HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 1
Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50 23
Chapter 1
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50
Including: Pasquotank River and Tributaries
1.1 Subbasin Overview
The Pasquotank River subbasin 03-01-50 contains the
headwaters of Pasquotank River and its headwaters from
the Great Dismal Swamp. Ecologically, the subbasin
contains characteristics of the Chesapeake-Pamlico
lowlands and tidal marshes, as well as nonriverine
swamps and peatlands. Most streams are of low relief and
swampy, and channelized ditches are common.
Southward, a significant portion of the waters in this
subbasin are brackish estuarine, including Albemarle
Sound and the Pasquotank River below Elizabeth City.
Land cover generally consists of evergreen forests, mixed
forests, forested wetlands and marshes, and cultivated
crops, such as wheat, cotton and peanuts.
Portions of Gates, Pasquotank and Camden Counties are
found in this subbasin with the largest population
centered around urbanized areas. Between 1990 and
2000, Elizabeth City has experienced a growth rate of 20
percent. The population of the subbasin is expected to
continue to increase over the next twenty years. Refer to
Chapter 11 for more information about population growth
and trends.
There is one major and five minor National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dischargers in
this subbasin with a total permitted discharge of 5.0
MGD. The major NPDES facility is the Elizabeth City
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) with a permitted
flow of 4.5 MGD. The Elizabeth City WWTP is required
by permit to monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). No
WET violations were reported during the last two years of
the assessment period. There are two non-discharge permits and ten stormwater discharge
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 and their
associated assessment unit numbers (AU#) and lengths, monitoring data types, locations and
results, along with use support ratings for waters in the subbasin. Appendix V provides
definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.
Subbasin 03-01-50 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 454 mi2
Land area: 390 mi2
Water area: 64 mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 46%
Cultivated Crop: 34%
Surface Water: 18%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 1%
Counties
Gates, Pasquotank and Camden
Municipalities
Elizabeth City
Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total: 44.0 mi/38,523.8 ac
Supporting: 26.5 mi/29,338.2 ac
Not Rated: 17.5 mi/9,185.6ac
Recreation
Total: 38,523.8 ac
Supporting: 38,523.8 ac
¾r
¾r
¾r¾r
¾r¡~
¡~
!(à!(à
!(à!(à
!(à
!(à!(à
!(à
#*
XY#*
#*
#*
#*#I%L
CAMDEN
PASQUOTANK
GATES
Elizabeth City
N C-32
US-158
U
S
-
1
7
Pasquotank River
I
n
t
r
a
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
P
asq
u
ota
n
k Riv
er
A l b e m a r l e S o u n d
Corapeake
Swamp
N
e
w
B
e
g
u
n
C re e k
Are n euse Cr.
J
o
y
c
e Creek
K
n
obbs Creek
MB5
MB4
MB3
MB2
MB1
MA4
MA1
Figure 3 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50
®
04812162
Miles
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
January 8, 2007
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
Pasquotank 03-01-50SubbasinTable 3
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30a
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbasin 03-01-50. Waters
of Albemarle Sound (All waters south and east of a line
running in a southerly direction from Horniblow Point
(North end of Norfolk-Southern Railroad Bridge) to a point
of land on the east side of R
29,338.2 S AcresSB S SMA4 NCE MA4 NCE
Areneuse Creek
30-3-13-(1)
From source to N.C. Highway # 343
2.9 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
MB1 M 2005
MB1 NR 2002
Nutrient Impacts Failing Septic Syst
Newland Drainage Canal
30-3-1.5
From source to Pasquotank River
7.7 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
MB2 M 2005
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Pasquotank River
30-3-(1)
From source to a point 1.7 mile upstream of mouth of
Turners Cut
15.9 FW MilesWS-V;Sw S ND
MB4 M 2005
MB4 NR 2002
30-3-(12)
From a line across River from Hospital Point to Cobb Point
to a line across River from Miller Point to Pool Point
9,185.6 S AcresSB NR SMA1 CE Low pH 39.1 MA1 NCE
N49 NCE
N49A NCE
N51 NCE
Low pH Natural Conditions
Nickel WWTP NPDES
30-3-(3)
From a point 1.7 mile upstream of mouth to Turners Cut to
a point 0.6 mile upstream of Pasquotank County SR 1368
extension
10.8 FW MilesWS-IV;Sw NR+ND
MB3 F 2005
Lack of Organic Material Unknown
Sawyers Creek
30-3-6
From source to Pasquotank River
6.7 FW MilesC;Sw NR ND
MB5 NR 2002
Low pH MS4 NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen Natural Conditions
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-50
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-50SubbasinTable 3
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2006:
AL - Aquatic Life MF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation MB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
SH - Shellfish Harvesting MA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
ML- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
N- DEH RECMON P - Poor NR+-Not rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
GA - DEH SS Classification and Growing Area S- Severe Stress CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
APP- Approved M-Moderate Stress NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
CAO- Conditionally Approved-Open N- Natural Miles/Acres
CAC- Conditionally Approved-Closed FW- Fresh Water
PRO- Prohibited S- Salt Water
Results
Results:
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 29,338.2 S Acresm
NR 9,185.6 S Acresm
S 26.5 FW Milesm
NR+ 10.8 FW Milesm
NR 6.7 FW Milesm
NR 915.8 S Acrese
ND 2.2 S Miles
ND 12,119.2 S Acres
ND 1,050.4 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
38,523.8 S AcresSm
2.2 S MilesND
13,035.1 S AcresND
1,094.4 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
2.2 S MilesIe
51,558.9 S AcresIe
1,094.4 FW MilesIe
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-50
Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50 27
Four sites were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in 2005. Three of the sites received a
Moderate bioclassification based on swamp criteria. One site received a Fair bioclassification
using draft Coastal B criteria. Three of the four sites were also sampled in 2002 as part of a
special study. A fourth site was also sampled on Sawyers Creek as part of this special study.
None of these sites could be rated for benthic macroinvertebrates due to “naturally harsh
conditions” during the time of sampling (DWQ ESS, May 2002). Data were also collected from
two ambient monitoring stations. Refer to the 2006 Pasquotank River Basinwide Assessment
Report http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/PASQUOTANK2006Final.pdf and Appendix I
for more information on monitoring.
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. Table 4 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-50.
In subbasin 03-01-50, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
water supply categories. Waters are Supporting, Not Rated, or No Data in the aquatic life and
recreation categories on a monitored or evaluated basis. All 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). All waters are Supporting in the water
supply category on an evaluated basis based on reports from Division of Environmental Health
(DEH) regional water treatment plant consultants.
Table 4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-50
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored Waters
Supporting 26.5 mi 29,338.2 ac 0 38,523.8 ac
Impaired 0 000
Not Rated 17.5 mi (39.7%) 9,185.6 ac (23.8%) 0 0
Total 44 mi 38,523.8 ac 0 38,523.8 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 0 915.8 ac 0 0
No Data 1,050.4 mi 2.2 mi
12,119.2 ac
1,094.4 mi 2.2 mi
13,035.1 ac
Total 1,050.4 mi 2.2 mi
13,035 ac
1,094.4 mi 2.2 mi
13,035.1 ac
Totals
All Waters 1,094.4 mi 2.2 mi
51,558.8 ac
1,094.4 mi 2.2 mi
51,558.9 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.
28 Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50
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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.
1.3 Status of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters
No previously or newly impaired waters were identified in subbasin 03-01-50.
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 Newland Drainage Canal [AU# 30-3-1.5]
Newland Drainage Canal, from source to the Pasquotank River (7.7 miles), is Supporting in the
aquatic life category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB2. Newland
Drainage Canal is a channelized ditch and was sampled in order to assess water quality in the
middle and upper portions of the subbasin.
DWQ biologists sampled three distinct reaches (above and below the road crossing), each with
differing streambank and riparian characteristics. Upstream (above SR 1363), the riparian area
was wide and mostly intact. Trees, shrubs and grasses were growing along the streambanks;
however, areas of erosion were noted. Immediately downstream of the road crossing, there was
no riparian area and the streambanks were either bare or covered with grass. Further
downstream (approximately 100 meters from the road crossing), the riparian area was wide,
intact and wooded. However, despite the intact riparian area and tree cover, the streambanks
were unstable and eroding. Substrate consisted of silt and detritus.
Newland Drainage Canal was sampled in 2002 as part of a special study for a wetland restoration
project. The Pasquotank River [AU# 30-3-(1)], Sawyers Creek [AU# 30-3-6] and Areneuse
Creek [AU# 30-3-13-(1)] were also sampled. None of the streams were rated because of
“naturally harsh conditions.” Biologists concluded that saltwater intrusions in the lower part of
the watershed and low pH in the upper part of the watershed were influencing water quality in
the canal, consequently impacting the benthic communities (DWQ ESS, May 2002).
Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50 29
1.4.2 Sawyers Creek [AU# 30-3-6]
Sawyers Creek, from source to the Pasquotank River (6.7 miles), is Not Rated in the aquatic life
category due to a Not Rated benthic swamp bioclassification at site MB5. Sawyers Creek was
last sampled in 2002 as part of a special study for a wetlands restoration project. Saltwater
intrusions in the lower part of the basin and low pH in the upper part of the basin created
“naturally harsh conditions” and likely influenced the benthic macroinvertebrate population. In
2005, Sawyers Creek could not be sampled due to low flow conditions.
Sawyers Creek is also impacted by discharge from the Grandy Primary School (Camden County)
(Permit NC0037214). During the last two years of the assessment period, the discharge had
significant noncompliance issues with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which can lead to
lower than normal dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving stream. The most recent notice of
violation (NOV) was issued in July 2006 for exceeding BOD limits.
2007 Recommendations
DWQ staff in the Washington Regional office are currently working with Camden County to
ensure that the Grandy Primary School discharge is within permit limits; however, the area
around Sawyers Creek is rapidly growing and several permits are on file for additional WWTP
facilities. DWQ recommends that a county-wide collection system be considered as a viable
option for future wastewater needs in the Sawyers Creek watershed. Due to the significant
upgrades needed for the school WWTP to meet compliance standards on a regular basis, the
school should consider connecting to the county system.
1.4.3 Areneuse Creek [AU# 30-3-13-(1)]
2002 Status
Numerous algal blooms were identified as a water quality concern for Areneuse Creek by the
DWQ regional office staff. Increased development activities in the watershed were identified as
a potential source.
Current Status & Special Studies
Areneuse Creek, from source to Highway 343 (2.9 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life
category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB1. Substrate consisted of
detritus and sticks. Snags and logs were abundant. Undercut streambanks, root mats and leaf
packs were present, but rare. The overall habitat score was good. No new algal blooms were
reported during the most recent assessment period.
This basinwide sampling site has been sampled three times – 2000, 2002 and 2005. In 2000, the
site was rated Moderate. In 2002, the site was Not Rated as part of a special study for a wetlands
restoration project. Saltwater intrusions in the lower part of the basin and low pH in the upper
part of the basin created “naturally harsh conditions” and likely influenced the benthic
macroinvertebrate population. In 2005, the benthic community was much more diverse,
resulting in the Moderate bioclassification.
2007 Recommendations
Although no significant algal blooms have been reported in Areneuse Creek within the last three
years, watershed and environmental conditions (i.e., wind and low flow conditions) may promote
future blooms. Residential properties are located throughout the watershed, many of which are
30 Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50
on septic systems. Failing septic systems can introduce nutrients and bacteria into the
environment. Excess nutrients in any waterbody have the potential to cause excess algal growth.
DWQ recommends a targeted educational campaign in Areneuse Creek related to septic system
maintenance. Failing septic systems should be identified and repaired per county and state
requirements. More information about septic systems can be found in Chapter 10.
1.4.4 Pasquotank River [AU# 30-3-(3) and AU# 30-3-(12)]
These segments of the Pasquotank River are not classified by DWQ for shellfish harvesting
purposes (Class SA). DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section
completed a sanitation survey of this area in 2005 and noted that there has been little change in
water quality since the last sanitation survey per the Sanitary Survey of Albemarle and
Currituck Sounds, Areas I-1, I-3 through I-16. The only shellfish found in this area is Rangia
clams an no commercial shellfish harvesting occurs. Freshwater runoff is the most significant
factor affecting water quality in this region and can be associated with agricultural runoff or
natural runoff from swamp waters following heavy rains.
Area I-5 consists of the entire watershed of the Pasquotank River. Most of the area is rural with
the exception of Elizabeth City. A significant increase in subdivision development has occurred
since the last sanitary survey in 2001. Elizabeth City WTTP discharges to the Pasquotank River
and the TECOM blimp factory WWTP discharges into New Begun Creek [AU# 30-3-16-(1) and
30-3-16-(2)]. There are also two lime-treated sewage application sites in this area. Outside of
Elizabeth City, agriculture is the main land use activity with the production of cabbage, corn, and
soybeans.
Current Status [AU# 30-3-(3)]
The Pasquotank River, from a point 1.7 miles upstream of the mouth to Turner’s Cut to a point
0.6 mile upstream of the Pasquotank County SR 1368 extension (10.8 miles), is Not Rated+ in
the aquatic life category. Site MB3 was sampled using draft criteria for Coastal B Rivers and
labeled as NR+. 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 MB3 received a Fair benthic bioclassification, based
on the draft criteria for Coastal B rivers. Any bioclassifications derived from sampling data
should be considered draft and not used for use support decisions; therefore this section of the
Pasquotank River is Not Rated+. (BAU, March 2006).
Current Status [AU# 30-3-(12)]
Another section of the Pasquotank River, from the line across the river from Hospital Point to
Cobb Point to a line across the river from Miller Point to Pool Point (9,185.6 saltwater acres), is
Not Rated in the aquatic life category due to low pH values recorded at the ambient monitoring
station at site MA1. Low pH values are not unexpected in the Pasquotank River since it receives
water from many classified swamp streams including the Great Dismal Swamp. Swamp waters
naturally show low pH levels, which can impact freshwater and saltwater found in the
Pasquotank River.
2007 Recommendations
Elizabeth City, Pasquotank and Camden Counties are required to implement water supply
watershed protection ordinances. Field observations and information from the local resource
Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50 31
agency staff indicated that urban stormwater runoff may be adversely impacting water quality in
the Pasquotank River near Elizabeth City. DWQ recommends that Elizabeth City implement
Phase II stormwater management strategies. In addition, improved monitoring is needed for
permitted stormwater dischargers to improve compliance. Non-permitted facilities need to be
evaluated for obtaining stormwater discharge permits and discharge limits. Pasquotank County
and Elizabeth City are in the process of trying to develop a regional wastewater treatment facility
to help eliminate package plant use and septic systems that commonly fail due to soil conditions
in the area. Inflow and infiltration to Elizabeth City’s WWTP is a problem and may be
addressed with the construction of alternative force mains and additional pump stations. Over
two million dollars of Clean Water Management Trust Funds monies have been allocated to
improving the efficiency of Elizabeth City’s WWTP system.
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-50
The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. The
following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not
specific to particular streams, lakes, or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters
near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
Agriculture is a significant land use activity in Subbasin 03-01-50. Therefore, there is a need to
increase implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) to protect water
quality. Conservation tillage, land smoothing to improve surface drainage, critical area planting,
and conservation cover crops are potential BMPs that can control erosion. Water control
structures, controlled drainage, and constructed wetlands are needed to control and slow runoff,
thus reducing nutrient and sediment loss. Riparian buffers and filter strips are also needed to
help remove organic materials, sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from stormwater runoff.
Technical assistance is needed to help land managers appropriately apply fertilizer to reduce
excess runoff and nutrient loss. There are several inactive hog operations in this subbasin. It is
important that lagoon closures are completed to prevent water quality contamination. BMPs
implemented on existing hog facilities should be monitored to ensure compliance.
Residential development has increased in this subbasin. Local governments and agencies are
encouraged to proactively plan, provide public education programs and implement conservation
strategies to prevent water quality degradation.
32 Chapter 1 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50