewife Floater T
Lampsilis radiata radiata Eastern Lampmussel T
Leptodea ochracea Tidewater Mucket T
Ligumia nasuta Eastern Pondmussel T
Orconectes virginiensis Chowanoke Crayfish SC FSC
Plants
Hottonia inflata Featherfoil SR
Bacopa innominata Tropical water-hyssop SR
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva Pondweed SR FSC
Torreyochloa pallida Pale Mannagrass SR
Listing Abbreviations: SR = Significantly Rare; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern;
FSC = Federal Species of Concern; E and LE = Endangered

An endangered taxon is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened taxon is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future. Special concern species require monitoring, but may be taken or collected under specific
regulations. A significantly rare species is rare in North Carolina, but has no official state status.
Federal species of concern refers to a taxon under consideration for listing, but at present there is
insufficient information to support listing.

Five of the rare aquatic animals – the Triangle Floater, Alewife Floater, Eastern Lampmussel,
Tidewater Mucket, and Eastern Pondmussel – are species of freshwater mussels. Freshwater
mussels have an interesting life cycle, with many of them dependent on specific fish to act as
hosts for their larvae. Freshwater mussels have surprisingly long life spans – with thicker-
shelled river species living 20-40 years, and some up to 100 years. Freshwater mussels are
imperiled nationwide, due to degraded physical habitats (e.g. sedimentation) and reduced water
quality, as well as declining populations in certain fish species that act as hosts.

The Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta undulata) formerly inhabited virtually every North Carolina
river system that drained to the Atlantic. However, the populations of this small mussel are
declining, and it is not found in many of the locales where it was once collected. It prefers slow
moving streams rather than rapids or riffles. The Alewife Floater (Anodonta implicata) is
usually found in more northern areas, ranging from Nova Scotia to the Potomac River in Virginia
and Maryland. The population found in the Chowan River basin appears to be a disjunct. The
Alewife Floater gets its name from its association with its main host fish, the alewife. The
Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) is usually found in medium to coarse sand habitats.
Like the Alewife Floater, the Eastern Lampmussel is generally considered a northern species,
with a discontinuous range from the Pee-Dee Drainage Basin north to the St. Lawrence Drainage
Basin. Little is known about its fish hosts. The Tidewater Mucket (Leptodea ochracea) is
known from only a few locations within North Carolina, including a large population in Lake
Waccamaw, populations in the Tar and Roanoke Rivers, and much smaller populations in the
Chowan and Meherrin Rivers. Although not truly restricted to tidal portions of rivers, the
Tidewater Mucket is never found far from the Atlantic coast. This suggests that, like the Alewife
78 Population and Natural Resources
Floater, its dominant or preferred fish host is anadromous. The Eastern Pondmussel (Ligumia
nasuta) reaches its southern range limit in North Carolina. This species is known from the
Chowan, Roanoke, and Pamlico drainage basins. Like the other freshwater mussel species
discussed, its population appears to be declining, probably due to poor water quality. In North
Carolina, this species is known from the Chowan, Roanoke, and Cape Fear River basins. The
species has been recently extirpated from the Pamlico River basin.

The Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a large, anadromous fish that once was
common in North Carolina waterways. The shortnose sturgeon may live for up to 30 years, and
inhabits the lower sections of larger rivers and estuaries along the Atlantic coast. The species
has suffered from excessive harvesting and habitat degradation, and is now in danger of
extinction. The fish has not been recorded from the Chowan River for over one hundred years.

Not much is known about the natural history of the Chowanoke Crayfish (Orconectes
virginiensis). This crustacean reaches the southern end of its range in North Carolina and the
only other place it occurs is Virginia. It lives in sluggish streams flowing through woodlands
with sandy or gravelly substrates, and is considered one of North Carolina’s rarest crayfish.

8.10 Fisheries

8.10.1 River Herring Fisheries Management Plan

The Chowan River and its tributaries provide critical habitat for the anadromous fish species.
Good water quality is an essential habitat element and has been identified as a limiting factor in
fish stock recovery if water quality does not improve. The draft 2007 River Herring Fisheries
Management Plan (FMP) provides an assessment of habitat conditions, recent studies, and
recommendations to improve stock conditions. The FMP for the river herring advocates for
multi-agency natural resource conservation and preservation. The FMP recommends that
agencies collaboratively work to 1) develop stricter nutrient discharge limits to reduce
eutrophication, 2) develop sediment discharge limits to protect spawning habitats, 3) reevaluate
the oxygen budget in coastal waters to account for low DO waters draining from swamps and 4)
require dischargers meet compliance with BOD limitations. The FMP supports the need for
improved stormwater management plans and developing requirements for establishing and
protecting riparian buffers and wetlands. The FMP discourages interbasin water transfers to
prevent exacerbation of existing water quality conditions. The FMP also calls for an assessment
of potential contaminates and by-products of reverse osmosis plants. More information on fish
habitat requirements, water quality needs and specific recommendations can be found in the draft
river herring FMP on the Division of Marine Fisheries website:
http://www.ncfisheries.net/fmps/index.html.

8.10.2 Fish Kill Summary

DWQ has systematically monitored and reported fish kill events across the state since 1996.
From 2000 to 2005, field investigators reported seven fish kill events in the Chowan River basin.
Stagnant water, shallow water, low dissolved oxygen, and possible chemical contamination may
have contributed to these fish kill events. Annual fish kill reports can be found at DWQ’s
Environmental Sciences website http://www.ncwaterquality.org/esb/Fishkill/fishkillmain.htm.

Agriculture 79
Chapter 9
Agriculture and Water Quality

9.1 Animal Operations

Over the years, key legislative bills were introduced and approved to regulate concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the State of North Carolina. In May 2006, the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted Title 15A Subchapter 02T. The rules
reflect current policy and provide routine consideration of an applicant’s compliance status.
Section .1300 of Subchapter 02T applies to all persons proposing to construct, modify, expand or
operate an animal waste management system. Animal waste is defined as livestock or poultry
excreta or mixture of excreta with feed, litter, bedding or other material generated at a feedlot.
Animal waste management systems are defined as a combination of structural and nonstructural
practices that collect, treat, store or apply animal waste to the land. An animal waste
management plan is defined as a plan to properly collect, store, treat or apply animal waste to the
land in an environmentally safe manner developed in accordance with the General Statute §143-
215.10C (www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_143/GS_143-
215.10C.html).

Table 20 summarizes the number of permitted livestock operations, total number of animals,
number of facilities, and total steady state live weight. These numbers reflect only operations
required by law to be permitted, and therefore, do not represent the total number of animals in
each subbasin. The Chowan River basin contains approximately 101 animal operations,
including both permitted and nonpermitted cattle, poultry and hog farms, as shown in Figure 7.

Table 20 Permitted Animal Operations.
Swine
Subbasin No. of Facilities No. of Animals Total Steady State Live
Weight*
03-01-01 11 23,952 4,904,760
03-01-02 21 47,314 16,603,330
03-01-03 3 2,080 253,500
03-01-04 2 7,216 974,160
Totals 37 80,562 227,357,50
* Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion factor has been applied to the
number of swine, cattle or poultry on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) guidelines. Since the amount of waste
produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.
HERTFORD
GATES
Corduroy Sw.Potecasi Cr.
U rah a w S w .
C ypress C r.Meherrin Rv.
C ut a w hi s kie S w .
A h o skie Cr.
Loosi
n
g
S
w.
Beasley B r.
Sarem Cr.
W ic cacon R v .
C
hinkapi
n

S
w.
C
ole Cr.
B en n e t t s C r.
Rockyho
c
k

Cr.Salm
o
n
Cr.
C
H
O
W
AN RIVER
NORTHAMPTON
BERTIE
CHOWAN
Como
Cofield
Edenton
Ahoskie
Conway
Aulander
Lasker
Severn
Murfreesboro
WintonJackson
Woodland
Seaboard
Gatesville
ColerainPowellsville
Harrellsville
Figure 7 Animal Operations in the Chowan River Basin
®
0 6 12 18 243
Miles
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 7, 2007
Legend
Animal Operations
Cattle
Swine
Poultry
Municipality
Hydrology
County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary

Agriculture 81
9.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities

9.2.1 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program

The NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) was established in 1984 to help reduce
agricultural nonpoint runoff into the state’s waters. The program 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. The NCACSP is implemented by the Division of Soil and
Water (DSWC), which divides the approved BMPs into five main purposes or categories:

• Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss Reduction in Fields
Erosion/nutrient management measures include planned systems for reducing soil erosion
and nutrient runoff from cropland into streams. Practices include: critical area planting,
cropland conversion, water diversion, long-term no-till, pastureland conversion, sod-
based rotation, stripcropping, terraces, and Christmas tree conservation cover.

• Sediment/Nutrient Delivery Reduction from Fields
Sediment/nutrient management measures include planned systems that prevent sediment
and nutrient runoff from fields into streams. Practices include: field borders, filter strips,
grassed waterways, nutrient management strategies, riparian buffers, water control
structures, streambank stabilization, and road repair/stabilization.

• Stream Protection from Animals
Stream protection management measures are planned systems for protecting streams and
streambanks. Such measures eliminate livestock access to streams by providing an
alternate watering source away from the stream itself. Other benefits include reduced soil
erosion, sedimentation, pathogen contamination and pollution from dissolved, particulate,
and sediment-attached substances. Practices include: heavy use area protection, livestock
exclusion (i.e., fencing), spring development, stream crossings, trough or watering tanks,
wells, and livestock feeding areas.

• Proper Animal Waste Management
A waste management system is a planned system in which all necessary components are
installed for managed liquid and solid waste to prevent or minimize degradation of soil
and water resources. Practices include: animal waste lagoon closures, constructed
wetlands, controlled livestock lounging area, dry manure stacks, heavy use area
protection, insect and odor control, stormwater management, waste storage
ponds/lagoons, compost, and waste application system.

• Agricultural Chemical (Agrichemical) Pollution Prevention
Agrichemical pollution prevention measures involve a planned system to prevent
chemical runoff to streams for water quality improvement. Practices include:
agrichemical handling facilities and fertigation/chemigation back flow prevention
systems.

The NCACSP is a voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of
installing an approved BMP. The cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned BMP
82 Agriculture
is completed, inspected and certified according to NRCS standards and specifications and Soil
and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC) policies. The annual statewide budget for BMP
cost sharing is approximately $8 million. [Note: the annual statewide budget for ACSP cost
sharing is $5.6 million; the additional $2.4 million is the annual statewide budget for technical
assistance.] During the period from 2000 to 2005, $2,427,390 was provided for projects in the
Chowan River basin. Table 21 summaries the cost and total BMPs implemented (i.e., acres,
units, linear feet) throughout the Chowan River basin.

Table 21 Summary of NCACSP projects in the Chowan River Basin (2000 to 2005)
Subbasin 03-01-01 Subbasin 03-01-02 Subbasin 03-01-03 Subbasin 03-01-04
Purpose of BMP Total
Implemented Cost Total
Implemented Cost Total
Implemented Cost Total
Implemented Cost
Erosion
Reduction/Nutrient
Loss
11,873.2 ac $285,672 5,110.8 ac $240,041 1,534.5 ac $212,604 5,009.5 ac $575,787
Reduction in Fields 1,240.0 l. ft. 20,853.2 l. ft.
Sediment/Nutrient
Delivery
3,968.5 ac $276,227 2,484.2 ac $370,525 937.7 ac $28,606 2,934.1 ac $139,833
Reduction from
Fields
4 units 11 units 1 unit 37 units
Stream Protection
from
1 unit $4,750 1 unit $3,021
Animals 3,375.0 l. ft.
Proper Animal
Waste
6 units $43,893 3 units $22,691 6 units $70,344 15 units $153,396
Management 1 ton 64 tons
1 gallon
Total Costs $610,542 $636,278 $311,554 $869,016

Benefits Subbasin 03-01-01 Subbasin 03-01-02 Subbasin 03-01-03 Subbasin 03-01-04
Total Soil Saved
(tons) 29,953 44,596 5,499 8,930
Total Nitrogen (N)
Saved (lb.) 318,878 210,649 270,690 117,710
Total Phosphorus
(P) Saved (lb.) 78,178 42,325 20,645 14,466
Total Waste-N
Saved (lb.) 169,884 33,020 32,276 162,967
Total Waste-P
Saved (lb.) 154,949 73,450 35,644 77,536

* The North Carolina Agricultural Nutrient Assessment Tool (NCANAT) contains two field-scale assessment tools:
the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) and the Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT). NCANAT is
a product of the cooperative effort between the NC State University, NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer
Services, USDA-NRCS and the DENR. The tool consists of a function that allows comparisons to be made before
and after BMPs are installed. Gains and losses of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment due to BMP implementation
can be computed. The DSWC has adopted this program to calculate these losses for the NCACSP reporting
requirements.

County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) contacts for the Chowan River basin are
included in Appendix IV. BMP definitions and SWCD contact information can be found online
at www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html.

Agriculture 83
9.2.2 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)

The USDA – Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP) provides technical,
educational and financial assistance to eligible farmers to address soil, water and related natural
resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner.
The program provides assistance to farmers in complying with Federal and State environmental
laws and encourages environmental enhancement. The purposes of the program are achieved
through the implementation of a conservation plan that includes structural, vegetative and land
management practices on eligible land. Cost-share payments may be made to implement one or
more eligible structural or vegetative practices, such as animal waste management facilities,
composters, filter strips, livestock exclusion, and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments
can also be made to implement one or more land management practices, such as nutrient
management, pest management, grazing land management and long-term conservation tillage.
The program is carried out at the county level with base funding levels made available to each
county.

During this assessment period in Northampton County, over 265 acres were managed for
nutrients and pesticides, 28,400 ft. were reserved as wildlife borders, and on 1,607 acres long-
term no-till cultivation was implemented. Five lagoon closures occurred and five litter storage
facilities were constructed. Future efforts using EQIP resources in Northampton County will
include additional no-till, wildlife and field border acreage, closure of lagoons, construction of
fencing, waterers, and wells, and establishing waste storage facilities.

NRCS district contacts for the Chowan River basin are provided in Appendix IV, or information
can also be found on NRCS website at http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/index.html.

9.2.3 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a joint effort of the DSWC, the NC
Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), and the
USDA Farm Service Agency to address water quality problems in Chowan River basin. CREP
is a voluntary program that seeks to protect land along watercourses that is currently in
agricultural production. The objectives of the program include: installing forested riparian
buffers, grassed filter strips and wetlands; reducing the impacts of sediment and nutrients within
the targeted area; and providing substantial ecological benefits for many wildlife species that are
declining in part as a result of habitat loss. Program funding will combine the Federal
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) funding with State funding from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, Agriculture Cost Share Program, and North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program.

Landowners of existing agricultural land within the Chowan River basin are eligible to
participate in CREP. Under CREP, landowners can voluntarily enroll eligible land in 10-year,
15-year, 30-year, and permanent contracts. The state will pay additional bonuses to landowners
that enroll land in 30-year and permanent agreements. Cost sharing will be available for
installation of forested riparian buffers, grassed filter strips, wetlands restoration practices, water
control structures, livestock exclusion, and remote livestock watering in order to increase the
efficiency of enrolled practices. Interested landowners should contact their local Soil and Water
Conservation District or Farm Service Agency office. The number of acres enrolled in CREP in
84 Agriculture
the Chowan River basin are listed below in Table 22. More information about CREP can be
found on the SWCD website: http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/crep.html.

Table 22 CREP Acres
County Total Enrollments
(acres)
30 Year Easements
(acres)
Permanent Easements
(acres)
Bertie 543 30 0
Chowan 379 212 0
Gates 1,646 1,141 414
Hertford 1,771 1,478 64
Northampton 2,188 1,618 30

9.3 SWCD Water Quality Strategy Plan

Agricultural land use and increasing development continue to alter natural hydrology with the
need to improve drainage. Currently, most of the swamps and wetlands have been circumvented,
routing stormwater through these areas in man-made channels. The water that once flowed
through the floodplain is now channeled through man-made ditches directly to the creeks and
rivers and is no longer filtered by swamps. In the Chowan River basin, redesigning and
reconstructing drainage systems may improve water quality. Drainage redesign involves
evaluating the entire watershed to determine where in-stream improvements can compliment
farm fields and subdivision improvements such as no-till, land grading to reduce nitrogen, water
control, riparian buffers and establishing wetlands.

Better tools to predict water flow are now available and research at NC State University provides
examples that demonstrate how drainage systems can be redesigned. Reestablishing degraded
swamps can be achieved by improving drainage, while forcing stormwater flow to reassociate
with the floodplain. Old floodplains can be restored by establishing in-stream wetlands and
building new wetlands where needed directly in the drainage system to reduce the total volume
of water flow from these drainage systems.

SWCDs are encouraging the counties to develop Special Use Water Management Districts.
Each district is to develop a list of priorities to address stormwater issues and drainage. Plans for
each watershed will address the following:

• Volume of stormwater retained and discharged during stormwater events,
• Channel modification to re-associate storm flow with the biology of the flood plain to
remove sediment and nutrients,
• Establishment of instream wetlands where needed,
• Drainage improvements required to sustain conservation enhancement and to provide
drainage for urban and agricultural areas,
• Clearing and snagging required on five-year intervals to maintain the integrity of the
drainage system and
• Demonstration projects illustrating innovative techniques for addressing the water quality
issues associated with drainage.

Management Strategies 85
Chapter 10
Water Quality Management Strategies

10.1 The Role of State Government

Several commissions, agencies and programs handle State policies governing actions and
activities in coastal areas. The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) is a 19-member
panel that is appointed by the Governor and legislative officials responsible for adopting rules for
the protection, preservation and enhancement of the state’s water and air. Water related rules
include stormwater management, basinwide planning, nutrient management strategies and
discharge permits.

The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) established a cooperative program
of coastal area management between local and state governments. The Act states that local
governments shall have the initiative for planning, while the state government establishes areas
of environmental concern. With regard to planning, the State is directed to act primarily in a
supportive, standard-setting, and review capacity, except in situations where local governments
do not elect to exercise their initiative. In addition, the CAMA established the Coastal Resource
Commission (CRC) within DENR, whose duties include approval of Coastal Habitat Protection
Plans and designation of Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). After designation of these
areas, the ERC is responsible for issuing all permits and establishes regulations to control
development. The CRC is a 15-member board appointed by the governor to adopt rules and
policies for coastal development and certify local land use plans for the 20 coastal counties and
their communities. These regulations are implemented and permitted by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) (see website http://dcm2.ehnr.state.nc.us/). An example of these rules is
the establishment of a 30-foot buffer zone for building along estuarine waters.

The Division of Marine Fisheries is responsible for the stewardship of the state's marine and
estuarine resources, which encompasses all coastal waters and extends to 3 miles offshore.
Agency policies are established by the 9-member Marine Fisheries Commission and the
Secretary of DENR.

The N.C. Divisions of Water Quality, Coastal Management, Land Resources, Marine Fisheries,
Soil and Water Conservation, Parks and Recreation, and Environmental Health are responsible
for many coastal activities and policies, including stormwater management, development
permits, erosion control programs, agriculture and land preservation, shellfish protection and
recreation monitoring, just to name a few. Additional state programs include the Albemarle-
Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) and many inter-agency and group partnerships that
work together to protect the resources found in coastal waters and communities.

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
to evaluate the performance of federally approved state coastal management programs. During
the review of NC’s CAMA specific recommendations call for the assessment of existing state
laws and regulations to minimize redundancy and avoid conflict with other regulations, prioritize
emerging coastal issues and use adaptive management based on lessons learned.

86 Management Strategies
10.2 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan

North Carolina has approximately 2.9 million acres of estuarine and marine waters, comprising
the largest estuarine system of any state along the Atlantic coast. North Carolina has a billion-
dollar commercial and recreational fishing industry and ranks among the nation’s highest
seafood-producing states. Fish and shellfish species important to these industries depend on the
quality and quantity of habitats found along our rivers, sounds and ocean waters. Pressures from
development, loss of habitat, pollution and degraded water quality threaten fish habitats.
Shellfish beds, mud flats, marshes, sea grass beds, freshwater streams and swamps are in
jeopardy. The loss of these vital fish habitats threatens fishing industry central to North
Carolina’s history and economic growth.

Recognizing these threats, the N.C. General Assembly passed the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997.
Included within this law is a requirement for three of the state’s regulatory commissions (Marine
Fisheries, Environmental Management, and Coastal Resources commissions) to adopt a plan to
manage and restore aquatic habitats critical to North Carolina's commercial and recreational
fisheries resources. The DENR developed the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) through a
cooperative, multi-agency effort with public input. The CHPP was adopted by the three
commissions in December 2004 and sets the stage for unprecedented improvements in fish
habitat protection and restoration in North Carolina.

The CHPP is a detailed document describing the six major fish habitats and providing scientific
information on their ecological functions and importance to the species that inhabit them. It
identifies threats and management needs for each habitat and recommends administrative,
regulatory and non-regulatory steps necessary to protect, restore and enhance each habitat.
These recommendations are a result of scientific studies, deliberations of the three commissions
and input from citizens who attended 20 public meetings held during the development of the
CHPP. The CHPP identifies six habitats that need protection or enhancement:

• Water Column
• Shell Bottom
• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
• Wetlands
• Soft Bottom
• Hard Bottom

DENR and the three commissions developed and adopted specific plans to implement the CHPP
recommendations, with a focus on actions that could be taken based on existing resources and
within the 2005-2007 budget cycle. The implementation actions are organized according to four
habitat management goals:

GOAL 1. Improve effectiveness of existing rules and programs protecting coastal fish
habitats
North Carolina has a number of programs already in place to protect coastal fisheries and the
natural resources that support them. The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) has adopted rules
addressing the impacts of certain types of fishing gear and fishing practices that may damage fish
habitats. The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) regulates development impacts on certain
types of critical coastal habitats, such as saltwater marshes and primary nursery areas. The
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) has issued water quality standards that address

Management Strategies 87
pollution of coastal waters from both direct discharges and runoff. The Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan (CHPP) identifies a number of gaps in the protection provided for critical fish
habitats under these programs, but also notes that these habitats would benefit from stronger
enforcement of existing regulations and better coordination among agencies.

Recommendation 1.1- Enhance enforcement of, and compliance with, Coastal Resources
Commission, Environmental Management Commission and Marine Fisheries Commission
rules and permit conditions.
Recommendation 1.2 - Coordinate and enhance water quality, physical habitat and fisheries
resource monitoring (including data management) from headwaters to the nearshore ocean.
Recommendation 1.3- Enhance and expand educational outreach on the value of fish habitat,
threats from human activities, effects of non-native species and reasons for management
measures.
Recommendation 1.4- Coordinate rulemaking and enforcement among regulatory commissions
and agencies.

GOAL 2. Identify, designate and protect strategic habitat areas
Maintaining healthy coastal fisheries requires consideration of the entire ecosystem and the way
different types of fish habitat work together. For example, coastal marshes help prevent erosion
of soft bottom habitat. Unobstructed passage through the water column allows certain fish
species to reach their spawning grounds in inland wetlands. Fragmenting these habitats, or
damaging one of a series of interrelated habitats makes it more difficult for aquatic systems to
support strong and healthy coastal fisheries. In 1998, the EMC, CRC, and MFC defined
Strategic Habitat Areas. These areas are complexes of fisheries habitat that “provide exceptional
functions that are particularly at risk due to imminent threats, vulnerability or rarity.” These
areas merit special attention and should be given high priority for conservation.

Recommendation 2.1- Evaluate potential Strategic Habitat Areas (SHAs) by a) coordinating,
completing and maintaining baseline habitat mapping (including sea grass, shell bottom and
other bottom types) using the most appropriate technology; b) selective monitoring of the
status of those habitats; and c) assessing effects of land use and human activities on those
habitats.
Recommendation 2.2- Identify and designate SHAs using ecologically based criteria, analyze
existing rules and enact measures needed to protect SHAs and improve programs for
conservation (including voluntary actions) and acquisition of areas supporting SHAs.

GOAL 3. Enhance habitat and protect it from physical impacts
The CHPP identifies a number of ways in which fish habitats can be damaged by direct physical
impacts. Some examples include filling of wetlands, dredging of soft bottom habitat, destruction
of shell bottom and hard bottom areas, damage to submerged aquatic vegetation by use of certain
types of fishing gear, and physical obstructions that block fish movement to and from spawning
areas. While large impacts can directly contribute to the loss of habitat functions, the
accumulation of many small impacts can make a habitat more vulnerable to damage from which
it might otherwise recover quickly. In some cases, historic damage to a habitat can be mitigated
through the creation of sanctuaries where the resource can recover. One such program involves
creation of protected oyster reefs. In other cases, the cumulative impacts of multiple projects can
be more effectively managed through comprehensive planning and plan implementation.

88 Management Strategies
Recommendation 3.1- Greatly expand habitat restoration.
Recommendation 3.2- Prepare and implement a comprehensive beach and inlet management
plan that addresses ecologically based guidelines, socioeconomic concerns and fish habitat.
Recommendation 3.3- Protect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom and hard
bottom areas from fishing gear effects through improved enforcement, establishment of
protective buffers around habitats and further restriction of mechanical shellfish harvesting.
Recommendation 3.4- Protect fish habitat by revising estuarine and public trust shoreline
stabilization rules using best available information, considering estuarine erosion rates, and
the development and promotion of incentives for use of alternatives to vertical shoreline
stabilization measures.
Recommendation 3.5- Protect and enhance habitat for anadromous fishes by: a) incorporating
the water quality and quantity needs of fish in surface water use planning and rule making
and b) eliminating obstructions to fish movements, such as dams, locks and road fills.

GOAL 4. Enhance and Protect Water Quality
Good water quality is essential to coastal fisheries because water is the common element in all
fish habitats. The water conditions necessary to support coastal fisheries include the right
combination of temperature and salinity, as well as the absence of harmful pollutants. Achieving
and maintaining good water quality for purposes of fisheries productivity requires management
of both direct discharges of pollutants and stormwater runoff. The CHPP provides additional
support for policies directed toward better management of point and nonpoint sources of water
pollution. In doing so, the CHPP recognizes a need to go beyond relying on regulatory programs
alone. Addressing water quality impacts will also require targeted use of land acquisition
programs, incentives for conservation, development of effective BMPs, and assistance for local
governments to upgrade wastewater and stormwater management infrastructure. Maintaining the
water quality necessary to support vital coastal fisheries will not only benefit the commercial
fishing industry – it will benefit a large sector of the entire coastal economy built around travel
and tourism, and recreational fishing.

Recommendation 4.1- Reduce point source pollution from wastewater.
Recommendation 4.2- Adopt or modify rules or statutes to prohibit ocean wastewater
discharges.
Recommendation 4.3- Prohibit new or expanded stormwater outfalls to coastal beaches and to
coastal shellfishing waters (EMC surface water classifications SA and SB) except during
times of emergency when public safety and health are threatened, and continue to phase out
existing outfalls by implementing alternative stormwater management strategies.
Recommendation 4.4- Enhance coordination with, and financial/technical support for, local
government actions to better manage stormwater and wastewater.
Recommendation 4.5- Improve land-based strategies throughout the river basins to reduce
nonpoint pollution and minimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through
voluntary actions, assistance and incentives.
Recommendation 4.6- Improve land-based strategies throughout the river basins to reduce
nonpoint pollution and minimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through rule
making.
Recommendation 4.7- Develop and implement a comprehensive coastal marina and dock
management plan and policy for the protection of shellfish harvest waters and fish habitat.
Recommendation 4.8- Reduce nonpoint source pollution from large-scale animal operations by
the following actions: a) support early implementation of environmentally superior
alternatives to the current lagoon and sprayfield systems as identified under the Smithfield

Management Strategies 89
Agreement and continue the moratorium on new/expanded swine operations until alternative
waste treatment technology is implemented; b) seek additional funding to phase-out large-
scale animal operations in sensitive areas and relocate operations from sensitive areas; and c)
use improved siting criteria to protect fish habitat.

Visit http://www.ncdmf.net/habitat/index.html to learn more about the CHPP or to download the
plan. Refer questions and comments to [e-mail] or call [phone] or (800) 682-
2632.

10.3 NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program

Section 6217 of the Federal 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
requires every state participating in the Coastal Zone Management Act Program to develop a
Coastal Nonpoint Source Program (CNPSP). The purpose of this requirement, as stated in the
Act, is to "strengthen the links between Federal and State coastal zone management and water
quality management programs and to enhance State and local efforts to manage land use
activities that degrade coastal waters and coastal habitats." To accomplish these goals, the
federal agencies established 56 Management Measures that are to be used by each state to
address the following nonpoint source pollution categories (first five items) and that provide
tools to address the various sources of nonpoint pollution (last item):
• Agricultural Sources
• Forestry
• Urban Areas (urban runoff; construction activities; existing development; on-site
disposal systems; pollution prevention; and roads, highways and bridges)
• Marinas and Recreational Boating (siting and design; and marina and boat
operation/maintenance)
• Hydrologic Modification (channelization and channel modification; dams; and
streambank and shoreline erosion)
• Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Vegetated Treatment Systems

Detailed descriptions of the management measures, where they are intended to be applied, their
effectiveness, and their costs can be found in EPA’s Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters at the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/.

Within North Carolina, Coastal Nonpoint Source Program (CNPSP) is administered by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and the Division of Coastal Management (DCM).
The core of the state’s CNPSP is increased communication and coordination between DWQ and
key state agencies that have regulatory responsibilities for controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution. This increased dialogue is facilitated in part by the state’s CNPSP Coordinator and
promotes identification of gaps, duplications, inadequacies and/or inefficiencies of existing
programs and policies. Responsibilities of the state program coordinator also include developing
the 15-year Strategy Plan, serving as a liaison between DWQ and DCM, and participating in the
development of nonpoint source outreach and educational activities. For more information,
contact the NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator at [phone], ext. 567.

CNPSP Evaluation
Since obtaining federal approval of its program in 2003, North Carolina made significant
progress in implementing the management measures of the state’s CNPSP. This finding is based
90 Management Strategies
on a review of a range of programs, actions and initiatives of state agencies, local governments,
cooperating federal agencies and regulatory and non-regulatory programs between 2002 (the
year the State’s plan received preliminary federal approval) and 2006, which focus directly or
indirectly on avoiding, reducing, and/or treating nonpoint source pollution in the coastal
counties.

North Carolina met three of the four objectives of its CNPSP Five-Year Action Plan: 2004-2008,
as a result of program improvements and initiatives listed below:

• Working with other agencies to improve data management capabilities and distribution to
more effectively address nonpoint source impacts;
• Improving implementation and enforcement of existing regulations and programs and
• Developing effective and dynamic education and outreach programs.

Progress on the fourth objective, reducing fecal loading into impaired SA waters, continues to be
challenging. North Carolina faces enormous environmental challenges as a consequence of
population growth and development. With most of the state’s oceanfront developed, large tracts
along the estuarine shoreline and adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway are being developed.
The CNPSP’s greatest challenges for the foreseeable future lie in strengthening the state’s
stormwater management programs to achieve real protection for unimpaired waters, while
facilitating significant restoration of impaired waters coast-wide. The NC CNPSP will continue
working to establish and strengthen programs and tools to offset the impacts associated with
growth in this sensitive and vital region of the state.

Coastal population growth and development will continue to strain local and state government
resources. Of great concern is the fact that current state and local land use planning and
environmental management programs are not sufficient to address coastal nonpoint source
pollution. Therefore, the NC CNPSP intends to pursue improvements in the following major
program areas:

I. Developing Partnerships and NPS Implementation Tools with Local Governments

In North Carolina, local governments have primary responsibility for planning and managing
growth within the framework of state law and regulations. Most development activities are
reviewed by, approved or denied by appointed and elected local government boards comprised of
citizens. They are volunteers often with some or limited training on the technical issues of land
use, transportation and stormwater management.

Neither state agencies nor local governments alone can address the complexities of development
and environmental sustainability. An integrated approach that incorporates training and the
development of implementation tools with more formalized technical assistance and grants, as
incentives should be explored. Some excellent building blocks for an integrated local
government assistance program include DCM’s land use planning program and community
planners; the University of North Carolina’s School of Government training programs; the NC
Chapter of the American Planning Association citizen planners training program, Sea Grant’s
Water Quality Planner; the NC National Estuarine Research Reserve’s Coastal Training
Program, the Cooperative Extension Service’s Growth Readiness program, the county
Cooperative Extension Service programs, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the

Management Strategies 91
Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s local watershed plans and the Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Fund.

II. Improving Stormwater Management

While progress has been significant, major challenges to managing and eliminating stormwater
impacts remain. Although North Carolina’s coastal stormwater rules have been in effect for over
15 years, DWQ staff, other resource management agencies and many citizens believe the rules
are ineffective. In January 2007, DWQ issued rules for a new stormwater program for local
governments, the Universal Stormwater Management Program (USMP).

The USMP improves on the current rules by essentially eliminating the ability to avoid use of
stormwater best management practices (BMPs) by staying below certain impervious thresholds.
USMP strengthens other provisions as well, including treatment of a larger stormwater volume
and providing attenuation of larger flows. While USMP would improve protections, it is only a
voluntary option.

In recognition of the inability of existing rules to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater
and the need for stronger minimum mandatory measures, the DWQ is proposing changes to the
coastal stormwater rules that are similar to the USMP but not quite as protective, requiring
instead engineered stormwater treatment devices for all development adjacent to high quality
coastal waters that have more than 12 percent built-upon area. The rules will also require the use
of control measures that result in fecal coliform die off and control sources of fecal coliform.

Compliance with the stormwater rules is a significant issue. NC CNPSP funded inspections of a
significant number of permit renewal sites in DWQ’s Wilmington Regional Office region and
found that approximately 35 percent were not in compliance. Approximately 8 percent of the
sites had installation problems or design deficiencies and 2 percent exceeded the impervious area
limits. Lack of routine maintenance was the main cause of non-compliance in the majority of
inspected sites.

There is not enough DWQ field staff to inspect every site, and this situation is compounded by
insufficient and incorrect information on these sites in DWQ’s permit tracking system. A grant
from the CNPSP is funding a DWQ effort to develop a field inspection form, inspect a subset of
permitted sites that will be up for renewal in 2007 and 2008 and develop a consistent method for
processing renewal permits and entering the data in DWQ’s tracking system. This work should
be completed by December 2007.

The increase in development in the coastal counties has resulted in the construction of hundreds
of roads servicing subdivisions. Under current state law the state Department of Transportation
(DOT) can be petitioned to designate roads as public and be maintained by DOT. DOT District
Engineers review subdivision maps and/or plats for conformance with the state’s minimum
construction standards. They also review the stormwater facilities operations and maintenance
plan required as part of this process. Coordination between the regional offices of DWQ and the
appropriate DOT district offices on pending state stormwater permits could result in
improvements in the proposed drainage plans and implementation of appropriate stormwater
BMPs, including minimizing stormwater through site design.

92 Management Strategies
Local governments have primary responsibility to plan for and manage growth in their
jurisdictions. While many coastal counties and municipal governments are making progress on
stormwater management, a 2006 UNC School of Government survey of local ordinances found
that while 18 of the 20 coastal counties have subdivision ordinances, only eight have stormwater
ordinances effective throughout their jurisdiction, two have partial coverage and only seven have
erosion and sediment control ordinances. Without improvements to local government
development ordinances, local stormwater management and enforcement, coastal water quality
will continue to be compromised.

III. Improving Management of Marinas and Recreational Boating

There are approximately 450 marinas in coastal North Carolina and over 100 shops where boats
are built. There are thousands of private docks and piers as well. In the first seven months of
2006, DCM approved 53 major permit applications that added 340 private boat slips to coastal
waters. Of these almost 90 were new residential multi-slip docking facilities. In addition, DCM
issued approximately 1200 general permits in 2006 for small docks/piers of one or two slips (GP
07H .1200). At a minimum, these general permits added 1200 new residential boat slips in the
state’s coastal waters in one year.

The CNPSP funded a unified marina policy project, and the project Steering Committee
concluded that the state should focus on improving management of facilities with 3-10 slips.
These multi-slip docking facilities currently are not subject to the more comprehensive state
regulatory review required of marinas; yet their locations and numbers are believed to have
significant impact on water quality and fragile coastal habitat. The DCM and Marine Fisheries
are cooperatively developing guidance on placement of structures in shallow waters and the
DCM has made changes to its major permit application for marinas and multi-slip docking
facilities to capture more detailed information.

The DWQ is conducting a marina and boatyard study to: 1) better understand the services and
activities common to marinas, boatyards, and manufacturers, 2) determine if these facilities are
properly covered by a NPDES stormwater permit (NCG190000), 3) understand types/frequency
of process wastewater discharges that occur at these facilities and 4) sample process wastewater
in order to understand and characterize waste streams.

The state law governing the designation of no-wake zones should be amended to allow
designation to protect estuarine and river shorelines and shallow water habitats.

IV. Developing Best Management Practices Guidance for Hydromodification Projects

Many ditches and canals in coastal North Carolina were first excavated for agriculture and
forestry. Their management and maintenance continues to be exempt from state environmental
review even though many are now managed for flood control purposes. Coastal counties and
local governments have developed, or are in the process of developing stormwater management
plans that include maintaining some existing drainage canals and ditches to avoid flooding of
residential and commercial development. These maintenance activities can adversely impact
water quality as well as riparian vegetation and fresh water and estuarine resources. Routine
maintenance to remove debris from these canals and ditches, and cleanup in response to storm
damage, is done in the absence of comprehensive guidance that could minimize the
environmental impacts.

Management Strategies 93
The DENR should establish an interagency working group to develop guidance on best
management practices for routine and emergency maintenance activities. Adherence to this
guidance should be required, at a minimum, for maintenance and management projects funded
under the state’s water resources development grants and the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund. The working group could also consider developing a hands-on training program for
contractors who conduct snagging and clearing activities, similar in intent to the Clear Water
Contractor workshops conducted by the Division of Land Resources.

The working group should include representatives of the Divisions of Water Resources, DWQ,
Forest Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Marine Fisheries, DCM, the
Wildlife Resources Commission and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, along with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.

V. Updating Information for Decision Making

The most recent land-cover information for North Carolina is based on 1997 imagery. Given the
significant increases in population and development in the coastal counties, the use of ten-year
old information does not allow for analysis of current conditions. North Carolina needs to
update the state’s land cover information and develop a funding and planning mechanism for
continued updating on a 3-5 year basis.

10.4 Community Conservation Assistance Program

The landscape of North Carolina is changing and Soil and Water Conservation Districts have
voiced concern about a void in program areas to address the growing threat of nonpoint source
pollution issues on non-agricultural lands. In the summer of 2005, a survey was distributed to all
districts to inventory their level of interest and best management practices (BMP) needs on
urban, suburban and rural lands. Many districts completed surveys about their needs for this
program, and they requested over $6.5 million for local projects. Division staff used the survey
responses to develop two grant applications for program funding. In July 2006, while the grant
applications were still under review, the legislature unanimously passed H2129, creating the
Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP). Shortly after, both grants were approved
at 100 percent funding. An additional survey was completed in fall 2006, and 40 districts
responded with needs for CCAP BMPs. A grant was submitted on behalf of those districts
during the March 2007 application cycle for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. If
awarded, this grant will impact several counties in this river basin.

Current Status
CCAP will support the installation of stormwater BMPs. This program is an innovative approach
to controlling the amount and quality of stormwater runoff that enters our surface waters.
Through locally led conservation, the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) and Soil
and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) have been successful in implementing voluntary
agricultural BMPs, which have addressed many different water quality parameters. The intent is
for CCAP to operate under the same guidance and accountability as the NC Agriculture Cost
Share Program and achieve the same successes.

CCAP will focus its efforts on stormwater retrofits to existing land uses. It will not be used to
assist in new development sites to meet state and federal stormwater mandates. Districts have the
94 Management Strategies
technical expertise to install stormwater BMPs and a successful history of promoting voluntary
conservation practices. The program will give the districts the structure and financial assistance
to carry out this mission. CCAP will encourage local governments, individual landowners and
businesses to incorporate stormwater BMPs within their landscape. The economic incentive, 75
percent of average installation costs, will encourage voluntary conservation.

Standards and specifications for 15 CCAP BMPs have been approved by the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission. These practices include: impervious surface conversion, permeable
pavement, grassed swale, critical area planting, bioretention areas, backyard rain gardens,
stormwater wetlands, backyard wetlands, diversion, riparian buffer, stream restoration,
streambank and shoreline protection, cisterns, abandoned well closure and pet waste receptacles.

Funding
The DSWC was recently awarded two grants that will fund CCAP implementation in 17 counties
across the state. The DSWC received a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund in
the sum of $557,000 and an award from the Section 319 Clean Water Act grant program for
$277,425. Since this is a grant funded program to date, only districts that participated in the
surveys will receive an allocation. The maximum amount of assistance per practice is limited to
$50,000. It is the program’s goal to seek additional funding sources, including recurring state
appropriations, to offer this program statewide in the future. The DSWC and districts are excited
about the possibilities that this program offers in addressing current stormwater pollution issues.

10.5 The Role of Local Government in Land Use Planning

As residential and commercial development expands inward from the coast, many local
governments are now faced with making land use decisions to limit the extent and areas of land
development. Several coastal counties do not have zoning ordinances, or have large areas of the
county that are not under zoning ordinances. In addition, property owners are being faced with
the decision to continue historical uses of their land or sell their property for development. This
is happening in both rural and coastal communities. According to a recent survey conducted by
the Raleigh News and Observer, more than 34,000 houses and condominiums are planned or
underway in the 20-county area of the coast from Currituck County to Brunswick County.

10.5.1 Land Use Plans

The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires each of the 20 coastal counties to have a
local Land Use Plan (LUP) in accordance with guidelines established by the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC). A land use plan is a collection of policies, maps, and implementation
actions that serves as a community’s blueprint for growth. Each land use plan includes an
inventory and assessment of existing environmental conditions along with local policies and a
future land use map that address growth issues related to designated Management Topics: land
use compatibility, infrastructure carrying capacity, natural hazards, public access, areas of local
concern, and water quality.

Inventory and assessments specific to water quality include the identification of existing surface
water quality, current situations and trends on permanent and temporary closures of shellfish
waters, areas with chronic wastewater treatment system malfunctions, areas with water quality or
public health problems related to nonpoint source pollution, and locations where land use and
water quality conflicts exist. Policies to address water quality issues are prepared based on the

Management Strategies 95
management goal, CRC planning objective, and land use plan requirements specified for the
water quality Management Topic. For water quality, the management goal is to maintain,
protect, and where possible, enhance water quality in all coastal wetlands, rivers, streams, and
estuaries. The CRC’s planning objective is for communities to adopt policies for coastal waters
within the planning jurisdiction to help ensure that water quality is maintained if not impaired
and improved if impaired. Local communities are required to devise policies that help prevent or
control nonpoint source discharges (sewage and stormwater) through strategies such as
impervious surface limits, vegetated riparian buffers, maintenance of natural areas, and wetland
protection. They are also required to establish policies and future land use map categories that
are aimed at protecting open shellfishing waters and restoring closed or conditionally closed
shellfishing waters.

The CRC's guidelines provide a common format for each plan and a set of issues that must be
considered during the planning process; however, the policies included in the plan are those of
the local government, not of the CRC. By law, the role of the CRC is limited to determining that
plans have been prepared consistent with State Land Use Plan guidelines, do not conflict with
State or Federal rules, and are consistent with the State’s Coastal Management program. Once a
land use plan is certified by the CRC, the Division of Coastal Management uses the plan in
making CAMA permit decisions and federal consistency determinations. Proposed projects and
activities must be consistent with the policies of a local land use plan or DCM cannot permit a
project to go forward.

At the local level, land use plans provide guidance for both individual projects and a broad range
of policy issues, such as the development of regulatory ordinances and public investment
programs. Although DCM monitors use of the land use plans through an implementation status
report, strict adherence to land use plan policies and implementation actions is largely up to the
local government. For this reason, community and local official support of the land use plan is
critical to successfully achieving the goals for each management topic, including water quality.

10.5.2 Land Use Plans for Communities in the Chowan River Basin

More information and a list of CAMA LUPs are available from the Division of Coastal
Management website: http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Planning/planning.htm. The
following Table 23 presents counties and their municipalities within the Chowan River Basin
and their status on completing a CAMA Land Use Plan.

Table 23 Local Planning Jurisdictions
Locality CAMA Land Use Plan CRC Certification
Progress (as of March 2007)
Multi-County
Planning County Municipality CRC
Certified
Review &
Revisions
Under State
Review
In
Process
REGION Q
Mid-East Commission Bertie X
REGION R:
The Albemarle Commission Chowan Edenton X
REGION R:
The Albemarle Commission Gates 2005
REGION Q
Mid-East Commission Hertford X

96 Management Strategies
Chowan County/Town of Edenton LUP
Chowan County and the Town of Edenton are planning for moderate growth over the next 20
years, recognizing that most of this growth with be along the waterways. The LUP recognizes
that waterfronts with public access are important to maintain with impending development along
the waterways. The LUP specifically identifies current land use trends that conflict with
protecting water quality. These land uses include: loss of natural open spaces and riparian
buffers, residential development in previous agricultural and forested lands, along major road
corridors, near the airport, and in the 100 year floodplains, impact of large scale residential
developments and small lot development in areas with soils that have septic system limitations.
The LUP recognizes the soil conditions limits urban uses and the suitability of septic tanks and
therefore, centralized sewer facilities are needed to support urban development. Water quality
management in the LUP includes policy development to limit nonpoint source runoff, limit
impervious surfaces, and to protect and maintain vegetated riparian buffers and wetlands.
Policies will focus on protecting un-impaired waters and restoring those waters that are impaired.
The plan includes support for long-term water and wastewater improvements to provide
countywide sewer service. Cluster subdivision designs are supported to help manage growth and
only to be allowed in areas serviced by public utilities. Private package wastewater treatment
plants are supported but under the conditions that if the system is noncompliant than the plant
will become a public facility. A stormwater management plan is proposed, pending funding, to
help formulate local ordinances. The LUP identifies a policy dependent on DWQ and Division
of Coastal Management guidance for protecting water quality in regards to potential threats of
development along waterfronts, wetlands, rivers and streams.

Gates County LUP
The LUP states that water quality protection is an issue with contamination occurring from
stormwater runoff and failing septic systems. State and Federal agencies are identified as the
main assets to help implement and regulate water quality protection programs. The county plans
to maintain its rural character through protecting open spaces, natural resources, and public trust
waters, balancing residential and commercial growth with promoting smart growth, and
discouraging strip development along State maintained roads. Development is limited without
the construction of a central public sewage system because of poor soils conditions, which
prevent septic systems from functioning properly. Objective’s identified that will protect water
quality include establishing criteria to support cluster subdivision design, local buffers,
impervious surface limits, innovative stormwater controls and supporting the State’s efforts to
restore shellfish harvesting waters. However, many of the LUP’s goals, objectives and policies
are vague and rely on State and Federal laws for enforcement.

Land Use Plan Critiques
After review of several CAMA LUP drafts, DWQ recommends that all communities adopt low
impact development strategies and technologies for both new development and as options in
retrofitting existing infrastructure. It is important for communities to undertake stronger
stormwater controls and to update old or failing wastewater systems (e.g., on-site and treatment
plants) to prevent future deterioration in water quality. Communities need to address
development issues in regards to water quality by implementing the best available control
options and by implementing enforcement. DWQ views LUPs as a tool to improve and protect
the water quality that these communities’ economies depend on. Unfortunately, many of the
reviewed LUPs do not adequately reflect proactive planning above and beyond state minimum
criteria. DWQ also recognizes and supports the importance of low impact development and
appropriate technologies education for developers and local leaders. Overall, LUP policy

Management Strategies 97
framework is too general. A large number of policies address adoption of ordinances and
procedures by the local government, or defer to the State and Federal agencies’ rules to meet the
LUP requirements. The policies should provide specific guidance to aid in the development of
local ordinances and procedures, not merely state that they will be adopted.

An evaluation of 40 CAMA LUPs written during the mid 1990’s concluded, “local planning
efforts are procedurally strong, addressing the ranges of issues they are required to cover, but
analytically and substantively weak, providing little meaningful attention to regional
environmental protection concerns” (Norton, 2005). This evaluation found that many LUPs
completed the various required analyses in regards to identifying hazards, flood zones, soil
limitations and environmentally sensitive areas, but later in the plan made future land
classifications for development with no reference to these analyses (e.g., high density
development on oceanfront property zoned as high hazard) (Norton, 2005). The plans did not
adequately explain how land was determined suitable for future growth and development and did
not adequately address potential adverse environmental impacts, beyond state compliance
standards (Norton, 2005). Almost all the communities addressed the environmental impacts and
thus need for improved wastewater systems, but “they uniformly failed to discuss the potential
growth-inducing effects and resulting environmental impacts that come with infrastructure
expansions” (Norton, 2005). In addition, stormwater management was addressed for controlling
runoff and associated flooding, but did not address the water quality related issues associated
with stormwater management (Norton, 2005). In conclusion, regional environmental concerns
and cumulative and secondary impacts of development were not addressed with specific
management strategies in the LUPs.

10.6 Management Recommendations for Local Governments

Below is a summary of management actions recommended for local authorities, followed by
discussions on large, watershed management issues. These actions are necessary to address
current sources of impairment and to prevent future degradation in all streams. The intent of
these recommendations is to describe the types of actions necessary to improve stream
conditions, not to specify particular administrative or institutional mechanisms for implementing
remedial practices. Those types of decisions must be made at the local level.

Because of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream
conditions and in how aquatic organisms will respond to improvements, the intensity of
management effort necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement
cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions
can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement
that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management
approach is implemented. Management actions are suggested below to address individual
problems, but many of these actions are interrelated (NCDENR-DWQ, 2003).

(1) Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented throughout
the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (e.g., increased stormwater
volumes and increased frequency and duration). This should be viewed as a long-term
process.

(a) Over the short term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
98 Management Strategies
(b) In the long term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in
conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing
developed areas.
(c) Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives,
such as EPA Section 319 funds, or the North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund.

(2) A watershed scale strategy to address inputs should be developed and implemented,
including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment methods. As an initial
framework for planning input reduction efforts, the following general approach is proposed:

(a) Implementation of available best management practice (BMP) opportunities
for control of stormwater volume and velocities. As recommended above to
improve aquatic habitat potential, these BMPs will also remove pollutants
from stormwater.
(b) Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to
facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and source reduction practices.
(c) Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant
removal, at appropriate locations.
(d) Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction
activities focused on: reducing nonstorm inputs of toxics; reducing
pollutants available for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce
storm runoff.

(3) Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely
to reduce nutrient/organic/bacterial loading, and to some extent, its impacts. Activities
recommended to address this loading include the identification and elimination of illicit
discharges; education of homeowners, commercial applicators, and others regarding proper
fertilizer use, street sweeping, catch basin clean-out practices, animal and human waste
management, and the installation of additional BMPs targeting biological oxygen demand
(BOD) and nutrient removal at appropriate sites.

(4) Prevention of further degradation will require effective post-construction stormwater
management for all new development in the study area.

(5) Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the
prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of improved
erosion and sediment control practices may also be beneficial.

(6) Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments
with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a
minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues:

(a) Redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to
driveways or gutters;
(b) Protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams;
(c) Replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such
vegetation is absent;
(d) Reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use;
(e) Reducing and properly managing animal waste; and
(f) Reducing and properly managing septic systems.

Management Strategies 99
10.7 Planning for Sea Level Changes

Sea level rise will adversely impact North Carolina’s coastline and specifically the northern
coastline because of its underlying geologic structure (Riggs and Ames, 2003). There is a
predicted acceleration in coastal erosion and an increase in estuarine shoreline erosion if oceanic
processes are altered by increased barrier island elevation through natural or human
modifications (Riggs and Ames, 2003). Major loss of land is predicted in Currituck, Camden,
Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, Pamlico and Carteret counties if glacial melting rates increase significantly,
as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Riggs and Ames, 2003; IPCC,
2001).

Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estuarine Dynamics by S. Riggs and D.
Ames (2003) published by North Carolina Sea Grant provides information specifically
addressing northeastern NC. This book provides images and figures explaining sea level rise and
coastal erosion. This book should be used as a resource for coastal town and municipality
planners as new developments, utility infrastructure and other land use decisions are made.
Several universities are researching the impacts of sea level rise on North Carolina’s coastal
economy, more information about their findings can be found at the website:
http://econ.appstate.edu/climate/. Information about sea level forecasts being developed by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and several universities in North Carolina can be
found at: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/climatechange/current/slr/welcome.html.

10.8 Using Land Use Planning as a Tool to Reduce Impacts of Future
Development

Many communities are looking at the challenges and opportunities that development offers to
their communities seriously. Outside of the Chowan River basin, the town of Bath approved a 6-
month moratorium on new subdivisions to allow them time to assess how the town wanted to
develop its remaining waterfronts lots and where the town needed to protect its resources.
Camden County extended a moratorium on new subdivisions until a new school can be
completed to hold the additional students the county is experiencing. In addition, Pamlico
County approved an ordinance to limit density and height of developments along the water. The
neighborhood of Woodsong in Shallotte drains to Lockwoods Folly which is Impaired for
shellfish harvesting. The development will use pervious concrete to collect stormwater and a
man-made wetland to help treat it, as well as courtyard gardens to treat runoff before it goes to a
collection system. The developer notes that degradation of the environment does not have to
follow development, but believes a quality lifestyle is being sold by clustering home sites and
creating large common areas. These types of development activities point to a growing market
for developments like these; socially, financially and environmentally viable.

Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a
manner that maintains water quality. These planning efforts can find a balance between water
quality protection, natural resource management, and economic growth. These actions are
critical to water quality management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin. DWQ’s
review of draft CAMA Land Use Plans finds that the planning efforts do not adequately protect
water quality. Many plans do not consider the cumulative impact from development on water
quality. Land Use Plans need to incorporate proactive measures to meet future growth demands
to prevent water quality deterioration.
100 Management Strategies

To prevent further impairment in urbanizing
watersheds local governments should:

(1) Identify waters that are threatened by
development.
(2) Protect existing riparian habitat along streams.
(3) Implement stormwater BMPs during and after
development.
(4) Develop land use plans that minimize
disturbance in sensitive areas of watersheds.
(5) Minimize impervious surfaces including roads
and parking lots.
(6) Develop public outreach programs to educate
citizens about stormwater runoff.

Action needs be taken at the local level to plan for
new development in urban and rural areas. For more detailed information regarding
recommendations for new development found in the text box (above), refer to EPA’s website at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection, the Center for Watershed
Protection website at www.cwp.org, and the Low Impact Development Center website at
www.lowimpactdevelopment.org. Additional information regarding environmental stewardship
for coastal homeowners is available at http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/assist/coastindex.html. Further
public education is also needed in the Chowan River basin in order for citizens to understand the
value of urban planning and stormwater management. For an example of local community
planning effort to reduce stormwater runoff, visit http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm.

10.9 The Importance of Local Initiatives

As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are
many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. DWQ encourages
local agencies and organizations to learn about and become active in their watersheds.

An important benefit of local initiatives is that local people make decisions that affect change in
their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome
including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources,
the rulemaking process, and many others.

These local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed,
which allows 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 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 become available, and it is easier to generate necessary matching or
leveraging funds. This will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in
more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these
local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for success. Federal
and State government agencies are interested in assisting local governments and citizen groups in
developing their water quality management programs.
Planning Recommendations
for New Development
• Minimize number and width of
residential streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas
(angled parking & narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
• Minimize culvert pipe and hardened
stormwater conveyances.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways, parking
lot islands and highway dividers to
increase infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer
zones along streams and tributaries.

Management Strategies 101

The collaboration of these local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good
examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state.

10.9.1 Federal Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects, listed in Table 24. Through annual base funding, there is approximately $1
million available for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2
million is available annually through incremental funds for restoration projects. All projects
must provide nonfederal 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 (NPS). Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program application
process is available online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/application_process.htm.
Descriptions of projects and general Section 319 Program information are available at
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/nps/Section_319_Grant_Program.htm.

Many Section 319 projects are demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for
the dissemination of information to the public through established programs at NC State
University (NCSU) and the NC Cooperative Extension. Other projects fund stream restoration
activities that improve water quality.

Table 24 Section 319 Grant Funded Projects in the Chowan River Basin
Fiscal
Year Name Description Agency Amount
2000
Evaluation and Demo of Stream &
Riparian Wetlands Restoration and
Construction
Wetlands & Hydrologic
Modification NCSU $140,000
2000
Background Monitoring & Evaluation
for Proposed Golf Course BMPs in
Chowan River Basin Coastal NPS, Monitoring NCSU $22,264
2004 Evaluation of Proposed Golf Courses in
Chowan River Basin BMP Implementation NCSU $107,124
2004 Gates County Environmental Education
Program Education
Gates County
SWCD $2,965
Total Funding $272,353

10.9.2 NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs

The NC Construction Grants and Loans Section 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 later two being
below market revolving loan money. In the Chowan River basin, the Town of Rich Square
102 Management Strategies
received a total of $ 2,999,940 in grants and loans to help fund the replacement and rehabilitation
of sewer collection system lines and for a wastewater reuse project.

As a technical resource, the Construction Grants and Loan Section, in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency, has initiated the Municipal Compliance Initiative Program. It
is a free technical assistance program to identify wastewater treatment facilities that are declining
but not yet out of compliance. A team of engineers, operations experts and managers from the
section work with local officials to analyze the facility’s design and operation. For more
information, visit the website at http://www.nccgl.net/. You may also call (919)-715-6212 or
email [e-mail].

10.9.3 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program

The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) combines an existing wetlands-restoration
initiative by the DENR with ongoing efforts by the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) to
offset unavoidable environmental impacts from transportation-infrastructure improvements. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers joined as a sponsor in the historic agreement, which is committed
to restoring, enhancing and protecting the wetlands and waterways across the State of North
Carolina. EEP can provide:

• High-quality, cost-effective projects for watershed improvement and protection;
• Compensation for unavoidable environmental impacts associated with
transportation-infrastructure and economic development; and
• Detailed watershed-planning and project-implementation efforts within North
Carolina's threatened or degraded watersheds.

EEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or
environmental groups. For example EEP efforts can complement projects funded through the
Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components with Section
319 funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality and habitat benefits
of the project. EEP actively seeks landowners throughout the state that have restorable wetland,
riparian, and stream restoration sites. For more information about EEP, visit
http://www.nceep.net/ or call [phone].

10.9.4 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) was established by Congress
“for the purpose of protecting important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant
conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by
conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses.” The program provides funding
for projects that ensure conservation of these areas for the benefit of future generations, giving
priority to lands that can be effectively managed and protected and that have significant
ecological value. The Division of Coastal Management administers the CELCP program in
North Carolina. For more information on funding opportunities and guidelines see
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Facts/CELCP.htm.

10.9.5 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

The Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) offers approximately $40 million annually
in grants for projects within the broadly focused areas of restoring and protecting state surface

Management Strategies 103
waters and establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In the Chowan River
basin, 13 projects have been funded for a total of $20,042,810. A description of the projects are
listed in Table 25. For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or
visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Table 25 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects in the Chowan River Basin
Project
Number Application Name Proposed Project Description Amount
Funded
1997A-129
Seaboard -WWTP
Improvements and Sewer
Rehabilitation
Repair and expand failing WWTP (lagoons) and land
application system. Expansion needed to deal with excessive
I&I. Project finished under budget and Board approved I&I
repairs. $1,037,000
1997B-017
Edenton - Chowan
Develop. Corp-
Acq/Constructed
Wetlands
Acq 54-acre Bayliner tract. Construct 20-ac & 1-ac wetlands to
treat runoff from 200 acres. Trade 12 ac of 54-ac Bayliner
Tract for 60-ac John Island Tract, incl 1 ac west of airport for
conversion to wetland for airport & industrial park runoff. $880,000
1999A-406
Edenton, Town of -
Edenton Bay Watershed
Restoration Program
Protect through fee simple puchase and conservation
easements 1340 ac. Acquire and remediate George Jones hog
farm and Ashley Welding. Remediate former landfill and
fertilizer complex and convert fish hatchery ponds to
stormwater ponds. $3,285,810
2001B-702
Chowan County-
Stormwater Wetland/
Chowan River &
Albemarle Sound
Construct a stormwater wetland and buffers to treat runoff
(244 acre watershed) from the Chowan Golf Course & Country
Club. Includes a chemical handling facility, donated
conservation easment, and water quality monitoring. $414,000
2002B-606
Powellsville, Town of -
Waste Treatment Facility
Construction/Ahoskie Cr.
Eliminate 168 failing septic tanks in the Town by constructing
a collection system and land application waste treatment
facility. Would reduce pollutant delivery to Ahoskie Creek.
Includes acquisition of 379 acres for land application. $475,000
2001B-033
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Chowan
River Tracts
Acquire through fee simple purchase 19 tracts to protect 6,466
acres along the Chowan River and tributaries (Buckhorn,
Barnes, Sarem, Cole, Catherine, Warwick, & Keel). $3,000,000
2004B-504
Colerain, Town of - WW/
Emergency Stand-by
Generator
Purchase emergency generator and install at Town's main
wastewater pump station. Reduce spills of wastewater from
this facility during power outages and impact on Chowan
River. $17,000
2004B-701
Edenton, Town of -
Storm/ Stormwater
System Design, Queen
Ann Creek
Design and permit a stormwater management system to treat
runoff from a 40-acre drainage area (55% impervious). If
eventually constructed, the system would reduce stormwater
discharges and pollutant delivery to Queen Ann Creek. $68,000
2006A-806
Chowan County-
Plan/Storm/ Stormwater
Drainage Study
Fund development of a countywide water quality management
and improvement plan to establish stormwater infrastructure
needs. Adopt ordinances, identify top priorities for
implementation, and designate special use water management
districts. $85,000
2006A-501
Ahoskie, Town of - WW/
Nucor Steel Reuse
project, Ahoskie Creek
Construct consumptive reuse faclilities and force main to
Nucor Steel Plate Mill, which will use from 0.8 to 1.3 MGD
reuse water from the Ahoskie WWTP, instead of groundwater.
Ahoskie's existing plant flow will be decreased from 0.9 to 0.3
MGD. $3,000,000
2006A-017
Nature Conservancy, The
- Acq/ IP Timber Tracts,
Chowan River
Protect through fee simple purchase 8,682 acres, including
1,343 riparian acres, along the Chowan, Meherrin, and
Wiccacon Rivers. Project would aid in the protection of an
extensive swamp forest system and would become part of the
NC Game Land Program. $7,210,000
104 Management Strategies
2006B-703
Colerain, Town of -
Storm/ Constructed
Wetland, Chowan River
Design, permit & construct stormwater BMPs to treat
stormwater from a 37-ac watershed prior to discharge to the
Chowan River & help to control floodwaters into the Town's
sewage system. Includes constructed wetlands and stream
stabilization. $71,000
2006A-527
Seaboard, Town of- WW/
I&I Rehabilitation, Ivy
Creek
Rehabilitate 7,000 of sewer line along Ivy Creek. Install a
standby generator. $500,000
1997A-129
Seaboard -WWTP
Improvements and Sewer
Rehabilitation
Repair and expand failing WWTP (lagoons) and land
application system. Expansion needed to deal with excessive
I&I. Project finished under budget and Board approved I&I
repairs. $1,037,000
1997B-017
Edenton - Chowan
Develop. Corp-
Acq/Constructed
Wetlands
Acq 54-acre Bayliner tract. Construct 20-ac & 1-ac wetlands to
treat runoff from 200 acres. Trade 12 ac of 54-ac Bayliner
Tract for 60-ac John Island Tract, incl 1 ac west of airport for
conversion to wetland for airport & industrial park runoff. $880,000
1999A-406
Edenton, Town of -
Edenton Bay Watershed
Restoration Program
Protect through fee simple puchase and conservation
easements 1340 ac. Acquire and remediate George Jones hog
farm and Ashley Welding. Remediate former landfill and
fertilizer complex and convert fish hatchery ponds to
stormwater ponds. $3,285,810
Total Funded $20,042,810
This list does not include:
- all projects are in the CWMTF's Northern Coastal Plain region
- regional or statewide projects that were in multiple river basins, or
- projects that were funded and subsequently withdrawn.

10.9.6 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP)

In February 1987, Congress established the National Estuary Program (NEP) through
amendments to the Clean Water Act. A unique approach to resource management, its hallmark
of using science to inform and engage broad-based community involvement, collaborative
decision-making, outreach and education, distinguishes the NEP from other programs.

As the first NEP to be designated “an estuary of national significance” in November 1987, the
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) was known then as the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study (APES). The APNEP has since been joined by 27 other NEPs located
in 18 coastal states and Puerto Rico spanning the United States’ three coastlines. It is estimated
15 percent of all Americans reside in a NEP designated watershed.

Each NEP is mandated to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) that details deteriorating/threatened environmental conditions in their estuarine region
and the strategies required for rectifying them. In November 1994, the Administrator of the EPA
accepted APNEP’s CCMP on behalf of the citizens of the United States, and Governor James B.
Hunt, Jr., accepted it on behalf of the citizens of North Carolina.

Estuaries are of significant economic value to the states under whose governance they fall, as
well as to the entire nation. It is estimated that estuaries provide habitat for approximately 75
percent of commercial fish catches in the United States and 80-90 percent of the recreational
fishery, totaling more than $1.9 billion annually. Recreation and tourism in coastal areas
generate an additional $8 to $12 billion annually. Clearly, it behooves the State to protect these
fragile, beautiful, and valuable places.

Management Strategies 105

In Chowan River basin, APNEP has supported a number of research, restoration, and
demonstration projects. Several demonstration projects are designed to mitigate the effects of
stormwater runoff and pollution. Recently, in the Chowan River basin, the APNEP has funded
projects in three locations intended to improve water quality and to aid in environmental
education: Disputanta, Virginia, and in North Carolina, Gatesville and Edenton.

The JEJ Moore Middle School schoolyard demonstration project in Disputanta, Virginia includes
an outdoor classroom, kiosk, signage, and a pedestrian nature trail that accesses an existing
natural area near the school. Eagle Scouts, volunteers, teachers and students participated in the
planning and building of this community-wide project. An observation platform is planned with
separate funding to complete the effort.

The John A. Holmes High School demonstration project in Edenton also utilized the talents of
students in its design and installation. Students use flow meters and water quality testing kits to
chart improvement of water quality going to a local stream following filtration through two rain
gardens. This project is unique because it includes a two-foot deep rock drainage system using
popped rock (“Carolina Solite”) that has an absorption capacity that is 25 percent higher than
crushed rock.

The Gatesville High School project is a collaborative venture led by the Gates County Public
Schools, the County of Gates, and local students to plan and construct a boardwalk, bridge and
observation platform through a wetland area on the school grounds. This project enhances
science teaching and learning for 640 high school students and their teachers, as well as the
general public.

APNEP also funded the Chowan River Riparian Shoreline Assessment in coordination with a
Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Data was
collected along the tidal portion of the Chowan River basin to assist with land use and shoreline
management. The program protocol includes a method for collecting, classifying, mapping, and
reporting conditions to assess riparian shorelines. The data inventory collected information from
three shore zones: 1) the immediate riparian zone, evaluated for land use; 2) the bank, evaluated
for height, stability, cover and natural protection; and 3) the shoreline, describing the presence of
shoreline structures for shore protection and recreational purposes. For more information about
project results and maps please visit http://ccrm.vims.edu/chowan/chowan_disclaimer.htm.

For information on the APNEP, visit http://www.apnep.org/
106 Management Strategies
.

Impaired Waters List 107
Chapter 11
North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List

11.1 Introduction to North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List

The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List is an integrated report
that includes both the 305(b) and 303(d) reports. The 305(b) Report is compiled to meet the
Section 305(b) reporting requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The 305(b)
portion of the integrated report presents how well waters support designated uses (e.g.,
swimming, aquatic life support, water supply), as well as likely stressors (e.g., sediment,
nutrients) and potential sources of impairment. The 303(d) List is a comprehensive accounting
of all Impaired waters and is derived from the 305(b) Report. North Carolina refers to the
Impaired Waters List as the Integrated Report because it fulfills both the 305(b) and 303(d)
requirements.

Section 303(d) of the CWA enacted in 1972 required States, Territories and authorized Tribes to
1) identify and establish a priority ranking for waters for which technology-based effluent
limitations are not stringent enough to attain and maintain water quality standards, 2) establish
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waters, and
3) develop and submit the list of Impaired waters and TMDLs biennially by April 1st of every
even numbered year to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA is required to
approve or disapprove the state-developed 303(d) list within 30 days. For each segment
Impaired by a pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a TMDL must be developed. TMDLs
are not required for waters Impaired by pollution. Here, pollution is defined by the EPA as,
“man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological
integrity of the water,” and is related to water control structures.

11.2 Introduction to TMDLs

A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive
and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant sources.
A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and
nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody
can still attain its designated uses. The calculation must also account for seasonal variation and
critical conditions in water quality.

For more information on TMDLs and the 303(d) listing process, visit the TMDL website at
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/tmdl/.

11.3 Contents of the Integrated Report

The Integrated Report includes descriptions of monitoring programs, the use support
methodology, and the Impaired waters list. New guidance from EPA places all waterbody
assessment units into one unique assessment category (EPA, 2001b). Although EPA specifies
five unique assessment categories, North Carolina elects to use seven categories. Each category
is described in detail below:
108 Impaired Waters List
Category 1: Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened. This
category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all applicable use support
categories are rated "Supporting". Data and information are available to support a
determination that the water quality standards are attained and no use is threatened.
Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the water quality standard continues
to be attained.

Category 2: Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and
insufficient or no data and information are available to determine if the remaining
uses are attained or threatened. This category consists of those waterbody assessment
units where at least one of the applicable use support categories are rated "Supporting"
and the other use support categories are rated "Not Rated" or “No Data”. Also included
in this category are waters where at least one of the applicable use support categories,
except Fish Consumption, are rated "Supporting"; the remaining applicable use support
categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated"; and the Fish Consumption
category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Data and information are available to support a
determination that some, but not all, uses are attained. Attainment status of the remaining
uses is unknown because there are insufficient or no data or information. Future
monitoring data will be used to determine if the uses previously found to be in attainment
remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for which data
and information were previously insufficient to make a determination.

Category 3: Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated
use is attained. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all
applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated", and
the Fish Consumption category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Measured data or
information to support an attainment determination for any use are not available.
Supplementary data and information, or future monitoring, will be required to assess the
attainment status.

Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but does not
require the development of a TMDL. This category contains three distinct sub-
categories:

Category 4a: TMDL has been completed. This category consists of those waterbody
assessment units for which EPA has approved or established a TMDL and water quality
standards have not yet been achieved. Monitoring data will be considered before
moving an assessment unit from Category 4a to Categories 1 or 2.

Category 4b: Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to
result in the attainment of the water quality standard in the near future. This
category consists of those waterbody assessment units for which TMDLs will not be
attempted because other required regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES permit limits,
Stormwater Program rules, etc.) are expected to attain water quality standards within a
reasonable amount of time. Future monitoring will be used to verify that the water
quality standard is attained as expected.

Category 4c: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. This category consists of
assessment units that are Impaired by pollution, not by a pollutant. EPA defines

Impaired Waters List 109
pollution as "The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical,
biological and radiological integrity of the water." EPA staff have verbally stated that
this category is intended to be used for impairments related to water control structures
(i.e., dams). Future monitoring will be used to confirm that there continues to be an
absence of pollutant-caused impairment and to support water quality management
actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment.

Category 5: Impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and
requires a TMDL. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units that are
Impaired by a pollutant and the proper technical conditions exist to develop TMDLs. As
defined by the EPA, the term pollutant means "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar
dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water". When
more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody
assessment unit in this category, the assessment unit will remain in Category 5 until
TMDLs for all listed pollutants have been completed and approved by the EPA.

Category 6: Impaired based on biological data. This category consists of waterbody
assessment units historically referred to as "Biologically Impaired" waterbodies; these
assessment units have no identified cause(s) of impairment although aquatic life impacts
have been documented. The waterbody assessment unit will remain in Category 6 until
TMDLs have been completed and approved by the EPA.

Category 7: Impaired, but the proper technical conditions do not yet exist to
develop a TMDL. As described in the Federal Register, "proper technical conditions”
refer to the availability of the analytical methods, modeling techniques and data base
necessary to develop a technically defensible TMDL. These elements will vary in their
level of sophistication depending on the nature of the pollutant and characteristics of the
segment in question" (43 FR 60662, December 28, 1978). These are assessment units
that would otherwise be in Category 5 of the integrated list. As previously noted, EPA
has recognized that in some specific situations the data, analyses or models are not
available to establish a TMDL. North Carolina seeks EPA technical guidance in
developing technically defensible TMDLs for these waters. Open water and ocean
hydrology fecal coliform Impaired shellfishing waters are included in this category.

Categories 5, 6 and 7 constitute the 2004 North Carolina 303(d) List for the State of
North Carolina. A table of waters on Categories 1 through 3 is available for downloading
on the DWQ website (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm).

11.4 How North Carolina Proposes Delisting Waters

Waters appearing on the previously approved Impaired waters list will be moved to Categories 1,
2, 3 or 4 under the following circumstances:

• An updated 305(b) use support rating of Supporting, as described in the basinwide
management plans.
110 Impaired Waters List
• Applicable water quality standards are being met (i.e., no longer Impaired for a given
pollutant) as described in either basinwide management plans or in technical
memoranda.
• The basis for putting the water on the list is determined to be invalid (i.e., was
mistakenly identified as Impaired in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv) and/or
National Clarifying Guidance for State and Territory 1998 Section 303(d) Listing
Decisions. Robert Wayland, III, Director. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. Aug 27, 1997).
• A water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride).
• Removal of fish consumption advisories or modification of fish eating advice.
• Typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified).
• EPA has approved a TMDL.

11.5 Scheduling TMDLs

Category 5 waters, those for which TMDLs are required, are at many different stages on the path
to an approved TMDL. Some require additional data. Some require more outreach to increase
stakeholder involvement. Others need to have a technical strategy budgeted, funded and
scheduled. Some are ready for EPA submittal.

According to EPA guidance (EPA 2003), prioritization of waterbody assessment units for
TMDLs need not be reflected in a “high, medium or low” manner. Instead, prioritization can be
reflected in the TMDL development schedule. Generally, North Carolina attempts to develop
TMDLs within 8-13 years of the original pollutant listing. Other information for each
assessment unit is also utilized to determine the priority in the TMDL development schedule.
This information includes the following:

• Year listed. Assessment units that have been on the 303(d) list for the longest period
of time will receive priority for TMDL development and/or stressor studies.
• Reason for listing. (Applicable to Category 5 AUs only) AUs with an impairment
due to a standard violation will be prioritized based on which standard was violated.
Standard violations due to bacteria or turbidity currently receive priority for TMDL
development.
• Classification. AUs classified for primary recreation (Class B), water supply (Class
WS-I through WS-V), trout (Tr), high quality waters (HQW), and outstanding
resource waters (ORW) will continue to receive a higher priority for TMDL
development and/or stressor studies.
• Basinwide Planning Schedule. (Applicable to Category 6 AUs only). The basinwide
schedule is utilized to establish priority for stressor studies.

11.6 Revising TMDLs

Current federal regulations do not specify when TMDLs should be revised. However, there are
several circumstances under which it would seem prudent to revisit existing TMDLs. The
TMDL analysis of targets and allocations is based upon the existing water quality standards,
hydrology, water quality data (chemical and biological), and existing, active NPDES wastewater
discharges. Conditions related to any of these factors could be used to justify a TMDL revision.

Impaired Waters List 111
Specific conditions that the Division will consider prior to revising an existing, approved TMDL
include the following:

• A TMDL has been fully implemented and the water quality standards continue to be
violated. If a TMDL has been implemented and water quality data indicate no
improvement or a decline in overall water quality, the basis for the TMDL reduction
or the allocation may need to be revised;
• A change of a water quality standard (e.g., fecal coliform to Echerichia coli). The
Division will prioritize review of existing TMDLs and data to determine if a revision
to TMDLs will be required;
• The addition or removal of hydraulic structures to a waterbody (e.g., dams).
Substantial changes to waterbody hydrology and hydraulics have the potential to
change many aspects of target setting, including the water quality standard upon
which the TMDL was developed, the water quality data, and the water quality
modeling;
• Incorrect assumptions were used to derive the TMDL allocations. This would include
errors in calculations and omission of a permitted discharge.

Should a TMDL be revised due to needed changes in TMDL targets, the entire TMDL would be
revised. This includes the TMDL target, source assessment, and load and wasteload allocations.
However, the Division may elect to revise only specific portions of the TMDL. For example,
changes may be justifiable to the load and wasteload allocation portions of a TMDL due to
incorrect calculations or inequities. In these cases, revisions to the TMDL allocations would not
necessarily include a revision of TMDL targets.
112 Impaired Waters List

References 113
References
CAMA Land Use Plans
____. Chowan County/Town of Edenton. 2007. Prepared by The Wooten Company.
____. Gates County. 2004. Prepared by Community Planning Collaborative, Inc.

Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality
Management: Program Description. Division of Environmental Management. Water
Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the
Third Assessment Report of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van de Linden, and D. Xiaosu
(Eds.) Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England.

McGarvey, Daniel J. 1996. Stream Channelization. Bibliography of Environmental Literature.
Wittenberg University. Environmental Geology. Springfield, Ohio.
http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/geol/progcrs/geol220/mcgarvey/index.shtml.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). 1997.
http://www.cgia.state.nc.us/Home/tabid/53/Default.aspx

____. DWQ. June 2003. Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Upper Swift Creek
Watershed, Neuse River Basin, Wake County, NC. Prepared for Clean Water
Management Trust Fund. Raleigh, NC.

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Planning Section. July 2002. Chowan River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Planning Section. August 2004. Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina.
North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B .0220. Raleigh, NC.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Planning Section: Basinwide Planning Program Unit.
January 2007. Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Watershed Planning: Support
Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans. Raleigh, NC.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/

____. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). April 2006.
Basinwide Assessment Report: Chowan River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/ or
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/ChowanBASINWIDEFinal.pdf

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/

Norton, R.K. 2005. More and Better Local Planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association. 71:55-71.
114 References

Riggs, S.R., and D.V Ames. 2003. Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-Level Rise and
Estuarine Dynamics. North Carolina Sea Grant. Raleigh, NC.

Roell, Michael J. June 1999. Sand and Gravel Mining in Missouri Stream Systems: Aquatic
Resource Effects and Management Alternatives. Missouri Department of Conservation.
Conservation Research Center. Columbia, MO.

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
NC.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
North Carolina State Office. June 2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory. Raleigh,
NC.

____. Forest Service. Brown, M. J. Forest Statistics for North Carolina. 2002. Southern
Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS-88. January 2004. Raleigh, NC.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Watershed Academy Website:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/.

____. EPA. 2001b. 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Assessment Report Guidance.
November 19.

____. EPA. 2003. Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act; TMDL-01-03. Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. July 21.

Appendix I

DWQ Water Quality
Monitoring Programs
in the Chowan
River Basin

Appendices

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 116

DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Chowan River Basin

Staff in the Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) and
Regional Offices of DWQ collect a variety of
biological, chemical and physical data. The following
discussion contains a brief introduction to each
program, followed by a summary of water quality data
in the Chowan River basin for that program. For more
detailed information on sampling and assessment of
streams in this basin, refer to the Basinwide Assessment
Report for the Chowan River basin, available from the
Environmental Sciences Section website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling [phone].
DWQ monitoring programs for the
Chowan River Basin include:
• Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Fish Assessments
• Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
• Ambient Monitoring System

Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. These organisms are primarily aquatic insect larvae. The use of benthos
data has proven to be a reliable monitoring tool, as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
subtle changes in water quality. Since macroinvertebrates have life cycles of six months to over
one year, the effects of short-term pollution (such as a spill) will generally not be overcome until
the following generation appears. The benthic community also integrates the effects of a wide
array of potential pollutant mixtures.

Criteria have been developed to assign a bioclassification to each benthic sample based on the
number of different species present in the pollution intolerant groups of Ephemeroptera
(Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies), commonly referred to as EPTs.
A Biotic Index (BI) value gives an indication of overall community pollution tolerance. Different
benthic macroinvertebrate criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal plain and swamp) within North Carolina and bioclassifications fall into five
categories: Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor. Swamp stream bioclassifications fall
into three categories: Natural, Moderate and Severe.

There were 14 benthic samples collected during this assessment period. The following table lists
the total bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the Chowan River basin. For
detailed information regarding the samples collected during this assessment period, refer to the
table following this section.

Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sites (using the
most recent rating for each site) in the Chowan River Basin
Bioclassifications Swamp Bioclass.
Subbasin Excellent Good Good-
Fair Fair Poor Not
Rated Natural Moderate Severe
Stress Total
03-01-01 1 2 1 1 2 7
03-01-02 1 1 3 5
03-01-04 1 1 2
Appendix I – Monitoring Program 117

Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Northeastern Coastal Plain

There are three types of streams in the Chowan River basin, in which biological criteria can be
assessed and bioclassifications are assigned. Streams referred to as Coastal A have continuous
flow throughout the year, Coastal B streams are deep non-wadeable rivers with minimal flow
throughout the year and swamp streams typically only have flow between February to March.

The Biological Assessment Unit defines swamp streams, as those streams that are within the
coastal plain ecoregion and that normally have no visible flow during a part of the year. This
low flow period usually occurs during the summer, but flowing water should be present in
swamp streams during the winter. Sampling during winter, high flow periods provides the best
opportunity for detecting differences in communities from what is natural, and only winter
(February to early March) benthos data can be used when evaluating swamp streams. The
swamp stream must have visible flow in this winter period, with flow comparable to a coastal
plain stream that would have acceptable flow for sampling in summer. No waterbodies in the
Chowan River Basin have been given the supplemental “Swamp” classification by DWQ.
However, for the purposes of biological assessments of waterbodies in the Chowan River basin,
the Biological Assessment Unit uses a swamp criterion to assign a bioclassification to
waterbodies that have visible flow in winter but stop flowing for some portion of the year.

The Biological Assessment Unit has limited data on Coastal B, thus, draft criteria have been
developed based only on EPT taxa richness. However, biotic index values and total taxa
richness values were also evaluated for between year and among site comparisons. These
criteria will continue to be evaluated and any bioclassifications derived from them should be
considered tentative and not used for use support decisions. Four Coastal B waterbody segments
were Not Rated during this assessment period because of the draft Coastal B criteria.

The benthic macroinvertebrate community of small streams is naturally less diverse than the
streams used to develop the current criteria for flowing freshwater streams. The benthic
macroinvertebrate database is being evaluated and a study to systematically look at reference
streams in different ecoregions is being developed with the goal of finding a way to evaluate
water quality conditions in specific stream types. DWQ will continue to develop criteria to
assess water quality in small streams.

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 118

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Collected in the Chowan River Basin, (Current basinwide
sampling sites are in bold print.)
Waterbody Location County Map
ID
Index
No. Date ST EPTS BI BIE
PT BioClass
03-01-01
Chowan R nr Riddicksville Hertford DB5 25 09/28/05 71 9 7.11 5.61 Good
07/31/00 46 7 7.33 5.84 Good-Fair
Chowan R nr Gatesville Gates DB4 25 09/27/05 49 5 6.85 4.82 Fair
08/01/00 62 9 7.22 4.70 Good
Cole Cr US 158* Gates DB6 25-12-7 02/05/05 46 3 7.43 7.7 Moderate
02/10/00 47 4 7.60 7.00 Moderate
Wiccacon R SR 1433 Hertford DB8 25-14 08/22/05 47 3 7.63 7.61 Fair
08/01/00 66 6 7.88 6.80 Fair
Ahoskie Cr NC 42 Hertford DB1 25-14-1 02/09/05 50 7 6.70 4.95 Not Rated
08/25/05 72 11 6.94 5.94 Not Rated
Stony Cr SR 1235 Bertie DB7 25-14-1-
6 02/10/05 56 6 7.40 6.46 Moderate
02/10/00 43 2 7.21 6.34 Moderate
Chinkapin Cr SR 1432 Hertford DB3 25-14-3 02/10/05 56 6 7.40 6.46 Natural
02/10/00 60 8 6.98 6.22 Natural
Bennetts Cr SR 1400 Gates DB2 25-17 02/09/05 40 3 8.20 7.82 Moderate
03-01-02
Kirbys Cr SR 1362 Northampton DB10 25-4-4 02/07/05 49 9 6.19 5.04 Moderate
02/17/00 54 12 6.25 5.10 Natural
Meherrin R SR 1175 Hertford DB11 25-4-(5) 09/27/05 45 8 7.42 5.9 Good-Fair
07/31/00 59 10 7.68 6.41 Good
Potecasi Cr SR 1504 Northampton DB12 25-4-8 02/07/05 44 1 7.31 6.40 Moderate
02/09/00 24 1 6.97 7.78 Not Rated
Urahaw Swp NC 35 Northampton DB13 25-4-8-4 02/07/05 52 5 7.19 6.31 Moderate
02/09/00 20 0 6.83 - Moderate
Cutawhiskie Swp SR 1141 Hertford DB9 25-4-8-7 02/08/05 59 5 6.97 5.50 Not Rated
08/26/05 71 8 6.70 5.56 Not Rated
02/02/00 49 3 6.88 5.80 Not Rated
03-01-04
Chowan R US 17 Chowan DB14 25 08/22/05 41 10 6.71 5.54 Good
08/01/00 29 6 6.61 4.65 Good-Fair
East most Swp SR 1361 Bertie DB15 25-24-1 02/10/05 47 3 7.32 6.86 Moderate
02/22/00 56 5 7.42 6.68 Not Rated
Fish Kill Assessment

DWQ has systematically monitored and reported fish kill events across the state since 1996.
From 2000 to 2005, field investigators reported seven kill events in the Chowan River basin.
Stagnant water, shallow water, low dissolved oxygen, and possible chemical contamination may
have contributed to these fish kill events. Annual fish kill reports can be found at DWQ’s
Environmental Sciences website http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Fishkill/fishkillmain.htm.
Appendix I – Monitoring Program 119

Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring

Acute and/or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine toxicity of discharges to sensitive
aquatic species (usually fathead minnows or the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia). Results of
these tests have been shown by several researchers to be predictive of discharge effects on
receiving stream populations. Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity
(WET) by their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. Other facilities may also be tested by
DWQ’s Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ATU). Per Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, the ATU is
required to test at least 10 percent of the major discharging facilities over the course of the
federal fiscal year (FFY). However, it is ATU’s target to test 20 percent of the major dischargers
in the FFY. This means that each major facility would get evaluated over the course of their
five-year permit. There are no requirements or targets for minor dischargers.

The ATU maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests and
provides monthly updates of this information to regional offices and DWQ administration.
Ambient toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality relative to other stream sites
and/or a point source discharge.

Two NPDES permits in the Chowan River basin currently require WET testing. Both facilities
have a WET limit. Across the state, the number of facilities required to perform WET has
increased steadily since 1987, the first year that WET limits were written into permits in North
Carolina. Consequently, compliance rates have also risen. Since 1996, the compliance rate has
stabilized at approximately 90 percent.

Ambient Monitoring System

The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine stations
strategically located for the collections of physical and chemical water quality data. North
Carolina has more than 378 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide, where between 23
and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each station. During this assessment period
(September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2005) chemical and physical measurements were
obtained by DWQ from 14 stations located throughout the Chowan River Basin. The N.C.
Recreational Water Quality Program monitors one additional location for bacterial issues.
Information on the program can be found at
http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/shellfish/Water_Monitoring/RWQweb/home.htm. Of the 14
ambient monitoring stations are currently operating in the Chowan River basin, six are located
on the Chowan River itself in North Carolina and an additional site in Virginia on the Nottoway
River approximately three miles before the confluence with the Blackwater River (at which point
they become the Chowan River). In the Chowan River basin, two ambient parameters
commonly exceed water quality parameters, total iron and dissolved oxygen. The locations of
these stations are shown on individual subbasin maps. Notable ambient water quality parameters
are discussed in the subbasin chapters. Refer to 2006 Chowan River Basinwide Assessment
Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more detailed analysis of ambient water
quality monitoring data.

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 120

Many of the waterbodies in the Chowan River basin experience low dissolved oxygen
concentrations in summer in violation of water quality standards. Also, pH measurements
exceed water quality standards in some of these streams. The fact that many of these streams
cease to flow or have low natural pH is not the result of any anthropogenic interference but due
to their nature. This area of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion is classified as Mid-
Atlantic Flatwoods and Mid-Atlantic Floodplains, and Low Terraces. Low gradient, poor
drainage and swamp conditions are common here.

Specific information on water quality standards and action levels can be found in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (August 1, 2004) available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swstdsfaq.html.

Water Quality Parameters

Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is one of the most important of all the chemical measurements.
Dissolved oxygen provides valuable information about the ability of the water to support aquatic
life and the capacity of water to assimilate point and nonpoint discharges. Water quality
standards for dissolved oxygen vary depending on the classification of the body of water but
generally results less than 4.0 mg/L can be problematic. Consistent patterns of low
concentrations of dissolved oxygen can be subject to intense management review and corrective
actions, although patterns of low dissolved oxygen can occur naturally in and near swamp
waters, in estuarine waters under salt wedge conditions, or during droughts.

pH
The pH of natural waters can vary throughout the state. Low values (<< 7.0 s.u.) can be found in
waters rich in dissolved organic matter, such as swamp lands, whereas high values (>> 7.0 s.u.)
may be found during algal blooms. Point source dischargers can also influence the pH of a
stream. The water quality standards for pH in freshwaters consider values less than 6.0 s.u. or
greater than 9.0 s.u. to warrant attention; whereas in salt waters pH values less than 6.8 or greater
than 8.5 warrant attention.

Turbidity
Turbidity data may denote episodic high values on particular dates or within narrow time
periods. These can often be the result of intense or sustained rainfall events; however elevated
values can occur at other times. Tidal surges can also disturb shallow estuarine sediments and
naturally increase turbidity.

Nutrients
Compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus are major components of living organisms and thus are
essential to maintain life. These compounds are collectively referred to as “nutrients.” Nitrogen
compounds include ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and
nitrite+nitrate nitrogen (NO2+NO3-N). Phosphorus is measured as total phosphorus. When
nutrients are introduced to an aquatic ecosystem from municipal and industrial treatment
processes, or runoff from urban or agricultural land, the excessive growth of algae (algal blooms)
and other plants may be accelerated. In addition to the possibility of causing algal blooms,
ammonia-nitrogen may combine with high pH water to form NH4OH, a form toxic to fish and
other aquatic organisms.

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 121

Bacteria
Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria can vary greatly. The descriptive statistics used to
evaluate fecal coliform bacteria data include the geometric mean and the median depending on
the classification of the waterbody. For all sites in the Chowan River Basin, the standard
specified in Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0211 (3)(e) (August 1, 2005) is applicable:

"Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of
200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day
period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such
period; violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected during rainfall events and, in some
cases, this violation is expected to be caused by uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution; all
coliform concentrations are to be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high
turbidity or other adverse conditions necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy
over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution technique shall be used as the reference method.”

Metals
A number of metals are essential micronutrients for the support of aquatic life. However, there
are threshold concentrations over which metals can be toxic. DWQ monitors total (not
dissolved) concentrations for aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, manganese (Water Supply waters only), nickel, and zinc. Aluminum and iron are
commonly found in North Carolina soils, therefore high aluminum and iron concentrations are
typically correlated with high turbidity.

Conductivity
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electric current. The presence of
ions and temperature are major factors in the ability of water to conduct a current. Clean
freshwater has a low conductivity, whereas high conductivities may indicate polluted water or
saline conditions. Measurements reported are corrected for temperature, thus the range of values
reported over a period of time indicate the relative presence of ions in water. North Carolina
freshwater streams have a natural conductance range of 17-65 μmhos/cm, however (USGS
1992).

Conductivity can be used to evaluate variations in dissolved mineral concentrations (ions) among
sites with varying degrees of impact resulting from point source discharges. Generally, impacted
sites show elevated and widely ranging values for conductivity. However, water bodies that
contain saltwater will also have high conductivities. Therefore those wishing to use conductivity
as an indicator for problems must first account for salinity.

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 122

Locations of DWQ Monitoring stations in the Chowan River Basin, 2000 - 2005.

Map
ID
1
D0000050 DA1 Nottaway River at US 258 near Riverdale, Virginia II Estuarine
D0001200 DA2 Blackwater River at Horseshoe Bend at Cherry Grove, Virginia II Estuarine
D0001800 DA3 Blackwater River .5 MI upstream of Mouth near Wyanoke B NSW
D0010000 DA4 Chowan River near Riddicksville B NSW
D6250000 DA7 Chowan River at US 13 at Winton B NSW
D8356200 DA8 Chowan River at CM 16 near Gatesville B NSW
2
D4150000 DA5 Potecasi Creek at NC 11 near Union C NSW
D5000000 DA6 Meherrin River at SR 1175 Parkers Ferry near Como B NSW
3
D8430000 DA9 Chowan River at CM 12 downstream of Holiday Island B NSW
D8950000 DA10 Chowan River near CM 7 at Colerain B NSW
4
D9490000 DA11 Chowan River at US 17 at Edenhouse B NSW
D999500C DA12 Albemarle Sound near Edenton Mid-Channel B NSW
D999500N DA13 Albemarle Sound near Edenton North Shore B NSW
D999500S MA13 Albemarle Sound near Edenton South Shore SB
Subbasin/
Station ID
Meherrin River and Potecasi Creek
Chowan River - Middle Section
Chowan River - Lower Section and Albemarle Sound
Location Class
Chowan River - Upper Section and Blackwater River

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 123

Appendix I – Monitoring Program 124

Appendix II

Use Support Methodology
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 125

Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 126

Introduction to Use Support

All surface waters of the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best-intended uses
of that water. Waters are assessed to determine how well they are meeting the classified or best-
intended uses. The assessment results in a use support rating for the use categories that apply to
that water.

Use Support Categories

Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk through the use of five use support categories: aquatic
life, recreation, fish consumption, water supply, and shellfish harvesting. These categories are
tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams.
Waters are Supporting if data and information used to assign a use support rating meet the
criteria for that use category. If these criteria are not met, then the waters are Impaired. Waters
with inconclusive data and information are Not Rated. Waters where no data or information are
available to make an assessment are No Data. The table below specifies which use support
categories apply to which primary classifications.

A single body of water may have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more
of the use support categories, as shown in the following table. For many waters, a use support
category will not be applicable (N/A) to the classification of that water (e.g., shellfish harvesting
is only applied to Class SA waters). A full description of the classifications is available in the
DWQ document titled: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface
Waters of North Carolina (15A NCAC 2b .0100 and .0200). Information can also be found
within each basin plan and at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

Use Support Categories

Primary
Classification
Ecosystem
Approach
Human Health
Approach
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Shellfish
Harvesting
C X X X N/A N/A
SC X X X N/A N/A
B X X X N/A N/A
SB X X X N/A N/A
SA X X X N/A X
WS I – WS IV X X X X N/A

Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 127

Assessment Period

Data and information are used to assess water quality and assign use support ratings using a five-
year data window that ends on August 31 of the year of basinwide biological sampling. For
example, if biological data are collected in a basin in 2004, then the five-year data window for
use support assessments would be September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2004. There are
occasionally some exceptions to this data window, especially when follow up monitoring is
needed to make decisions on samples collected in the last year of the assessment period.

Data and information for assessing water quality and assigning use support ratings for lakes uses
a data window of October 1 to September 30. Any data collected by DWQ during the five-year
data window that ends on September 30 of the year of biological sampling will be used to
develop a Weight-of-Evidence approach to lakes assessment. Refer to page 16 of this appendix
for more information.

Assessment Units

DWQ identifies waters by index numbers and assessment unit numbers (AU). The AU is used to
track defined stream segments or waterbodies in the water quality assessment database, for the
303(d) Impaired waters list, and in the various tables in basin plans and other water quality
documents. The AU is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number).
A letter attached to the end of the AU indicates that the AU is smaller than the DWQ index
segment. No letter indicates that the AU and the DWQ index segment are the same.

Interpretation of Data and Information

It is important to understand the associated limitations and degree of uncertainty when
interpreting use support ratings. Although these use support methods are based on data analysis
and other information, some best professional judgment is applied during these assessments.
Use support ratings are intended to provide an assessment of water quality using a five-year data
window, to describe how well surface waters support their classified uses, and to document the
potential stressors contributing to water quality degradation and the sources of these
contributions.

Use support methods continue to improve over time, and the information and technology used to
make use support determinations also continue to become more accurate and comprehensive.
These improvements sometimes make it difficult to make generalizations comparing water
quality between basin plans. However, technology and methods improvements result in more
scientifically sound use support assessments.

Assessment Methodology

Introduction

Many types of data and information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify
stressors and sources of water quality degradation. All existing data pertaining to a stream
segment for each applicable use support category are entered into a use support database.
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 128

Assessments and data entries may include use support ratings for each of the five use support
categories, basis of assessment, stressors and potential sources, biological, chemical/physical
(ambient monitoring), and lakes assessment data, fish consumption advisories from the NC
Department of Health and Human Services, swimming advisories and shellfish sanitation
growing area classifications from the NC Division of Environmental Health, and available land
cover and land use information. The following describes the data and methodologies used to
conduct use support assessments. These methods will continue to be refined as additional
information and technology become available.

Basis of Assessment

Assessments are made on an overall basis of either monitored (M) or evaluated (E), depending
on the level of information available. A monitored rating is based on the most recent five-year
data window and site-specific data and is therefore treated with more confidence than an
evaluated rating. Evaluated ratings are used when there are no site-specific data.

Rating
Basis
Use Support
Category
Assessment
Applicability*
S/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters do not exceed criteria in
AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
S/M REC Ambient fecal coliform bacteria levels do not exceed criteria in AU or AU with DEH
sites is posted with advisories for 61 days or less during assessment period.
S/M SH AU is a DEH Approved shellfish growing area.
I/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters exceed criteria in AU
during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
I/M REC Ambient fecal coliform bacteria levels exceeds criteria in AU or AU with DEH sites is
posted with advisories for more than 61 days during assessment period.
I/M FC DHHS has established a site-specific advisory for fish consumption and fish tissue data
are available.
I/M SH AU is a DEH Conditionally-Approved, Prohibited or Restricted shellfish growing area.

NR/M AL Biological community is Not Rated or inconclusive, or ambient water quality parameters
are inconclusive or there are less than 10 samples in AU during assessment period.
Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
NR/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds annual screening criteria, but does not exceed
assessment criteria of five samples in 30 days in AU during assessment period.
NR/M FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to
areas within a mercury advice; fish tissue data available.

S/E AL AU is a tributary to a S/M AU and land use is similar between AUs.
S/E WS AU is classified as WS, and DEH report notes no significant closures at time of
assessment.

I/E FC AU is in basin under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice. AU
has a site-specific advisory and there is no fish tissue data available.

NR/E AL AU is tributary to I/M AU, or AU is in watershed with intensive and changing land use,
or other information suggests negative water quality impacts to AU. Discharger in AU
has noncompliance permit violations or has failed three or more WET tests during the
last two years of the assessment period.
NR/E REC Discharger has noncompliance permit violations of fecal bacteria parameter during last
two years of assessment period.
NR/E FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 129

areas within a mercury advice, or has no fish tissue data.

ND AL, REC,
SH
No data available in AU during assessment period.

Note: S/M = Supporting/Monitored I/M = Impaired/Monitored NR/M = Not Rated/Monitored
S/E = Supporting/Evaluated I/E = Impaired/Evaluated NR/E = Not Rated/Evaluated
ND = No Data
AL = Aquatic Life REC = Recreation FC = Fish Consumption
SH = Shellfish Harvesting WS = Water Supply
AU = Assessment Unit WET = Whole Effluent Toxicity
DEH = Division of Environmental Health
DHHS = Department of Health and Human Services
* = for lakes assessments, see page 16

Supporting ratings are extrapolated up tributaries from monitored streams when there are no
problematic dischargers with permit violations or changes in land use/cover. Supporting ratings
may also be applied to unmonitored tributaries where there is little land disturbance (e.g.,
national forests and wildlife refuges, wilderness areas or state natural areas). Problem stressors
or sources are not generally applied to unmonitored tributaries. Impaired ratings are not
extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries.

Stressors

Biological and ambient samplings are useful tools to assess water quality. However, biological
sampling does not typically identify the causes of impairment, and ambient sampling does not
always link water quality standards to a biological response. Linking the causes of impairment
and the biological response are a complex process (USEPA, 2000) that begins with an evaluation
of physical, chemical or biological entities that can induce an adverse biological response. These
entities are referred to as stressors. A stressor may have a measurable impact to aquatic health.
Not all streams will have a primary stressor or cause of impairment. A single stressor may not
be sufficient to cause impairment, but the accumulation of several stressors may result in
impairment. In either case, impairment is likely to continue if the stressor or the various
cumulative stressors are not addressed. Use support assessments evaluate the available
information related to potential stressors impacting water quality.

A stressor identification process may be initiated after a stream appears on the 303(d) list in
order to address streams that are Impaired based on biological data. Intensive studies are
required to summarize and evaluate potential stressors to determine if there is evidence that a
particular stressor plays a substantial role in causing the biological impacts. Intensive studies
consider lines of evidence that include benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community data,
habitat and riparian area assessment, chemistry and toxicity data, and information on watershed
history, current watershed activities and land uses, and pollutant sources. These studies result in
decisions regarding the probable stressors contributing to or causing impairment. The intensity
of a stressor study may be limited due to a lack of resources. In these cases, it may still be
appropriate to include stressors in use support assessments, but to also note where additional
information is needed in order to evaluate other stressors.
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 130

Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is noted in the
DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified as a
stressor, DWQ and others attempt to identify the type of habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation,
loss of woody habitat, loss of pools or riffles, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
streambed scour and bank erosion).

Aquatic Life Category

The aquatic life category is an ecosystem approach to assessing the biological integrity of all
surface waters of the state. The biological community data and ambient water quality data are
used in making assessments in this category. These represent the most important monitoring
data for making water quality assessments in the aquatic life category. Evaluation information
such as compliance and whole effluent toxicity information from NPDES dischargers, land
cover, and other more anecdotal information are also used to identify potential problems and to
refine assessments based on the monitoring data. The following is a description of each
monitoring data type and the criteria used in assigning use support ratings. Criteria used to
evaluate the other information and assign use support ratings are also described. Refer to page
14 for lakes and reservoir assessment methods as applied in the aquatic life category.

Biological Data

Benthic macroinvertebrate (aquatic insects) community and fish community samples are the best
way to assess the biological integrity of most waterbodies. Unfortunately, these community
measures cannot be applied to every stream size and are further limited by geographic region.
These community measures are designed to detect current water quality and water quality
changes that may be occurring in the watershed. However, they are only directly applied to the
assessment unit where the sample was collected.

Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both
are assessed for use support ratings. When the data from multiple biological data types are
gathered, each data type is assessed independently. Biological monitoring is typically assessed
independent of ambient monitoring data and either may be used to assign a use support rating for
an assessment unit.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Criteria

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications to most benthic macroinvertebrate
samples based on the number of taxa present in the pollution intolerant aquatic insect groups of
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies) commonly
referred to as EPTs; and the Biotic Index (BI), which summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in
each sample. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree of
confidence, use support ratings using these data are considered monitored.

If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or
flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair
(almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained.

Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 131

Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using benthic macroinvertebrate
bioclassifications as follows.

Waterbody Sample
Type or Criteria
Benthic
Bioclassification
Use Support
Rating
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Excellent Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Good Supporting
Swamp1 Natural Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good-Fair Supporting
Smaller than criteria but Good-Fair2 Not Impaired Supporting
Swamp1 Moderate Stress Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Fair Impaired
Swamp1 Severe Stress Impaired
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Poor Impaired
Criteria not appropriate to assign bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated
1 Swamp streams for benthos sampling are defined as streams in the coastal plain that have no visible flow for a part of the year, but do have
flow during the February to early March benthic index period.
2 This designation may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than three square miles drainage
area), but have a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria.
3 Coastal A streams are those located in the coastal plain that have flow year round and are wadeable.

Fish Community Criteria

The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream’s
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The NCIBI
incorporates information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic
function, abundance and condition, and reproductive function. Because these data represent
water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data
are considered monitored. Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using the NCIBI
bioclassifications as follows:

NCIBI Use Support Rating
Excellent Supporting
Good Supporting
Good-Fair Supporting
Fair Impaired
Poor Impaired

The NCIBI was recently revised (NCDENR, 2001), and the bioclassifications and criteria have
also been recalibrated against regional reference site data (NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b and 2001a).
NCIBI criteria are applicable only to wadeable streams in the following river basins: Broad,
Catawba, Savannah, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, French Broad,
Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga. Additionally, the NCIBI criteria are only
applicable to streams in the piedmont portion of the Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar-Pamlico
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 132

River basins. The definition of "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of
North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically:

• In the Cape Fear River basin -- all waters except for those draining the Sandhills in
Moore, Lee and Harnett counties, and the entire basin upstream of Lillington, NC.
• In the Neuse River basin -- the entire basin above Smithfield and Wilson, except for the
south and southwest portions of Johnston County and eastern two-thirds of Wilson
County.
• In the Roanoke River basin -- the entire basin in North Carolina upstream of Roanoke
Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and Halifax, NC.
• In the Tar-Pamlico River basin -- the entire basin above Rocky Mount, except for the
lower southeastern one-half of Halifax County and the extreme eastern portion of Nash
County.

NCIBI criteria have not been developed for:

• Streams in the Broad, Catawba, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Savannah, French Broad, Hiwassee,
Little Tennessee, New and Watauga River basins which are characterized as wadeable
first to third order streams with small watersheds, naturally low fish species diversity,
coldwater temperatures, and high gradient plunge-pool flows. Such streams are typically
thought of as "Southern Appalachian Trout Streams".
• Wadeable streams in the Sandhills ecoregion of the Cape Fear, Lumber and Yadkin-Pee
Dee River basins.
• Wadeable streams and swamps in the coastal plain region of the Cape Fear, Chowan,
Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak River basins.
• All nonwadeable and large streams and rivers throughout the state.

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Criteria

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Program statewide and NPDES discharger coalitions in some basins. All samples collected
(usually monthly) during the five-year assessment period are used to assign a use support rating.
Ambient water quality data are not direct measures of biological integrity, but the
chemical/physical parameters collected can provide an indication of conditions that may be
impacting aquatic life. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree
of confidence, use support ratings assigned using these data are considered monitored. Where
both ambient data and biological data are available, each data type is assessed independently.

The parameters used to assess water quality in the aquatic life category include dissolved
oxygen, pH, chlorophyll a and turbidity. Criteria for assigning use support ratings to assessment
units with ambient water quality data of a minimum of ten samples are as follows:

Ratings Criteria Rating
Numerical standard exceeded in ≤10% of samples Supporting
Numerical standard exceeded in >10% of samples Impaired
Less than 10 samples collected Not Rated
DO and pH standard exceeded in swamp streams Not Rated
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 133

Some standards are written with more specific criteria than others and these specific criteria are
used to assess use support. For example, the DO standard for Class C waters is a daily average
of 5 mg/l and an instantaneous value of 4 mg/l. Because DWQ does not collect daily DO levels
at the ambient stations, the instantaneous value is used for assessment criteria. In areas with
continous monitoring, the daily average of 5 mg/l will also be assessed. In addition, pH has a
standard of not less than 6 and not greater than 9; each level is assessed. To assess the fecal
coliform bacteria standard, five samples must be collected within a 30 day period (see Recreation
Category for more information).

Multiple Monitoring Sites

There are assessment units with more than one type of monitoring data. When the data from
multiple biological data types are gathered, each data type is assessed independently. Biological
monitoring is typically assessed independent of ambient monitoring data and either may be used
to assign a use support rating for an assessment unit. Monitoring data are always used over the
evaluation information; however, evaluation information can be used to lengthen or shorten
monitored assessment units and to assign use support ratings on an evaluated basis to non-
monitored assessment units.

NPDES Wastewater Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Information

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests are required for all major NPDES discharge permit
holders, as well as those minor NPDES dischargers with complex effluent (defined as not being
of 100 percent domestic waste). WET tests are evaluated to determine if the discharge could be
having negative water quality impacts. If a stream with a WET test facility has not been sampled
for instream chronic toxicity, biological community data or has no ambient water quality data,
and that facility has failed three or more WET tests in the last two years of the assessment
period, the assessment unit is Not Rated. Because this information is not a direct measure of
water quality and the confidence is not as high as for monitoring data, this use support rating is
considered evaluated rather than monitored. Problems associated with WET test failures are
addressed through NPDES permits.

NPDES Discharger Daily Monitoring Report (DMR) Information

NPDES effluent data monthly averages of water quality parameters are screened for the last two
years of the assessment period. If facilities exceed the effluent limits by 20 percent for two or
more months during two consecutive quarters, or have chronic exceedances of permit limits for
four or more months during two consecutive quarters, then the assessment unit is Not Rated if no
biological or ambient monitoring data are available. Because discharger effluent data is not a
direct measure of water quality and data confidence is not as high as for stream monitoring data,
the assessment units are considered evaluated rather than monitored. If biological or ambient
data are available, that data will be used to develop a use support rating for appropriate stream
segments.

Fish Consumption Category

The fish consumption category is a human health approach to assess whether humans can safely
consume fish from a waterbody. This category is applied to all waters of the state. The use
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 134

support rating is assigned using fish consumption advisories or advice as issued by the NC
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The fish consumption category is different
from other categories in that assessments are based on the existence of a DHHS fish
consumption advice or advisory at the time of use support assessment. The advice and
advisories are based on DHHS epidemiological studies and on DWQ fish tissue data. DWQ fish
tissue data are used to inform DHHS of potential fish tissue toxicity. DHHS is responsible for
proclaiming a fish tissue advisory or advice for any waterbody. Fish tissue monitoring data are
not used directly for assigning a use support rating in this category.
If a site-specific fish consumption advisory is posted at the time of assessment, the water is
Impaired on either a monitored or evaluated basis dependent upon the availability of monitoring
data. The DHHS has developed statewide fish consumption advice for certain fish species
shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. All waters of the state are therefore
Impaired/Evaluated in the fish consumption category.

Recreation Category

This human health related category evaluates waters for the support of primary recreation
activities such as swimming, water-skiing, skin diving, and similar uses involving human body
contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent
basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class B, SB and SA. This
category also evaluates waters used for secondary recreation activities such as wading, boating,
and other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized or
incidental basis. These waters are classified as Class C, SC and WS.

The use support ratings applied to this category are currently based on the state’s fecal coliform
bacteria water quality standard where ambient monitoring data are available or on the duration of
local or state health agencies posted swimming advisories. Use support ratings for the recreation
category may be based on other bacteriological indicators and standards in the future.

DWQ conducts monthly ambient water quality monitoring that includes fecal coliform bacteria
testing. The Division of Environmental Health (DEH) tests coastal recreation waters (beaches)
for bacteria levels to assess the relative safety of these waters for swimming. If an area has
elevated bacteria levels, health officials will advise that people not swim in the area by posting a
swimming advisory and by notifying the local media and county health department.

The North Carolina fecal coliform bacteria standard for freshwater is: 1) not to exceed the
geometric mean of 200 colonies per 100 ml of at least five samples over a 30-day period; and 2)
not to exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same
period. The AU being assessed for the five-year data window is Supporting in the recreation
category if neither number (1) nor (2) of the standard are exceeded. The AU being assessed is
Impaired in the recreation category if either number (1) or (2) is exceeded. Waters without
sufficient fecal coliform bacteria data (five samples within 30 days) are Not Rated, and waters
with no data are noted as having No Data.

Assessing the water quality standard requires significant sampling efforts beyond the monthly
ambient monitoring sampling and must include at least five samples over a 30-day period.
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 135

Decades of monitoring have demonstrated that bacteria concentrations may fluctuate widely in
surface waters over a period of time. Thus, multiple samples over a 30-day period are needed to
evaluate waters against the North Carolina water quality standard for recreational use support.
Waters classified as Class SA, SB and B are targeted for this intensive sampling effort due to the
greater potential for human body contact.

Waters with beach monitoring sites will be Impaired if the area is posted with an advisory for
greater than 61 days of the assessment period. Waters with beach monitoring sites with
advisories posted less than 61 days will be Supporting. Other information can be used to Not
Rate unmonitored waters.

DWQ Ambient Monitoring Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Criteria

As with other information sources, all available information and data are evaluated for the
recreation category using the assessment period. However, DWQ conducts an annual screening
of DWQ ambient fecal coliform bacteria data to assess the need for additional monitoring or
immediate action by local or state health agencies to protect public health.

Each March, DWQ staff will review bacteria data collections from ambient monitoring stations
statewide for the previous sampling year. Locations with annual geometric means greater than
200 colonies per 100 ml, or when more than 20 percent of the samples are greater than 400
colonies per 100 ml, are identified for potential follow-up monitoring conducted five times
within 30 days as specified by the state fecal coliform bacteria standard. If bacteria
concentrations exceed either portion of the state standard, the data are sent to DEH and the local
county health director to determine the need for posting swimming advisories. DWQ regional
offices will also be notified.

Due to limited resources and the higher risk to human health, Class B, SB and SA waters will be
given monitoring priority for an additional five times within 30 days sampling. Follow-up water
quality sampling for Class C waters will be performed as resources permit. Any waters on the
303(d) list of Impaired waters for fecal coliform will receive a low priority for additional
monitoring because these waters will be further assessed for TMDL development.

DWQ attempts to determine if there are any swimming areas monitored by state, county or local
health departments or by DEH. Each January, DEH, county or local health departments are
asked to list those waters which were posted with swimming advisories in the previous year.

Use of Outside Data

DWQ actively solicits outside data and information in the year before biological sampling in a
particular basin. The solicitation allows approximately 90 days for data to be submitted. Data
from sources outside DWQ are screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient
quality and quantity, they may be incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten
samples for more than a one-year period is needed to be considered for use support assessments.

The way the solicited data are used depends on the degree of quality assurance and quality
control of the collection and analysis of the data as detailed in the 303(d) report and shown in the
table below. Level 1 data can be use with the same confidence as DWQ data to determine use
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 136

support ratings. Level 2 or Level 3 data may be used to help identify causes of pollution and
stressors. They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up or down a
stream segment from a DWQ monitoring location. Where outside data indicate a potential
problem, DWQ evaluates the existing DWQ biological and ambient monitoring site locations for
adjustment as appropriate.

Criteria Levels for Use of Outside Data in Use Support Assessments
Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Monitoring frequency of at least 10 samples for
more than a one-year period Yes Yes/No No
Monitoring locations appropriately sited and
mapped Yes Yes No
State certified laboratory used for analysis
according to 15A NCAC 2B .0103 Yes Yes/No No
Quality assurance plan available describing
sample collection and handling
Yes, rigorous
scrutiny Yes/No No

Lakes and Reservoir Use Assessment

Like streams, lakes are classified for a variety of uses. All lakes monitored as part of North
Carolina’s Ambient Lakes Monitoring Program carry the Class C (aquatic life) classification,
and most are classified Class B and SB (recreation) and WS-I through WS-V (water supply).
The surface water quality numeric standard specifically associated with recreation is fecal
coliform. For water supplies, there are 29 numeric standards based on consumption of water and
fish. Narrative standards for Class B and Class WS waters include aesthetics such as no odors
and no untreated wastes. There are other numeric standards that also apply to lakes for the
protection of aquatic life and human health. These standards also apply to all other waters of the
state and are listed under the Class C rules. One of the major problems associated with lakes and
reservoirs is increasing eutrophication related to nutrient inputs. Several water quality
parameters help to describe the level of eutrophication.

For nutrient enrichment, one of the main causes of impacts to lakes and reservoirs, a more
holistic or weight of evidence approach is necessary since nutrient impacts are not always
reflected by the parameters sampled. For instance, some lakes have taste and odor problems
associated with particular algal species, yet these lakes do not have chlorophyll a concentrations
above 40 µg/l frequently enough to impair them based on the standard. In addition, each
reservoir possesses unique traits (watershed area, volume, depth, retention time, etc.) that
dramatically influence its water quality, but that cannot be evaluated through standards
comparisons. In such waterbodies, aquatic life may be Impaired even though a particular
indicator is below the standard. Where exceedances of surface water quality standards are not
sufficient to evaluate a lake or reservoir, the weight of evidence approach can take into
consideration indicators and parameters not in the standards to allow a more sound and robust
determination of water quality.

Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 137

The weight of evidence approach uses the following sources of information to determine the
eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) level as a means of assessing lake use support in the aquatic
life category:

• Quantitative water quality parameters - dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, pH, etc.
• Algal bloom reports
• Fish kill reports
• Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics – watershed size, lake volume, retention time,
volume loss, etc.
• Third party reports – citizens, water treatment plant operators, state agencies, etc.
¾ Taste and odor
¾ Sheens
¾ Odd colors
¾ Other aesthetic and safety considerations

In implementing the weight of evidence approach for eutrophication, more consideration is given
to parameters that have water quality standards (see table). Each parameter is assessed for
percent exceedance of the state standard. Parameters with sufficient (ten or more observations),
quality-assured observations are compared to surface water quality standards. When standards
are exceeded in more than 10 percent of the assessment period, portions or all of the waterbody
are rated Impaired.

However, in many cases, the standards based approach is incapable of characterizing the overall
health of a reservoir. The eutrophication-related parameters and water quality indicators without
numeric standards are reviewed based on interpretation of the narrative standards in 15A NCAC
2B .0211(2) and (3).

A modification to lake use assessment is the evaluation and rating of a lake or reservoir by
assessment units (AUs). Each lake or reservoir may have one or more AU based on the
classification segments (DWQ index numbers). Each sampling date is considered one sample.
Multiple sampling locations within one AU are considered one sample. A minimum of ten
samples is needed to assess use support for any AU. Each AU with documented problems
(sufficient data, ambient data above standards, and supporting public data) will be rated as
Impaired while the other portions are rated as Supporting or Not Rated. The following table lists
the information considered during a lake/reservoir use assessment, as well as the criteria used to
evaluate that information.
Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 138

Lake/Reservoir Weight of Evidence Use Assessment for Aquatic Life Category
Assessment Type Criteria
EUTROPHICATION
Water Quality Standards (a minimum of 10 samples is required for use support assessment)
Chl a Above standard in >10% of samples.
DO Below or above standard in >10% of samples.
pH Below or above standard in >10% of samples.
Turbidity Above standard in >10% of samples.
% Total Dissolved Gases Above standard in >10% of samples.
Temperature Minor and infrequent excursions of temperature standards due to anthropogenic
activity. No impairment of species evident.
Metals (excluding copper,
iron and zinc) Above standard in >10% of samples.
Other Data
% Saturation DO >10% of samples above >120%
Algae Blooms during 2 or more sampling events in 1 year with historic blooms.
Fish Kills related to eutrophication.
Chemically/
Biologically Treated For algal or macrophyte control - either chemicals or biologically by fish, etc.
Aesthetics Complaints Documented sheens, discoloration, etc. - written complaint and follow-up by a state
agency.
Trophic Status Index (TSI) Increase of 2 trophic levels from one 5-year period to next.
Historic DWQ Data Conclusions from other reports and previous use support assessments.
AGPT Algal Growth Potential Test ≥5 mg/L
Macrophytes Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish and
other aquatic life to habitat; clogging intakes.
Taste and Odor Public complaints; Potential based on algal spp
Sediments Clogging intakes - dredging program necessary.

Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 139

References

Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000a. Fish
Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Inner Piedmont,
Foothills, and Eastern Mountains (Broad, Catawba, Savannah, and Yadkin River
Basins). September 22, 2000. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
____. 2000b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Outer Piedmont (Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar River Basins). October 17, 2000.
Ibid.
____. 2001a. Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring. Stream Fish
Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental
Sciences Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
____. 2001b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Western and Northern Mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and
Watauga River Basins). January 05, 2001. Ibid.
USEPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. Office of
Water. Washington, DC.

Appendix II – Use Support Methodology 140

Appendix III

NPDES Discharge, Non-Discharge
and
Stormwater Permits
Appendix III – NPDES, Non-Discharge and Stormwater Permits 141

Appendix III – NPDES, Non-Discharge and Stormwater Permits 142
NPDES Permits
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0033782 Gates County Schools
Gatesville Elementary
School WWTP Gates Washington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 5000 30101
Bennetts Creek (Merchants
Millpond)
NC0033791 Gates County Schools
Sunbury Primary School
WWTP Gates Washington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 5000 30101
Raynor Swamp (Hunters
Millpond)
NC0033804 Gates County Schools
T.S. Cooper Elementary
School WWTP Gates Washington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 4000 30101
Raynor Swamp (Hunters
Millpond)
NC0043974 Gates County Schools
Buckland Elementary
School Gates Washington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 6000 30101 Cole Creek (Lilleys Millpond)
NC0086231
Aluminum Casting
Technology, Inc.
Aluminum Casting
Technology / Ahoskie Hertford Washington
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 24000 30101
Ahoskie Creek (Ahoskie
Swamp, Bear Swamp)
NC0002402
Perry-Wynns Fish
Company
Perry-Wynns Fish
Company Bertie Washington
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 24000 30103 CHOWAN RIVER
NC0003867
Edenton Dyeing and
Finishing LLC
Edenton Dyeing and
Finishing Chowan Washington
Industrial Process &
Commercial Major 1500000 30103 CHOWAN RIVER
NC0007552 Town of Edenton Freemason WTP Chowan Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 10000 30104 Pembroke Creek
NC0032719 Chowan County Valhalla WTP Chowan Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30104
Rockyhock Creek (Bennett
Millpond)
NC0086291 Town of Edenton Beaver Hill WTP Chowan Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 10000 30104 Pembroke Creek

Appendix III – NPDES, Non-Discharge and Stormwater Permits 143

General Stormwater Permits
COC
Number Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County
NCG020414 C L W Sand Mine Ahoskie Creek (Ahoskie Swamp, Bear Swamp) 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG050017 Kerr Group Incorporated Snake Branch 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG080126 A T Byrum & Son Incorporated Ahoskie Creek (Ahoskie Swamp, Bear Swamp) 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG080530 NC Nat Gd- Ahoskie/OMS #19 Ahoskie Creek (Ahoskie Swamp, Bear Swamp) 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG080762 North Carolina and Virginia Railroad Whiteoak Swamp 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG140102 Commerical Ready Mix Products Ahoskie Creek (Ahoskie Swamp, Bear Swamp) 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG140297 Roanoke Chowan Ready Mix Inc Stony Creek 03-01-01 Bertie
NCG140331 Ready Mix Inc - Roanoke-Chowan Stony Creek 03-01-01 Bertie
NCS000167 Perdue Farms Incorporated-Cofield Deep Creek 03-01-01 Hertford
NCG020367 B & A Sand Mine Meherrin River 03-01-02 Hertford
NCG020660 Meherrin Mine Meherrin River (North Carolina Portion) 03-01-02 Hertford
NCG080134 Pilot Travel Centers LLC #68 Jacks Swamp 03-01-02 Northampton
NCG080574 NC Nat Gd- Woodland Urahaw Swamp 03-01-02 Northampton
NCG100130 Liverman's Automotive Inc Potecasi Creek 03-01-02 Hertford
NCG190066 Fineline Industries East (Centurion Ski Boats) Urahaw Swamp 03-01-02 Northampton
NCG200435 Hertford County Recycling Facility Mill Branch 03-01-02 Hertford
NCG210360 Carolina Bark Products Cypress Creek (Jordans Millpond) 03-01-02 Northampton
NCS000251 Conway Resins plant Paddys Delight Creek (Doolittle Millpond) 03-01-02 Northampton
NCG110045 Edenton Town WWTP Pembroke Creek 03-01-04 Chowan
NCG190053 Ana Boat DOC Incorporated Pembroke Creek 03-01-04 Chowan
NCG190062 Carolina Classic Boats Inc Edenton Bay 03-01-04 Chowan
NCG190065 Layton's Custom Boatworks ALBEMARLE SOUND 03-01-04 Chowan
NCS000134 Avoca Farms Salmon Creek 03-01-04 Bertie
Appendix III – NPDES, Non-Discharge and Stormwater Permits 144
Non-Discharge NPDES Permits
Permit Owner Facility County Region Owner Type Perm Type Class Flow Subbasin
WQ0001284 Town of Conway Conway Town-Spray
Systm/WWTP Northampton Raleigh Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 150000 03-01-02
WQ0001868 Severn Town Severn Town-WWTF/Spray Sys Northampton Raleigh Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 62000 03-01-02
WQ0002012 Georgia Pacific Resins Georgia Pacific Resins-Conway Northampton Raleigh Non-Government Surface Irrigation Major 0 03-01-02
WQ0003299 Town of Seaboard Seaboard Town-WWTF/Spray Northampton Raleigh Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 134000 03-01-02
WQ0004910 Woodland Town Woodland Town-Woodland
WWTP Northampton Raleigh Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 185000 03-01-02
WQ0005192 Perdue Farms Inc Murfreesboro Hatchery #5 Northampton Raleigh Non-Government Surface Irrigation Major 15000 03-01-02
WQ0001536 Perdue Farms Inc Perdue Farms Inc - Cofield Feed
Mill Hertford Washington Non-Government Surface Irrigation Major 35000 03-01-01
WQ0001602 Town of Winton Town of Winton WWTP Hertford Washington Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 585000 03-01-02
WQ0003885 Town of Ahoskie Ahoskie Town-WWTP/Spray Hertford Washington Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 901000 03-01-01
WQ0006785 Town of Murfreesboro Murfreesboro Town-WWT Plant Hertford Washington Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 452204 03-01-02
WQ0007028 Georgia-Pacific
Corporation Georgia Pacific Corp-Ahos Wet Hertford Washington Non-Government Wastewater
Recycling Minor 0 03-01-01
WQ0008720 Georgia-Pacific
Corporation
Ahoskie CNS Washdown
System/Evaporation Pit
Wastewater Disposal Recycle
System
Hertford Washington Non-Government Wastewater
Recycling Minor 0
03-01-01
WQ0012404 C F Industries Inc C F Industries Groundwater
Remediation Project Hertford Washington Non-Government
Groundwater
Remediation,
Non-discharge
Major 82192
03-01-01
WQ0000267 NC Department Of
Corrections NC DOC-Gates Co Correctional Gates Washington Government -
State Surface Irrigation Major 25000 03-01-01
Appendix III – NPDES, Non-Discharge and Stormwater Permits 145
WQ0000550 Currituck County Currituck County Detention
Center Currituck Washington Government -
County Surface Irrigation Major 25000 03-01-01
WQ0004332 Town of Edenton Edenton Town-WWTF/Sids Chowan Washington Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 1076000 03-01-04
WQ0000777 Town of Aulander Aulander Town-WWTP/Spray
Fac Bertie Washington Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 341000 03-01-01
WQ0005910 Avoca Inc Avoca Farms Bertie Washington Non-Government Surface Irrigation Major 50000 03-01-04
WQ0008500 Bertie County Board of
Education C. G. White Elementary School Bertie Washington Government -
County Surface Irrigation Minor 4500 03-01-01
WQ0011119 Town of Colerain Colerain Town Bertie Washington Government -
Municipal Surface Irrigation Major 0 03-01-01
WQ0029653 Rial Corporation Innsbrook Golf & Marina WWTP Bertie Washington Non-Government Reuse Major 50040 03-01-04

Appendix III – NPDES, Non-Discharge and Stormwater Permits 146

Appendix IV

Chowan River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

Appendix IV – Nonpoint Source Program 147

Appendix IV – Nonpoint Source Program 148

Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Technical specialists certify waste
management plans for animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; work with landowners on
private lands to conserve natural resources, helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and
needs; administer several federal agricultural cost share and incentive programs; provide assistance to rural and urban communities
to reduce erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve other resource problems; conduct soil surveys; offer planning assistance for
local landowners to install best management practices; and offer farmers technical assistance on wetlands identification.
www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/
County Contact Person Phone Address
Area 1
Conservationist William J. Harrell 919-751-0976 Cashwell Office Park, Suite C, 208 Malloy St., Goldsboro, NC
27534
Bertie County Paula Ashley 252-794-5305 PO Box 566, Windsor, NC 27983
Chowan County R. Dwane Hinson 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932
Gates County William P. Boone 252-358-7846 PO Box 265, Winton, NC 27986
Hertford County William P. Boone 252-358-7846 PO Box 265, Winton, NC 27986
Northampton County Tony R. Short 252-534-2591 PO Box 218, Jackson, NC 27845
Soil and Water Conservation Districts:
Boards and staff under the administration of the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC). Districts are responsible
for: administering the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at the county level; identifying areas
needing soil and/or water conservation treatment; allocating cost share resources; signing cost share contracts with landowners;
providing technical assistance for the planning and implementation of BMPs; and encouraging the use of appropriate BMPs to
protect water quality.
Bertie County 252-794-5305 PO Box 566, Windsor, NC 27983
Chowan County 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932
Gates County 252-358-7846 PO Box 265, Winton, NC 27986
Hertford County 252-358-7846 PO Box 265, Winton, NC 27986
Northampton County 252-534-2591 PO Box 218, Jackson, NC 27845
Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
State agency that administers the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP). Allocates
ACSP funds to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science
and engineering. Distributes Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee. www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/
Central Office David B. Williams 919-733-2302 512 N Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27604
Washington Region David Cash (Area 5
Coordinator) 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
Central Office
Jill A. Slankas
(Nonpoint Source
Planning Coordinator)
919-715-6110

1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1614

NCDA&CS Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) technical specialists: certify waste management plans for
animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; track, monitor, and account for use of nutrients on
agricultural lands; operate the state Pesticide Disposal Program, and enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws with
farmers. www.ncagr.com/
Appendix IV – Nonpoint Source Program 149

Central Office J. Kent Messick 919-733-2655 4300 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh NC 27607
Region 1 Wayne Nixon 252-426-7210 Rout 2, Box 161-E, Hertford, NC 27944
Region 6 Charles Mitchell 919-562-7700 PO Box 202, Macon, NC 27551
NRCS Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D):
Albemarle Mark Powell
(Project Coordinator) 252-482-7437 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B
Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
www.ces.ncsu.edu
Bertie County [phone] 106 Dundee St, Windsor, NC 27983
730 North Granville Street, Suite A, Edenton, NC 27932-
1434Chowan County [phone]
Gates County [phone] 112 Court Street, Gatesville, NC 27938
Hertford County [phone] 301 W Tryon St, P.O. Box 188, Winton, NC 27986
Northampton County [phone] 9495 NC 305 Hwy, Jackson, NC 27845
Forestry
DENR Division of Forest Resources:
Develop, protect, and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina's forests through professional stewardship, enhancing the
quality of our citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources. www.dfr.state.nc.us
Elizabeth City
District Office
(DFR District 7)
Water Quality Forester
(Bertie County Office) [phone] 113 Wakelon Road, Windsor, NC 27983
Rocky Mount
District Office
(District 5)
Water Quality Forester [phone] 737 Smokey Road
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Griffiths Forestry
Center (Statewide)
Water Quality &
Wetlands Staff Forester
[phone]
ext. 230
2411 Old US Hwy 70-West
Clayton, NC 27520
Central Office
(Statewide) Forest Hydrologist [phone]
ext. 206 1616 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1616
Construction/Mining
DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program and the Mining Program. Conducts land surveys and studies,
produces maps, and protects the state's land and mineral resources. www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us
Central Office
(Mining) Floyd Williams 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Central Office
(Sediment) Gray Hauser 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Washington Region Pat McClain 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances. For a
listing of the most recently approved local programs visit www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/sedimentlocalprograms.html
There are no Local Ordinances for the Chowan River Basin.
Appendix IV – Nonpoint Source Program 150

General Water Quality
DENR DWQ Planning Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; conduct stormwater
permitting; model water quality; conduct water quality monitoring; perform wetlands permitting; conduct animal operation
permitting and enforcement; and conduct water quality classifications and standards activities.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/pb/index.html
Planning Section Chief Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x 570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
NPS Planning Rich Gannon 919-733-5083 x 356 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Modeling/TMDL Kathy Stecker 919-733-5083 x 505 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Classifications and
Standards Jeff Manning 919-733-5083 x 579 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Basinwide Planning 919-733-5083 x 354 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Groundwater Planning 919-733-5083 x 522 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
DWQ Regional Offices:
Conduct permitting and enforcement field work on point sources, stormwater, wetlands and animal operations; conduct
enforcement on water quality violations of any kind; and perform ambient water quality monitoring.
http://www.enr.state.nc.us/html/regionaloffices.html
Washington Region Al Hodge 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
NC Wildlife Resources Commission:
To manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect and regulate the wildlife resources of the state, and to administer the
laws enacted by the General Assembly relating to game, game and non-game freshwater fishes, and other wildlife resources in
a sound, constructive, comprehensive, continuing and economical manner. www.ncwildlife.org
Central Office Wildlife
Management 919-707-0050 1722 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Responsible for: investigating, developing and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental resources;
constructing and operating projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and protection;
hydropower development; water supply; water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, and outdoor
recreation; responding to emergency relief activities directed by other federal agencies; and administering laws for the
protection and preservation of navigable waters, emergency flood control and shore protection. Responsible for wetlands and
404 Federal Permits. www.usace.army.mil
Wilmington Field Office 910-251-4501 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Solid Waste
DENR Division of Waste Management:
Management of solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment. The Division includes three sections and
one program -- Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund, and the Resident Inspectors Program. http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-508-8409 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh NC 27605
Washington Bob Uebler 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
Appendix IV – Nonpoint Source Program 151

On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Division of Environmental Health and County Health Departments:

Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through the practice of modern environmental health
science, the use of technology, rules, public education, and above all, dedication to the public trust. Services include: training
of and delegation of authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater; engineering review of
plans and specifications for wastewater systems 3,000 gallons or larger and industrial process wastewater systems designed to
discharge below the ground surface; and technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on
soil suitability and other site considerations for on-site wastewater systems. www.deh.enr.state.nc.us
Central Office Andy Adams 919-715-3274 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh NC 27604
943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889 Washington * 252-946-6481
Bertie County Jerry Parks 252-338-4490 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907
Chowan County Jerry Parks 252-482-6023 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907
Gates County Jerry Parks 252-357-1380 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907
Hertford County Curtis Dickson 252-358-7833 801 N. King Street, Winton, NC 27986
Northampton Sue Gay 252-534-5841 PO Box 635, Jackson, NC 27845

* DENR Washington Regional Office covers the following counties: Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Greene, Hertford, Hyde, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans,
Pitt, Tyrrell, Washington and Wayne

Appendix IV – Nonpoint Source Program 152

Appendix V

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

Appendix V - Glossary 153

Appendix V - Glossary 154
Glossary

§ Section.
30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in
two years.
7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.
B (Class B) Class B Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities
include frequent and/or organized swimming and other human contact such as skin diving
and water skiing.
balds Balds are high elevation areas where soils can support a diverse tree population; however,
there are no trees present. Grassy balds are dominated by herbaceous plant species. Heath
balds are dominated by dense shrub communities. Definition provided by the NC Natural
Heritage Program (www.ncnhp.org).
basin The watershed of a major river system. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina.
benthic Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate),
macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not
limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these
organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index
and bioclassification for more information.
benthos A term for bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.
best management Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or
practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality.
BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and nonstructural controls, operation and
maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of
practices and not just one at a time.
bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a
stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent.
BMPs See best management practices.
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most
NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged.
C (Class C) Class C Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
others uses.
CAMA Coastal Area Management Act
channelization The physical alteration of streams and rivers by widening, deepening or straightening of the
channel, large-scale removal of natural obstructions, and/or lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.
chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of
chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large
amount of algae resulting from nutrient overenrichment or eutrophication.
coastal counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington.
Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern
two-fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95).
Appendix V - Glossary 155
conductivity A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the
concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in
solution.
degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by
pollution or other sources of stress.
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DO Dissolved oxygen.
drainage area An alternate name for a watershed.
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality, an agency of DENR.
dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), "black-water" lakes which are rich in organic matter.
Dystrophic lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are
stressed by low pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the
Coastal Plain and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat
deposits. NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes.
EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program
effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant.
EMC Environmental Management Commission.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three
orders of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies).
eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic
lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal
blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur.
eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient,
organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal
growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause
unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems.
fall line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain
regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on
rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast.
FS Fully supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality.
GIS Geographic Information System. An organized collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate,
analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.
habitat degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat
quality. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed.
HQW High Quality Waters. A supplemental surface water classification.
HU Hydrologic unit. See definition below.
Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed.
hydrologic unit A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging units. A hierarchical code
consisting of two digits for each of the above four levels combined to form an eight-digit
hydrologic unit (cataloging unit). An eight-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an
average of 975 square miles. There are 54 eight-digit hydrologic (or cataloging) units in
North Carolina. These units have been further subdivided into eleven and fourteen-digit
units.
Appendix V - Glossary 156
hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability.
Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or
periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant
growth.
impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that has a use support rating of partially supporting (PS)
or not supporting (NS) its uses.
impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.
kg Kilograms. To change kilograms to pounds multiply by 2.2046.
lbs Pounds. To change pounds to kilograms multiply by 0.4536.
loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr)
macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones
(invertebrate).
macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye.
mesotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available
nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while
supporting a good diversity of aquatic life.
MGD Million gallons per day.
mg/l Milligrams per liter (approximately 0.00013 oz/gal).
NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a
population of fish in a given waterbody.
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen.
nonpoint source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The
quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover
and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from
forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than
runoff from urban lands.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NPS Nonpoint source.
NR Not rated. A waterbody that is not rated for use support due to insufficient data.
NS Not supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that does not support its designated uses
and has poor water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and NS are called
impaired.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Waters classified as NSW include the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Chowan River basins; the New River watershed in the White Oak basin; and
the watershed of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (including the entire Haw River watershed).
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The units used to quantify turbidity using a turbidimeter.
This method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample
under defined conditions with the intensity of the light scattered by a standard reference
suspension under the same conditions.
oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients.
Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in
undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended to
protect unique and special resource waters having excellent water quality and being of
exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. No new or expanded
wastewater treatment plants are allowed, and there are associated stormwater runoff
controls enforced by DWQ.
Appendix V - Glossary 157
pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14.
Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and
approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution.
phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries.
Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North
Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains region.
PS Partially supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that only partially supports its
designated uses and has fair water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and
NS are called impaired.
riparian zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ.
river basin The watershed of a major river system. North Carolina is divided into 17 major river
basins: Broad, Cape Fear, Catawba, Chowan, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Lumber, Neuse, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, Watauga, White Oak
and Yadkin River basins.
river system The main body of a river, its tributary streams and surface water impoundments.
runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and
into waterbodies.
SA Class SA Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters that have sufficient
water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting.
SB Class SB Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact.
SC Class SC Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality to support secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival.
sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead
organisms).
seeps Seeps are areas that remain wet due to groundwater seepage. The plant community
generally consists of a dense bed of wetland herbs.
silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry.
SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management
Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to
surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution
within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular
parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to
facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to
the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance).
streamside The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect
management streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms.
zone (SMZ)
subbasin A designated subunit or subwatershed area of a major river basin. Subbasins typically
encompass the watersheds of significant streams or lakes within a river basin. Every river
basin is subdivided into subbasins ranging from one subbasin in the Watauga River basin
to 24 subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 133 subbasins statewide. These
subbasins are not a part of the national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council (see hydrologic unit).
Sw Swamp Waters. A supplemental surface water classification denoting waters that have
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities. These waters are
common in the Coastal Plain and are often naturally discolored giving rise to their
nickname of “blackwater” streams.
TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can
assimilate and maintain its uses and water quality standards.
Appendix V - Glossary 158
TN Total nitrogen.
TP Total phosphorus.
tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody.
trophic classification Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake's biological productivity, which is
the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The
productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics,
including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal
growth and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity:
unproductive lakes are termed "oligotrophic"; moderately productive lakes are termed
"mesotrophic"; and very productive lakes are termed "eutrophic".
TSS Total Suspended Solids.
turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may
scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity.
UT Unnamed tributary.
watershed The region, or land area, draining into a body of water (such as a creek, stream, river, pond,
lake, bay or sound). A watershed may vary in size from several acres for a small stream or
pond to thousands of square miles for a major river system. The watershed of a major river
system is referred to as a basin or river basin.
WET Whole effluent toxicity. The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by
an aquatic toxicity test.
WS Class WS Water Supply Water Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters used
as sources of water supply. There are five WS categories. These range from WS-I, which
provides the highest level of protection, to WS-V, which provides no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges like WS-I through WS-IV.
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant.
Appendix V - Glossary 159

Appendix V - Glossary 160